[House Report 105-206]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



105th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                    105-206
_______________________________________________________________________


 
            DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1998

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                             Together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2266]





 July 25, 1997.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed



                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Bill Totals......................................................     1
Committee Budget Review Process..................................     4
    Introduction.................................................     4
    Quadrennial Defense Review...................................     5
    Rationale for the Committee Bill.............................     6
Major Committee Recommendations..................................     6
    Addressing High Priority Unfunded Shortfalls.................     6
    Ensuring a Quality, Ready Force..............................     7
    Modernization Programs.......................................     8
    Reforms/Program Reductions...................................     9
    U.S. Forces in Bosnia........................................    11
    NATO Expansion...............................................    12
    Budget Formulation Issues....................................    13
    Abuse of Traditional Acquisition and Appropriations Practices    14
    Ship Self-Defense............................................    16
    Chemical and Biological Defense Programs.....................    17
Committee Recommendations by Major Category......................    19
    Active Military Personnel....................................    19
    Guard and Reserve............................................    19
    Operation and Maintenance....................................    19
    Procurement..................................................    20
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation...................    20
Forces to be Supported...........................................    21
    Department of the Army.......................................    21
    Department of the Navy.......................................    21
    Department of the Air Force..................................    22
Special Interest Items...........................................    23
Government Performance and Results Act...........................    23
Title I. Military Personnel......................................    25
    Programs and Activities Funded by Military Personnel 
      Appropriations.............................................    25
    Summary of Military Personnel Recommendations for Fiscal Year 
      1998.......................................................    25
        Overall Active End Strength..............................    26
        Overall Selected Reserve End Strength....................    26
    Adjustments to Military Personnel Account....................    27
        Overview.................................................    27
        Special Pays and Allowances..............................    27
        End Strength Adjustments.................................    27
        Temporary Early Retirement Authority.....................    27
        Foreign Currency.........................................    27
        Contingency Operations Funding...........................    27
        Military Personnel Compensation..........................    28
        Personal Financial Management Training...................    28
        ``Aim High'' Program.....................................    28
        Full-Time Support Strengths..............................    28
        Military Leave for Reservists............................    29
    Military Personnel, Army.....................................    29
    Military Personnel, Navy.....................................    30
    Military Personnel, Marine Corps.............................    30
    Military Personnel, Air Force................................    30
    Reserve Personnel, Army......................................    31
    Reserve Personnel, Navy......................................    31
        Magic Lantern............................................    31
        Navy Reserve Forces......................................    32
    Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps..............................    32
    Reserve Personnel, Air Force.................................    32
    National Guard Personnel, Army...............................    33
    National Guard Personnel, Air Force..........................    33
Title II. Operation and Maintenance..............................    35
    Operation and Maintenance Overview...........................    35
        Real Property Maintenance................................    38
        Flying Hour Shortfall....................................    38
        Readiness Training.......................................    38
        Depot Maintenance........................................    39
        Quadrennial Defense Review Reductions....................    39
        Headquarters and Administrative Costs....................    39
        Industrial Preparedness..................................    39
        Contingency Operations Funding...........................    40
        Reprogramming in Operation and Maintenance Accounts......    40
        Reporting on the Execution of Real Property Maintenance 
          Funding................................................    41
        Budget Justification and Execution Data..................    41
        Purchases of Foreign Made Goods..........................    41
        Environmentally Safe Fuel Storage Tanks..................    41
        Federal Firefighting Pay.................................    42
        Recruiting and Advertising...............................    42
        Classified Programs......................................    42
    Operation and Maintenance, Army..............................    42
        Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) for Abrams XXI........    42
        Depot Maintenance........................................    43
        National Training Center Rotations.......................    43
        Army Logistics Automation................................    43
        High Risk Automation Systems.............................    43
        Program Recommended......................................    43
    Operation and Maintenance, Navy..............................    46
        CNET Distance Learning...................................    46
        National Oceanography Partnership Act....................    47
        Software Program Managers Network........................    47
        High Risk Automation Systems.............................    47
        Asbestos Eradication.....................................    47
        Electrotechnologies......................................    47
        Program Recommended......................................    47
    Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps......................    50
        Program Recommended......................................    50
    Operation and Maintenance, Air Force.........................    52
        Instrument Routes 102 and 141............................    52
        Air Force Manufacturing Technology Assistance Pilot 
          Program................................................    52
        Misawa Antennas..........................................    52
        Children's Association for Maximum Potential.............    53
        REMIS....................................................    53
        High Risk Automation Systems.............................    53
        Air Force Institute of Technology........................    53
        Malmstrom Air Force Base.................................    53
        Program Recommended......................................    53
    Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide......................    56
        JCS Exercises............................................    56
        Special Operations Command...............................    57
        Within-Grade Increases...................................    57
        Defense Finance and Accounting Service...................    57
        Defense Human Resources Field Activity...................    58
        White House Communications Agency........................    58
        Automated Document Conversion............................    58
        Improved Cargo Methods and Technologies..................    58
        DLA-DWCF Transfer........................................    59
        Security Locks...........................................    59
        Federal Energy Management Program........................    59
        Military Personnel Information System....................    59
        Environmental Restoration................................    59
        OSD Commissions and Studies..............................    60
        Travel Reengineering.....................................    60
        High Risk Automation Systems.............................    60
        Quadrennial Defense Review--Defense Agency Reduction.....    60
        QDR Restructuring Reserve................................    60
        Use of Re-Refined Oil....................................    61
        Nutrition................................................    61
        Vint Hill Farms..........................................    61
        Department of Defense Dependents Schools.................    61
            Adjustments..........................................    61
            Family Counseling and Crisis Services................    61
            Social Work Fellowship Program.......................    62
        Program Recommended......................................    62
    Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve......................    64
        Program Recommended......................................    64
        Commercial Construction and Material Handling Equipment..    66
        Reserve Units in Central Florida.........................    66
    Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve......................    66
        Program Recommended......................................    66
        NSIPS....................................................    68
        Navy Reserve Center in Mansfield, Ohio...................    68
    Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve..............    68
        Program Recommended......................................    68
    Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve.................    70
        Program Recommended......................................    70
        WC-130 Weather Reconnaissance Mission....................    72
        March Air Reserve Base...................................    72
    Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard...............    73
        Program Recommended......................................    73
        Domestic Chemical/Biological Counter Terrorism Mission 
          Planning...............................................    75
        Software Acquisition and Security Training...............    76
    Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard................    77
        Program Recommended......................................    77
        159th Air National Guard Fighter Group...................    79
    Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund................    79
    United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces..........    79
    Environmental Restoration, Army..............................    79
        Rocky Mountain Arsenal...................................    79
    Environmental Restoration, Navy..............................    80
        Naval Air Station Bermuda................................    80
    Environmental Restoration, Air Force.........................    80
    Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide......................    80
    Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites.......    80
         Newmark.................................................    81
    Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid...............    81
         Humanitarian Demining...................................    81
    Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction.........................    81
    Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense........................    82
Title III. Procurement...........................................    83
    Estimates and Appropriation Summary..........................    83
        Reduced Use of Solvent Adhesives.........................    85
        Alternative Fueled Vehicles..............................    85
        Commander's Tactical Terminal/Joint Tactical Terminal....    85
        Classified Programs......................................    85
    Aircraft Procurement, Army...................................    85
        Committee Recommendations................................    86
        Authorization Changes....................................    86
        Fixed Wing Aircraft......................................    86
            Guardrail Common Sensor..............................    86
        Rotary Wing Aircraft.....................................    86
            UH-60 Blackhawk......................................    86
            Kiowa Warrior........................................    87
            EH-60 Quickfix Modifications.........................    87
            ASE Modifications....................................    87
        Other Support Equipment..................................    87
            Training Devices.....................................    87
            Common Ground Equipment..............................    87
        Program Recommended......................................    87
    Missile Procurement, Army....................................    89
        Committee Recommendations................................    89
        Authorization Changes....................................    89
        Other Missiles...........................................    89
            Patriot..............................................    89
            Hellfire.............................................    89
            MLRS Rocket..........................................    90
            MLRS Launcher Systems................................    90
            BAT..................................................    90
        Modification of Missiles.................................    90
            Patriot Mods.........................................    90
        Program Recommended......................................    90
    Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army.....    92
        Committee Recommendations................................    92
        Authorization Changes....................................    92
        Tracked Combat Vehicles..................................    92
            Bradley Base Sustainment.............................    92
            Field Artillery Ammunition Support Vehicle...........    92
        Modification of Tracked Combat Vehicles..................    92
            Carrier Modifications................................    92
            Howitzer, 155MM M109A6 (Mod).........................    92
        Program Recommended......................................    92
    Procurement of Ammunition, Army..............................    94
        Committee Recommendations................................    94
        Authorization Changes....................................    94
        Ammunition Shortfalls....................................    94
        Mortar Ammunition........................................    94
            120mm Full Range Practice (M931).....................    94
        Tank Ammunition..........................................    95
            120MM Heat-MP-T M830A1...............................    95
        Artillery Ammunition.....................................    95
            105MM DPICM XM915....................................    95
        Rockets..................................................    95
            Bunker Defeating Munition............................    95
        Ammunition Production Base Support.......................    95
            Provision for Industrial Facilities..................    95
        Program Recommended......................................    95
    Other Procurement, Army......................................    97
        Committee Recommendations................................    97
        Authorization Changes....................................    97
        Tactical and Support Vehicles............................    97
            Semi-Trailer, Container Transporter..................    97
            Semi-Trailer, Tank, 5000 Gallon......................    97
            Semi-Trailer, Tank 7500 Gallon.......................    98
            Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles...................    98
            Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles....................    98
            Armored Security Vehicles............................    98
            Truck, Tractor, Line Haul............................    98
            Self-Loading/Off-Loading Trailer.....................    98
        Communications--Satellite Communications.................    99
            Defense Satellite Communications System..............    99
            Satellite Terminals, EMUT............................    99
            NAVSTAR Global Positioning System....................    99
            SCAMP................................................    99
            Global Broadcast Service.............................    99
        Communications--Combat Communications....................    99
            Army Data Distribution System........................    99
            SINCGARS Family......................................   100
            Combat Survivor Evader Locator.......................   100
        Electronic Equipment, TIARA..............................   100
            All Source Analysis System...........................   100
            IEW--Ground Base Common Sensors......................   100
        Electronic Equipment--Electronic Warfare.................   100
            Shortshop............................................   100
            Sentinel.............................................   100
            Night Vision Devices.................................   100
        Electronic Equipment--Tactical C2 Systems................   101
            Maneuver Control System..............................   101
            Standard Integrated Command Post System..............   101
        Electronic Equipment--Automation.........................   101
            Automated Data Processing Equipment..................   101
            Reserve Component Automation System..................   101
        Electronic Equipment--Test Measurement Equipment.........   101
            Integrated Family of Test Equipment..................   101
        Maintenance Equipment....................................   101
            Items Less Than $2.0 Million.........................   101
        Rail Float Containerization Equipment....................   102
            Railway Car, Flat, 100 Ton...........................   102
        Training Equipment.......................................   102
            SIMNET/Close Combat Tactical Trainer.................   102
            Tactical Facsimile System............................   102
            Gun Laying Positioning System........................   102
            Radio Frequency Technology...........................   102
            Lightweight Laser Designator/Range Finder............   102
            Combat Synthetic Training Assessment Range...........   103
            Airborne Command and Control System..................   103
            Avenger Slew to Cue..................................   103
            Palletized Loading System Enhanced...................   103
        Program Recommended......................................   103
    Aircraft Procurement, Navy...................................   106
        Committee Recommendations................................   106
        Authorization Changes....................................   106
        Combat Aircraft..........................................   106
            F/A-18E/F Hornet.....................................   106
        Modification of Aircraft.................................   107
            EA-6 Series..........................................   107
            H-1 Series...........................................   107
            P-3 Series...........................................   107
            E-2 Series...........................................   107
            Common Avionics Changes..............................   107
        Aircraft Support Equipment and Facilities................   107
            Common Ground Equipment..............................   107
        Program Recommended......................................   108
    Weapons Procurement, Navy....................................   110
        Committee Recommendations................................   110
        Authorization Changes....................................   110
        Ballistic Missiles.......................................   110
            Trident Advance Procurement..........................   110
        Other Missiles...........................................   110
            ESSM.................................................   110
            Standard Missile.....................................   111
            Aerial Targets.......................................   111
        Spares and Repair Parts..................................   111
        Program Recommended......................................   111
    Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps.............   113
        Committee Recommendations................................   113
        Authorization Changes....................................   113
        Ammunition Shortfalls....................................   113
        Navy Ammunition..........................................   113
            Practice Bombs.......................................   113
            5 Inch/ 54 Gun Ammunition............................   113
            20MM PGU-28..........................................   114
        Program Recommended......................................   114
    Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................   116
        Committee Recommendations................................   116
        Authorization Changes....................................   116
        Other Warships...........................................   116
            CVN Refueling Overhauls..............................   116
            CVN Refueling Overhauls--Advance Procurement.........   117
            DDG-51...............................................   117
            Cruiser Overhauls....................................   117
        Auxiliaries, Craft, and Prior Year Program Costs.........   117
            LCAC Landing Craft...................................   117
            ADC(X)...............................................   118
        Program Recommended......................................   118
    Other Procurement, Navy......................................   120
        Committee Recommendations................................   120
        Authorization Changes....................................   120
        Ships Support Equipment..................................   120
            LM-2500 Gas Turbine..................................   120
        Navigation Equipment.....................................   120
            Other Navigation Equipment...........................   120
        Other Shipboard Equipment................................   120
            Firefighting Equipment...............................   120
            Pollution Control Equipment..........................   121
            Submarine Batteries..................................   121
            Strategic Platform Support Equipment.................   121
        Communications and Electronic Equipment..................   121
            Radar Support........................................   121
        Ship Sonars..............................................   121
            AN/SQQ-89 Surface ASW Combat System..................   121
            SSN Acoustics........................................   121
            Carrier ASW Module...................................   121
        Electronic Warfare Equipment.............................   122
            C3 Countermeasures...................................   122
        Reconnaissance Equipment.................................   122
            Combat Direction Finding Equipment...................   122
            Battle Group Passive Horizon Extension (BGPHES)......   122
        Other Ship Electronic Equipment..........................   122
            Navy Tactical Data System............................   122
            Advanced Tactical Data Link Systems..................   122
        Aviation Electronic Equipment............................   122
            Automatic Carrier Landing System.....................   122
            ID Systems...........................................   122
        Other Shore Electronic Equipment.........................   122
            JMCIS Tactical/Mobile................................   122
        Submarine Communications.................................   123
            Submarine Communication Equipment....................   123
        Shore Communications.....................................   123
            NSIPS................................................   123
            JEDMICS..............................................   123
        Aviation Support Equipment...............................   123
            Sonobouys............................................   123
            AN/SQQ-53 (DIFAR)....................................   123
            AN/SQQ-62 (DICASS)...................................   123
        Aircraft Support Equipment...............................   123
            Aviation Life Support................................   123
            LAMPS MK III Shipboard Equipment.....................   123
        Ship Missile Systems Equipment...........................   124
            NATO Seasparrow......................................   124
            Ship Self-Defense System.............................   124
            AEGIS Support Equipment..............................   124
            Surface Tomahawk Support Equipment...................   124
        Fleet Ballistic Missile Support Equipment................   124
            Strategic Missile Systems Equipment..................   124
        Other Ordnance Support Equipment.........................   124
            Unmanned Seaborne Target.............................   124
        Other Expendable Ordnance................................   124
            Surface Training Device Modifications................   124
        Civil Engineering Support Equipment......................   125
            Construction and Maintenance Equipment...............   125
            Amphibious Equipment.................................   125
            Pollution Control Equipment..........................   125
            Command Support Equipment............................   125
        Other....................................................   125
            Spares and Repair Parts..............................   125
        Program Recommended......................................   125
    Procurement, Marine Corps....................................   129
        Committee Recommendations................................   129
        Authorization Changes....................................   129
        Weapons and Combat Vehicles..............................   129
            Items Under $2 Million (Tracked Vehicles)............   129
        Other Communications and Electronics Equipment...........   129
            Intelligence Support Equipment.......................   129
        Tactical Vehicles........................................   129
            High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles.........   129
        General Property.........................................   129
            Field Medical Equipment..............................   129
        Program Recommended......................................   130
    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force..............................   132
        Committee Recommendations................................   132
        Authorization Changes....................................   132
        Combat Aircraft..........................................   132
            Advanced Tactical Fighter (F-22) Advance Procurement.   132
            F-16.................................................   133
        Airlift Aircraft.........................................   133
            C-17.................................................   133
            C-17 Advance Procurement.............................   133
            Civil Air Patrol.....................................   133
        Other Aircraft...........................................   134
            E-8C.................................................   134
        Modification of Inservice Aircraft.......................   134
            B-52 Modifications...................................   134
            F-15 Modifications...................................   134
            F-16 Modifications...................................   135
            C-130 Modifications..................................   135
        Aircraft Support Equipment and Facilities................   135
            F-15 Post Production Support.........................   135
            War Consumables......................................   135
            Miscellaneous Production Charges.....................   135
        Program Recommended......................................   136
    Missile Procurement, Air Force...............................   139
        Committee Recommendations................................   139
        Authorization Changes....................................   139
        Other Missiles...........................................   139
            AMRAAM...............................................   139
        Modification of Inservice Missiles.......................   139
            Conventional ALCM....................................   139
        Space Programs...........................................   139
            Global Positioning System (GPS) Space Segment........   139
            Medium Launch Vehicles...............................   140
            Defense Support Program..............................   140
            Special Programs.....................................   140
        Program Recommended......................................   140
    Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force.........................   142
        Committee Recommendations................................   142
        Authorization Changes....................................   142
            Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser...................   142
        Cartridges...............................................   142
            20MM PGU-28..........................................   142
        Program Recommended......................................   142
    Other Procurement, Air Force.................................   144
        Committee Recommendations................................   144
        Authorization Changes....................................   144
        Cargo and Utility Vehicles...............................   144
            Items Less than $2 Million...........................   144
        Special Purpose Vehicles.................................   144
            HMMWV, Armored.......................................   144
            Items Less Than $2 Million...........................   144
        Materials Handling Equipment.............................   145
            60K A/C Loader.......................................   145
        Intelligence Programs....................................   145
            Intelligence Data Handling System....................   145
        Electronic Programs......................................   145
            Strategic Command and Control........................   145
        Special Communications-Electronics Projects..............   145
            C-3 Countermeasures..................................   145
        Air Force Communications.................................   145
            Base Information Infrastructure......................   145
            Air Force Satellite Control Network..................   146
        Organization and Base....................................   146
            Items Less Than $2 Million...........................   146
        Personnel Safety and Rescue Equipment....................   146
            Night Vision Goggles.................................   146
        Electrical Equipment.....................................   146
            Floodlights Set Type NF2D............................   146
        Base Support Equipment...................................   146
            Medical/Dental Equipment.............................   146
        Program Recommended......................................   146
    Procurement, Defense-Wide....................................   149
        Committee Recommendations................................   149
        Authorization Changes....................................   149
            Major Equipment......................................   149
            Automated Document Conversion........................   149
            Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO)........   149
        Special Operations Command...............................   149
            PC, CYCLONE Class....................................   149
            SOF Intelligence Systems.............................   149
        Chemical and Biological Defense Program..................   150
            Individual Protection................................   150
            Collective Protection................................   150
        Program Recommended......................................   150
    National Guard and Reserve Equipment.........................   152
        Committee Recommendations................................   152
            MELIOS AN/PVS-6......................................   152
            T-39 Replacement Aircraft............................   152
        Program Recommended......................................   152
        Miscellaneous Equipment..................................   154
    Information Resources Management.............................   154
        REMIS....................................................   155
        JEDMICS..................................................   155
        Sustaining Base Information Services.....................   155
        Army Logistics Automation................................   155
        Automated Document Conversion............................   155
        Military Personnel Information Systems...................   156
        Software Program Managers Network........................   157
        High Risk Automation Systems.............................   157
Title IV. Research, Development, Test and Evaluation.............   159
    Estimates and Appropriation Summary..........................   159
        Federally Funded Research and Development Centers 
          (FFRDCs)...............................................   161
        Basic Research...........................................   161
        NATO Research and Development............................   162
        Tactical Radios..........................................   162
        Special Access Programs..................................   162
        Combat Survivor Evader Locator (CSEL) Survival Radio.....   163
        Institute for Defense Analyses...........................   163
        Classified Programs......................................   163
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army.............   163
        Committee Recommendations................................   164
        Authorization Changes....................................   164
        Basic Research...........................................   164
            In-House Laboratory Research.........................   164
            Defense Research Sciences............................   164
            University and Industry Research Centers.............   164
            Army Research Institute for Behavioral and Social 
              Sciences...........................................   164
        Exploratory Development..................................   164
            Sensors and Electronic Survivability.................   164
            Aviation Advanced Technology.........................   165
            Combat Vehicle and Automotive Technology.............   165
            Chemical, Smoke and Equipment Defeating Technology...   165
            Joint Service Small Arms Program.....................   165
            Weapons and Munitions Technology.....................   165
            Electronics and Electronic Devices...................   165
            Countermine System...................................   166
            Human Factors Engineering Technology.................   166
            Environmental Quality Technology.....................   166
            Military Engineering Technology......................   166
            Medical Technology...................................   166
            Neurofibromatosis....................................   166
            Prostate Disease.....................................   167
        Advanced Development.....................................   167
            Medical Advanced Technology..........................   167
            Aviation Advanced Technology.........................   167
            Weapons and Munitions Advanced Technology............   168
            Missile and Rocket Advanced Technology...............   168
            Landmine Warfare and Barrier Advanced Technology.....   169
            Line-of-Sight Technology Demonstration...............   169
        Demonstration and Validation.............................   169
            Army Missile Defense Systems Integration.............   169
            Aviation Advanced Development........................   170
            Artillery Systems Development........................   170
        Engineering and Manufacturing Development................   170
            EW Development.......................................   170
            Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles....................   170
            Air Traffic Control..................................   170
            Light Tactical Wheeled Vehicle.......................   171
            Combat Feeding, Clothing and Equipment...............   171
            Automatic Test Equipment Development.................   171
            Combined Arms Tactical Trainer.......................   171
            Landmine Warfare/Barrier Engineering Development.....   171
            Sense and Destroy Armament Missile...................   172
        RDT&E Management Support.................................   172
            DoD High Energy Laser Test Facility..................   172
            Materiel Systems Analysis............................   172
            Support of Operational Testing.......................   173
            Program Wide Activities..............................   173
            Munitions Standardization, Effectiveness and Safety..   173
            Environmental Compliance.............................   173
            Aerostat Joint Project Office........................   174
            Combat Vehicle Improvement Program...................   174
            Digitization.........................................   174
            Missile/Air Defense Product Improvement Program......   175
            Joint Tactical Ground System.........................   175
            End Item Industrial Preparedness Activities..........   175
            Force XXI Initiative.................................   175
            Striker..............................................   176
            Mortar Fire Control..................................   176
            Theater Precision Strike Operations..................   177
        Program Recommended......................................   177
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy.............   181
        Committee Recommendations................................   181
        Authorization Changes....................................   181
        Basic Research...........................................   181
            In-House Independent Laboratory Research.............   181
            Defense Research Sciences............................   181
        Exploratory Development..................................   181
            Surface/Aerospace Surveillance and Weapons Technology   181
            Surface Ship Technology..............................   182
            Aircraft Technology..................................   182
            Command, Control and Communications Technology.......   182
            Readiness, Training and Environmental Quality 
              Technology.........................................   182
            Materials, Electronics and Computer Technology.......   182
            Electronic Warfare Technology........................   183
            Undersea Surveillance Weapon Technology..............   183
            Oceanographic and Atmospheric Technology.............   183
            Undersea Warfare Weaponry Technology.................   183
        Advanced Development.....................................   183
            Air Systems and Weapons Advanced Technology..........   183
            Precision Strike and Air Defense.....................   183
            Advanced Electronic Warfare Technology...............   184
            Ship Propulsion System...............................   184
            Marine Corps Advanced Technology Demonstration.......   184
            Medical Technology...................................   184
            Manpower, Personnel and Training.....................   184
            Environmental Quality and Logistics..................   184
            Undersea Warfare Advanced Technology.................   185
            Shallow Water MCM Demonstrations.....................   185
            Advanced Technology Transition.......................   185
            C3 Advanced Technology...............................   185
        Demonstration and Validation.............................   185
            Aviation Survivability...............................   185
            Surface and Shallow Water Mine Countermeasures.......   185
            Advanced Submarine System Development................   185
            Advanced Surface Machinery Systems...................   186
            Conventional Munitions...............................   186
            Advanced Warhead Development.........................   186
            Cooperative Engagement...............................   186
            Environmental Protection.............................   187
            Facilities Improvement...............................   187
            Land Attack Technology...............................   187
            Joint Strike Fighter.................................   187
        Engineering and Manufacturing Development................   187
            Other Helo Development...............................   187
            Aircrew Systems Development..........................   188
            Electronic Warfare...................................   188
            Surface Combatant Combat System Engineering..........   188
            Arsenal Ship.........................................   188
            LPD-17 Class Systems Integration.....................   189
            TSSAM................................................   189
            VLA Upgrade..........................................   189
            Airborne Mine Countermeasures........................   189
            SSN-688 and Trident Modernization....................   189
            Submarine Combat System..............................   189
            New Design SSN.......................................   189
            SSN-21 Developments..................................   189
            Ship Contract Design/Live Fire Testing...............   190
            Navy Tactical Computer Resources.....................   190
            Lightweight Torpedo Development......................   190
            Ship Self-Defense....................................   190
            Medical Development..................................   190
            Distributed Surveillance System......................   190
        RDT&E Management Support.................................   191
            Target Systems Development...........................   191
            Major T&E Investment.................................   191
            Technical Information Services.......................   191
            Studies and Analysis Support.........................   191
            Management, Technical and International Support......   191
            Science and Technology Management....................   191
            Test and Evaluation Support..........................   192
            Marine Corps Program Wide Support....................   192
        Operational Systems Development..........................   192
            HARM Improvement.....................................   192
            Aviation Improvements................................   192
            Marine Corps Communications Systems..................   192
            Marine Corps Ground Combat/Support Arms..............   192
            Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (Space).....   192
            Manufacturing Technology.............................   193
        Program Recommended......................................   193
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force........   197
        Committee Recommendations................................   197
        Authorization Changes....................................   197
        Air Force and Army Laboratory Restructuring..............   197
        Basic Research...........................................   197
            Defense Research Sciences............................   197
        Exploratory Development..................................   198
            Materials............................................   198
            Aerospace Avionics...................................   198
            Phillips Lab Exploratory Development.................   198
        Advanced Technology Development..........................   198
            Advanced Materials for Weapons Systems...............   198
            Aerospace Propulsion Subsystems Integration..........   198
            Aerospace Structures.................................   198
            Crew Systems and Personnel Protection Technology.....   198
            Flight Vehicle Technology Integration................   198
            Electronic Combat Technology.........................   199
            Space and Missile Rocket Propulsion..................   199
            Ballistic Missile Technology.........................   199
            Advanced Spacecraft Technology.......................   199
            Conventional Weapons Technology......................   199
            Advanced Weapons Technology..........................   199
            Airborne Laser.......................................   199
        Demonstration and Validation.............................   200
            Advanced MILSATCOM...................................   200
            Polar Adjunct........................................   200
            National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental 
              Satellite System (NPOESS)..........................   200
            Space Based Infrared Architecture--DEM/VAL...........   200
            Warfighter-1.........................................   201
            Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program (EELV).....   202
            Global Broadcast Service.............................   202
        Engineering and Manufacturing Development................   203
            Integrated Avionics Planning and Development.........   203
            B-1B.................................................   203
            Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training.............   203
            F-22.................................................   203
            EW Development.......................................   203
            Munitions Dispenser Development......................   203
            Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM)..................   204
            Life Support System..................................   204
            Computer Resource Technology Transition..............   204
            Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM)........   205
            JSLAM................................................   206
        RDT&E Management Support.................................   206
            Theater Simulator Development........................   206
            Major T&E Investment.................................   206
            Test and Evaluation Support..........................   206
        Operational Systems Development..........................   206
            Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM)....   206
            Aircraft Engine Component Improvement Program........   206
            AGM-86C Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missile 
              System.............................................   207
            Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS)..........   207
            Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System 
              (JSTARS)...........................................   207
            World-Wide Military Command and Control System.......   207
            Security and Investigative Services..................   207
            Air Cargo Material Handling..........................   207
            Industrial Preparedness..............................   207
            Productivity, Reliability, Availability, 
              Maintainability Program (PRAM).....................   208
            NATO Joint Stars.....................................   208
        Program Recommended......................................   208
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide.....   212
        Committee Recommendations................................   212
        Authorization Changes....................................   212
        Basic Research...........................................   212
            In-House Independent Research........................   212
            Defense Research Sciences............................   212
            University Research Sciences.........................   212
            Government and Industry Cosponsorship of University 
              Research...........................................   213
            Chemical and Biological Defense Program..............   213
        Exploratory Development..................................   213
            Next Generation Internet.............................   213
            Support Technologies--Applied Research...............   214
            Lincoln Laboratory Research Program..................   214
            Computing Systems and Communications Technology......   214
            Chemical and Biological Defense Program..............   214
            Tactical Technology..................................   215
            Integrated Command and Control Technology............   215
            Materials and Electronics Technology.................   215
            Defense Special Weapons Agency.......................   215
        Advanced Development.....................................   215
            Explosives Demilitarization Technology...............   215
            Counterproliferation Support.........................   215
            Automatic Target Recognition.........................   215
            Chemical and Biological Defense Program..............   216
            Special Technical Support............................   216
            Verification Technology Demonstration................   216
            Nuclear Monitoring Technologies......................   216
            Seismic Monitoring...................................   217
            Generic Logistics R&D Technology Demonstrations......   217
            Strategic Environmental Research Program.............   217
            Advanced Electronics Technologies....................   218
            Maritime Technology..................................   218
            Electric Vehicles....................................   218
            Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations...........   218
            Commercial Technology Insertion Program..............   218
            Electronic Commerce Resource Centers.................   218
            High Performance Computing Modernization Program.....   218
            Sensor and Guidance Technology.......................   219
            Marine Technology....................................   219
            Land Warfare Technology..............................   220
            Dual-Use Programs....................................   220
            Joint Wargaming Simulation Management Office.........   220
        Demonstration and Validation.............................   220
            Physical Security Equipment..........................   220
            Joint Robotics Program...............................   220
            CALS Initiative......................................   220
        Ballistic Missile Defense Organization...................   220
            Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)...........   221
            Navy Lower Tier......................................   221
            Navy Upper Tier......................................   221
            Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) and Boost 
              Phase Intercept (BPI)..............................   222
            National Missile Defense.............................   222
        Engineering and Manufacturing Development................   222
            Chemical and Biological Defense Program..............   222
            Technical Studies....................................   223
            Defense Support Activities...........................   223
            Management Headquarters..............................   223
            Tactical UAVs........................................   223
            Endurance UAVs.......................................   223
            Airborne Reconnaissance Systems......................   224
            Special Operations Advanced Technology Development...   224
            Special Operations Intelligence Systems Development..   224
            SOF Operational Enhancements.........................   224
            Casting Emission Reduction Program...................   224
        Program Recommended......................................   225
    Developmental Test and Evaluation, Defense...................   228
        Committee Recommendations................................   228
        Program Recommended......................................   228
    Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense.....................   230
        Committee Recommendations................................   230
        Program Recommended......................................   230
        Live Fire Testing........................................   232
Title V. Revolving and Management Funds..........................   233
    Defense Working Capital Funds................................   233
        Transition to the Working Capital Funds..................   233
    Military Commissary Fund, Defense............................   234
    National Defense Sealift Fund................................   234
        Large Medium Speed Roll-On/Roll-Off (LMSR) Ships.........   234
        Lighterage...............................................   234
Title VI. Other Department of Defense Programs...................   235
    Defense Health Program.......................................   235
        Medical Research.........................................   235
        Breast Cancer............................................   236
        Gulf War Illness.........................................   236
        TRICARE..................................................   237
        Bone Marrow Research.....................................   237
        Smoking Cessation........................................   237
        Diabetes.................................................   237
        Minimally Invasive Research..............................   237
        Air Force Neuroscience...................................   238
        Central Nervous System Injury Research...................   238
        Walter Reed Army Institute of Research...................   238
        Mobile Breast Care Center................................   238
        Peer Review Panels.......................................   238
    Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense...........   239
        Committee Recommendations................................   239
            Program Reductions...................................   239
            Storage Facilities...................................   239
        Program Recommended......................................   239
    Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense.......   241
        Committee Recommendations................................   241
        National Guard Counter-Drug Program......................   241
        LEA Support..............................................   241
        Gulf States Initiative...................................   241
        HIDTA Crack House Demolition.............................   242
        Civil Air Patrol.........................................   242
        C-26 Aircraft Photo Reconnaissance Upgrades..............   242
        Multijurisdictional Task Force Training..................   242
        Program Recommended......................................   242
    Office of the Inspector General..............................   243
Title VII. Related Agencies......................................   245
    National Foreign Intelligence Program........................   245
        Introduction.............................................   245
        Classified Annex.........................................   245
    Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System 
      Fund.......................................................   245
    Intelligence Community Management Account....................   246
        Committee Recommendation.................................   246
    National Security Education Trust Fund.......................   246
    Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance and Environmental 
      Restoration Fund...........................................   246
Title VIII. General Provisions...................................   247
    Definition of Program, Project and Activity..................   247
    Military Personnel Budget Justification......................   247
    Limitation on Headquarters Activities........................   248
    Warranties...................................................   248
    National Imagery and Mapping Agency..........................   248
    Navigation and Safety Equipment..............................   249
    TACWAR.......................................................   249
House of Representatives Reporting Requirements..................   251
    Changes in Application of Existing Law.......................   251
        Appropriations Language..................................   251
        General Provisions.......................................   253
    Appropriations Not Authorized by Law.........................   256
    Transfer of Funds............................................   257
    Rescissions..................................................   258
    Constitutional Authority.....................................   258
    Comparison With Budget Resolution............................   258
    Five-Year Projection of Outlays..............................   259
    Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments..........   259



105th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                    105-206
_______________________________________________________________________


            DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1998

                                _______
                                

  July 25, 1997.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


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

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 2266]

    The Committee on Appropriations submits the following 
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making 
appropriations for the Department of Defense, and for other 
purposes, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998.

                              Bill Totals

    Appropriations for most military functions of the 
Department of Defense are provided for in the accompanying bill 
for the fiscal year 1998. This bill does not provide 
appropriations for military construction, military family 
housing, civil defense, or nuclear warheads, for which 
requirements are considered in connection with other 
appropriations bills.
    The President's fiscal year 1998 budget request for 
activities funded in the Department of Defense Appropriations 
Bill totals $243,923,541,000 in new budget (obligational) 
authority. The amounts recommended by the Committee in the 
accompanying bill total $248,335,303,000 in new budget 
authority. This is $4,411,762,000 above the budget estimate and 
$3,868,897,000 \1\ above the sums made available for the same 
purposes for fiscal year 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ This amount includes $1,846,200,000 in emergency supplemental 
appropriations for the Department of Defense enacted into law in Public 
Law 105-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In terms of overall defense spending for fiscal year 1998, 
when the amounts in this bill are combined with proposed 
defense funding in other annual appropriations bills the 
Committee's recommendations are approximately equal to the $269 
billion in discretionary appropriations for the National 
Defense Function (050) agreed to by the Congress and the 
President in April 1997, and subsequently approved by Congress 
in the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Years 
1998-2002. Despite the proposed increase over the President's 
request, however, the Committee notes that with this 
recommendation funding in the Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1998 will still fail to keep 
pace with inflation. Total funding in the bill is 0.6 percent, 
or $1.5 billion, less than what would be required to freeze 
funding at the fiscal year 1997 level, adjusted for inflation. 
As a consequence, if enacted into law, the Committee's 
recommendations would result in the thirteenth straight year of 
real, inflation-adjusted reductions in defense spending.
    The new budget authority enacted for the fiscal year 1997, 
the President's budget estimates, and amounts recommended by 
the Committee for fiscal year 1998 appear in summary form in 
the following table:



                    Committee Budget Review Process

    During its review of the fiscal year 1998 budget, the 
Subcommittee on National Security held a total of 19 hearings 
during the time period of February 26, 1997 to June 11, 1997. 
Testimony received by the Subcommittee totaled 1,625 pages of 
transcript. Approximately half of the hearings were held in 
open session. Executive or closed sessions were held only when 
the security classification of the material to be discussed 
presented no alternative.

                              Introduction

    The bill reported by the Committee reflects its obligation 
to provide adequate resources for the nation's defense while 
attempting to strike a balance between the many competing 
challenges confronting the armed forces of the United States.
    The international environment remains uncertain and 
potentially explosive. Political instability remains on the 
rise, as does the threat posed by the proliferation of 
technology, giving even small nations or groups the ability to 
threaten entire populations. Transnational issues such as 
ethnic conflicts, terrorism, the international drug trade, and 
``information age'' threats continue to loom while more 
traditional regional threats, such as those posed by North 
Korea, Iraq, and Iran still must factor prominently in U.S. 
military planning.
    Despite having been drawn down to the lowest force levels 
since the end of World War II, U.S. armed forces remain forward 
deployed and continue to sustain high rates of operation, a 
condition exacerbated by the deployment of U.S. forces on non-
traditional peacekeeping missions, such as the Bosnia 
deployment. These frequent deployments have led to a host of 
problems including hardships for service members and their 
families, disruptions in standard rotation and training 
schedules, and the need to finance the substantial costs of 
such operations.
    The President's fiscal year 1998 budget proposal for the 
Department of Defense clearly reflects the tensions inherent in 
trying to cope with such existing, ongoing demands while living 
within the fiscal constraints dictated by the Administration's 
overall budget priorities. The combination of self-imposed 
defense spending limits, the spiraling cost of overseas 
contingency operations, and the need to maintain forces subject 
to deployment at high rates of readiness, has resulted once 
again in major funding shortfalls throughout other portions of 
the defense budget proposed by the President.
    The Committee notes that subsequent to transmittal of the 
President's budget, the Military Services identified high 
priority, unfunded shortfalls for fiscal year 1998 totaling 
nearly $11 billion. In addition, the Secretary of Defense has 
called to the Committee's attention nearly $1.5 billion in 
additional unbudgeted fiscal year 1998 requirements involving 
defense health care, missile defense and chemical/biological 
defenses, and a sizable shortage in funding for flying hour 
support and related spare parts. Running the gamut from quality 
of life programs, medical care, training and operating budgets, 
and weapons modernization and research programs, the fiscal 
year 1998 defense budget submission demonstrably falls short of 
meeting both the immediate and long-term requirements of the 
U.S. armed forces.

                       Quadrennial Defense Review

    These problems are not new, and were the driving force 
behind Congress' mandate last year for an in-depth review of 
U.S. military strategy, force structure and deployments, and 
competing budget priorities. The result was the Quadrennial 
Defense Review (QDR), which combined with the appointment of a 
new Secretary of Defense resulted in a fresh look at the many 
competing and difficult demands confronting U.S. military 
planners.
    The Committee is aware of, and in some instances 
sympathetic to, the criticisms levied at the QDR since its 
results were announced in May 1997. For example, the QDR has 
been criticized for not being daring enough, particularly with 
respect to its rejection of force structure cuts well beyond 
the roughly one-third reduction already levied since the fall 
of the Berlin Wall. However, the Committee does not find such 
critiques persuasive in the face of continued regional threats 
on both the Korean Peninsula and in the Persian Gulf region 
which, of necessity, drive near-term manpower and forward 
deployment requirements. The Committee does find more substance 
in the claim that the QDR was a fiscally-constrained exercise. 
Yet, the announcement of the QDR's findings occurred almost 
simultaneously with the agreement reached between the President 
and the Congressional leadership on a balanced budget 
agreement. This resulted in a long-term budget plan for defense 
which, from fiscal years 2000-2002, approximates that used as 
the basis for QDR planning (namely, the President's proposed 
defense program). While there is merit to the charge that the 
Secretary of Defense should have conducted solely a strategy 
and requirements driven review, in hindsight the Secretary's 
decision that the QDR should reflect current fiscal realities 
as well as strategic considerations must be viewed as being 
both pragmatic and practical.
    Nonetheless, despite giving the Department relatively high 
marks on the broad aspects of its QDR recommendations, the 
Committee is troubled by the many optimistic assumptions 
embedded in its recommendations. The Committee is highly 
skeptical, for example, about whether the military services can 
successfully draw down planned force structure by an additional 
60,000 active duty and 55,000 Reserve personnel, while 
maintaining forward presence deployments and high OPTEMPO 
rates, without sacrificing the quality of the force and 
adversely affecting the combat capability of front-line units.
    Of more proximate concern to the Committee in its budgetary 
role is the degree to which the Department is relying on QDR 
recommendations which forecast sizable budget savings. These 
savings are intended to finance the Department's many unfunded 
outyear requirements, especially those involving the 
development and eventual production of the new generation of 
major weapons systems. The Committee's concern has already been 
substantiated by the admission by senior Department of Defense 
officials that most of the non-personnel savings assumed in the 
QDR (amounting to approximately $7-8 billion per year by the 
year 2002) are premised on yet-to-be determined reductions in 
headquarters, duplicative organizations, and improved business 
practices.
    These fiscal concerns are central in that, if not dealt 
with successfully as the QDR recommendations are implemented, 
they threaten to undermine one of the core objectives of the 
QDR itself: Freeing up resources to enable the overdue 
modernization of many components of the military's existing 
weaponry and equipment.

                    Rationale for the Committee Bill

    When considering its fiscal year 1998 recommendations, the 
Committee was therefore confronted with two overriding 
concerns. First, the fiscal year 1998 budget request (prepared 
before the QDR), while including many noteworthy aspects, still 
proposed funding levels for many activities and programs which 
the Secretary of Defense has himself conceded are inadequate, 
particularly in light of subsequent QDR decisions. Second, the 
QDR itself has now become the basis for outyear defense 
planning, and therefore presents both a guide and an 
opportunity for the Committee in making its recommendations for 
fiscal year 1998.
    In fashioning this bill, the Committee took both these 
factors into account while remaining committed to several key 
objectives:
          (1) Ensuring an adequate level of readiness, training 
        and quality of life for all service members, both in 
        the Active and Reserve components;
          (2) Providing for a modernization program which both 
        meets today's requirements and the security needs of 
        the future;
          (3) Giving special priority to redressing shortfalls 
        in less visible, yet mission-essential programs and 
        equipment; and finally,
          (4) Cutting, reforming, or eliminating programs or 
        activities with little military utility, or which have 
        not shown demonstrable success or have encountered 
        delays in development or production, or are 
        duplicative, excessive or unnecessary.
    In particular, given the Committee's deep concern that many 
of the QDR's cost-saving assumptions may prove to be highly 
optimistic, the Committee believes it cannot wait until the 
fiscal year 1999 budget cycle to begin to implement QDR-
sanctioned reforms or cost-cutting. The Committee has made a 
concerted effort to reduce and in some instances cancel funding 
for programs or functions which, while meritorious, are simply 
of lower priority, can be performed at a lower cost, are as 
``nice to have'' rather than essential.
    The following section of the report details major Committee 
recommendations in support of these objectives.

                    Major Committee Recommendations

              Addressing High Priority Unfunded Shortfalls

    The Committee bill fully funds the unbudgeted shortfalls 
identified by the Secretary of Defense with respect to defense 
medical programs, National Missile Defense, and Navy and Air 
Force flying hours. The Committee also recommends increases 
over the budget request of $107,650,000 for improved chemical 
and biological defensive technologies, equipment and training. 
Finally, the Committee also recommends additions over the 
budget request which address more than one-third (by dollar 
amount) of the unbudgeted shortfalls identified by the military 
Service Chiefs. Specific details are cited throughout this 
report.

                    ensuring a quality, ready force

    Personnel Issues: The Committee has recommended fully 
funding the 2.8 percent military pay raise as requested by the 
Department, and has added $60,000,000 above the budget request 
for housing and family separation allowances in conformance 
with House authorization action. For the Reserve components, 
the Committee recommends restoral of $85,000,000 deleted in the 
budget request in order to fully fund the Reserves' pay 
accounts. The Committee has fully funded all child care and 
family support programs. Finally, the Committee has added 
$22,900,000 over the budget request for military recruiting, to 
ensure new accessions are of the highest possible quality.
    Military Medical Programs: The Committee has included 
$274,000,000 above the amounts originally requested by the 
President to fully fund unbudgeted shortfalls in the Defense 
Health Program. The Committee has added $125,000,000 over the 
request to continue the Army's highly successful peer-reviewed 
breast cancer research program as well as the Committee's 
ongoing efforts to specifically improve breast cancer detection 
and treatment for both service personnel and dependents.
    Training/OPTEMPO: The Committee has fully funded the 
requested amounts for all the Services' training and OPTEMPO 
accounts and has added $99,013,000 over the request in those 
areas where the services identified shortfalls.
    Emergent flying hour/spare parts shortfall: Following 
submission of the budget, the Secretary of Defense notified the 
Committee of significant unfunded shortfalls which had emerged 
in the flying hour and associated maintenance programs of the 
Navy and Air Force. The Committee recognizes the immediate 
impact these shortfalls will have on readiness and therefore 
recommends an increase of $622,000,000 over the budget request 
to fully fund Navy and Air Force requirements.
    Equipment repair/maintenance: The Committee is distressed 
over the continuing existence of substantial unfunded backlogs 
in the Services' depot maintenance accounts and has added 
$473,300,000 over the budget request to meet the most urgent 
unfunded equipment maintenance requirements.
    Real property maintenance: For years the Committee has 
expressed its concern over the growing backlog in real property 
maintenance accounts used to support the Department's base 
infrastructure, including barracks and mission-essential 
facilities. The Committee recommends an increase of 
$924,840,000 over the budget request for real property 
maintenance, including an additional $360,000,000 for barracks 
and living facilities, continuing the Committee's commitment to 
revitalizing the Department's base infrastructure.
    Defense Drug Interdiction: The Committee recommends an 
increase over the budget request of $60,500,000 for Department 
of Defense counter-drug and drug interdiction programs, nearly 
a 10 percent increase over the Department's proposed fiscal 
year 1998 levels.
    ``Contingency'' operations: The fiscal year 1997 Department 
of Defense Appropriations Act created a separate appropriations 
account for operation and maintenance costs resulting from 
major contingency deployments. The Committee recommends similar 
action this year and consolidates all requested operation and 
maintenance funding for the Bosnia operation, as well as 
continued sanctions enforcement around Iraq, into one single 
account. The Committee has also provided military personnel 
funding associated with these operations, but has funded these 
requirements in the regular appropriations accounts. In all, 
the Committee recommends total funding of $2,145,100,000 for 
these operations ($1,467,500,000 for Bosnia, as requested by 
the President; and $677,600,000 for Southwest Asia).

                         Modernization Programs

    Department of Defense officials freely admit that the most 
serious shortcoming in the budget proposal is in those accounts 
providing for procurement and research and development of new 
equipment and technologies. Based on extensive testimony and a 
concerted effort to identify critical shortfalls in existing 
requirements, the Committee is recommending increases to the 
budget request specifically targeted at meeting existing 
equipment/capability shortfalls as well as providing for the 
projected military requirements of the future. In all, the bill 
recommends increases over the budget request of $4.7 billion 
for modernization programs, including net increases of over 
$3.9 billion for procurement and $770 million for research and 
development.
    The most significant recommendations include:
    Missile defense: The Committee recommends total funding of 
$3,673,659,000, a net increase of $707,115,000, for the 
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. The Committee bill 
includes a total of $978,090,000 ($474,000,000 over the budget 
request) for national missile defense and $2,695,568,000 (a net 
increase of $233,115,000 over the budget request) for theater 
systems. The Committee has fully funded the budget request for 
the joint U.S.-Israel ARROW missile defense program, and has 
added $41,500,000 over the budget request for the joint U.S.-
Israel ``Nautilus'' Tactical High-Energy Laser program. The 
Committee has also fully funded the Air Force's Airborne Laser 
program at the requested amount ($157,136,000).
    Ship Self-Defense/Cooperative Engagement: Mindful of the 
growing threat to U.S. forces posed by both theater ballistic 
and cruise missiles, the Committee has continued its long-
standing emphasis on ship self-defense and ``cooperative 
engagement'' (the sharing of tracking and targeting information 
among many different platforms), and has added $401,800,000 
over the budget for these efforts.
    Major weapons programs: The Committee recommends fully 
funding the budget request for: The Army's Comanche helicopter, 
Crusader next-generation artillery system, and Force XXI/
digitization initiatives (although the Committee has realigned 
requested funding to more appropriate accounts); the Navy's 
production of 20 new F/A-18 E/F fighters, three DDG-51 
destroyers, one New Attack Submarine, the overhaul of the 
U.S.S. Nimitz aircraft carrier, and the procurement of two LMSR 
sealift ships; and the Air Force's F-15 fighter and F-22 
fighter programs. The Committee has also funded the requested 
number of Air Force C-17 transport aircraft; provided an 
additional nine C-130J variants over the budget request for the 
Marine Corps, Air Force, and Air National Guard, pursuant to 
House authorization action; and the budget request for the 
Joint Strike Fighter.
    The Committee has added funds over the request for: Army 
Blackhawk helicopters (a total of $309,231,000 for 30 
helicopters, $126,000,000 and 12 helicopters more than 
requested) and Kiowa Warrior helicopters ($151,700,000); the 
Navy E-2C airborne early warning aircraft (a total of 
$304,474,000 for four aircraft, $68,000,000 and one aircraft 
over the budget request); the Marine Corps V-22 tactical 
transport (a total of $661,307,000 for seven aircraft, 
$189,300,000 and two aircraft more than in the budget request), 
and advance procurement for the second LPD-17 amphibious ship 
(an increase of $185,000,000 over the budget request); and the 
Air Force B-2 bomber (a total of $505,286,000, an increase over 
the budget request of $331,200,000, consistent with House 
authorization action), and F-16 fighter programs ($82,500,000 
and three aircraft more than the budget request).
    Mission-essential shortfalls: The Committee has always 
emphasized less-glamorous, yet mission-essential items which 
are critical to the troops in the field. The Committee bill 
recommends increases over the budget request for such items as: 
Additional combat communications systems ($32,000,000), night 
vision devices ($14,400,000), and Bradley fighting vehicle 
upgrades ($115,000,000) for the Army; new and remanufactured 
trucks and HMMWV's for the Army and Marine Corps 
($156,700,000); Army, Navy and Marine Corps ammunition (a net 
increase of $258,900,000); modifications and upgrades for EA-6B 
($83,000,000) and P-3 aircraft ($129,000,000) for the Navy; 
initial issue gear ($40,700,000) and base telecommunications 
for the Marine Corps ($42,600,000); and additional aging 
aircraft and engine reliability enhancements ($33,000,000), 
force protection measures ($27,800,000) and base information 
systems protection ($51,000,000) for the Air Force. The 
Committee also provided $31 million for development and 
procurement of lighterage systems to support joint service 
strategic sealift operations.
    Guard and Reserve Components: The Committee bill for fiscal 
year 1998 continues its support of the Guard and Reserve, with 
a recommended increase of $274,189,000 over the budget request 
for the personnel and operation and maintenance accounts. With 
respect to modernization programs, the Committee has fully 
funded those programs requested in the budget for Guard and 
Reserve equipment ($968,500,000, requested in the active 
services' accounts) and has provided an additional 
$1,651,800,000 throughout the bill for additional aircraft, 
tactical vehicles, and various miscellaneous equipment and 
upgrades to existing equipment for the Guard and Reserve 
components.

                       Reforms/Program Reductions

    As mentioned earlier in this report, the Committee has 
always sought to reduce excess or unnecessary funding when 
possible. The Department of Defense is no more sacrosanct than 
any other portion of the Federal government in terms of its 
need to be constantly reviewed, assessed, and improved.
    This year the Committee's efforts to reduce unnecessary 
spending in the Department of Defense are even more important. 
This is due to the need to address critical unfunded shortfalls 
in the fiscal year 1998 budget submission, many directly 
affecting readiness and quality of life programs, as well as 
the Committee's broader concerns about whether the savings 
forecast from implementation of the Quadrennial Defense Review 
can realistically be expected to materialize.
    Accordingly, a major priority throughout the Committee's 
budget oversight process has been the identification of lower 
priority programs which, although they contribute to the 
military mission, can be cut or eliminated in order to fund 
higher priority programs and activities. The Committee has also 
recommended many budget reductions intended to reform and 
streamline existing Department of Defense structure or 
operations, and in so doing the Committee intends to accelerate 
already-planned QDR initiatives. Finally, the Committee has 
identified budget savings stemming from audits by the General 
Accounting Office, the Department's audit and inspector general 
functions, and the Committee's Surveys and Investigations 
staff, as well as changes in program status identified by the 
military departments.
    Budget execution/lower-priority programs: The following 
table shows selected programs in the budget request which the 
Committee has eliminated or reduced funding based on its having 
a relatively low priority or where the requested funding was 
considered excessive.

        Program                                                Reduction
Civilian personnel overbudgeting........................   -$245,500,000
Consultants and advisory services.......................   -$210,000,000
Defense dual use and commercialization programs.........    -187,602,000
Growth in automated data processing programs............    -110,000,000
Excess inventory........................................    -100,000,000
Inappropriate budgeting/working capital funds...........    -127,654,000
Joint Aerostat Program..................................     -93,193,000
Environmental fund recoupment...........................     -73,000,000
Growth in FFRDC's.......................................     -55,000,000
NATO RDT&E..............................................     -53,479,000
Growth in civilian employee travel......................     -51,990,000
JCS Exercises...........................................     -50,000,000
OSD administrative savings..............................     -20,000,000

    Reform/restructuring: The Committee notes that DoD, with a 
decade of reduced budgets and downsizing behind it, has already 
implemented or is well into implementing a series of management 
and organizational reforms. Among other things, these 
initiatives have already resulted in the defense civilian 
workforce being reduced by nearly 30 percent with significant 
additional reductions projected in the near future. While DoD 
is to be commended for such moves, and although it intends to 
make even additional reductions associated with implementation 
of the QDR, the Committee believes more must and can be done. 
Accordingly, it has recommended a number of budget reductions 
intended to further streamline and rationalize operations.

                                                                        
                          Program                           Reduction   
                                                                        
QDR-related civilian personnel reductions.............     -$253,273,000
Other headquarters reductions.........................      -149,443,000
Joint standoff missile program consolidation..........      -140,321,000
Defense Agencies (QDR Task Force).....................       -72,000,000
Using RDT&E funding for production....................       -70,875,000
Acquisition reform (warranties).......................       -50,000,000
Overseas disaster aid.................................       -24,573,000
                                                                        

    Program/budget execution: In addition to the reductions 
cited above, the Committee proposes more than 150 other 
reductions to budgeted items based on delays in program 
execution, contract savings, or other events resulting in the 
requested amount being clearly excessive to program needs. 
These reductions have resulted in over $2.5 billion in savings 
in this legislation.

                         U.S. Forces in Bosnia

    The fiscal year 1998 budget request includes, and the 
Committee recommends in this bill, a total of $1,467,500,000 in 
order to finance the additional incremental military personnel 
and operation and maintenance costs resulting from the 
continued U.S. participation in the NATO-led Stabilization 
Force in Bosnia, through June 1998. With this appropriation, 
the Committee notes it will have provided roughly $6.5 billion 
in either supplemental appropriations acts, approved 
reprogramming actions or annual Department of Defense 
Appropriations Acts for the additional costs associated with 
U.S. military operations in and around the former Yugoslavia 
since October 1995. The Committee has on numerous occasions 
expressed its commendation for the professional and expert 
manner in which U.S. forces involved in the Bosnia operation 
have carried out their missions, and does so once again. These 
forces and their commanders have performed in an exemplary 
manner, as have all coalition military participants, in an 
uncertain and dangerous environment.
    Even before a decision was made to deploy U.S. forces to 
Bosnia, the Committee had expressed its concern and 
disappointment over the failure of the Administration to 
adequately consult with the Congress regarding peacekeeping 
operations. The mission change in Somalia, and Presidential 
commitments to deploy forces to Rwanda, Haiti and Bosnia all 
were undertaken after little, if any, advance consultation with 
the Congress. While having repeatedly admonished the 
Administration for failing to adequately seek Congressional 
advice and consent, the Committee has also consistently 
expressed its willingness to work constructively with the 
Administration to try and find consensus over how best to carry 
out these missions while addressing the Nation's overall 
foreign policy objectives. And despite the political 
controversy surrounding the Bosnia deployment--beginning with 
the initial decision to deploy American forces, to the mission 
extension announced by the President last November, and now, 
concerns over a possible second mission extension as well as 
possible expanded roles for U.S. forces on the ground--the 
Committee observes that it has in each and every instance 
provided the funds deemed necessary by the Department of 
Defense to support this mission. The Committee's record of 
``supporting the troops'' cannot be questioned.
    Regrettably, the Administration has yet to adequately 
address the key issues initially raised by the Committee and 
others nearly two years ago with respect to the Bosnia 
deployment. These include questions about the exact mission of 
U.S. forces and other Stabilization Force participants; what, 
if any exit strategy or criteria have been established for the 
withdrawal of American forces; and the ultimate duration of the 
U.S. deployment, the make-up of any international force in 
Bosnia after June 1998, and the overall long-term commitment 
which the U.S. intends to make to the region (both in terms of 
military support and deployments as well as other U.S. aid and 
assistance programs).
    The Committee recognizes these are difficult issues, made 
more complex due to the international involvement in the region 
and the fragile peace within the former Yugoslavia. Yet it is 
precisely because these issues are difficult that the 
Administration's continued refusal to engage the Congress in 
efforts to seek a consensus for future policy decisions cannot 
be understood. The Committee believes it is imperative for the 
Administration to address these policy questions, both through 
consultation with Congress and openly with the American people.
    The Committee recognizes that the course of future Bosnia 
policy carries with it significant implications for NATO as 
well as European security in general. In addition, the 
Committee understands that using the legislative ``power of the 
purse'' to prohibit or limit prospective military operations 
has been and will no doubt continue to be one of the supreme 
tests between the executive and legislative branches. The 
Committee does not take lightly any use of this prerogative. 
The Committee still expresses its willingness to work with the 
Administration on seeking solutions to the immediate and longer 
term issues involving policy towards Bosnia. However, in the 
absence of any declared post-June 1998 plan for the NATO-led 
peacekeeping and peace enforcement operation in the former 
Yugoslavia, the Committee recommends for inclusion in this bill 
the provision passed by the House on June 23, 1997 during 
consideration of the Defense Authorization bill (H.R. 1119), 
providing that no funds available to the Department of Defense 
may be used to support the deployment of U.S. ground forces in 
the Republic of Bosnia and Herzogovina after June 30, 1998 (the 
current mission limit set by the President), unless 
specifically prescribed by law.

                             NATO Expansion

    With the recent Madrid Summit and through other policy 
pronouncements, the Administration has clearly expressed its 
intent to expand the number of nations in the North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization (NATO). Unfortunately, the financial impact 
of this expansion on the Department of Defense budget is not 
yet clear as no funds have been requested in the fiscal year 
1998 budget request. The Committee is dubious regarding current 
estimates of the cost of NATO expansion, which according to the 
Administration will be approximately $200 million per year. The 
estimate is significantly lower than that of most observers, 
and the Committee notes it is premised on only three new member 
nations.
    In order to gain better insight into the financial 
requirements for an expanded NATO, the Committee recommends a 
new general provision (Section 8101) requiring that, in future 
budget requests, DoD establish a new budget subactivity in the 
Operation and maintenance request that isolates incremental 
costs associated with NATO expansion. The Committee directs 
that this new budget entry shall display all future costs 
funded through annual Department of Defense Appropriations Acts 
relating to NATO expansion. To the degree such costs may be 
more properly carried in other titles of the Act, such as 
Military personnel or Procurement, the Committee directs that 
these costs be displayed in their entirety in a separate budget 
subactivity in the appropriate appropriations account, as 
needed. The Committee further directs that detailed 
justification materials be included in future budget requests 
to support any cost estimates.

                       Budget Formulation Issues

    The Committee is increasingly concerned about a number of 
practices which have become more prevalent in both the 
Department of Defense's annual budget submissions as well as 
the execution of funding once it has been provided by the 
Congress.
    The first issue involves the underbudgeting of many 
critical programs and activities, particularly those which are 
known to enjoy support in Congress, in an evident attempt to 
elicit the required funding through the annual defense 
authorization and appropriations process. Examples include the 
now routine underbudgeting of real property and depot 
maintenance accounts, as well as conventional ammunition, 
tactical vehicle and missile programs, equipment needs of the 
Guard and Reserve components, and of particular concern to the 
Committee, funding for defense medical programs. Over the past 
three years, as it became apparent that Congress was inclined 
to add substantial sums to the President's programmed defense 
budgets, this practice has become more rampant with the Office 
of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the Military Departments 
appearing to willfully delete or refuse to commit funding for 
other high priority programs such as national and theater 
missile defense programs, Navy ship self-defense initiatives, 
and aircraft navigational and safety upgrades.
    The Committee believes these actions are clearly 
unconscionable given the direct threat to the lives of service 
personnel should such programs not be adequately funded or 
ultimately fielded. They are even less supportable when viewed 
in the context of the Department's overall fiscal year 1998 
budget request. This budget proposes that the Congress ignore 
these high priority programs and, instead, approve sizable 
budget increases for efforts less relevant to immediate 
military requirements, such as consultants, basic research, and 
generic technology demonstrations. (One such effort, the Joint 
Aerostat Program discussed later in this report, is estimated 
to require over $600,000,000 over the next few years yet has no 
validated mission nor user requirement.) The Department has in 
place processes and organizations, such as the Joint 
Requirements Oversight Council (JROC), which were expressly 
created to ensure that warfighting requirements are 
rationalized and given due regard in budget deliberations. 
Given this, the Committee is puzzled why it is being asked to 
approve a budget which fails to adequately fund programs needed 
by deployed forces, and which still falls short when it comes 
to choosing among competing service programs and initiatives.
    A related issue is the Department's budget proposal in each 
of the past two years to transfer proceeds from asset sales 
from the National Defense Stockpile to fund either operation 
and maintenance or procurement programs. Under the Budget Act 
such practices are not allowed unless the sales in question are 
consistent with historical levels. Despite knowing this both 
DoD and the Office of Management and Budget have persisted in 
forwarding requests to the Congress which rely on generating 
sales revenue from the National Defense Stockpile in excess of 
Budget Act limits. As a consequence, over the past two years 
the President's defense budgets have actually contained 
$800,000,000 more in proposed spending that could actually be 
made available in appropriations bills without running afoul of 
Budget Act scorekeeping conventions.
    The Committee wishes to serve notice to OSD, the Military 
Departments, and OMB the obvious fact that such misallocation 
of resources and budget gamesmanship will simply be self 
defeating in the future. As a result of the recently approved 
budget agreement, beginning in fiscal year 1999 the Congress 
has agreed to the same defense budget topline as has the 
President, and therefore deliberations over the content of 
future defense bills will by definition be a zero-sum game. 
This problem will only become more intense should anticipated 
savings from the QDR and other reforms fall short of 
expectations. Should OSD and the Services, with the knowledge 
of OMB, persist in underfunding critical programs or resorting 
to budget gimmicks in anticipation that the Committee and 
Congress will ``fix the problem'', they should do so knowing 
full well that these problems will be corrected only through 
reductions to other budgeted programs.

     Abuse of Traditional Acquisition and Appropriations Practices

    The Committee is similarly concerned about what, from its 
perspective, is a breakdown of existing and longstanding 
procedures regarding the institution of multiyear contracting 
for major weapons systems, as well as a fundamental breach of 
appropriations discipline whereby the Department is using funds 
provided for research, development, test and evaluation of 
weapons programs to instead initiate production contracts, in 
many instances without the knowledge of OSD or the Congress.
    With respect to multiyear contracting, the Committee 
remains convinced that when used appropriately, multiyear 
contracts offer substantial benefits in terms of both cost 
savings and program stability. However, another aspect of 
multiyear contracting is that once initiated for a particular 
program, funding for that program is basically committed for 
several years, and unlikely to be reduced because of the 
termination liability costs associated with failure to 
adequately fund the multiyear program. The Committee is aware 
of instances where the military services have sought multiyear 
contracting authority from the Congress even though the current 
defense program does not contain enough funding to actually 
execute the contract, evidently in an effort to leverage 
increased budget allocations from OSD.
    Over the past two years the Committee has witnessed a 
significant increase in efforts by the military services to 
importune the Congress to grant their favored programs 
multiyear contracting authority. Given the major restructuring 
of Departmental spending priorities associated with 
implementation of the QDR, as well as the need of OSD to 
maintain at least some degree of management control over future 
defense spending decisions, the Committee believes it 
appropriate to require that the Secretary of Defense, approve 
all major multiyear contract initiatives and therefore has 
recommended amending an existing general provision (Section 
8008) to require that no multiyear contracts over a certain 
threshold may be requested unless that program is specifically 
identified in official budget documents transmitted to the 
Congress by the President, or through written communication 
from the Secretary. This should not be perceived as the 
Committee losing favor with multiyear contracting as a means to 
achieve cost savings; rather, the Committee's intent is to give 
the Secretary of Defense as well as the Congress greater 
opportunities to carefully review any proposed multiyear 
program acquisition.
    With respect to the abuse of RDT&E appropriations, the 
Committee is concerned about what appears to be an increasing 
lack of discipline within the Department of Defense in 
budgeting programs in the proper appropriations, especially 
among acquisition programs. The Committee is aware of desires 
within the DOD acquisition community to merge development and 
procurement funding into a single appropriation as a 
convenience to program managers. Such a change to fundamental 
budget practices would severely impede oversight by both senior 
managers in the Department as well as Congress. The Department 
has declined to make any such formal recommendations to the 
Congress; however, the Committee has become convinced the 
Department has instead placated its acquisition community by 
allowing program managers, under the guise of acquisition 
reform, to blur distinctions between appropriations. The 
Committee has identified a number of instances in this report 
in which the Department has requested funding in the research 
and development accounts to initiate production, and production 
funding to initiate development. Most notable are the cases of 
EFOG-M, LOSAT, WCMD, WRAP initiatives, and F-22 discussed at 
length elsewhere in this report. The Committee is particularly 
disturbed over a trend in missile programs to initiate 
production to provide an ``interim warfighting capability'' 
using research and development funding, contrary to Committee 
direction and DOD policy on the use of such funding.
    The Committee takes its oversight responsibilities 
seriously and will not tolerate lax observance of the long-
standing policies on the proper use of appropriations. 
Accordingly, the Committee has included a general provision 
(Section 8100) which prohibits the Department from using funds 
provided in Title IV of the bill (funding for research, 
development, test, and evaluation) to procure end-items of any 
DoD system unless said items are physically utilized in test 
and evaluation activities which lead to a production decision 
for the system. This provision exempts programs funded in this 
bill under the National Foreign Intelligence Program, and also 
includes limited waiver authority should the Secretary of 
Defense determine it is in the national security interest.

                           Ship Self Defense

    In fiscal year 1992, the Committee discovered that the 
Navy's ship self-defense programs were in disarray and it began 
an initiative to fix the problem. In every fiscal year since 
1992, the Committee has recommended significant funding 
increases for ship self-defense programs. The Committee was 
vindicated when former Secretary of Defense William Perry 
witnessed at sea tests of the cooperative engagement 
capability, a main target of the Committee's interest. He 
called cooperative engagement ``the most significant 
technological development since stealth'' and directed that the 
program be accelerated. In the most recent tests using 
cooperative engagement, 17 of 19 missile shots were direct 
hits, at much farther distances than can be achieved by Aegis 
ships today, and in one case the ship firing its missiles in 
self-defense could not even see the target due to radar 
jamming. In hearings during the past few years, the Committee 
has commended Navy officials for their attention to committee 
direction on ship self defense programs.
    In the fiscal year 1998 budget, something went awry. The 
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and 
Acquisition testified to the Committee this year that the 
Navy's budget continues ``an all out effort to protect our 
Sailors and Marines serving aboard ships against missile 
attack''. Yet, the Navy's budget is a considerable step 
backward in terms of achieving this objective. Many ship 
defense programs that have longstanding yet unfulfilled 
warfighting requirements and which have successfully completed 
R&D have no funds requested in the fiscal year 1998 budget 
ostensibly due to lack of funds. Among those are installation 
of cooperative engagement capability on two surface battle 
groups, ship self defense upgrades on two amphibious assault 
ships, and CIWS surface mode gun upgrades on 8 combatant ships 
to protect them against the terrorist patrol boat threat 
identified in the early 1990s. The Committee wonders how the 
Navy can rationalize no production funds for a system declared 
to be ``the most significant technological development since 
stealth'', after the system successfully reached initial 
operating capability and whose fielding was directed by the 
Secretary of Defense to be accelerated. The Navy also proposes 
to overhaul the U.S.S. Nimitz aircraft carrier without 
including $120,000,000 of necessary equipment that directly 
contributes to the ability of the ship to perform its mission 
and to defend thousands of her sailors against cruise missile 
attack, ostensibly due to lack of funds. The Navy also proposes 
a multiyear contract for 12 new DDG-51 destroyers which would 
be delivered to the fleet as late as 2006 without either 
cooperative engagement or theater ballistic missile defense 
capability, again ostensibly due to lack of funds.
    It is apparent to the Committee that ship self-defense and 
theater ballistic missile defense programs were given short 
shrift in the Navy's fiscal year 1998 budget due to the 
propensity of the Navy to request budget growth in (1) lower 
priority programs such as basic research, NATO R&D, studies, 
and (2) R&D for new platforms for every Naval community. The 
Committee's bill rectifies this misallocation of resources by 
providing an increase of $401,800,000 in R&D and procurement 
appropriations for ship self-defense and DDG-51 theater 
ballistic missile defense related programs, with attendant 
reductions to lower priority programs requested by the Navy.

                chemical and biological defense programs

    The Committee has expressed its concern for several years 
about the Department's slow response to organize more 
effectively and to provide adequate resources to combat the 
growing threat posed by the potential use of chemical and 
biological agents--both at home and abroad. The serious nature 
of this threat was well stated in the discussion of biological 
weapons contained in the 1997 Strategic Assessment report 
issued by the National Defense University:

             Biological Weapons--the New Weapon of Choice?

          Although often treated as less threatening than 
        nuclear weapons, increased attention is now being given 
        to the biological threat. Many of the Cold War 
        assumptions about the strategic and tactical utility of 
        biological weapons (BW) no longer appear valid. In 
        fact, given the diffusion of the dual-use technologies 
        involved, the pursuit of BW is now recognized as a 
        relatively cheap and easily available path to acquire a 
        weapon of mass destruction--the poor man's atomic bomb. 
        * * * It is possible for BW agents to inflict massive 
        casualties against soft targets such as cities to an 
        extent that rivals megaton nuclear weapons. Further, 
        because only small quantities of these highly lethal 
        agents are needed to achieve significant effects, an 
        aggressor can choose between multiple delivery modes 
        and attack options. Moreover, as the number of states 
        engaged in BW research has grown, the sophistication of 
        their work has also grown, leading to technical 
        advances (e.g., microencapsulation to produce more 
        stable agents for use over longer periods) that may 
        permit biological agents and toxins to be used in more 
        controlled fashion to advance military goals.

    The threat from chemical weapons, employed by organized 
militaries or by terrorist groups is also significant and 
growing. According to the same 1997 Strategic Assessment 
report:

          Chemical weapons are currently possessed by more 
        states than either biological or nuclear weapons, and 
        are the only one of the three to be used in the post-
        World War II era. * * * some experts tend to minimize 
        the potential consequences of CW use, arguing that CW 
        does not merit consideration as a weapon of mass 
        destruction. In fact, analysis suggests that CW use 
        against U.S. and allied forces and critical 
        infrastructure facilities can have a major impact on 
        the outcome of a major regional conflict.

    The danger that a terrorist group could acquire the 
capability to launch a CW or BW attack continues to exist. 
According to the May 1997 Report to Congress on the Activities 
and Programs for Countering Proliferation and NBC Terrorism, by 
the multiagency Counterproliferation Program Review Committee:

          U.S. Intelligence continues to assess and analyze the 
        threat of terrorist CW and BW attack, a threat that 
        remains ever present. The Aum Shinrikyo attacks in June 
        1994, in Matsumoto, Japan which killed seven and 
        injured 500, and on the Tokyo subway in March 1995, 
        which killed 12 and injured 5,500, were the first 
        instances of large scale terrorist use of CW agents, 
        but a variety of incidents and reports over the last 
        two years indicate continuing terrorist interest in 
        these weapons. * * * The fact that only 12 Japanese 
        died in the Tokyo subway attack has tended to mask the 
        significance of the 5,500 people who were treated or 
        examined at medical facilities. Such a massive influx 
        of injured--many critically--has the potential to 
        overwhelm emergency medical facilities, even in a large 
        metropolitan area.

    The Committee realizes that providing an effective 
chemical/biological defense program to combat both the military 
threat and the domestic terrorist threat is highly challenging. 
Effective action requires a multipronged approach that 
coordinates disparate activities within the Department and 
within other federal, state and local agencies in such areas as 
foreign and domestic intelligence; enforcement of 
counterproliferation policies and programs; medical research 
into vaccines, antidotes, and treatments; development and 
deployment of detection, warning and decontamination equipment; 
development of individual protection suits and collective 
shelters; training of military personnel and of federal, state 
and local ``first responders''; and systems to find and destroy 
CW and BW delivery systems.
    For the last several years, the Committee has added funding 
above the budget and mandated special studies to advance this 
effort. While progress has been slower than the Committee would 
have liked, the Committee is encouraged by the new emphasis 
being given to countering the threat of chemical and biological 
weapons in the Quadrennial Defense Review. The Secretary of 
Defense has committed in the QDR to spending an extra $1 
billion over the Future Years Defense Plan for nuclear, 
biological, and chemical weapons counterproliferation programs 
and to task the National Guard with a new mission for chemical/
biological defense in the United States. Just as important as 
these initiatives is the stated goal in the QDR of 
``institutionalizing counterproliferation as an organizing 
principle in every facet of military activity''. This is a key 
element of improving our CBW defenses. The Committee is pleased 
with the direction outlined in the QDR and will continue to 
press the Department to follow through with these commitments.
    In addition to fully funding the budget request on high 
priority chemical/biological defense programs, the Committee 
recommends increasing the budget request by $107,650,000 for 
various high priority research and development, procurement, 
and study requirements. This includes:
    $10,000,000 for procurement of chemical/biological 
detection and treatment equipment for the Marine Corps 
Chemical/Biological Incident Response Force;
    $1,300,000 for training and assistance to ``first 
responders'', bring the total recommended in the bill for this 
purpose to $50,000,000;
    $8,000,000 to develop new biological defense vaccines and 
antisera against botulinum toxins;
    $10,000,000 to develop advanced technologies for wide area 
decontamination and other decontamination priorities;
    $12,850,000 to purchase additional JSLIST individual 
protection suits and perform related research;
    $2,000,000 for research into novel nerve agents leading to 
antidotes and pretreatments.
    $20,000,000 for various types of special equipment for 
decontamination, collective protection, and treatment;
    $10,000,000 for detailed planning and concept studies to 
support a comprehensive effort to expand the National Guard 
mission into the area of chemical/biological domestic defense;
    $10,000,000 for high priority equipment needs identified by 
the Air Force Pacific Command;
    $17,700,000 for Air Force medical research into vaccines 
and antidotes; and
    $5,800,000 for the SAFEGUARD chemical warfare detection and 
monitoring system.

              Committee Recommendations By Major Category

                       active military personnel

    The Committee recommends a total of $60,136,801,000 for 
active military personnel, a reduction of $158,729,000 below 
the budget request. The Committee agrees with the authorized 
end strength as requested in the President's budget, and has 
also fully funded the proposed pay raise of 2.8 percent. In 
keeping with the emphasis on the quality of life initiatives 
started in fiscal year 1996, the Committee recommends an 
increase of approximately $56,000,000 for certain Pays and 
Allowances for active personnel, such as the Basic Allowance 
for Quarters and Family Separation Allowance.

                           guard and reserve

    The Committee recommends a total of $9,206,393,000, an 
increase of $90,161,000 above the budget request for Guard and 
Reserve personnel. The Committee agrees with the authorized end 
strength as requested in the President's budget for Selected 
Reserve, and has also fully funded the proposed pay raise of 
2.8 percent. The Committee recommends an increase of 
approximately $4,000,000 for Basic Allowance for Quarters for 
Reserve personnel. In addition, the Committee restores 
$85,000,000 in the Reserve accounts for pay of reservists who 
are also Federal civilian employees.

                       operation and maintenance

    The Operation and Maintenance appropriation provides for 
the readiness of U.S. forces as well as the maintenance of 
facilities and equipment, the infrastructure that supports the 
combat forces and the quality of life of Service members and 
their families.
    The Committee recommends $82,925,753,000, an increase of 
$644,813,000 above the fiscal year 1998 budget request. As 
described elsewhere in this report, this increase is driven 
primarily by the need to address shortfalls in: readiness 
training, Navy and Air Force flying hours, facility and 
infrastructure maintenance and repairs, and equipment 
maintenance. The Committee has also recommended budget 
reductions that can be taken by the Department as a result of 
the Quadrennial Defense Review and in such areas as 
headquarters and administrative operating costs and by taking 
advantage of fact of life changes since preparation of the 
budget request.

                              procurement

    The Committee recommends $45,515,962,000 in new 
obligational authority for Procurement, an increase of 
$3,930,784,000 over the fiscal year 1998 budget request. Major 
programs funded in the bill include:
          $309,231,000 for 30 UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters
          $474,832,000 for upgrades and modifications to Apache 
        helicopters
          $228,287,000 for 1,056 Hellfire missiles
          $143,112,000 for 1,080 Javelin missiles
          $240,591,000 for Bradley vehicle industrial base 
        sustainment
          $594,856,000 for upgrades to Abrams tanks
          $209,446,000 for medium tactical vehicles
          $302,164,000 for SINCGARS radios
          $2,101,100,000 for 20 F/A-18 E/F fighter aircraft
          $661,307,000 for 7 V-22 (Osprey) aircraft
          $304,474,000 for 4 E-2C early warning aircraft
          $243,960,000 for 12 T-45 trainer aircraft
          $1,632,544,000 for the modification of naval aircraft
          $181,092,000 for 127 Standard missiles
          $2,314,903,000 for 1 new SSN attack submarine
          $1,628,403,000 for 1 carrier refueling overhaul
          $2,695,367,000 for 3 DDG-51 destroyers
          $505,286,000 for B-2 aircraft
          $159,000,000 for 3 F-15 fighter aircraft
          $1,914,211,000 for 9 C-17 airlift aircraft
          $1,464,861,000 for modification of Air Force aircraft
          $107,168,000 for 173 AMRAAM missiles
          $384,600,000 for Ballistic Missile Defense

               research, development, test and evaluation

    The Committee recommends $36,704,924,000 in new 
obligational authority for Research, Development, Test and 
Evaluation, an increase of $770,433,000 from the fiscal year 
1998 budget request. Major programs funded in the bill include 
the following:
          $324,380,000 for artillery system development
          $282,009,000 for the Comanche helicopter
          $202,302,000 for the Brilliant Anti-Armor Submunition
          $930,807,000 for the Joint Strike Fighter
          $396,500,000 for the New Attack Submarine
          $2,077,234,000 for the F-22 tactical aircraft
          $676,690,000 for the MILSTAR communications satellite
          $3,289,059,000 for Ballistic Missile Defense

                         Forces to be Supported

                         department of the army

    The fiscal year 1998 budget is designed to support active 
Army forces of 10 divisions, 3 armored cavalry regiments, and 
reserve forces of 8 divisions, 3 separate brigades, and 15 
enhanced National Guard brigades. These forces provide the 
minimum force necessary to meet enduring defense needs and 
execute the National Military Strategy.
    A summary of the major active forces follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Fiscal year--      
                                              --------------------------
                                                 1996     1997     1998 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Divisions:                                                              
    Airborne.................................        1        1        1
    Air Assault..............................        1        1        1
    Light....................................        2        2        2
    Infantry.................................        0        0        0
    Mechanized...............................        4        4        4
    Armored..................................        2        2        2
                                              --------------------------
      Total..................................       10       10       10
                                              --------------------------
Non-divisional Combat units:                                            
    Armored cavalry regiments................        3        3        3
    Separate brigades........................        0        0        0
                                              --------------------------
      Total..................................        3        3        3
                                              --------------------------
Active duty military personnel, end strength                            
 (thousands).................................      495      495      495
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         department of the navy

    The fiscal year 1998 budget supports battle forces totaling 
346 ships at the end of fiscal year 1998, a decrease from 
fiscal year 1997. Forces in fiscal year 1998 include 18 
strategic ships, 11 aircraft carriers; 262 other battle force 
ships, 324 support ships, reserve force ships, 1,746 Navy/
Marine Corps tactical/ASW aircraft, 673 Undergraduate Training 
aircraft, 443 Fleet Air Support aircraft, 480 Fleet Air 
Training aircraft, 443 Reserve aircraft, 177 RDT&E aircraft and 
470 aircraft in the pipeline.
    A summary of the major forces follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal year           
                                     -----------------------------------
                                         1996        1997        1998   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic Forces....................          17          18          18
                                     -----------------------------------
    Submarines......................          17          18          18
    Other...........................           0           0           0
                                     ===================================
SLBM Launchers (MIR)................         408         432         432
                                     ===================================
General Purpose.....................         301         297         297
    Aircraft Carriers...............          11          11          11
    Surface Combatants..............         116         119         116
    Submarines......................          80          73          66
    Amphibious Warfare Ships........          42          43          41
    Combat Logistics Ships..........          41          40          41
    Other...........................          11          11          11
                                     ===================================
Support Forces......................          29          24          24
                                     -----------------------------------
    Mobile Logistics Ships..........           6           4           4
    Support Ships...................          23          20          20
                                     ===================================
Mobilization Category A.............          18          18          18
                                     -----------------------------------
    Aircraft Carriers...............           1           1           1
    Surface Combatants..............          10          10          10
    Amphibious Warfare Ships........           2           2           2
    Mine Warfare....................           5           5           5
                                     ===================================
      Total Ships, Battle Force.....         365         357         346
                                     ===================================
      Total Local Defense/Misc.                                         
       Forces.......................         159         165         167
                                     -----------------------------------
Auxiliaries/Sealift Forces..........         135         143         144
Surface Combatant Ships.............           5           3           2
Coastal Defense.....................          13          13          13
    Research and Development........         191         228  ..........
Mobilization Category B.............           3           6           8
    Surface Combatants..............           0           0           0
    Mine Warfare Ships..............           3           6           8
    Support Ships...................           0           0           0
                                     ===================================
Naval Aircraft:                                                         
    Primary Authorized (Plus-Pipe)..       4,130       4,072       4,104
                                     -----------------------------------
    Authorized Pipeline.............         464         465         470
    Tactical/ASW Aircraft...........       1,756       1,730       1,746
    Fleet Air Training..............         474         475         480
    Fleet Air Support...............         323         303         292
    Training (Undergraduate)........         654         654         673
    Reserve.........................         459         445         443
                                     ===================================
Naval Personnel:                                                        
    Active..........................     602,000     580,900     564,082
                                     -----------------------------------
      Navy..........................     428,000     406,900     390,082
      Marine Corps..................     174,000     174,000     174,000
                                     ===================================
Reserve:                                                                
    Navy............................      96,608      95,941      94,294
                                     -----------------------------------
      SELRES........................      80,920      79,285      78,158
      Sea/Air Mariners..............         198         150  ..........
      TARS..........................      17,490      16,506      16,506
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      department of the air force

    The fiscal year 1998 Air Force budget was designed to 
support a total active inventory force structure of 51 fighter 
and attack squadrons, 10 Air National Guard air defense 
interceptor squadrons and 9 bomber squadrons, including B-2s, 
B-52s, and B-1s. The Minuteman and Peacekeeper ICBM forces will 
consist of 700 active launchers.
    A summary of the major forces follows:

                      FISCAL YEAR 1998 MAJOR FORCES                     
                 [Includes only Combat Coded Squadrons]                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            1996       1997       1998  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USAF fighter and attack (Active).......         51         52         51
USAF fighter and attack (ANG and AFRC).         36         36         36
Air defense interceptor (ANG)..........         10         10         10
Strategic bomber (Active)..............          8          9          9
Strategic bomber (ANG and AFRC)........          3          3          3
ICBM launchers/silos...................        700        700        700
ICBM missile boosters..................        580        580        580
USAF airlift squadrons (Active):                                        
    Strategic airlift..................         15         13         13
    Tactical airlift...................         11         11          9
                                        --------------------------------
      Total airlift....................         26         24         22
                                        --------------------------------
      Total Active Inventory \1\.......      6,369      6,337      6,242
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Primary, Backup, and Attrition Reserve Aircraft for all    
  Purpose Identifiers for Active, Air National Guard, and Air Force     
  Reserve.                                                              



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 End strength                       1997         1998   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active Duty...................................      381,087      371,577
Reserve Component.............................      182,489      180,786
Air National Guard............................      109,178      107,355
Air Force Reserve.............................       73,311       73,431
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Special Interest Items

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

                 Government Performance and Results Act

    The Committee considers the full and effective 
implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act, 
P.L. 103-62, to be a priority for all agencies of government.
    Starting with fiscal year 1999, the Results Act requires 
each agency to ``prepare an annual performance plan covering 
each program activity set forth in the budget of such agency''. 
Specifically, for each program activity the agency is required 
to ``establish performance goals to define the level of 
performance to be achieved by a program activity'' and 
``performance indicators to be used in assessing the relevant 
outputs, service levels, and outcomes of each program 
activity''.
    The Committee takes this requirement of the Results Act 
very seriously and plans to carefully examine agency 
performance goals and measures during the appropriations 
process. As a result, starting with the fiscal year 1999 
appropriations cycle, the Committee will consider agencies 
progress in articulating clear, definitive, and results-
oriented (outcome) goals and measures as it reviews requests 
for appropriations.
    The Committee suggests agencies examine their program 
activities in light of their strategic goals to determine 
whether any changes or realignments would facilitate a more 
accurate and informed presentation of budgetary information. 
Agencies are encouraged to consult with the Committee as they 
consider such revisions prior to finalizing any requests 
pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1104. The Committee will consider any 
requests with a view toward ensuring that fiscal year 1999 and 
subsequent budget submissions display amounts requested against 
program activity structures for which annual performance goals 
and measures have been established.
                                TITLE I

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL

  Programs and Activities Funded by Military Personnel Appropriations

    The President's budget request reflects a continuation in 
the drawdown of military personnel and force structure. The 
budget proposes a decrease of 21,000 active duty personnel, and 
10,000 Reserve and Guard personnel from fiscal year 1997 
levels. The Department's reductions in active end strength is 
about 98.8 percent complete at the end of fiscal year 1998. The 
Committee recommends to fully fund the proposed 2.8 percent pay 
increase, and includes an increase of approximately $60,000,000 
over the budget request for Basic Allowance for Quarters and 
Family Separation Allowance.

   SUMMARY OF MILITARY PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998

Fiscal year 1997.....................................    $70,016,500,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request......................     69,411,762,000
Fiscal year 1998 recommendation......................     69,343,194,000
Change from budget request...........................        -68,568,000
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$69,343,194,000 for the Military Personnel accounts. The 
recommendation is a decrease of $673,306,000 below the 
$70,016,500,000 appropriated in fiscal year 1997. These 
military personnel budget total comparisons include 
appropriations for the active, reserve, and National Guard 
accounts. The following tables include a summary of the 
recommendations by appropriation account. Explanations of 
changes from the budget request appear later in this section.

           SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT OF THE FISCAL YEAR 1998 MILITARY PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATION           
                                            [In thousands of dollars)                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Account                              Budget          Recommendation    Change from budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Personnel:                                                                                             
    Army............................................         $20,492,257         $20,445,381            -$46,876
    Navy............................................          16,501,118          16,504,911              +3,793
    Marine Corps....................................           6,147,599           6,141,635              -5,964
    Air Force.......................................          17,154,556          17,044,874            -109,682
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Active..............................          60,295,530          60,136,801            -158,729
Reserve Personnel:                                                                                              
    Army............................................           2,024,446           2,045,615             +21,169
    Navy............................................           1,375,401           1,377,249              +1,848
    Marine Corps....................................             381,070             391,953             +10,883
    Air Force.......................................             814,936             814,772                -164
National Guard Personnel:                                                                                       
    Army............................................           3,200,667           3,245,387             +44,720
    Air Force.......................................           1,319,712           1,331,417             +11,705
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Guard and Reserve...................           9,116,232           9,206,223             +90,161
                                                     ===========================================================
      Total, Title I................................          69,411,762          69,343,194             -68,568
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fiscal year 1998 budget request included a decrease of 
20,721 end strength for the active forces and a decrease of 
10,781 end strength for the selected reserve over fiscal year 
1997 authorized levels.
    The Committee recommends the following levels highlighted 
in the tables below.

                      Overall Active End Strength

Fiscal year 1997 estimate.............................         1,452,100
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................         1,431,379
Fiscal year 1998 House authorization..................         1,445,000
Fiscal year 1998 recommendation.......................         1,431,379
    Compared with Fiscal year 1997....................           -20,721
    Compared with Fiscal year 1998 budget request.....  ................
                                                                        

                 Overall Selected Reserve End Strength

Fiscal year 1997 estimate.............................           902,399
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................           891,618
Fiscal year 1998 House authorization..................           891,618
Fiscal year 1998 recommendation.......................           891,685
    Compared with Fiscal year 1997....................           -10,781
    Compared with Fiscal year 1998 budget request.....               +67
                                                                        


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Fiscal year 1998                    
                                          Fiscal year ----------------------------------------------------------
                                             1997         Budget         House                       Change from
                                           estimate       request    authorization  Recommendation     request  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active Forces (end strength):                                                                                   
    Army...............................       495,000       495,000        495,000        495,000   ............
    Navy...............................       402,013       390,802        395,000        390,802   ............
    Marine Corps.......................       174,000       174,000        174,000        174,000   ............
    Air Force..........................       381,087       371,577        381,000        371,577   ............
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Active Force..............     1,452,100     1,431,379      1,445,000      1,431,379   ............
                                        ========================================================================
Guard and Reserve (end strength):                                                                               
    Army Reserve.......................       215,254       208,000        208,000        208,000   ............
    Navy Reserve.......................        95,898        94,294         94,294         94,326            +32
    Marine Corps Reserve...............        42,000        42,000         42,000         42,000   ............
    Air Force Reserve..................        73,311        73,431         73,431         73,466            +35
    Army National Guard................       366,758       366,516        366,516        366,516   ............
    Air National Guard.................       109,178       107,377        107,377        107,377   ............
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Guard and Reserve.........       902,399       891,618        891,618        891,685            +67
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               Adjustments to Military Personnel Account

                                overview

                      special pays and allowances

    The Committee recommends a total increase of $35,000,000 
for Basic Allowance for Quarters, a housing allowance, to help 
offset the ``out-of-pocket'' costs to service members when they 
change duty stations, and for living in high-cost geographical 
areas. In addition, the Committee recommends an increase of 
$25,000,000 for Family Separation Allowances, an allowance paid 
to members on temporary duty (TDY) status. The House-passed 
Defense Authorization bill approved an increase in the monthly 
rate of this allowance from $75 to $100 per month.

                        end strength adjustments

    The Committee agrees with the fiscal year 1998 budget 
request on active and Reserve end strength levels, a reduction 
of approximately 31,000 over fiscal year 1997 authorized 
personnel levels. In addition, based on the latest end strength 
levels provided by the Department, the Services, primarily the 
Army and Navy, will begin fiscal year 1998 with approximately 
12,000 fewer military personnel on-board than budgeted, which 
means the 1998 pay and allowances requirements are overstated. 
Therefore, the Committee recommends an understrength reduction 
of $214,700,000 to the budget request.

                  temporary early retirement authority

    The Committee recommends a total reduction of $184,738,000 
to the Army and Air Force budget requests as a result of the 
suspension of the 15-year Temporary Early Retirement Authority 
during fiscal year 1998, as proposed in the House-passed 
Defense Authorization bill.

                            foreign currency

    The President recently submitted a fiscal year 1998 budget 
amendment, which reduced the active duty military personnel 
accounts by a total of $62,000,000 for foreign currency 
savings. This amendment to the budget was proposed in order to 
cover a shortfall in the Defense Health Program. The Committee 
agrees there are more savings due to favorable fluctuations in 
overseas exchange rates and recommends a total reduction of 
$68,000,000 for foreign currency, an additional reduction of 
$6,000,000 to the Services' personnel accounts.

                     contingency operations funding

    The budget request recommends $213,600,000 for pay and 
allowances of military personnel in the ``Overseas Contingency 
Operations Transfer Fund'', for cost of operations in Bosnia 
during fiscal year 1998. The Committee does not agree to the 
realignment of these funds, and has increased the Services 
military personnel accounts by this amount.

                    military personnel compensation

    The House-passed Defense Authorization bill has included 
numerous recommendations that would affect military personnel 
compensation and benefits for fiscal year 1998. The Committee 
supports the intent of the House National Security Committee's 
recommendations which raises rates for current allowances; 
however Committee's practice has been not to appropriate funds 
for pending changes to entitlements. Implementation of these 
changes is usually left to the discretion of the Department, 
and the precise costs during the initial year of implementation 
are not known as a result. The Committee will entertain a 
prior-approval reprogramming action if the Department decides 
to implement any recommendations which are enacted into law.

                 personal financial management training

    The Committee believes that an increasing number of young 
men and women joining the Services have inadequate knowledge 
and understanding of the skills required for personal financial 
management and fiscal responsibility. Many recruits lack the 
basic skills required for checkbook or credit card management 
resulting in growing levels of bankruptcy and indebtedness. 
This lack of knowledge can have a significant impact on the 
readiness of the force when individuals leave the military or 
suffer family troubles due to financial problems. The Committee 
believes that the Department should develop and implement a 
standardized course curriculum for all new officers and 
enlisted personnel in all Services covering the basic skills of 
personal financial management. The Committee directs the 
Department to report by December 15, 1997 on actions taken to 
correct this problem.

                          ``aim high'' program

    The ``Aim High'' program in eastern Washington state 
promotes citizenship and scholarship while reducing drug use 
among youths through interaction with military facilities. The 
Committee believes that the military services can provide an 
excellent model of self-discipline and responsibility for 
students, and opportunities to visit military installations can 
be an effective recruiting tool, as well as a powerful 
incentive for students to refrain from illegal drug use. The 
Committee urges the Department to continue to support similar 
initiatives within the constraints of available resources.

                      full-time support strengths

    There are four categories of full-time support in the Guard 
and Reserve components: civilian technicians, active Guard and 
Reserve (AGR), non-technician civilians, and active component 
personnel.
    Full-time support personnel organize, recruit, train, 
maintain and administer the Reserve components. Civilian 
(Military) technicians directly support units, and are very 
important to help units maintain readiness and meet the wartime 
mission of the Army and Air Force.
    Full-time support end strength in all categories totalled 
152,950 in fiscal year 1997. The fiscal year 1998 budget 
request is 150,484. The following table summarizes Guard and 
Reserve full-time support end strengths:

                                    GUARD AND RESERVE FULL-TIME END STRENGTHS                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              FY 1997       Budget        House                      Change from
                                              estimate     request    authorization  Recommendation    request  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Reserve:                                                                                                   
    AGR...................................       11,804       11,500        11,500          11,500   ...........
    Technicians...........................        6,799        6,501         6,799           6,501   ...........
Navy Reserve TAR..........................       16,626       16,136        16,136          16,168           +32
Marine Corps Reserve......................        2,559        2,559         2,559           2,559   ...........
Air Force Reserve:                                                                                              
    AGR...................................          655          963           748             963   ...........
    Technicians...........................        9,802        9,622         9,802           9,638           +16
Army National Guard:                                                                                            
    AGR...................................       22,798       22,310        22,310          22,310   ...........
    Technicians...........................       25,500       25,250        25,384          25,250   ...........
Air National Guard:                                                                                             
    AGR...................................       10,403       10,616        10,616          10,616   ...........
    Technicians...........................       23,274       22,968        23,247          22,968   ...........
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total                                                                                                     
    AGR/TAR...............................       64,845       64,084        63,869          64,116           +32
    Technicians...........................       65,375       64,341        65,232          64,357           +16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     MILITARY LEAVE FOR RESERVISTS

    The budget request recommended a reduction to the Reserve 
personnel accounts pursuant to a legislative proposal placing a 
limitation on military basic pay of Federal civilian employees 
who are Reservists. The House-passed Defense Authorization bill 
did not contain this proposal, and therefore, the Committee 
recommends restoring $85,000,000 to the Reserve personnel 
accounts to fully fund their basic pay.

                        MILITARY PERSONNEL, ARMY

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation......................     $20,633,998,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.....................      20,492,257,000
Committee recommendation............................      20,445,381,000
Change from budget request..........................         -46,876,000
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$20,445,381,000 for Military Personnel, Army. The 
recommendation is a decrease of $188,617,000 below the 
$20,633,998,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1997. The 
adjustments to the fiscal year 1998 budget request are as 
follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
                                                                        
Basic Allowance for Quarters..........................           +10,326
Foreign Currency Savings..............................            -4,000
Temporary Early Retirement Authority..................           -36,902
Service Academies Foreign Students....................            -1,000
Personnel Understrength Savings.......................          -183,100
Family Separation Allowance...........................            +9,600
Contingency Operations Transfer--Bosnia...............          +158,200
                                                       -----------------
      Total...........................................           -46,876
                                                                        

                        MILITARY PERSONNEL, NAVY

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation......................     $16,986,976,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.....................      16,501,118,000
Committee recommendation............................      16,504,911,000
Change from budget request..........................          +3,793,000
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$16,504,911,000 for Military Personnel, Navy. The 
recommendation is a decrease of $482,065,000 below the 
$16,986,976,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1997. The 
adjustments to the fiscal year 1998 budget request are as 
follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
                                                                        
Basic Allowance for Quarters..........................            +9,393
Foreign Currency Savings..............................            -1,000
Service Academies Foreign Students....................            -1,000
Personnel Understrength Savings.......................           -10,000
Unemployment Compensation Savings.....................           -10,000
Family Separation Allowance...........................            +9,300
Contingency Operations Transfer--Bosnia...............            +7,100
                                                       -----------------
      Total...........................................            +3,793
                                                                        

                    MILITARY PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation......................      $6,111,728,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.....................       6,147,599,000
Committee recommendation............................       6,141,635,000
Change from budget request..........................          -5,964,000
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,141,635,000 
for Military Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an 
increase of $29,907,000 above the $6,111,728,000 appropriated 
for fiscal year 1997. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1998 
budget request are as follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
                                                                        
Basic Allowance for Quarters..........................            +2,736
Personnel Understrength Savings.......................            -3,600
Unemployment Compensation Savings.....................           -10,000
Family Separation Allowance...........................            +3,600
Contingency Operations Transfer--Bosnia...............            +1,300
                                                       -----------------
      Total...........................................            -5,964
                                                                        

                     MILITARY PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation......................     $17,069,490,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.....................      17,154,556,000
Committee recommendation............................      17,044,874,000
Change from budget request..........................        -109,682,000
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$17,044,874,000 for Military Personnel, Air Force. The 
recommendation is a decrease of $24,616,000 below the 
$17,069,490,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1997. The 
adjustments to the fiscal year 1998 budget request are as 
follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
                                                                        
Basic Allowance for Quarters..........................            +8,654
Foreign Currency Savings..............................            -1,000
Temporary Early Retirement Authority..................          -147,836
Service Academies Foreign Students....................            -1,000
Personnel Understrength Savings.......................           -18,000
Family Separation Allowance...........................            +2,500
Contingency Operations Transfer--Bosnia...............           +47,000
                                                       -----------------
      Total...........................................          -109,682
                                                                        

                        RESERVE PERSONNEL, ARMY

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................    $2,073,479,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................     2,024,446,000
Committee recommendation..............................     2,045,615,000
Change from budget request............................       +21,169,000
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,045,615,000 
for Reserve Personnel, Army. The recommendation is a decrease 
of $27,864,000 below the $2,073,479,000 appropriated for fiscal 
year 1997. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1998 budget 
request are as follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
                                                                        
Unit Readiness/Training...............................            +8,000
Basic Allowance for Quarters..........................              +569
Reserve Duty Drill Pay................................           +20,400
Health Scholarship Stipend............................            -7,800
                                                       -----------------
      Total...........................................           +21,169
                                                                        

                        RESERVE PERSONNEL, NAVY

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................    $1,405,606,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................     1,375,401,000
Committee recommendation..............................     1,377,249,000
Change from budget request............................        +1,848,000
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,377,249,000 
for Reserve Personnel, Navy. The recommendation is a decrease 
of $28,357,000 below the $1,405,606,000 appropriated for fiscal 
year 1997. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1998 budget 
request are as follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
                                                                        
Basic Allowance for Quarters..........................              +648
Reserve Duty Drill Pay................................            +8,500
Magic Lantern Aircraft................................            +1,700
Health Scholarship Stipend............................            -9,000
                                                       -----------------
      Total...........................................            +1,848
                                                                        

                             magic lantern

    The Committee recommends an increase of $1,700,000 over the 
request in ``Reserve Personnel, Navy'', and $1,300,000 in 
``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'' to provide additional 
personnel, and operational and training costs in support of the 
Magic Lantern airborne mine detection system.

                          NAVY RESERVE FORCES

    The Committee is very concerned about possible Navy Program 
Review 99 (PR-99) recommendations that would make major 
reductions in Navy Reserve hardware and combat/warfare 
missions. The Committee would find such recommendations 
unacceptable and continues to believe the Navy Reserve and 
other Reserve components should remain a viable component of 
the Total Force. The Navy Reserve and other Reserve components 
are able to retain force structure and equipment at lower cost 
than their active counterparts. The Navy Reserve consumes only 
three percent of the ``total Navy's'' budget, yet comprises 
nearly 20 percent of the force structure. Elimination of or 
serious reductions in the remaining Navy Reserve Air Wing, or 
the reliance on ``augment'' crews with no hardware for Navy 
Reserve Air Wing, or the reliance on ``augment'' crews with no 
hardware for Navy Reserve P-3 squadrons, would result in 
detrimental problems for active and reserve Navy forces, 
seriously increase active PERSTEMPO, and result in the loss of 
an experienced cadre of Reserve personnel. Reductions in the 
Navy Reserve surface fleet, or denying new surface fleet 
missions to the Navy Reserve, would adversely impact active 
fleet manning and surface warfare capabilities.
    The Committee is aware that the Navy Reserve continues to 
right-size its forces in lean budget years, and urges the 
Secretary of the Navy not to further reduce Navy Reserve 
forces. The Navy Reserve has already downsized more and faster 
than any active or Reserve component, having reduced force 
structure well over 30 percent since 1990. The Committee 
strongly supports the current Navy Reserve missions, and fully 
expects the Secretary of the Navy to consult with Congress 
prior to any final recommendations that may further reduce Navy 
Reserve forces.

                    RESERVE PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................      $388,643,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................       381,070,000
Committee recommendation..............................       391,953,000
Change from budget request............................       +10,883,000
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $391,953,000 
for Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an 
increase of $3,310,000 above the $388,643,000 appropriated for 
fiscal year 1997. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1998 
budget request are as follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
                                                                        
Annual Training/School Tours..........................            +7,000
Basic Allowance for Quarters..........................              +183
Reserve Duty Drill Pay................................            +3,700
                                                       -----------------
      Total...........................................           +10,883
                                                                        

                      RESERVE PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................      $783,697,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................       814,936,000
Committee recommendation..............................       814,772,000
Change from budget request............................          -164,000
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $814,772,000 
for Reserve Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an 
increase of $31,075,000 above the $783,697,000 appropriated for 
fiscal year 1997. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1998 
budget request are as follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
                                                                        
Basic Allowance for Quarters..........................              +266
Reserve Duty Drill Pay................................            +8,200
Health Scholarship Stipend............................            -8,800
WC-130 Weather Reconn.................................              +170
                                                       -----------------
      Total...........................................              -164
                                                                        

                     NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, ARMY

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................    $3,266,393,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................     3,200,667,000
Committee recommendation..............................     3,245,387,000
Change from budget request............................       +44,720,000
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,245,387,000 
for National Guard Personnel, Army. The recommendation is a 
decrease of $21,006,000 below the $3,266,393,000 appropriated 
for fiscal year 1997. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1998 
budget request are as follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
                                                                        
School/Special Training...............................           +10,000
Basic Allowance for Quarters..........................            +1,520
Reserve Duty Drill Pay................................           +33,200
                                                       -----------------
      Total...........................................           +44,720
                                                                        

                  NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................    $1,296,490,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................     1,319,712,000
Committee recommendation..............................     1,331,417,000
Change from budget request............................       +11,705,000
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,331,417,000 
for National Guard Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is 
an increase of $34,927,000 above the $1,296,490,000 
appropriated for fiscal year 1997. The adjustments to the 
fiscal year 1998 budget request are as follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
                                                                        
Basic Allowance for Quarters..........................              +705
Reserve Duty Drill Pay................................           +11,000
                                                       -----------------
      Total...........................................           +11,705
                                                                        

                                TITLE II

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

    The fiscal year 1998 budget request for Operation and 
maintenance is $82,280,940,000 in new budget authority, which 
is an increase of $3,117,718,000 above the amount appropriated 
in fiscal year 1997. The request also includes a $150,000,000 
cash transfer from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction 
Fund.
    The accompanying bill recommends $82,925,753,000 for fiscal 
year 1998, which is an increase of $644,813,000 from the budget 
request. In addition, the Committee recommends that 
$150,000,000 be transferred from the National Defense Stockpile 
Transaction Fund.
    These appropriations finance the costs of operating and 
maintaining the Armed Forces, including the reserve components 
and related support activities of the Department of Defense 
(DoD), except military personnel costs. Included are pay for 
civilians, services for maintenance of equipment and 
facilities, fuel, supplies and spare parts for weapons and 
equipment. Financial requirements are influenced by many 
factors, including force levels such as the number of aircraft 
squadrons, Army and Marine Corps divisions, installations, 
military personnel strength and deployments, rates of 
operational activity, and the quantity and complexity of 
equipment such as aircraft, ships, missiles and tanks in 
operation.

                   OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OVERVIEW

    While the Department has provided robust funding in the 
Operation and maintenance accounts to maintain the combat 
readiness of U.S. forces, the Committee notes that there are 
critical funding shortfalls in the fiscal year 1998 budget 
request. Further, the Committee is concerned that these 
shortfalls may pose a serious near term risk to the 
capabilities of U.S. forces. These shortfalls are evident in a 
number of functions financed by the Operation and maintenance 
accounts including readiness related training, operating tempo 
programs, weapons system maintenance, and real property 
maintenance. To correct these deficiencies, the Committee 
recommends increased funding over the budget request in a 
number of areas including: Navy and Air Force flying hours, 
depot maintenance, real property maintenance, training 
rotations, force protection, and inclement weather gear and 
other initial issue equipment.
    The Committee also notes that there are areas in the 
Operation and maintenance accounts where substantial savings 
are achievable. Given the widely recognized need to modernize 
the equipment available to U.S. forces by increasing funding in 
the procurement, and research and development accounts, the 
Committee believes it is imperative that the Department use its 
Operation and maintenance funding as efficiently as possible. 
Therefore, the Committee recommends certain reductions based on 
recent DoD policy changes, particularly those emphasized in the 
Quadrennial Defense Review, and fact of life changes that have 
occurred since preparation of the budget request.
    The table summarizes the Committee's recommendations:



                       real property maintenance

    The Committee has continuing concerns about the state of 
the facilities in DoD, and the effect that such facilities have 
on the quality of life of U.S. service personnel. The overview 
of the DoD Operation and maintenance accounts indicates that in 
fiscal year 1998, the backlog of real property maintenance and 
minor construction will total over $16,000,000,000. The 
overview also shows the backlog growing by over $1,600,000,000 
from fiscal year 1997 to 1998. In order to arrest the growth in 
the backlog of RPM and address the shortfalls identified by the 
Services and the Reserve components, the Committee recommends 
an increase over the budget request of $924,840,000. Of this 
amount, the Committee directs that the Department obligate not 
less than $360,000,000 for the maintenance and repair of 
barracks, dormitories, and related facilities.

                         flying hour shortfall

    In the letter transmitting the Quadrennial Defense Review, 
the Secretary of Defense highlighted a significant shortfall in 
the budget request associated with Navy and Air Force flying 
hours. The Committee understands that this shortfall stems 
primarily from significantly higher than anticipated failure 
rates for a number of critical parts. To ensure that an 
adequate supply of parts is available to support the 
operational and readiness training requirements of the Navy and 
Air Force, the Committee recommends an increase over the budget 
request totaling $622,000,000. The Committee also directs that 
the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the Air Force 
each provide a report to the congressional defense committees 
not later that December 1, 1997. In addition to providing the 
data provided pursuant to the issues raised in the report 
accompanying the fiscal year 1998 Defense Authorization bill, 
this report should identify the specific causes of this 
shortfall, the method used to estimate the cost of flying 
hours, the measures that will be taken to correct this 
situation in the fiscal year 1999 budget request and over the 
Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), and any proposed measures 
that may be needed to improve the models used to estimate spare 
and repair parts usage and flying hour costs.

                           readiness training

    The budget request for readiness related training in both 
the Army and the Marine Corps has significant shortfalls 
addressed by the Committee's recommendations. The Army budget 
request calls for units that are scheduled to conduct rotations 
at the National Training Center (NTC) to absorb the cost of 
such rotations. In the Committee's view this is a significant 
policy change that has the effect of reducing funding to 
maintain the readiness of the Army's combat units. To address 
this situation as well as shortfalls identified by the Marine 
Corps, the Committee recommends an increase totaling 
$99,013,000 above the budget request. In addition, the 
Committee directs that the Army fully fund rotations to the NTC 
in the fiscal year 1999 and subsequent years budget requests.

                           DEPOT MAINTENANCE

    The Committee continues to have concerns about DoD 
practices for the funding of depot maintenance. For example, in 
the fiscal year 1998 budget request, the financial backlog of 
depot maintenance totals nearly $1,500,000,000, and grows by 
$180,000,000 from fiscal year 1997 to 1998. Further, the 
Services continue to routinely fund significantly less than the 
minimum amounts needed to meet depot maintenance requirements; 
for example, the Army budget request for fiscal year 1998 funds 
only 58 percent of required depot maintenance. To address these 
shortfalls, the Committee recommends an increase of 
$473,300,000 above the budget request.

                 QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEW REDUCTIONS

    The Committee notes that the Quadrennial Defense Review 
(QDR) proposes reducing the civilian workforce by 80,000 
personnel from fiscal year 1998 through 2003. The Committee 
also recognizes that, due to the timing of the completion and 
release of this study, the Department did not have an 
opportunity to incorporate the results into the fiscal year 
1998 budget request. The Committee commends the Department for 
embarking on a serious effort to reduce the size of the DoD 
support infrastructure and accordingly recommends a net 
reduction of $307,273,000 from the budget request for the 
Services and Defense-Wide activities in anticipation of several 
QDR-related savings initiatives described in detail in 
subsequent portions of this report. The Committee also 
recommends a restructuring reserve, discussed elsewhere in this 
report, to ease the burden of reducing the size of the civilian 
workforce.

                 HEADQUARTERS AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS

    In addition to the QDR initiatives discussed elsewhere in 
this report, the Committee notes that the Department of Defense 
continues to maintain an excessive administrative and 
headquarters infrastructure. Based on fiscal year 1998 budget 
justification materials, the Department reports that it 
maintains a headquarters and administrative staff totaling over 
42,000 personnel and costing nearly $3 billion per year. The 
Committee also observes that the number of personnel assigned 
to administrative and headquarters activities is relatively 
constant compared to the overall 3.5 percent reduction proposed 
for DoD civilian personnel from fiscal year 1997 to 1998. To 
equalize the rate of reduction in the headquarters and 
administrative activities as compared to other activities in 
the Department, the Committee recommends a reduction of 
$149,443,000 from the budget request.

                        INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS

    The Committee observes significant growth in the industrial 
preparedness subactivity in the Operation and maintenance 
accounts of the Army, Navy and Air Force. Based on the 
recommendations of the Quadrennial Defense Review to 
significantly reduce the infrastructure maintained by the 
Department of Defense, the growth in these subactivities 
appears to be out of step with the DoD strategy. Therefore, the 
Committee recommends a reduction of $52,602,000 from the budget 
request.

                     CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS FUNDING

    The Committee notes the Department's decision to exclude 
operations in Southwest Asia from the ``Overseas Contingency 
Operations Transfer Fund''. The Department realigned funding 
for these operations on the grounds that they have become part 
of the recurring base of DoD activity. While the Committee 
recognizes that U.S. operations in Southwest Asia do not have a 
definitive end date, the Committee believes that separately 
identifying the cost of such operations provides valuable 
insight into the amount budgeted to meet U.S. commitments.
    Therefore, the Committee has realigned the Operation and 
maintenance budget authority requested to support Southwest 
Asia, and placed these funds in the ``Overseas Contingency 
Operations Transfer Fund''. The Committee directs that DoD 
budget for all future operations costs for Southwest Asia, and 
all other contingency operations in the ``Overseas Contingency 
Operations Transfer Fund''. Further, the Committee directs that 
in all future budget requests, DoD shall support the request 
for all contingency operations by detailing the amount required 
in each appropriation account for each operation within each 
theater of operations. In addition, the Committee directs that 
in all future supplemental requests the Department provide 
detailed data on the incremental funding required for each 
appropriation account for each operation within each theater of 
operations.

          reprogramming in operation and maintenance accounts

    The Committee supports the concerns on the reprogramming of 
Operation and maintenance funds as expressed in the report 
accompanying the House-passed Defense Authorization bill for 
fiscal year 1998 (House Report 105-132). In particular, the 
Committee is concerned by the mounting volume of audit 
materials prepared by the General Accounting Office and other 
audit organizations which highlights the annual migration of 
Operation and maintenance funds from those budget activities 
and subactivities that have the most direct relationship to the 
readiness of U.S. forces to other accounts that are required to 
fund the support infrastructure. The Committee is also 
disturbed by the Department's inability to provide prior 
notification to the Committee, as required by the House report 
accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 1997 (House Report 104-208), on the movement of 
funds from the readiness related activity and subactivity 
groups. Therefore, the Committee supports the provision 
included in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill for 
fiscal year 1998 requiring DoD to follow customary 
reprogramming procedures for all Operation and maintenance 
subactivity groups, and directs that the Department comply with 
this provision.

    reporting on the execution of real property maintenance funding

    The Committee reiterates the recommendations contained in 
the report accompanying the Military Construction 
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998 on the need to develop 
better information on DoD expenditures for major real property 
maintenance, and the relationship of these expenditures to 
major military construction projects. Therefore, the Committee 
directs that the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) 
provide a report to the Committee not later than April 30, 
1998, detailing all proposed major RPM projects expected to 
exceed $10,000,000 to complete.

                budget justification and execution data

    The Committee continues to require detailed data in support 
of the Department's proposed Operation and maintenance budget 
such as the O-1 presentation of the Operation and maintenance 
budget, including the revisions to Budget Activity 1, Operating 
Forces, as reflected in the fiscal year 1998 budget request for 
the Army. However, the Committee also agrees with the 
observations of the House National Security Committee in the 
report accompanying the House-passed Defense Authorization bill 
that there are certain inconsistencies that should be remedied 
in upcoming budget submissions. In addition, the Committee 
directs the Department to continue the submission of O-1 budget 
execution data for each O-1 subactivity group. The Department 
shall provide such data to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations within 60 days of the end of each quarter of the 
fiscal year.

                    purchases of foreign made goods

    The Committee has become aware of an apparent increase in 
the amount of foreign made goods acquired by the Department of 
Defense through small purchase procedures at bases throughout 
the U.S. Because the Department does not have in place a system 
to track such small purchases, the Committee directs the DoD 
Inspector General to conduct random audits of small-purchases 
at U.S. military bases to determine how often foreign made 
products are acquired through the use of small-purchase, local 
purchase, or micro-purchase procedures. The DoD Inspector 
General should report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations with its findings not later than April 30, 1998.

                environmentally safe fuel storage tanks

    The Committee is aware of the continuing problem of 
underground fuel storage tank leakage. Therefore, the Committee 
recommends that the Department of Defense proceed with the 
program for above-ground, environmentally-safe fuel storage 
tanks as described in the recommendations of the report 
accompanying the House-passed Defense Authorization bill for 
fiscal year 1998, and directs that $2,000,000 be made available 
for this purpose within funds available for both the Marine 
Corps and the Air Force.

                        federal fire fighter pay

    The Committee is disturbed about the continuing lack of 
progress to resolve the question of pay inequities between the 
fire fighters employed by the federal government and their 
counterparts employed by states and localities. The large 
majority of the approximately 10,000 full-time federal fire 
fighters work for the Department of Defense protecting military 
installations. According to information supplied to the 
Committee, a typical municipal fire fighter earns 89 percent 
more per hour than a comparable federal fire fighter. The 
Committee understands that the Office of Personnel Management 
has undertaken staff studies of this issue substantiating the 
claim that there are inequities in the pay calculation and 
supporting the proposition that pay adjustments are warranted. 
Proposals to rectify this situation have not moved forward due, 
in part, to past opposition from the Department of Defense. The 
Committee believes these inequities hinder the federal 
government's ability to recruit and retain qualified fire 
fighters putting the safety of our service members and billions 
of dollars of investment at risk. The Department is directed to 
reevaluate its position on this issue with the primary goal of 
ensuring pay equity for these employees and preserving a high 
quality fire fighting force. The Department shall report to 
Congress no later than December 31, 1997 on the results of this 
evaluation which shall include recommended legislation to 
correct this situation.

                       recruiting and advertising

    The Committee recognizes that the military's recruiting 
mission is becoming increasingly difficult and recommends an 
increase of $22,900,000 over the budget request to support the 
Department's efforts in recruiting and advertising.

                          classified programs

    Adjustments to classified operation and maintenance 
programs are addressed in a classified annex accompanying this 
report.

                    OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................   $17,519,340,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................    17,049,484,000
Committee recommendation..............................    17,078,218,000
Change from budget request............................        28,734,000
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$17,078,218,000 for Operation and maintenance, Army. The 
recommendation is a decrease of $441,122,000 below the amount 
appropriated for fiscal year 1997.

           low rate initial production (lrip) for abrams xxi

    The Committee supports the action taken by the House 
National Security Committee on this program in its 
recommendations for the fiscal year 1998 Defense Authorization 
bill. The Committee urges the Department to consider a plan for 
the refurbishment of M1A1 tanks 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. In addition, if this program is successfully 
validated, the Committee expects the Army to include adequate 
funding in the fiscal year 1999 budget request.

                           depot maintenance

    The Committee recommends increasing Army depot maintenance 
funding by $169,700,000 above the budget request. The Committee 
remains concerned about backlogs in the repair and maintenance 
of communications and electronic equipment. Accordingly, 
$53,000,000 of the total depot maintenance increase is 
allocated to the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command 
Battlefield Communications Review program, for performance at 
Army depots, of the following workloads: $25,000,000 for 
repair/maintenance of Mobile Subscriber Equipment shelters, 
prime movers, and accessories or support equipment; $20,000,000 
for the repair/maintenance of Non-Integrated Communications 
Secure and Integrated Communications Secure SINCGARS radios and 
accessories or support equipment; and $8,000,000 for the 
repair, maintenance or modification of the AN/TS-85 and AN/TSC-
93 Tactical Satellite Communications Terminals, associated 
antenna systems, accessories or support equipment.

                   national training center rotations

    As expressed elsewhere in this report, the Committee is 
troubled by the reduced level of funding requested by the Army 
in fiscal year 1998 for rotations at the National Training 
Center (NTC). In addition, the Committee is concerned that the 
Army's decision to reduce the number of annual troop rotations 
at the National Training Center from 12 to 10 could adversely 
affect readiness. The Committee will be closely monitoring this 
change for any adverse effects on the readiness of Army units.

                       army logistics automation

    Information on this project can be found in the Information 
Resources Management section of this report.

                      high risk automation systems

    Information on this project can be found in the Information 
Resources Management section of this report.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:



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

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:s of dollars]
    250 Readiness Training--NTC Rotation Shortfall............    60,213
    250 Parachute Maintenance and Repair......................     2,000
    250 Flying Hour Efficiencies..............................   -17,000
    650 Depot Maintenance--Other..............................   111,000
    650 Depot Maintenance--Communications and Electronics.....    53,000
    650 Depot Maintenance--Aviation Depot Maintenance Plan 
      Equipment...............................................     5,700
    750 Organizational Clothing and Equipment (Increment I)...    20,000
    750 Range Safe System.....................................     2,700
    750 Ft. Irwin, George AFB Airhead.........................     1,300
    950 Fort Gordon Center for Total Access (Telemedicine)....     5,400
Budget Activity 2: Mobilization:
    1300 Industrial Preparedness--Nominal Growth..............   -19,004
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
    1500 Service Academies--Foreign Students..................    -1,400
    2200 Recruiting and Advertising...........................     7,000
    2350 Civilian Education and Training......................    -2,852
    2400 Indian University Northwest JROTC Mentoring Program..       750
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
    2850 Central Logistics--SSTS, Depot Maintenance, SDT......    22,000
    2850 Army Logistics Automation............................    11,200
    3000 Headquarters and Administrative Activity Reduction...   -48,001
    3200 Eisenhower Center....................................     2,000
    3350 Laser Leveling.......................................     1,500
    3350 FEMP.................................................   -45,000
Other Adjustments:
    3710 Classified Undistributed.............................    -6,895
    3715 Civilian Personnel Understrength.....................   -33,300
    3730 Foreign Currency Fluctuation.........................   -19,000
    3770 High Risk Automation Systems.........................   -25,000
    3785 Real Property Maintenance............................   232,000
    3790 TDY Expenses.........................................   -19,930
    3795 QDR--Civilian Personnel Reductions...................  -140,347
    3800 Contingency Operations Transfer--Southwest Asia......   -80,300
    3815 Non-BRAC Caretaker Status............................   -51,000

                    OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................   $20,061,961,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................    21,508,130,000
Committee recommendation..............................    21,779,365,000
Change from budget request............................       271,235,000
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$21,779,365,000 for Operation and maintenance, Navy. The 
recommendation is an increase of $1,717,404,000 above the 
amount appropriated for fiscal year 1997.

                         cnet distance learning

    The Committee directs that the Chief of Naval Education and 
Training (CNET), as the Navy's organization responsible for 
training technology, continue efforts that will lead to 
maximizing returns on technology investment in distance 
learning and computer mediated learning. This would include 
developing more efficient use of the Internet for training 
requirements, developing models for appropriate applications of 
training technologies and developing models to assess 
leadership training effectiveness. The Committee recommends 
adding $2,000,000 above the budget request for this effort.

                 national oceanography partnership act

    The Committee encourages DoD efforts to implement the goals 
of the National Oceanography Act by addressing the backlog of 
military hydrographic survey requirements. Accordingly, the 
Committee directs that within available funds, the Navy apply 
$7,500,000 for additional ship-years as directed by the House 
report accompanying the House-passed Defense Authorization bill 
for fiscal year 1998.

                   software program managers network

    Information on this project can be found in the Information 
Resources Management section of this report.

                      high risk automation systems

    Information on this project can be found in the Information 
Resources Management section of this report.

                          asbestos eradication

    The Committee is concerned about the environmental 
challenge associated with the disposal of large volumes of 
asbestos from the Navy's surface fleet and submarine 
inactivation programs. The Committee is aware of an asbestos 
disposal process that offers great potential for solving this 
current problem, a mineral conversion process that changes the 
asbestos to a stable non-hazardous mineral. This thermochemical 
conversion process has been tested on a variety of asbestos-
containing materials from actual abatement sites with great 
success. A commercially viable transportable production system, 
capable of processing substantial amounts of asbestos per day 
has been demonstrated with the Department of Energy and 
approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. Accordingly, 
the Committee provides $2,000,000 only for the development of 
an asbestos thermochemical conversion pilot plant, to be used 
in conjunction with the ongoing submarine inactivation program 
at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.

                          electrotechnologies

    The Committee recommends an increase of $5,500,000 in 
Environmental Compliance only for evaluating and demonstrating 
electrotechnologies and other environmental technologies at 
Naval Station Mayport as the East Coast demonstration base for 
the Navy Environmental Leadership Program.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:



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

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:s of dollars]
    4400 Flying Hour Program Shortfalls.......................   322,000
    4600 Depot Maintenance--Aviation Backlog..................   149,000
    5000 Depot Maintenance--Unfunded Ship Availabilities......    75,000
    5550 Reverse Osmosis Desalinators--Refurbishment..........       500
    5950 Gun Weapon Overhaul and Support, Louisville..........    15,900
    5950 Ship Self Defense System (SSDS) Equipment--Wallops 
      Island..................................................     6,000
Budget Activity 2: Mobilization:
    6650 Industrial Preparedness--Nominal Growth..............   -28,493
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
    6900 Service Academies--Foreign Students..................    -1,400
    7100 Bancroft Hall Renovation Program.....................   -31,500
    7300 Naval Postgraduate School--Laboratory Improvements...     2,000
    7300 Professional Development Education--Nominal Growth...    -5,973
    7350 CNET--Distance Learning..............................     2,000
    7550 Recruiting and Advertising...........................     7,000
    7650 Civilian Education and Training......................    -1,022
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
    8000 Defense Computer Investigations Training Program/
      Computer Forensics Lab..................................     8,500
    8000 Headquarters and Administrative Activity Reduction...   -47,580
    8300 FEMP.................................................   -25,000
    8600 ATIS.................................................     4,000
Other Adjustments:
    9360 Classified Undistributed.............................     1,902
    9365 Software Program Managers Network....................     6,000
    9365 High Risk Automation Systems.........................   -25,000
    9390 Civilian Personnel Understrength.....................  -108,300
    9415 Electrotechnologies..................................     5,500
    9420 Other Contracts--Program Growth......................   -29,719
    9425 Real Property Maintenance............................    98,540
    9430 TDY Expenses.........................................   -12,060
    9435 QDR--Civilian Personnel Reductions...................   -34,960
    9440 Asbestos Eradication.................................     2,000
    9445 Contingency Operations Transfer--Southwest Asia......   -84,900
    9450 Magic Lantern........................................     1,300

                OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................    $2,254,119,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................     2,301,345,000
Committee recommendation..............................     2,598,032,000
Change from budget request............................       296,687,000
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,598,032,000 
for Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps. The recommendation 
is an increase of $343,913,000 above the amount appropriated 
for fiscal year 1997.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:



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

                       [In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
    10050 Readiness Training--Operating Forces Training 
      Support.................................................    38,800
    10050 Initial Issue (Clothing/Body Armor/Bivouac gear)....    20,700
    10150 Depot Maintenance Backlog Reduction.................    25,000
    10200 Personnel Support Equipment.........................    25,400
    10200 Base Support........................................    10,000
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
    10700 Base Support........................................    10,000
    11050 Base Support........................................    10,000
    11200 Recruiting and Advertising..........................     4,400
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
    11800 Base Support........................................    10,000
    11800 FEMP................................................   -10,000
Other Adjustments:
    11935 Real Property Maintenance...........................   154,100
    11940 QDR--Civilian Personnel Reductions..................    -1,713
          Environmentally Safe Fuel Storage Tanks.............   (2,000)

                  OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................   $17,263,193,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................    18,817,785,000
Committee recommendation..............................    18,740,167,000
Change from budget request............................       -77,618,000
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$18,740,167,000 for Operation and maintenance, Air Force. The 
recommendation is an increase of $1,476,974,000 above the 
amount appropriated for fiscal year 1997.

                     INSTRUMENT ROUTES 102 AND 141

    The Committee recognizes the need for Air Force low 
altitude training and strongly supports this requirement. The 
Committee urges the Air Force to give every consideration to 
public comments and community concerns in the impacted areas 
when utilizing Instrument Routes 102 and 141 for such training. 
The Air Force should report to the congressional defense 
committees by March 31, 1998 on possible alternative routes.

      air force manufacturing technology assistance pilot program

    The Air Force Manufacturing Technology Assistant Pilot 
Program (MTAPP) will strengthen and expand the service's 
manufacturing supplier base by improving the manufacturing 
skills and business practices of small to medium sized 
businesses, particularly those with an established non-defense 
background. Accordingly, the Committee supports the Air Force 
MTAPP program and recommends that the service allocate 
$2,000,000 of available funds for this program.

                            misawa antennas

    The Committee directs the Air Force to allocate $300,000 of 
the additional infrastructure funding provided in this bill to 
the repair and maintenance of the antennas at the Misawa 
Cryptologic Operations Center.

              children's association for maximum potential

    The Committee recommends an increase of $500,000 above the 
budget request to support completion of the CAMP facility at 
Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, and directs that this increase 
in funding be used only for the purpose of supporting this 
program.

                                 remis

    Information on this project can be found in the Information 
Resources Management section of this report.

                      high risk automation systems

    Information on this project can be found in the Information 
Resources Management section of this report.

                   air force institute of technology

    The Air Force proposes eliminating new student starts at 
the in-residence programs of the Air Force Institute of 
Technology (AFIT) in fiscal year 1998. Although the Air Force 
proposal is explained for budgetary reasons, no comprehensive 
cost-benefit study has been undertaken recently. Therefore, the 
Committee includes a general provision (Section 8086) 
prohibiting the Air Force from sending to civilian institutions 
graduate students who would otherwise attend AFIT. The 
Committee further directs that the National Academy of Sciences 
do a complete cost-benefit analysis including the value of 
research done by faculty and graduate students, to be provided 
to the Committee not later than April 1, 1998.

                        malmstrom air force base

    The Committee believes that the Air Force should maintain 
the airfield at Malmstrom AFB, Montana including the runways at 
the airfield. The existing runway and facilities at Malmstrom 
are in excellent condition and, for that reason, the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration has identified this site 
as a possible facility for future testing and program 
development.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:



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

                       [In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
    12600 Flying Hour Program Shortfalls......................   300,000
    12600 Battle Labs.........................................     1,000
    12850 Force Protection--Base Physical Security............    12,100
    12850 Force Protection--Air Base Ground Defense...........     5,800
    12850 Force Protection--Antiterrorism.....................     5,300
    12850 Force Protection--NBC Defense Program...............     3,100
    12850 Force Protection--Contingency Operations............     1,500
    13100 SIMVAL..............................................     2,800
    13250 JFACC Situational Awareness System (JSAS)...........     3,000
Budget Activity 2: Mobilization:
    13850 Depot Maintenance--KC-135 DPEM......................    54,600
    13950 Industrial Preparedness--Nominal Growth.............    -5,105
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
    14300 Service Academies--Foreign Students.................    -1,400
    14700 Professional Development Education--Nominal Growth..   -20,466
    14950 Recruiting and Advertising..........................     4,500
    15100 Civilian Education and Training.....................    -2,351
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
    15350 Supply Asset Tracking System (SATS at ACC 
      Installations)..........................................     5,000
    15500 FEMP................................................   -33,000
    15650 Defense Computer Investigations Training Program/
      Computer Forensics Lab..................................     2,700
    15650 Headquarters and Administrative Activity Reduction..   -53,862
    15950 CAMP................................................       500
    16050 Civil Air Patrol....................................       800
Other Adjustments:
    16410 Classified Undistributed............................     8,500
    16415 Civilian Personnel Understrength....................   -70,000
    16430 Foreign Currency Fluctuation........................   -10,000
    16475 REMIS...............................................     8,900
    16475 High Risk Automation Systems........................   -25,000
    16490 Other Contracts--Program Growth.....................   -93,981
    16495 Chemical/Biological Defense--PACOM..................    10,000
    16500 Contingency Operations Transfer--Southwest Asia.....  -459,900
    16505 Real Property Maintenance...........................   358,200
    16510 TDY Expenses........................................   -20,000
    16515 QDR--Civilian Personnel Reductions..................   -76,253
              Environmentally Safe Fuel Storage Tanks.........   (2,000)

                OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................   $10,044,200,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................    10,390,938,000
Committee recommendation..............................    10,066,956,000
Change from budget request............................      -323,982,000
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$10,066,956,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide. 
The recommendation is an increase of $22,756,000 from the 
amount appropriated in fiscal year 1997.

                             jcs exercises

    In the Quadrennial Defense Review, DoD announced its plans 
to decrease the number of man-days required for joint exercises 
in fiscal year 1998 to 15 percent below the level of fiscal 
year 1996. Given the high demands of ongoing operations, this 
reduction is a prudent step to avoid overstressing the military 
forces required to perform these operations. The Committee 
supports this measure and recommends a reduction of $50,000,000 
to the budget request, consistent with the House-passed Defense 
Authorization bill.

                       special operations command

    The Committee recommends an increase of $43,100,000 above 
the budget request for the United States Special Operations 
Command. These additional funds will meet the unfunded 
requirements for counterproliferation, readiness and OPTEMPO. 
The Committee also recommends $3,300,000 within this amount 
only to outfit Special Operations Forces aircrews with Goretex-
Nomex flight suits.

                         within-grade increases

    In the budget request, the Defense Contract Audit Agency 
requested an increase to cover ``within-grade increases''. 
While individual employees are entitled to within-grade or 
``step'' increases, for an agency those increases are usually 
offset by employees who are promoted and go back to step one, 
or retire at a high step and are replaced by new employees at 
step one. Thus the average ``step'' within an agency, like the 
average grade, should not be gradually increasing over time. 
The DCAA request is therefore unique among all DoD activities. 
The Committee denies this increase and reduces the DCAA budget 
request by $2,500,000 accordingly.

                 defense finance and accounting service

    The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) is 
financed through the Defense Working Capital Fund (DWCF). The 
fund is designed to capture all the relevant costs to run DFAS 
and to reflect those costs in the prices that DFAS charges its 
customers. The Committee is concerned that the budget request 
proposes to shift out of the DWCF costs that are part of DFAS 
operating costs.
    DFAS developed, designed and fielded its Property 
Accountability System using resources from the DWCF. The 
Committee believes that any upgrade to this system should also 
be paid for out of the DWCF and reduces the request accordingly 
by $16,500,000.
    The Executive and Professional Training program primarily 
pays for the training of employees who are paid from the DWCF. 
While the Committee supports having a highly trained workforce, 
it believes that training is an inherent part of any 
organization's operating costs and thus should be paid for from 
within the DWCF. The Committee therefore reduces the request by 
$30,154,000.
    Finally, the budget requests $45,000,000 as the first 
increment of a $117,000,000 renovation project. The Committee 
notes that DoD and the General Services Administration have not 
yet reached the agreement that is necessary to begin this 
project. In addition, the budget proposes to pay for the 
renovation using appropriated funds even though the payback on 
this renovation will be directly to the DWCF. The Committee 
also notes the concern expressed in the House-passed Defense 
Authorization bill, which denied authorization for this request 
and noted that a renovation of this size is likely to be 
outside the scope of a standard maintenance and repair project 
and may need to be funded as a military construction project. 
As a result, the budget request is reduced by $45,000,000.

                 defense human resources field activity

    To improve operating efficiency and reduce costs, DoD 
combined the former Defense Civilian Personnel Management 
Service with the Defense Manpower Data Center to form the 
Defense Human Resources Field Activity (DHRFA). The budget 
request for the new DHRFA is $138,935,000, the sum of the two 
activities' individual budgets. The Committee believes that the 
budget for the new organization should reflect at least some of 
the savings expected to result from the reorganization and thus 
recommends a reduction of $2,000,000.

                   white house communications agency

    The budget requested $63,945,000 for the White House 
Communications Agency (WHCA), which is managed by the Defense 
Information Systems Agency (DISA). The Committee agrees to the 
realignment of $7,200,000 from Operation and Maintenance, 
Defense-Wide to Procurement, Defense-Wide as requested by the 
Director, DISA. After accounting for inflation, the shift of 
funds to procurement, and other program realignments, the 
requested funding for this activity still shows net growth of 
$4,910,000, only a portion of which WHCA has been able to 
adequately justify. The Committee therefore recommends a 
reduction of $8,200,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-
Wide and an increase of $7,200,000 in Procurement, Defense-
Wide.

                     automated document conversion

    Information on this project can be found in the Information 
Resources Management section of this report.

                improved cargo methods and technologies

    The Committee believes cost saving opportunities exist to 
integrate the latest private sector logistics research, 
transport technology, and security developments into the 
practices and procedures for moving military cargo around the 
United States and around the world. The bill includes 
$3,000,000 only to continue work initiated in fiscal year 1997 
in conjunction with a not-for-profit foundation operating 
exclusively as a trucking research institute to: (1) continue 
the examination of private sector practices as they may relate 
to the transport of containerized ammunition, to include the 
development of multi-modal standards, and ammunition 
configuration requirements; (2) evaluate U.S. commercial third-
party logistics providers to determine the most efficient 
public-private partnership structures to meet readiness 
requirements and to identify ways to streamline the third-party 
selection process by the Department; and (3) study the current 
cargo security environment in the context of national defense 
and assess the feasibility of implementing an efficient 
information partnership between motor carriers, the Department, 
and the law enforcement community to include development of a 
nation-wide cargo theft reporting system modeled after the real 
time database, Cargo Tips.

                           dla--dwcf transfer

    Within the Defense Logistics Agency, the budget requests 
$42,900,000 to cover the cost of transferring certain programs 
from the Defense Working Capital Fund (DWCF) to Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-Wide. A review of these programs 
indicates, however, that only those items related to hazardous 
waste handling are appropriate to transfer out of the DWCF. The 
Committee therefore recommends a reduction of $36,000,000.

                             security locks

    The Committee recommends an addition to the budget request 
of $25,000,000 only for the Security Lock Retrofit program. The 
Committee understands that these funds are sufficient for DoD 
to meet all validated requirements for this upgrade.

                   federal energy management program

    The Committee is concerned that the Federal Energy 
Management Program (FEMP) within the Department of Defense has 
been seriously eroded. Estimates show that only a fraction of 
the funds provided for this function were actually used to 
reduce energy use and costs.
    The Department of Defense is central to the government's 
efforts to reduce energy costs. Over 70 percent of the energy 
consumed by the Federal Government is used to heat, light, cool 
and operate Department of Defense facilities at a cost of 
nearly $3 billion a year. Energy efficiency improvements can 
save DoD almost $2 billion per year in utility bills and energy 
system maintenance operations. The Committee believes that the 
focus on energy efficiency should not be limited to FEMP 
projects, but should be a consideration in every maintenance 
and repair project.
    The Committee therefore provides $15,000,000 to the central 
FEMP account to assist DoD in reducing its energy costs.

                 military personnel information system

    Information on this project can be found in the Information 
Resources Management section of this report.

                       environmental restoration

    The United States government has recently completed an 
exchange of letters with the Canadian government regarding the 
return of several U.S. military facilities in Canada. 
Consistent with this agreement, the budget requests $10,200,000 
in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide for the first in a 
series of payments to cover the cost of environmental 
restoration at those sites. Since this expense deals with 
environmental restoration at what were mostly Air Force sites, 
the Committee believes that it is more appropriate to pay for 
it out of the Environmental Restoration, Air Force account. The 
Committee therefore recommends a reduction of $10,200,000 to 
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide and has adjusted the 
general provision proposed in the budget request accordingly.

                      osd commissions and studies

    The Committee is very disappointed to learn that special 
studies and commissions initiated by the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense are not subject to the same level of 
fiscal review as normal funding requests. Although this problem 
pre-dates the current DoD leadership, the Committee is 
concerned that this problem will continue absent senior 
management attention. The Committee therefore directs the 
Department to report no later than November 30, 1997 on the 
steps it is taking to correct this deficiency.

                          travel reengineering

    The Travel Project Management Office (TPMO) was created in 
fiscal year 1997 to reengineer the DoD's temporary duty (TDY) 
travel process. Under the proposed reengineering concept all 
temporary duty travel functions are to be processed through a 
highly integrated management information system. While the 
Committee supports the reengineering effort, it is concerned 
that this project is moving ahead without taking the necessary 
steps, such as a formal cost effectiveness study. The Committee 
therefore recommends a reduction of $14,300,000 to the budget 
request to continue this effort, but at its fiscal year 1997 
level.

                      high risk automation systems

    Information on this project can be found in the Information 
Resources Management section of this report.

         quadrennial defense review--defense agency reductions

    In the Quadrennial Defense Review, the Department proposed 
reducing all defense agencies ``by 6 percent, as a down payment 
until a detailed follow-up review is completed by November 30, 
1997''. The Committee supports this effort, currently being 
carried out by the Task Force on Defense Reform and includes a 
reduction to the budget request of $72,000,000 or two percent 
in fiscal year 1998 as an initial increment. The Committee 
recommendation specifically excludes the National Foreign 
Intelligence Program, Special Operations Command and the 
Department of Defense Dependents Schools from its calculation 
and directs the Department not to apply any of the $72,000,000 
reduction to those activities. This does not prohibit the Task 
Force from including those organizations in its study.

                       qdr restructuring reserve

    The Committee recognizes that there is an up-front cost to 
any major restructuring effort and therefore recommends an 
increase of $18,000,000 to the budget request to be used only 
for facilitating the downsizing of defense agencies and 
headquarters' activities pursuant to the findings of the Task 
Force on Defense Reform cited above. The Committee further 
directs that the Department provide 30 days prior notification 
to the Committee on any proposed use of these funds.

                         use of re-refined oil

    The Committee notes that the statistics compiled by the 
Federal Environmental Executive, established by Executive Order 
12873, shows that during fiscal years 1994 and 1995, the 
Department of Defense's re-refined oil purchases were only 1.5 
percent of its total oil purchases for those years. The 
Committee notes that using re-refined oil conserves valuable 
natural resources, protects the environment and reduces U.S. 
dependence on imported fuels. The Committee therefore 
encourages the Department of Defense to increase its use of re-
refined fuels to the maximum extent practical.

                               nutrition

    The Committee believes that proper diet and nutrition play 
an important role in providing for a high quality of life in 
the military. In order to enhance our military's diet, the 
Committee requests the Department report on the potential 
benefits of increasing the quantity of beef, lamb and chevon 
meats in meals provided servicemembers.

                            vint hill farms

    The Committee is concerned about the costs associated with 
building demolition and asbestos removal at Vint Hill Farms in 
Fauquier County, Virginia, an Army facility closing as a result 
of the 1993 Base Realignment and Closure Commission. It is 
estimated that 49 percent of the existing structures at Vint 
Hill Farms do not meet current standards and require 
remediation estimated at $30,000,000. The Committee urges in 
the strongest possible terms that the Department of Defense 
assist the community with said demolition and asbestos removal.

                Department of Defense Dependents Schools

                              adjustments

    The Committee recommends a net increase of $4,000,000 over 
the budget request for the Department of Defense Dependents 
Schools (DoDDS). The Committee agreed to several adjustments 
based on the Committee's Survey and Investigative (S&I) staff's 
survey of the fiscal year 1998 budget request. The Committee 
recommends a reduction of $11,000,000 from the budget request 
for an error to the fiscal year 1997 baseline, which had the 
effect of increasing the fiscal year 1998 request by this 
amount. In addition, the Committee recommends a reduction of 
$10,000,000 for unliquidated balances. The S&I staff reported 
that there has been a trend in the increase of unused 
obligations from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 1997, 
even though the DoDDS school program has been relatively stable 
over the years. Finally, the Committee recommends an increase 
of $20,000,000 to be applied to the backlog of Real Property 
Maintenance.

                 family counseling and crisis services

    In addition to the adjustments above, the Committee 
recommends an increase of $5,000,000 to the budget request in 
the Department of Defense Dependents Schools (DoDDS) account 
only for enhancements to Family Advocacy programs. The 
Committee directs the Department to use these additional funds 
for expansion of counseling and crisis services, treatment 
options and solutions for children of active duty members 
between the ages of 7-18 years who have emotional and 
behavioral problems. The Committee recommends that these 
services be provided by organizations accredited with 
commendation from the Joint Commission on Accreditation Health 
Care Organizations, and that have associated research centers 
and offer a full continuum of care.

                     Social Work Fellowship Program

    The Committee urges the Department to fund predoctoral or 
postdoctoral fellowships for social work researchers to examine 
the process, outcome, and cost-effectiveness of military family 
advocacy programs, with particular attention to issues of 
family violence and child maltreatment. The Department of the 
Air Force's current postdoctoral initiative with the Department 
of Agriculture and the Institute for the Advancement of Social 
Work Research is a model for this type of cooperative 
sponsorship program.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:



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

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:s of dollars]
    17050 JCS Exercises.......................................   -50,000
    17100 SOCOM...............................................    43,100
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
    17400 DAU--Continuing Acquisition Education...............    -3,900
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
    17800 Classified and Intelligence.........................   -98,261
    17900 DCAA--Within Grade Increases........................    -2,500
    17950 DFAS--Property Accountability System................   -16,500
    17950 DFAS--Executive and Professional Training...........   -30,154
    17950 DFAS--Facility Renovation...........................   -45,000
    18000 DHRFA--Operations...................................    -2,000
    18050 DISA--White House Communications Agency.............    -8,200
    18200 DLA--Automated Document Conversion..................    30,000
    18200 DLA--Security Locks.................................    25,000
    18200 DLA--Procurement Technical Assistance Program.......    17,000
    18200 DLA--DPSC Demolition................................    15,000
    18200 DLA--Cargo Methods and Technologies.................     3,000
    18200 DLA--Blankets.......................................    -2,400
    18200 DLA--DWCF transfer..................................   -36,000
    18500 DoDDS--Real Property Maintenance....................    20,000
    18500 DoDDS--Family Counseling and Crisis Services........     5,000
    18500 DoDDS--Unobligated Balances.........................   -10,000
    18500 DoDDS--Baseline Adjustment..........................   -11,000
    18550 Federal Energy Management Program...................    15,000
    18600 JCS--Travel and Administrative Costs................    -2,000
    18650 Monterey Institute Counter-Proliferation Analysis...     9,000
    18700 OSD--Military Personnel Information System..........     5,000
    18700 OSD--First Responder Training.......................     1,300
    18700 OSD--C3I Mission and Analysis Fund..................   -10,000
    18700 OSD--Environmental Restoration......................   -10,200
    18700 OSD--Administrative Savings.........................   -20,000
    18700 OSD--Civil/Military Programs........................   -31,867
    18800 OSIA--Treaty Requirements...........................   -11,200
    18900 WHS--Travel Reengineering...........................   -14,300
Other Adjustments:
    18970 Civilian Personnel Understrength....................   -33,900
    18980 Impact Aid..........................................    35,000
    19010 High Risk Automation Systems........................   -15,000
    19030 Pentagon Renovation Fund--Swing Space Costs.........    -9,500
    19045 Defense Automated Printing Service..................   -15,000
    19065 Center for the Study of the Chinese Military........     5,000
    19085 Contingency Operations Transfer--Southwest Asia.....    -9,500
    19090 QDR Defense Agency Reductions.......................   -72,000
    19095 QDR Restructuring Reserve...........................    18,000

                OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY RESERVE

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................    $1,119,436,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................     1,192,891,000
Committee recommendation..............................     1,207,891,000
Change from budget request............................       +15,000,000
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,207,891,000 
for Operation and maintenance, Army Reserve. The recommendation 
is an increase of $88,455,000 above the $1,119,436,000 
appropriated for fiscal year 1997.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:



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

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
                                                                        
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:                                    
    19700 Maintenance of Real Property................            +5,000
    19850 Training Operations, Ground OPTEMPO.........           +10,000
                                                                        

        commercial construction and material handling equipment

    The Committee understands that a large amount of the 
Commercial Construction and Material Handling Equipment 
inventory, such as motor graders and scrapers, for the Army 
Reserve is approaching the fifteen year service life threshold. 
The Committee is aware of the significant cost savings and 
readiness improvements that can be gained with the Extended 
Service Program of older items of equipment in the inventory, 
and urges the Army Reserve to continue the rebuild program.

                    reserve units in central florida

    The Committee understands that once the Orlando Naval 
Training Center is closed that several Army, Navy and Marine 
Corps Reserve units residing on this base will have to be moved 
to other locations in Central Florida. The Committee directs 
the Department to report to the Committee, by March 1, 1998, 
detailing the individual Reserve units involved, and the 
possibility of constructing a joint complex. In addition, the 
report should provide details on the resulting cost savings to 
be achieved by co-locating units.

                OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY RESERVE

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................      $886,027,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................       834,711,000
Committee recommendation..............................       924,711,000
Change from budget request............................       +90,000,000
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $924,711,000 
for Operation and maintenance, Navy Reserve. The recommendation 
is an increase of $38,684,000 above the $886,027,000 
appropriated for fiscal year 1997.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:



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

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
                                                                        
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:                                    
    21200  Aircraft Depot Maintenance.................           +10,000
Other Adjustments:                                                      
    22760  NSIPS......................................           +43,500
    22765  Contingency Operations Transfer--SWA.......              -500
    22770  Maintenance of Real Property...............           +37,000
                                                                        

                                 nsips

    Information on this project can be found in the Information 
Resources Management section of this report.

                 navy reserve center in mansfield, ohio

    The Committee understands that the Navy Reserve has 
included funds in the fiscal year 1998 budget request for 
remediation activities at the former Naval Reserve Center in 
Mansfield, Ohio. The Committee directs the Navy to proceed with 
the site-cleanup of these vacant buildings during fiscal year 
1998.

            OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS RESERVE

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................      $109,667,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................       110,366,000
Committee recommendation..............................       119,266,000
Change from budget request............................        +8,900,000
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $119,266,000 
for Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve. The 
recommendation is an increase of $9,599,000 above the 
$109,667,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1997.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:



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

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
                                                                        
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:                                    
    23450  Training, M1A1 tank........................            +3,900
    23500  Operating Forces, Initial Issue............            +5,000
                                                                        

              OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE RESERVE

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................    $1,496,553,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................     1,624,420,000
Committee recommendation..............................     1,635,250,000
Change from budget request............................       +10,830,000
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,635,250,000 
for Operation and maintenance, Air Force Reserve. The 
recommendation is an increase of $138,697,000 above the 
$1,496,553,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1997.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:



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

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
                                                                        
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:                                    
    25050  Maintenance of Real Property...............           +10,000
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide                       
 Activities:                                                            
    25510  WC-130 Weather Reconnaissance..............              +830
                                                                        

                 wc-130 weather reconnaissance mission

    The Committee continues to strongly believe that the 
weather reconnaissance mission is critical to the protection of 
Defense installations and the entire population living along 
the east and Gulf coasts of the United States. Section 8026 has 
been included which prohibits funds to reduce or disestablish 
the operation of the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron 
(Hurricane Hunters) of the Air Force Reserve if such action 
would reduce the Weather Reconnaissance mission below the 
levels funded in this Act. The level specifically funded in 
this Act is to support a stand alone squadron with dedicated 10 
PAA aircraft, 20 line assigned aircrews, evenly divided between 
Air Reserve Technician (ART) and Reserve aircrews. The 
Committee directs the Air Force to provide a minimum of 3,000 
flying hours to perform tropical cyclone and winter storm 
reconnaissance missions, aircrew training, counterdrug support, 
and airland missions in support of contingency operations 
during the non-hurricane season or slow periods during the 
season. The Committee insists that this important mission and 
flying hours be provided and funded in accordance with this 
direction. The Committee has also provided an additional 
$1,000,000 in the personnel and operation and maintenance 
accounts, and directs that these funds be used for additional 
manning for this squadron to meet maintenance shortfalls. The 
Committee directs the Air Force to submit future budget 
requests reflecting this year's direction.
    The Committee is aware that advancements in two pilot 
cockpit technology do not provide an adequate margin of safety 
in the unique and dangerous hurricane reconnaissance missions 
that range from tropical storms to category 5 hurricanes which 
have winds in excess of 200 miles per hour. The Committee is 
pleased that the Air Force agrees with user recommendations to 
include a fully equipped augmented crew station to be manned by 
a navigator in all WC-130J aircraft and directs that the final 
operational requirements document reflect this decision.

                         march air reserve base

    The Committee understands that an agreement was recently 
signed between the Department of the Air Force and the March 
Joint Powers Authority to form a joint use airport. In 
addition, the community is discussing with the Air Force the 
possibility of making improvements to the existing navigational 
aids and construction of a commercial jet fuel project at this 
airport. The Committee directs the Air Force to report to the 
Committee by December 15, 1997, on the need and military 
necessity for the improved navigational aids and construction 
of a commercial jet fuel capability to March Air Reserve Base, 
the funding required, and whether these improvements are 
warranted in order to accommodate commercial aircraft at this 
airport.

             OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................    $2,254,477,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................     2,258,932,000
Committee recommendation..............................     2,313,632,000
Change from budget request............................       +54,700,000
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,313,632,000 
for Operation and maintenance, Army National Guard. The 
recommendation is an increase of $59,155,000 above the 
$2,254,477,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1997.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:



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

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
                                                                        
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:                                    
    26250  Training Operations, Ground OPTEMPO........           +20,000
    26250  Training Operations, Angel Gate Academy....            +4,200
    26250  Training Operations, Laser Leveling........              +500
    26400  Depot Maintenance..........................            +5,000
    26500  Maintenance of Real Property...............           +10,000
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide                       
 Activities:                                                            
    26910  Chemical/Biological Mission Studies........           +10,000
    26915  Software Acquisition and Security Training.            +5,000
                                                                        

    domestic chemical/biological counter terrorism mission planning

    The Committee strongly supports the recommendations of the 
Secretary of Defense in the May 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review 
to assign the National Guard with the new role of countering 
chemical and biological terrorism in the United States. The 
Committee believes this mission is a natural complement to 
other current National Guard missions such as disaster 
assistance and counter-drugs which have given the Guard the 
ability to develop effective working relationships with state 
and local officials in the law enforcement, firefighting, and 
emergency medical communities. The National Guard is the ideal 
organization to transfer specialized military knowledge and 
expertise to the local domestic level according to long 
standing norms and practices in this country.
    The Committee expects this mission to be comprehensively 
and aggressively pursued. This will require a detailed planning 
effort to develop a comprehensive program that is fully 
coordinated and integrated with other relevant organizations 
within the Department of Defense, with other federal agencies, 
and with state and local authorities. In this respect, the 
Committee believes it is important that each state be given the 
opportunity and resources to develop detailed components of 
this plan relating to their own special circumstances under the 
overall guidance the National Guard Bureau.
    The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for detailed planning 
and concept studies that will assist the National Guard to:
          (1) define and clarify the National Guard mission 
        compared to the roles of other federal/state and local 
        authorities with similar responsibilities;
          (2) develop a capability to understand the threat;
          (3) train Guard personnel and state/local first 
        responders;
          (4) evaluate and acquire new chemical/biological 
        defense technology; and
          (5) develop appropriate response plans.
    Mission Definition. Currently, many federal, state, and 
local agencies have fragmented and sometimes overlapping 
responsibilities for different aspects of domestic emergency 
preparedness. Federal agencies with significant 
responsibilities range from FEMA, to HHS, to DOE, to the FBI. 
There are, of course, literally thousands of state and local 
law enforcement agencies, emergency medical departments, and 
fire departments with different levels of expertise and 
responsibility that play the primary role in responding to 
emergencies. A first critical stage for the National Guard will 
be to sort out its roles and responsibilities compared to all 
other relevant organizations in accordance with applicable law.
    Threat Assessment. Funds should be used to develop detailed 
plans to determine what information is routinely required to 
understand the threat posed by different terrorist groups that 
may operate in the U.S., the capabilities of different chemical 
and biological weapons they may come to possess, what 
vulnerability assessments on key local facilities such as 
subways should be conducted, and other key data. This effort 
should also catalog and identify who can provide key 
information on a routine and ongoing basis, how such 
information is to be collected and disseminated, and what new 
capabilities are required.
    Training. Funds should be used to devise a comprehensive, 
long term training regimen for appropriate Guard personnel, law 
enforcement personnel, firefighters, emergency medical 
personnel and other federal, state and local officials on all 
aspect of chemical/biological defense, including field training 
exercises. Rather than creating an entirely new training 
establishment for this mission, the Committee believes the 
existing National Guard training structure for the counter-drug 
mission in conjunction with enhanced use of the distance 
learning network would be cost effective and should be used to 
the maximum extent possible. This effort must also be fully 
coordinated with the plans and programs of the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity 
Conflict, the DoD Office of Emergency Preparedness, the Army 
Chemical and Biological Defense Command, and the Marine Corps' 
Chemical Biological Incident Response Force.
    Technology. Funds should be used to structure a continuing 
National Guard program for testing and evaluating chemical/
biological defense equipment that is available to the National 
Guard and to state and local authorities as well as to 
determine specific requirements for new technology.
    Response Plans. Funds should be used to assess the quality 
of existing chemical/biological incident response plans around 
the country, and devise a plan for identifying shortfalls and 
taking corrective action. This effort should include 
significant input from individual state authorities.
    The Committee expects this comprehensive effort to leverage 
existing federal assets, programs, and contract activities to 
the maximum extent feasible. The Committee believes there is a 
rich source of existing intelligence, research capability, 
facilities, and technology at the federal level that can be 
focused to meet this new mission requirement.
    The Army National Guard shall submit a report to the 
congressional defense committees no later than February 1, 1998 
explaining in detail how these funds will be used, and setting 
detailed milestones for future planning and implementation of 
this mission.

               software acquisition and security training

    The Committee recommends an increase of $5,000,000 above 
the budget request only to use the Distance Learning Network to 
deliver standardized courseware to train and certify National 
Guard and Department of Defense personnel in the areas of 
software acquisition management and information security.

             OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR NATIONAL GUARD

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................    $2,716,379,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................     2,991,219,000
Committee recommendation..............................     2,995,719,000
Change from budget request............................        +4,500,000
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,995,719,000 
for Operation and maintenance, Air National Guard. The 
recommendation is an increase of $279,340,000 above the 
$2,716,379,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1997.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:



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

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
                                                                        
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:..................                  
    27650 Aircraft Operations, 159th Fighter Group....            +1,500
    27850 Depot Maintenance...........................            +3,000
                                                                        

                 159th air national guard fighter group

    The Committee recommends an increase of $1,500,000 over the 
budget request in Operation and Maintenance, Air National 
Guard, and directs that these funds be used for the operation 
of C-130H operational support aircraft of the 159th ANG Fighter 
Group.

             OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS TRANSFER FUND

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................    $1,140,157,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................     1,467,500,000
Committee recommendation..............................     1,855,400,000
Change from budget request............................      +387,900,000
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,855,400,000 
for the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund. The 
recommendation is an increase of $715,243,000 from the amount 
appropriated in fiscal year 1997.

          UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................        $6,797,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................         6,952,000
Committee recommendation..............................         6,952,000
Change from budget request............................  ................
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,952,000 for 
the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The 
recommendation is an increase of $155,000 from the amount 
appropriated in fiscal year 1997.

                    ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................      $339,109,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................       377,337,000
Committee recommendation..............................       377,337,000
Change from budget request............................  ................
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $377,377,000 
for Environmental Restoration, Army. The recommendation is an 
increase of $38,228,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal 
year 1997.

                         rocky mountain arsenal

    The Committee believes that priority should continue to be 
given to the implementation of the ten-year cleanup plan for 
the Rocky Mountain Arsenal property that has been agreed to by 
the Army, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Environmental 
Protection Agency, the State of Colorado and the Shell Oil 
Company.

                    ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................      $287,788,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................       277,500,000
Committee recommendation..............................       277,500,000
Change from budget request............................  ................
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $277,500,000 
for Environmental Restoration, Navy. The recommendation is a 
decrease of $10,288,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal 
year 1997.

                       naval air station bermuda

    In 1995, the U.S. Navy closed its air station on the island 
of Bermuda. A study commissioned by the Government of Bermuda 
conducted a comprehensive environmental assessment that found 
evidence of underground storage tanks that were leaking oil, a 
cave filled with abandoned industrial waste, lead and solvents 
in excessive of permissible levels and asbestos. The Committee 
notes that DoD policy directs DoD Components to take ``prompt 
action to remedy known imminent and substantial danger to human 
health and safety'' that is due to environmental contamination 
caused by DoD operations, even when dealing with DoD 
installations that have already been returned to a host nation. 
The Committee therefore directs the Secretary of the Navy to 
review the environmental study provided by the Government of 
Bermuda to determine any potential responsibilities and 
obligations and to provide to the Committee a report on this 
review not later than October 31, 1997.

                  ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................      $394,010,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................       378,900,000
Committee recommendation..............................       378,900,000
Change from budget request............................  ................
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $378,900,000 
for Environmental Restoration, Air Force. The recommendation is 
a decrease of $15,110,000 from the amount appropriated in 
fiscal year 1997.

                ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE-WIDE

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................       $36,722,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................        27,900,000
Committee recommendation..............................        27,900,000
Change from budget request............................  ................
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $27,900,000 
for Environmental Restoration, Defense-wide. The recommendation 
is a decrease of $8,822,000 from the amount appropriated in 
fiscal year 1997.

         ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, FORMERLY USED DEFENSE SITES

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................      $256,387,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................       202,300,000
Committee recommendation..............................       202,300,000
Change from budget request............................  ................
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $202,300,000 
for Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites. The 
recommendation is a decrease of $54,087,000 from the amount 
appropriated in fiscal year 1997.

                                NEWMARK

    The Committee understands that both the Environmental 
Protection Agency and the City of San Bernardino believe that 
the Newmark and Muscoy plume contamination in San Bernardino, 
California is a direct result of industrial waste from a World 
War II depot and maintenance facility (Camp Ono). Report 
language in the conference report accompanying the fiscal year 
1997 DoD Appropriations Bill highlighted the urgency of this 
problem and requested prompt action by the Department of 
Defense. Because the Department has not adequately responded to 
last year's report language concerning this important issue, 
the Committee directs the DoD, within 90 days of enactment of 
this Act, to provide a report to the Committee which fully 
explains the Department's current and future plans relating to 
its role in the cleanup of the Newmark/Muscoy site.

             OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC AID

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................       $49,000,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................        80,130,000
Committee recommendation..............................        55,557,000
Change from budget request............................       -24,573,000
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $55,557,000 
for Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid. The 
recommendation is an increase of $6,557,000 from the amount 
appropriated in fiscal year 1997.

                         HUMANITARIAN DEMINING

    The budget requests $80,130,000 for Overseas Humanitarian, 
Disaster, and Civic Aid. This is an increase of $31,130,000 
over the fiscal year 1997 levels. While the Committee believes 
an across the board increase of this scope is unwarranted, it 
does support the Department's increased efforts in Humanitarian 
Demining. The Committee therefore recommends a reduction of 
only $24,573,000.

                  FORMER SOVIET UNION THREAT REDUCTION

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................      $327,900,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................       382,200,000
Committee recommendation..............................       284,700,000
Change from budget request............................       -97,500,000
                                                                        

    The Department requested $382,200,000 for Cooperative 
Threat Reduction (CTR) programs. The Committee recommends 
$284,700,000, a reduction of $97,500,000, consistent with the 
House-passed Defense Authorization bill. The Committee 
recommends the following reductions:

Weapons Storage Security..............................      -$12,500,000
Reactor Core Conversion...............................       -41,000,000
Chemical Weapons Destruction..........................       -41,000,000
Defense and Military Contacts (Belarus)...............        -1,000,000
Other Assessments.....................................        -2,000,000

    These reductions are due to: availability of prior year 
funds (Weapons Storage, -$12,500,000); lack of an implementing 
agreement (Reactor Core Conversion, -$41,000,000); lack of 
proper costing data, justification or site (Chemical Weapons 
Destruction, -$41,000,000); and, lack of certification (Defense 
and Military Contacts, -$1,000,000) and reduced administrative 
requirements (Other, -$2,000,000).
    In addition, the Committee also notes that current 
unobligated balances for CTR are in excess of $600,000,000. 
This slow execution rate has been a pattern throughout the 
history of this program. The Committee believes that the 
Department should pay closer attention to the management of 
these funds and therefore recommends that fiscal year 1998 CTR 
funds be available for obligation only for 3 years.

                 QUALITY OF LIFE ENHANCEMENTS, DEFENSE

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................      $600,000,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................                 0
Committee recommendation..............................                 0
Change from budget request............................                 0

    Budget request did not include, and the Committee 
recommends no funding for, Quality of Life Enhancements, 
Defense. The recommendation is a decrease of $600,000,000 below 
the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1997.
    As described elsewhere in this report, the Committee 
continues its vigorous support for improvements to the quality 
of life for Service personnel. The Committee has recommended an 
increase of $360,000,000 above the budget request (out of a 
total real property maintenance increase of $924,840,000 above 
the budget requet) for improvements to barracks, dormitories 
and related facilities. The Committee designates this increased 
funding as a special interest item, subject to prior approval 
reprogramming procedures discussed elsewhere in this report.
                               TITLE III

                              PROCUREMENT

                  Estimates and Appropriation Summary

    The fiscal year 1998 Department of Defense procurement 
budget requests totals $41,585,178,000. The accompanying bill 
recommends $45,515,962,000. The total amount recommended is an 
increase of $3,930,784,000 above the fiscal year 1998 budget 
estimate and is $1,700,478,000 above the total provided in 
fiscal year 1997. The Committee recommendation includes 
$850,000,000 for National Guard and Reserve Equipment. The 
table below summarizes the budget estimates and the Committee's 
recommendations:



                    reduced use of solvent adhesives

    With the enactment of the Pollution Prevention Act, 
Congress recognized that there are significant opportunities 
for industry to reduce or prevent pollution at the source 
through cost-effective changes in manufacturing production, 
operations, and raw material use. The Act states that source 
reduction is more desirable than waste management or pollution 
control. The Committee believes that there are many products 
procured by the military which can be manufactured with a 
substantial reduction of solvents used in the manufacturing 
process. In particular, many materials used in products must be 
joined together in the manufacturing process with multiple 
coats of solvent adhesives. The Committee urges the Defense 
Department to purchase products which are manufactured in a 
manner that minimizes the use of solvent adhesives during 
manufacturing because it reduces pollution at its source and is 
cost effective.

                      alternative fueled vehicles

    The DoD requested authorization to procure 811 passenger 
vehicles in fiscal year 1998. The Committee approves the DoD 
request for passenger vehicles.
    Public Law 102-486 (Sec. 303) directs that of the total 
number of vehicles acquired in fiscal year 1998 by a federal 
fleet, at least 50 percent must be alternative fueled vehicles. 
The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to procure, 
within available funds, alternative fueled vehicles to comply 
with P.L 102-486 (Sec. 303). The alternative fueled vehicles 
are to include, but not be limited to, natural gas and electric 
vehicles.

         commander's tactical terminal/joint tactical terminal

    The Committee is aware that an ongoing contract protest is 
preventing the Services from procuring the Joint Tactical 
Terminal (JTT). The Committee understands how critical it is 
for commanders to have the capability to receive data and 
supports the Services in the procurement of the Commander's 
Tactical Terminal (CTT) to meet their immediate requirements. 
The Committee approves the budget request for CTT/JTT 
procurement with the understanding that the Services continue 
to use these funds and prior year funds to procure CTTs until 
the JTT contract is awarded.

                          classified programs

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

                       AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY

    Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................$1,348,434,000
    Fiscal year 1998 budget request........................1,029,459,000
    Committee recommendation...............................1,541,217,000
    Change from budget request..............................+511,758,000

    This appropriation finances the acquisition of tactical and 
utility airplanes and helicopters, including associated 
electronics, electronic warfare, and communications equipment 
and armament, modification of in-service aircraft; ground 
support equipment, components and parts such as spare engines, 
transmissions, gear boxes, and sensor equipment. It also funds 
related training devices such as combat flight simulators and 
production base support.

                       Committee Recommendations

                         authorization changes

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

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Committee      Change from 
                              Item                                Budget request    recommended       request   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short range UAV.................................................               0          20,000         +20,000
C-12 Cargo Mods.................................................             613           6,613          +6,000
Aircraft Survivability Equipment................................             905          15,705         +14,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Fixed Wing

                        guardrail common sensor

    The Army requested $3,388,000 for the Guardrail Common 
Sensor (GRCS). The Committee recommends $13,046,000 an increase 
of $9,658,000. Of this amount, $3,000,000 is to upgrade the 
Communication High Accuracy Airborne Location System (CHAALS) 
capability to the GRCS system in Korea; and $6,658,000 is to 
complete the fielding of the GRCS program embedded training 
requirement.

                              Rotary Wing

                            uh-60 blackhawk

    The Army requested $183,231,000 for UH-60 Blackhawk 
helicopters. The Committee recommends $309,231,000, an increase 
of $126,000,000. Of the increase, $64,000,000 is only to 
procure eight additional Blackhawk helicopters for the Army 
National Guard (ARNG), $56,000,000 is only to procure four 
Blackhawk derivatives (CH-60) for the Naval Reserve, and 
$6,000,000 is only for modification kits to configure three of 
the ARNG aircraft as enhanced medical evacuation models.
    The Army's budget submission to the Secretary of Defense 
did not include funding for Blackhawk production. The Office of 
the Secretary of Defense added funding to the Army budget for 
Blackhawks to maintain the current multi-year contract until 
the Navy begins procuring a Blackhawk variant in fiscal year 
2000. In testimony to the Committee, the Army stated that it 
has satisfied the active Army's warfighting requirement for 
Blackhawks and has no plans to procure additional aircraft in 
the near future. In contrast, the ARNG has a pressing need to 
update its utility helicopter fleet. Therefore, the Committee 
directs that the 18 helicopters requested in the fiscal year 
1998 budget request be provided only to the National Guard. The 
Committee notes that the Army has planned for 18 aircraft in 
fiscal year 1999 and directs that adequate funding for the 
multi-year contract be submitted with the fiscal year 1999 
budget request.
    In fiscal year 1997, the Committee provided an additional 6 
Blackhawk helicopters to the Army. The Committee directs that 
one of the 1997 aircraft is to replace the Blackhawk loaned to 
the Navy for the VERTERP Demonstration Program.

                             kiowa warrior

    The Army requested $38,822,000 for Kiowa Warrior 
helicopters. The Committee recommends $213,822,000, an increase 
of $175,000,000. Of the increase, $151,700,000 is only for 
Kiowa Warrior production and $23,300,000 is only for safety 
enhancements. The Committee notes that fiscal year 1998 is the 
second year that the Army has not funded Kiowa Warrior safety 
modifications and has identified the item as an unfunded 
requirement. Given the importance of the safety modification 
program, the Committee directs the Army to provide sufficient 
funds in the fiscal year 1999 budget request.

                      eh-60 quickfix modifications

    The Army requested $38,140,000 for the EH-60 Quickfix mods. 
The Committee recommends $44,640,000, an increase of $6,500,000 
to procure Ground Based Common Sensor/AQF institutional 
training devices.

                           ase modifications

    The Army requested $4,578,000 for ASE modifications. The 
Committee recommends $19,078,000, an increase of $14,500,000. 
Of the additional funds, $7,000,000 is only to procure and 
install AN/AVR-2A laser detecting sets and $7,500,000 is only 
for the Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasures/Common Missile 
Warning System for the Longbow Apache helicopter.

                        Other Support Equipment

                            training devices

    The Army requested no funds for training devices. The 
Committee recommends $9,300,000 only for improved flight 
simulators which include geographic specific data-bases.

                        common ground equipment

    The Army requested $30,636,000 for common ground equipment. 
The Committee recommends $27,636,000, a decrease of $3,000,000 
which was budgeted for the Air Traffic Navigation, Integration 
and Coordination System (ATNAVICS). Subsequent to the fiscal 
year 1998 budget submission, the Committee learned that the 
budget did not include funding to complete ATNAVICS testing. 
Therefore, the Committee has transferred funds not required for 
procurement to research and development.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:



                       MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................    $1,041,867,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................     1,178,151,000
Committee recommendation..............................       771,942,000
Change from budget request............................      -406,209,000

    This appropriation finances the acquisition of surface-to-
air, surface-to-surface, and anti-tank/assault missile systems. 
Also included are major components, modifications, targets, 
test equipment, and production base support.

                       Committee Recommendations

                         authorization changes

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

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Committee      Change from 
                              Item                                Budget request  recommendation      request   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stinger Mods....................................................          12,411          21,711          +9,300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             Other Missiles

                                patriot

    The Army requested $349,109,000 for Patriot. The Committee 
recommends transferring this amount to the Ballistic Missile 
Defense Organization in the ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'' 
appropriation, as proposed in the House-passed Defense 
Authorization bill.

                                hellfire

    The Army requested $279,687,000 for procurement of Hellfire 
missiles. The Committee recommends $228,287,000, a decrease of 
$51,400,000. This decrease includes a GAO recommended reduction 
of $5,400,000 for unused prior year Hellfire II engineering 
change order (ECO) funding, a GAO recommended reduction of 
$38,300,000 to Longbow Hellfire for overstated missile 
requirements, and a reduction of $7,700,000 for tooling. With 
regard to Longbow missile quantities, a recent GAO audit report 
states, ``The Army used an outdated helicopter carrying 
capability of 16 missiles instead of the current 12, double 
counted missiles when figuring the residual readiness portion 
of the requirement, and used an unsubstantiated mix ratio 
between Longbow Hellfire and Hellfire II missiles. Correcting 
these mistakes would potentially reduce the current 12,722 
missile requirement for Longbow Hellfire missiles by 7,145 
missiles.'' The report goes on to identify limitations in 
Apache carriage that could lead to reductions of another 1,184 
missiles. The DoD response did not dispute any of these GAO 
observations, but simply stated it will consider an updated 
acquisition strategy for the fiscal year 1999 budget. Given 
these circumstances, the Committee does not believe that the 50 
percent ramp-up in production in fiscal year 1998 compared to 
fiscal year 1997 nor procurement of additional tooling in 
fiscal year 1998 is prudent until these requirement issues are 
resolved.

                              mlrs rocket

    The Army requested $2,863,000 for MLRS Extended Range 
(MLRS-ER) rockets. The Committee recommends $14,863,000, an 
increase of $12,000,000. While preparing its fiscal year 1998 
budget, the Army shifted funds from the MLRS-ER rockets line-
item to the launcher line-item. At the time of submission of 
the budget, the Army hoped that foreign military sales (FMS) 
would be sufficient to maintain the rocket production line. 
However, the Army has since learned that FMS has not 
materialized as expected and therefore requires an additional 
$12,000,000 in the rockets line-item to maintain the production 
base. The Committee therefore recommends increasing MLRS rocket 
funding by $12,000,000 with an equal reduction to the MLRS 
launcher program.

                         mlrs launcher systems

    The Army requested $102,649,000 for MLRS Launchers. The 
Committee recommends $105,649,000, a net increase of 
$3,000,000. The recommended adjustment includes a $12,000,000 
decrease to finance MLRS rocket production as discussed above, 
and a $15,000,000 increase only for Vehicular 
Intercommunication System (VIS) upgrades to MLRS vehicles.

                                  bat

    The Army requested $85,208,000 for production of the BAT 
submunition. The Committee recommends $45,208,000, a decrease 
of $40,000,000 equating to a reduction of 165 BAT submunitions. 
The BAT submunition will be deployed on ATACMS Block II 
missiles which do not enter production until fiscal year 1999. 
The Committee believes that the quantity reduction can be 
accommodated with little impact to the fiscal year 1999 ATACMS 
Block II production program.

                        Modification of Missiles

                              patriot mods

    The budget requests $20,825,000 for modifications to the 
Patriot missile. The Committee recommends $30,825,000, an 
increase of $10,000,000 only for procurement of additional GEM 
+/- upgrades.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:



        PROCUREMENT OF WEAPONS AND TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES, ARMY

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................    $1,470,286,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................     1,065,707,000
Committee recommendation..............................     1,332,907,000
Change from budget request............................      +267,200,000
                                                                        

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

                       Committee Recommendations

                         authorization changes

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

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Budget     Committee   Change from
               Item                  request    recommended    request  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved Recovery Vehicle........       28,601       56,401      +27,800
Armor Machine Gun................            0       20,000      +20,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Tracked Combat Vehicles

                        bradley base sustainment

    The Army requested $125,591,000 for Bradley base 
sustainment. The Committee recommends $240,591,000, an increase 
of $115,000,000 only to modify Bradley AO variants to the ODS 
variant for the Army National Guard.

               field artillery ammunition support vehicle

    The Army requested no funds for the Field Artillery 
Ammunition Support Vehicle (FAASV). The Committee recommends 
$40,000,000 only to procure two battalion sets for the Army 
National Guard.

                Modification of Tracked Combat Vehicles

                         carrier modifications

    The Army requested $20,244,000 for carrier modifications. 
The Committee recommends $28,644,000, an increase of $8,400,000 
only to procure night vision driver viewers for the M113A3.

                      howitzer, 155mm m109A6 (mod)

    The Army requested $18,706,000 for the modification of 
M109A6 howitzers. The Committee recommends $74,706,000, an 
increase of $56,000,000 only to modify two battalion sets of 
Paladins for the Army National Guard.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:



                    PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................    $1,127,149,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................       890,902,000
Committee recommendation..............................     1,062,802,000
Change from budget request............................      +171,900,000
                                                                        

    This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, 
modification of in-service stock, and related production base 
support including the maintenance, expansion, and modernization 
of industrial facilities and equipment.

                       Committee Recommendations

                         authorization changes

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

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Budget     Committee   Change from
               Item                  request    recommended    request  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CTG, 5.56MM, All types...........       63,588       65,988       +2,400
CTG 7.62MM, All types............        1,136        7,136       +6,000
.50 Cal, All types...............       19,977       20,177         +200
120MM HE Mortar (M934)...........       29,908       38,908       +9,000
120MM Illum (XM930)..............            0        3,000       +3,000
120MM TP-T M831/831A1............       52,226       62,026       +9,800
120MM TPCSDS-TM865...............      111,653      124,453      +12,800
Fuze, Multi-option...............            0       20,000      +20,000
Simulators (all types)...........        4,573        5,073         +500
Conventional ammo demil..........      106,118       96,118      -10,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         ammunition shortfalls

    The Committee has recommended an increase of $145,900,000 
over the budget request to satisfy ammunition shortfalls 
identified by the Army. The Committee has recommended 
additional funds for the following items:

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Budget     Committee   Change from
               Item                  request    recommended    request  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CTG, 5.56MM, All types...........       63,588       65,988       +2,400
.50 Cal, All types...............       19,977       20,177         +200
120MM HE Mortar (M934)...........       29,908       38,908       +9,000
120MM TP-T M831/831A1............       52,226       62,026       +9,800
120MM TPCSDS-T M865..............      111,653      124,453      +12,800
155MM HE M795....................            0       55,000      +55,000
Fuze, Multi-option...............            0       20,000      +20,000
Rocket, Hydra (all types)........       12,067       48,267      +36,200
Simulators (all types)...........        4,573        5,073         +500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Mortar Ammunition

                    120mm full range practice (m931)

    The Army requested $24,432,000 for 120MM full range 
practice (M931) mortar ammunition. The Committee recommends 
$34,432,000, an increase of $10,000,000 only to procure M931 
rounds.

                            Tank Ammunition

                         120mm heat-mp-t m830a1

    The Army requested no funds for CTG 120MM HEAT M830A1 
ammunition. The Committee recommends $10,000,000. Of the 
increase, $1,800,000 is only for the modification of the 
existing M830A1 tank ammunition to the XM908 configuration and 
$8,200,000 is only to procure new M830A1 tank rounds to replace 
the rounds which are modified. The Committee has learned that 
the XM908 may satisfy an Army requirement to rapidly demolish 
concrete obstacles and structures, especially in Korea. The 
Committee directs that none of the funds appropriated for the 
XM908 may be obligated until the Army develops a formal 
requirements document for XM908 ammunition.

                          Artillery Ammunition

                           105mm dpicm xm915

    The Army requested no funds for 105MM DPICM artillery 
ammunition. The Committee recommends $20,000,000 only to 
procure DPICM ammunition.

                                Rockets

                       bunker defeating munition

    The Army requested no funds for the Bunker Defeating 
Munition (BDM). The Committee recommends $8,000,000 only to 
continue the procurement of BDM.

                   Ammunition Production Base Support

                   provision of industrial facilities

    The Army requested $45,857,000 for the provision of 
industrial base facilities. The Committee recommends 
$24,857,000, a decrease of $21,000,000. The Committee continues 
to believe that maintaining the unique capabilities of the 
ammunition industrial base is vital to ensure that future 
ammunition requirements are satisfied. However, historical data 
indicates slow obligation and execution rates for funds 
appropriated in this account. Army accounting records show 
significant amounts of fiscal year 1995, 1996, and 1997 
unobligated funds. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the 
budget request be reduced.
    Of the available funds, $3,000,000 is only for the large 
caliber deep drawn cartridge case program. The Committee 
directs that the Army provide adequate funding for this effort 
in future budget submissions.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:



                        OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................    $3,172,485,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................     2,455,030,000
Committee recommendation..............................     2,502,886,000
Change from budget request............................       +47,856,000
                                                                        

    This appropriation finances the acquisition of: (a) 
tactical and commercial vehicles, including trucks, semi-
trailers, and trailers of all types to provide mobility and 
utility support to field forces and the worldwide logistical 
system; (b) communications and electronics equipment of all 
types to provide fixed, semi-fixed, and mobile strategic and 
tactical communications equipment; and (c) other support 
equipment, such as chemical defensive equipment, tactical 
bridging, shop sets, and construction equipment, floating and 
rail equipment, generators and power units, material handling 
equipment, medical support equipment, special equipment for 
user testing, and non-system training devices. In each of these 
activities funds are also included for modifications of in-
service equipment, investment spares and repair parts, and 
production base support.

                       Committee Recommendations

                         authorization changes

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

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Budget     Committee   Change from
               Item                  request    recommended    request  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HMMWV............................       66,233      104,933      +38,700
Items less than $2.0M (TIARA)....            0        2,800       +2,800
Training Devices, Nonsystem......       49,688       53,688       +4,000
Depot Maintenance of Other End                                          
 Items...........................       24,819            0      -24,819
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Tactical and Support Vehicles

                  semi-trailer, container transporter

    The Army requested $9,361,000 for the procurement of semi-
trailer container transporters. The Committee recommends no 
funding. Since, the Army will not complete the testing of the 
semi-trailers until December 1998 and will not initiate full 
procurement until fiscal year 1999, the Committee believes the 
fiscal year 1998 budget request should be denied.

                    semi-trailer, tank, 5000 gallon

    The Army requested $7,581,000 for the procurement of 5000 
gallon tank semi-trailers. The Committee recommends $3,000,000, 
a decrease of $4,581,000. The Committee has learned that the 
program has been delayed and testing will not be completed 
until December 1998. Full scale production is scheduled for 
fiscal year 1999. The Committee believes that the remaining 
funds are adequate to procure test articles and associated 
engineering support services.

                     semi-trailer, tank 7500 gallon

    The Army requested $10,408,000 for the procurement of 7500 
gallon tank semi-trailers. The Committee recommends $2,000,000, 
a reduction of $8,408,000. The Committee has learned that the 
program has been delayed and full scale production is scheduled 
for fiscal year 1999. The Committee believes the remaining 
funds are sufficient to procure test articles and engineering 
support services.

                   family of medium tactical vehicles

    The Army requested $209,446,000 for the Family of Medium 
Tactical Vehicles (FMTV). The Committee recommends the 
requested amount.
    The Army has approved a dual source strategy for FMTV. The 
Army believes that developing a second production source for 
FMTV's will yield significant savings and expects to award a 
competitive contract in fiscal year 2000. Since the current 
contract will expire in 1998 and the competitive contract will 
not be awarded until 2000, the Committee understands that the 
Army may achieve savings in fiscal years 1998 and 1999 through 
a multi-year contract for FMTV. Therefore, in section 8008 of 
the General Provisions, the Committee has provided the 
necessary authority for a two-year multi-year contract. 
However, the Army may not enter into a multi-year contract 
without prior approval from the congressional defense 
committees. The Committee expects that the multi-year proposal 
will be supported with the standard multi-year justification 
materials. Furthermore, the Committee directs the award of a 
multi-year contract is to have no impact on the current FMTV 
competition strategy.

                   family of heavy tactical vehicles

    The Army requested $9,071,000 for the Family of Heavy 
Tactical Vehicles. The Committee recommends $87,071,000, an 
increase of $78,000,000. Of the increase, $45,000,000 is only 
to procure Heavy Equipment Transporters and $33,000,000 is only 
to procure Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Trucks.

                       armored security vehicles

    The Army requested $9,470,000 for armored security 
vehicles. The Committee recommends $10,970,000, an increase of 
$1,500,000 only to procure Vehicular Intercommunications 
Systems for the armored security vehicle fleet.

                       truck, tractor, line haul

    The Army requested $36,079,000 to procure line haul tractor 
trailers. The Committee recommends no funds. The line haul 
trailers will be used to pull 7500 gallon tank semi-trailers. 
Since the trailer program has been delayed until fiscal year 
1999, the Committee believes the budget request should be 
denied.

                    self-loading/off-loading trailer

    The Committee understands that the Army is finalizing the 
operational requirements document for single operator trailer 
equipment. The Committee encourages the Army to consider 
commercially available technologies to satisfy this tactical 
trailer requirement.

                Communications--Satellite Communications

                defense satellite communications system

    The Army requested $87,643,000 for defense satellite 
communications systems. The Committee recommends $83,143,000, a 
reduction of $4,500,000. The budget request includes funds to 
accelerate the production of the universal modem system. 
However, the required testing for the system will not be 
completed until late 1999. The recommended funding will 
maintain the current rate of production.

                       satellite terminals, emut

    The Army requested $7,264,000 for Enhanced Manpack UHF 
Terminal programs (EMUT). The Committee recommends $6,064,000, 
a decrease of $1,200,000. As a result of a combined Army and 
Air Force procurement, contract savings were achieved for the 
EMUT in fiscal year 1997. Therefore, the Committee believes the 
savings in fiscal year 1997 can be used to offset the fiscal 
year 1998 budget request.

                   navstar global positioning system

    The Army requested $6,796,000 for the NAVSTAR global 
positioning system. The Committee recommends $5,596,000, a 
decrease of $1,200,000. The Committee understands that both 
quantity and price budgeted for miniaturized airborne global 
positioning system receivers were reduced in fiscal year 1997. 
Additionally, reductions in program management have also 
resulted in program savings.

                                 scamp

    The Army requested $4,305,000 to procure Single Channel 
Anti-jam manportable (SCAMP) terminals. The Committee 
recommends $10,405,000, an increase of $6,100,000 only to 
procure new SCAMP terminals.

                        global broadcast service

    The Army requested $4,967,000 to procure global broadcast 
service ground receive terminals. The Committee recommends no 
funding. Subsequent to the budget submission, the Army decided 
not to procure the terminals, but instead will use Air Force 
terminals.

                 Communications--Combat Communications

                     army data distribution system

    The Army requested $57,165,000 for the Army Data 
Distribution System. The Committee recommends $57,065,000, a 
decrease of $100,000. This includes an increase of $20,000,000 
only for the Enhanced Position Locating and Report System and a 
decrease of $20,100,000 for the Joint Tactical Information 
System (JTIDS). The Committee recommends transfering JTIDS 
funds to the Ballistic Missile Defense Office under the 
Procurement, Defense-wide appropriation.

                            sincgars family

    The Army requested $290,164,000 for the SINCGARS family. 
The Committee recommends $302,164,000, an increase of 
$12,000,000 only for Frequency Hopping Multiplexers.

                     combat survivor evader locator

    The Army requested $5,677,000 for the procurement of combat 
survivor evader locator systems. The Committee recommends no 
funding. Since the combat survivor evader system development 
program has been delayed until the end of fiscal year 1998, the 
procurement funding can be delayed.

                          Electronic Equipment

                       all source analysis system

    The Army requested $7,772,000 for the All Source Analysis 
System. The Committee recommends $26,959,000, an increase of 
$19,187,000. Of this amount, $13,500,000 is only to procure 
ASAS Remote Workstation (RWS) and $5,687,000 is to procure the 
CI/HUMINT Automated Tool Set (CHATS) for Echelons Corps and 
Below units.

                    iew--ground based common sensors

    The Army requested $26,817,000 for IEW-Ground Based Common 
Sensor. The Committee denies this request because of the Army's 
decision to reschedule the IOT&E for this program.

                Electronic Equipment--Electronic Warfare

                               shortshop

    The Army requested no funds for Shortstop Electronic 
Protection System (SEPS). The Committee recommends $6,000,000 
to procure Shortstop SEPS so that deployed forces have adequate 
protection for artillery, mortar and rocket attacks.

                                sentinel

    The Army requested $41,014,000 for Sentinel. The Committee 
recommends $51,014,000, an increase of $10,000,000 only to 
procure additional Sentinel systems.

                          night vision devices

    The Army requested $85,312,000 for night vision devices. 
The Committee recommends $99,712,000, an increase of 
$14,400,000. Of the increase, $3,000,000 is only for light 
weight video reconnaissance systems and $11,400,000 to only for 
AN/PAS-13 thermal weapons sights.

               Electronic Equipment--Tactical C2 Systems

                        maneuver control system

    The Army requested $15,669,000 for Maneuver Control System 
(MCS) hardware. The Committee recommends no funding. The MCS 
software program which has been in development since the 
1980's, was restructured in fiscal year 1993. MCS software 
Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) initially 
scheduled for November 1995 has slipped three times and is 
currently scheduled for March 1998. According to the GAO, MCS 
failed two of four Developmental Operational Test and 
Evaluation operational issues. Furthermore, a System Confidence 
Demonstration (SCD), a post-SCD, and a post-post SCD, 
demonstrated that the software was not ready for IOT&E. The 
Army requested that it be allowed to procure training base 
computers for MCS prior to Milestone III. Since the MCS system 
has yet to pass an operational test, the Committee does not 
believe that the Army has a critical need to acquire training 
base computers prior to a Milestone III decision.

                standard integrated command post system

    The Army requested $26,551,000 for standard integrated 
command post systems. The Committee recommends $36,551,000, an 
increase of $10,000,000 only to add vehicular 
intercommunications systems (AN/VIC3) to standard integrated 
command post vehicles.

                    Electronic Equipment--Automation

                  automated data processing equipment

    Information on this project can be found in the Information 
Resources Management section of this report.

                  reserve component automation system

    The Army requested $114,323,000 for the Reserve Component 
Automation System. The Committee supports this request and 
recommends the full $114,323,000 only for this program.

            Electronic Equipment--Test Measurement Equipment

                  integrated family of test equipment

    The Army requested no funds for the Integrated Family of 
Test Equipment (IFTE). The Committee recommends $29,000,000 
only for IFTE procurement.

                         Maintenance Equipment

                      items less than $2.0 million

    The Army requested $1,167,000 for items less than $2.0 
million (maintenance equipment). The Committee recommends 
$5,167,000, an increase of $4,000,000 only for laser leveling 
devices.

                 Rail Float Containerization Equipment

                       railway car, flat, 100 ton

    The Army requested $17,755,000 for 100 ton, flat railway 
cars. The Committee recommends no funding. Subsequent to the 
budget submission, the Committee learned that the Army procured 
300 used railway cars in fiscal year 1997. Since the fiscal 
year 1997 buy satisfies the Army's plan to procure railway cars 
in fiscal year 1997 and 1998, the Committee believes that the 
fiscal year 1998 request is unnecessary.

                           Training Equipment

                  simnet/close combat tactical trainer

    The Army requested $92,968,000 for the Simnet/Close Combat 
Tactical Trainer (CCTT). The Committee recommends no funding. 
Since the submission of the budget request, the Army has made 
significant schedule changes to the CCTT acquisition plan. 
Software stability problems have delayed the program by almost 
one year. CCTT operational testing will begin in 1998 and a 
Milestone III decision to proceed to full-scale production will 
not be made until fiscal year 1999. The Committee's Survey's 
and Investigations staff has learned that the Army needs 48 
simulators to conduct required testing. To date, the Army has 
purchased 110 simulators. Since the Army has sufficient 
simulators for testing and full-rate production will not begin 
until 1999, the Committee denies procurement funding. However, 
the Committee recommends additional funds in research and 
development for required testing which was not included in the 
budget request.

                       tactical facsimile system

    The Committee has learned that the Army is replacing aging 
facsimile machines. The fielded facsimile machines provide poor 
image quality and experience reliability and maintenance 
problems because of their age. The Committee encourages the 
Army to procure TS-21 Blackjack facsimile systems to meet Army 
requirements for interoperability, speed of transmission, and 
transportability.

                     gun laying positioning system

    The Army requested no funds for the Gun Laying Positioning 
System (GLPS). The Committee recommends $6,000,000 only for 
GLPS. Additional details are provided under the heading ``Force 
XXI Initiatives.''

                       radio frequency technology

    The Army requested no funds for the Radio Frequency 
Technology. The Committee recommends $2,900,000 only for Radio 
Frequency Technology. Additional details are provided under the 
heading ``Force XXI Initiatives.''

               lightweight laser designator/range finder

    The Army requested no funds for Lightweight Laser 
Designator/Range Finder. The Committee recommends $2,800,000 
only for the lightweight laser designator/range finder. 
Additional details are provided under the heading ``Force XXI 
Initiatives.''

               combat synthetic training assessment range

    The Army requested no funds for Combat Synthetic Training 
Assessment Range. The Committee recommends $5,400,000 only for 
the Combat Synthetic Training Assessment Range. Additional 
details are provided under the heading ``Force XXI 
Initiatives.''

                  airborne command and control system

    The Army requested no funds for Airborne Command and 
Control System. The Committee recommends $11,100,000 only for 
the Airborne Command and Control System. Additional details are 
provided under the heading ``Force XXI Initiatives.''

                          avenger slew to cue

    The Army requested no funds for Avenger Slew to Cue System. 
The Committee recommends $7,400,000 only for Avenger Slew to 
Cue. Additional details are provided under the heading ``Force 
XXI Initiatives.''

                   palletized loading system enhanced

    The Army requested no funds for Palletized Loading System 
Enhanced. The Committee recommends $3,000,000 only for 
Palletized Loading System Enhanced. Additional details are 
provided under the heading ``Force XXI Initiatives.''

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following programs in fiscal year 1998:



                       AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................    $7,027,010,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................     6,085,965,000
Committee recommendation..............................     5,951,965,000
Change from budget request............................      +801,500,000
                                                                        

    This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of 
aircraft and related support equipment and programs; flight 
simulators; equipment to modify in-service aircraft to extend 
their service life, eliminate safety hazards, and improve their 
operational effectiveness; and spares and ground support 
equipment for all end items procured by this appropriation.

                       Committee Recommendations

                         authorization changes

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

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Budget       Committee    Change from
                                  request    recommendation    request  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AV-8B.........................      277,648        310,648       +33,000
V-22..........................      472,007        661,307      +189,300
E-2C..........................      236,474        304,474       +68,000
KC-130J.......................            0        179,700      +179,700
Common ground equipment.......      287,114        274,114       -13,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Combat Aircraft

                            F/A-18E/F Hornet

    The Navy requested $2,101,100,000 to procure 20 F/A-18E/F 
Hornet aircraft. The Committee recommends providing the amount 
requested. The Navy has invested $4,982,000,000 in development 
and $2,408,000,000 to produce F/A-18E/F aircraft through fiscal 
year 1997. The F/A-18E/F offers significant warfighting 
improvements for Naval aviation which will be used for decades: 
the F/A-18E/F can fly 40 percent farther, remain on station 80 
percent longer, carry more weapons, and is more lethal and 
survivable than current generation F/A-18C/D aircraft which 
have no room for modern avionics upgrades. Aircraft weight 
remains well below the specification weight requirement, even 
with all known potential increases considered. With funds 
appropriated by Congress in prior years, production of the F/A-
18E/F is well underway. The program is considered to be a model 
acquisition and it was recently endorsed in the Quadrennial 
Defense Review. The Secretary of Defense recently informed the 
defense committees that the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet program is a 
cornerstone of the Defense Department's tactical air 
modernization program. Recent General Accounting Office reports 
on the F/A-18E/F have raised valid points about potential cost 
savings from buying older generation F/A-18C/D model aircraft 
rather than the new model, but they have not disclosed a single 
major significant cost or technical difficulty. For these many 
reasons, the Committee endorses the need to increase F/A-18E/F 
production in fiscal year 1998 because of the need to attain 
lower per unit costs through efficient high-rate production, 
but more importantly, to field vital warfighting capability to 
the fleet as soon as possible.

                        Modification of Aircraft

                              ea-6 Series

    The Navy requested $86,783,000 for EA-6B modifications. The 
Committee recommends $169,783,000, an increase of $83,000,000. 
Within this amount, $50,000,000 is for wing center sections, 
$18,000,000 is for turbine blade containment upgrades, and 
$15,000,000 is for USQ-113 communications jammers.

                               h-1 series

    The Navy requested $18,489,000 for H-1 series 
modifications. The Committee recommends $16,389,000, a decrease 
of $2,100,000. This amount includes an increase of $3,500,000 
only for UH-1 internal rescue hoists and a transfer of 
$5,600,000 to research and development for UH-1 upgrades (PE 
0604245N).

                               P-3 series

    The Navy requested $164,907,000 for P-3 modifications. The 
Committee recommends $293,907,000, an increase of $129,000,000. 
Within this amount, $56,600,000 is for the anti-surface warfare 
improvement program, $35,100,000 is for the sustained readiness 
program, $18,500,000 is only to modify AIP processors with 
specific emitter identification capability, $12,800,000 is only 
for the replacement data storage system, and $6,000,000 is only 
for the lightweight environmentally sealed parachute assembly.

                               e-2 series

    The Navy requested $49,073,000 for E-2 modifications. The 
Committee recommends $50,673,000, an increase of $1,600,000 
only for the oil debris detection and burnoff system. The 
increased funds may also be used for C-2 and P-3 aircraft.

                        common avionics changes

    The Navy requested $131,599,000 for common avionics 
changes. The Committee recommends $130,599,000, a decrease of 
$1,000,000. This includes a decrease of $10,000,000 recommended 
in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill and an increase 
of $9,000,000 only for the AN/AWW-13 guided weapon control 
monitor set.

               Aircraft Support Equipment and Facilities

                        common ground equipment

    The Navy requested $287,114,000 for common ground 
equipment. The Committee recommends $274,114,000, a decrease of 
$13,000,000 as recommended in the House-passed Defense 
Authorization bill. Within the total amount provided, 
$1,000,000 is only to support the establishment and 
implementation of computer based training programs for naval 
air reserve aircrews.

                          Program Recommended

    The total recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:



                       WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................    $1,389,913,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................     1,136,293,000
Committee recommendation..............................     1,175,393,000
Change from budget request............................       +39,100,000
                                                                        

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

                       Committee Recommendations

                         authorization changes

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

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Budget       Committee    Change from
             Item                 request    recommendation    request  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JSOW..........................       58,665         68,665       +10,000
Hellfire......................            0         37,500       +37,500
Standard missile..............       35,601         68,601       +33,000
Weapons industrial facilities.       34,932         25,932        -9,000
CIWS MODS (surface mode)......        9,990         29,990       +20,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Ballistic Missiles

                      trident advance procurement

    The Navy requested $47,021,000 for advance procurement of 
long lead items for fiscal year 1999 Trident II missiles. The 
Committee recommends $32,021,000, a decrease of $15,000,000. 
The Committee notes that over $19,000,000 of fiscal year 1996 
Trident II long lead funding has not been obligated based on 
DOD accounting reports.In fiscal year 1997, $26,456,000 remains 
unobligated. Further, Navy budget documentation indicates that fiscal 
year 1998 long lead funding for the airframe and motor will not be 
obligated until fiscal year 1999. Since funding is being requested 
ahead of need, the Committee recommends a reduction of $15,000,000 to 
the Trident II advanced procurement request.

                             Other Missiles

                                  essm

    The Navy requested $15,529,000 for the Evolved Seasparrow 
Missile (ESSM) program. The Committee recommends $5,529,000, a 
reduction of $10,000,000. The ESSM program begins low rate 
production in fiscal year 1999 with 87 missiles, including 
foreign military sales. Though the tooling procured in the 
research and development program supports procurement rates of 
up to 180 missiles per year, the Navy's fiscal year 1998 budget 
nevertheless requests funding for full rate production tooling 
one year prior to approval of low rate production and two years 
prior to approval for full rate production. The Committee 
believes that such a request is premature, and therefore 
recommends a reduction of $10,000,000.

                            standard missile

    The Navy requested $196,492,000 for Standard Missile. The 
Committee recommends $181,092,000, a decrease of $15,400,000. 
The funds for the Navy Lower Tier program have been transferred 
to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, in the 
``Procurement, Defense-Wide'' appropriation as proposed in the 
House-passed Defense Authorization bill.

                             aerial targets

    The Navy requested $72,923,000 for aerial targets. The 
Committee recommends $65,923,000, a decrease of $7,000,000 due 
to reduced requirements.

                        Spares and Repair Parts

    The Navy requested $26,943,000 for spares and repair parts. 
The Committee recommends $21,943,000, a reduction of $5,000,000 
based on large unobligated balances in fiscal years 1995, 1996, 
and 1997.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:



            PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................      $289,695,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................       336,797,000
Committee recommendation..............................       423,797,000
Change from budget request............................       +87,000,000
                                                                        

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

                       Committee Recommendations

                         authorization changes

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

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Change  
                Item                   Budget     Committee      from   
                                       request   recommended    request 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.56MM, All types..................      33,000       36,000      +3,000
CTG 7.62MM, All types..............       2,900        8,900      +6,000
Fuze, ET, XM762....................           0        7,000      +7,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         ammunition shortfalls

    The Committee has recommended an additional $30,000,000 to 
satisfy ammunition shortfalls identified by the Marine Corps. 
The Committee has recommended additional funds for the 
following items:

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Change  
                Item                   Budget     Committee      from   
                                       request   recommended    request 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.56MM, All types..................      33,000       36,000      +3,000
Linear charges, all types..........       2,290       17,290     +15,000
40MM, All types....................       5,701       10,701      +5,000
Fuze, ET, XM762....................           0        7,000      +7,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Navy Ammunition

                             practice bombs

    The Navy requested $41,766,000 for practice bombs. The 
Committee recommends $56,766,000, an increase of $15,000,000 
only to procure laser guided training rounds.

                        5 inch/54 gun ammunition

    The Navy requested $27,669,000 for 5 inch/54 gun 
ammunition. The Committee recommends $60,169,000, an increase 
of $32,500,000 only to procure DPICM ammunition.

                              20MM pgu-28

    The Navy requested no funds for 20MM PGU-28 ammunition. The 
Committee recommends $3,500,000 only to procure 20MM PGU-28 
ammunition.

                          Program Recommended

    The total recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:



                   SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................    $5,613,665,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................     7,438,158,000
Committee recommendation..............................     7,628,158,000
Change from budget request............................      +190,000,000
                                                                        

    This appropriation provides funds for the construction of 
new ships and the purchase and conversion of existing ships, 
including hull, mechanical, and electrical equipment, 
electronics, guns, torpedo and missile launching systems, and 
communications systems.

                       Committee Recommendations

                         authorization changes

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

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Change  
                                    Budget       Committee       from   
                                    Request   Recommendation    Request 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LPD-17..........................           0       185,000      +185,000
Outfitting......................      28,140        21,140        -7,000
Post Delivery...................      90,177        81,177        -9,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             Other Warships

                        cvn refueling overhauls

    The Navy requested $1,615,003,000 for a complex refueling 
overhaul of the U.S.S. Nimitz (CVN-68). The Committee is 
disappointed that the Navy has elected to overhaul the Nimitz--
the first ship of its class--without cooperative engagement, 
integrated ship self defense, the advanced combat direction 
system, the rolling airframe missile, the SPQ-9 navigation 
radar, a common high-band data link, the battlegroup passive 
horizon extension system, an outboard weapons elevator, 
conversion of nuclear magazines, emergency ordnance handling, 
and improved propellers. At the same time the Navy proposes to 
delete these essential warfighting improvements from a front 
line combat ship, ostensibly due to lack of funds, it has 
proposed a ``business-as-usual'' R&D budget with growth in 
basic research, advanced technology demonstrations, and other 
programs less relevant to near-term warfighting requirements. 
The Committee questions these priorities and whether the 
Theater CINCs agree with them. The Committee urges the 
leadership of the Navy to reconsider these priorities as it 
executes the fiscal year 1998 budget, and to request through 
the reprogramming process sufficient funds to ensure that the 
Nimitz is returned to duty with the best warfighting 
improvements available, rather than with holes where modern 
equipment is supposed to go. The Committee recommends 
$1,628,403,000, an increase of $13,400,000. This includes a 
decrease of $5,600,000 as recommended in the House-passed 
Defense Authorization bill due to cancellation of the 
requirement for CIWS guns and an increase of $20,000,000 only 
for installation of the ship self defense system.

              cvn refueling overhauls--advance procurement

    The Navy requested $92,855,000 for advance procurement for 
the overhaul of CVN-69, a Nimitz class aircraft carrier. Given 
the deficiencies on the overhaul of the lead ship of the class, 
the Committee is not willing to support a second overhaul until 
they are remedied for both ships. The Committee recommends 
$46,855,000, a decrease of $46,000,000, as well as proposed 
bill language to ensure that funds are not obligated on an 
aircraft carrier overhaul that delivers CVN-69 back to the 
fleet without installations of cooperative engagement and the 
ship self defense system.

                                 ddg-51

    The Navy requested $2,665,767,000 to procure 3 DDG-51 Aegis 
ships. The Committee is dismayed at the Navy's plan to build 12 
ships between 1997 and 2001 which are planned to be delivered 
to the fleet without cooperative engagement or theater 
ballistic missile defense capability. This shipbuilding plan is 
counter to the theater missile defense goals of the 
Administration, the Navy, and the Congress and may 
unnecessarily put at risk the lives of U.S. forces deployed in 
hostile situations. The Committee recommends $2,695,367,000, an 
increase of $29,600,000. This includes an additional 
$19,400,000 to accelerate baseline 6 hardware and software 
needed to incorporate theater ballistic missile defense in 
these ships, $14,000,000 only to install cooperative engagement 
on the third ship in 1998, and a decrease of $3,800,000 due to 
savings in the program resulting from a FMS sale to Spain of 
Aegis combat systems. The Committee also proposes bill language 
to preclude the Navy from awarding a multiyear contract for 
construction of twelve DDG-51 ships, unless at least four of 
the ships will be delivered to the Navy with cooperative 
engagement and theater ballistic missile capability installed.

                           cruiser overhauls

    The Navy has indicated to the congressional defense 
committees that it plans to begin an extensive overhaul program 
for 27 of its Aegis cruisers. Since no funds are requested in 
the budget for this purpose, the Department of Defense would 
have to submit a new start reprogramming request if the Navy 
planned to begin cruiser conversion prior to fiscal year 1999. 
The Committee directs that all the overhauls for these ships 
must be competed between U.S. shipyards and that no non-
competitive allocations be made for industrial base reasons. 
The Committee understands that this direction is consistent 
with the Navy's plan.

              Auxiliaries, Craft, and Prior Year Programs

                           lcac landing craft

    The Navy requested no funds for LCAC landing craft service 
life extension (SLEP). The Committee recommends $24,000,000 and 
directs the Navy to accelerate the SLEP, while the production 
line is still warm, due to recent disclosure of corrosion and 
component failures from fleet LCAC operating units. The Navy 
has informed the Committee that this program can be started in 
fiscal year 1998 using unique existing facilities and retaining 
a trained labor force, resulting in a net savings of 
$18,300,000.

                                 adc(x)

    The Navy requested no funds for ADC(X) construction, but 
plans to build such a class of ships in the outyears. The 
Committee directs that the construction cost of such ships, if 
proposed to the Congress by the Navy, be funded in the 
Shipbuilding and Conversion appropriation.

                          Program Recommended

    The total recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:



                        OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................    $3,067,944,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................     2,825,500,000
Committee recommendation..............................     3,084,485,000
Change from budget request............................      +258,985,000
                                                                        

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

                       Committee Recommendations

                         authorization changes

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

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Change  
                                    Budget       Committee       from   
                                    Request   Recommendation    Request 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reactor components..............     193,880       180,880       -13,000
Radar Support...................       1,708        23,708       +22,000
Surface sonar windows/domes.....           0         6,000        +6,000
Cooperative engagement..........           0       114,800      +114,800
AN/SSQ-36 sonobouy..............       1,402         2,902        +1,500
AN/SSQ-57 sonobouy..............           0         4,500        +4,500
Weapons range support equipment.       4,858        14,358        +9,500
Airborne mine counter-measures                                          
 (SWIMS)........................      20,192        27,692        +7,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Ships Support Equipment

                          LM-2500 Gas Turbine

    The Navy requested $7,548,000 for the LM-2500 gas turbine 
engine. The Committee recommends $5,548,000, a decrease of 
$2,000,000 due to reduced requirements resulting from ship 
deactivations.

                          Navigation Equipment

                       Other Navigation Equipment

    The Navy requested $31,552,000 for other navigation 
equipment. The Committee recommends $39,052,000, an increase of 
$7,500,000. This includes an increase of $9,000,000 only for 
the WSN-7 ring laser gyro and a decrease of $1,500,000 due to 
contract savings in this program.

                       Other Shipboard Equipment

                         Firefighting Equipment

    The Navy requested $14,081,000 for other firefighting 
equipment. The Committee recommends $27,081,000, an increase of 
$13,000,000 only for self contained breathing apparatus as 
recommended in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill.

                      Pollution control equipment

    The Navy requested $156,775,000 for pollution control 
equipment. The Committee recommends $147,775,000, a decrease of 
$9,000,000 due to reduced requirements and excess prior year 
funds identified by the General Accounting Office.

                          submarine batteries

    The Navy requested $9,043,000 for submarine batteries. The 
Committee recommends $8,443,000, a decrease of $600,000 due to 
contract savings.

                  strategic platform support equipment

    The Navy requested $6,435,000 for strategic platform 
support equipment. The Committee recommends $21,435,000, an 
increase of $15,000,000 only to install AN/UYQ-70 displays in 
submarines.

                Communications and Electronic Equipment

                             radar support

    The Navy requested $1,708,000 for radar support. The 
Committee recommends $23,708,000, an increase of $22,000,000 as 
recommended in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill of 
which $13,000,000 is only for the SPS-73(V) radar and 
$9,000,000 is only for the AN/BPS-16 submarine navigation 
radar.

                              Ship Sonars

                  an/sqq-89 surface asw combat system

    The Navy requested $16,628,000 for AN/SQQ-89. The Committee 
recommends $16,228,000, a decrease of $400,000 due to contract 
and installation savings.

                             ssn acoustics

    The Navy requested $77,953,000 for SSN Acoustics. The 
Committee recommends $46,453,000, a decrease of $31,500,000. 
This consists of a decrease of $39,500,000 to the Acoustic 
Rapid Commercial Off-the-Shelf Insertion (A-RCI) program and an 
increase of $8,000,000 only for refurbishment of TB-23 arrays. 
Concerning the A-RCI program, the Committee believes the 
program is concurrent since the Navy plans to buy 14 A-RCI kits 
in 1998 even though initial operational test and evaluation is 
not planned until the first quarter of 1999. The Committee 
recommends that A-RCI production funds be deferred one year to 
reduce program risk.

                           carrier asw module

    The Navy requested $16,000 for the carrier ASW module. The 
Committee recommends $12,016,000, an increase of $12,000,000 
only for procurement and installation of six AN/UQX-5(V) Fast 
Time Analyzer System engineering change two acoustic intercept 
processors, six CV ASW Module on-board trainers, one CV 
tactical support center upgrade, and integration of a real time 
sensor data link.

                      Electronic Warfare Equipment

                           C3 Countermeasures

    The Navy requested $6,891,000 for C3 countermeasures. The 
Committee recommends $6,591,000, a decrease of $300,000 due to 
reduced requirements.

                        Reconnaissance Equipment

                   combat direction finding equipment

    The Navy requested $10,473,000 for combat direction finding 
equipment. The Committee recommends $5,873,000, a decrease of 
$4,600,000 due to contract savings on automated digital 
acquisition systems.

            battle group passive horizon extension (bgphes)

    The Navy requested $50,221,000 for BGPHES. The Committee 
recommends $47,421,000, a decrease of $2,800,000 due to 
contract savings.

                    Other Ship Electronic Equipment

                       Navy Tactical Data System

    The Navy requested $14,335,000 for the Navy Tactical Data 
System. The Committee recommends $24,335,000, an increase of 
$10,000,000 only to install AN/UYQ-70 displays on Aegis 
cruisers.

                  Advanced Tactical Data Link Systems

    The Navy requested $16,991,000 for advanced tactical data 
link systems. The Committee recommends $15,391,000, a decrease 
of $1,600,000 due to contract savings in AN/VRC-107(V) 
terminals.

                     Aviation Electronic Equipment

                    Automatic Carrier Landing System

    The Navy requested $13,200,000 for the automatic carrier 
landing system. The Committee recommends $12,200,000, a 
decrease of $1,000,000 due to cancellation of the AN/SPN-46(V) 
landing system.

                               id systems

    The Navy requested $11,293,000 for identification systems. 
The Committee recommends $9,193,000, a decrease of $2,100,000 
for shipboard advanced radar target identification systems 
which have slipped until 1999.

                    Other Shore Electronic Equipment

                         jmcis tactical/mobile

    The Navy requested $2,888,000 for JMCIS Tactical/Mobile. 
The Committee recommends $47,888,000, an increase of 
$45,000,000 only for procurement of AN/SQR-17A(V)3 underwater 
systems, including preplanned product improvement, for Mobile 
Inshore Undersea Warfare operations.

                        Submarine Communications

                   Submarine communication equipment

    The Navy requested $37,239,000 for submarine communication 
equipment. The Committee recommends $47,239,000, an increase of 
$10,000,000 only for procurement of AN/USC-42(V)V mini-Demand 
Assigned Multiple Access (DAMA) UHF Fleet SATCOM communications 
terminals for submarines, surface ships, and airborne 
platforms.

                          Shore Communications

                                 nsips

    Information on this project can be found in the Information 
Resources Management section of this report.

                                jedmics

    Information on this project can be found in the Information 
Resources Management section of this report.

                       Aviation Support Equipment

                               sonobouys

                           an/sqq-53 (difar)

    The Navy requested $28,382,000 for procurement of AN/SQQ-53 
sonobouys. The Committee recommends $49,382,000, an increase of 
$21,000,000 identified by the Navy as a critical shortfall.

                           an/sqq-62 (dicass)

    The Navy requested $24,291,000 for procurement of AN/SQQ-62 
sonobouys. The Committee recommends $32,291,000, an increase of 
$8,000,000 identified by the Navy as a critical shortfall.

                       Aircraft Support Equipment

                         aviation life support

    The Navy requested $15,345,000 for aviation life support 
equipment. The Committee recommends $12,645,000, a decrease of 
$2,700,000 due to reduced requirements.

                    lamps mk iii shipboard equipment

    The Navy requested $5,805,000 for LAMPS MK III Shipboard 
Equipment. The Committee recommends $4,560,000, a decrease of 
$1,245,000 due to excess funds identified by the General 
Accounting Office.

                     Ship Missile Systems Equipment

                            nato seasparrow

    The Navy requested $6,866,000 for the NATO Seasparrow 
program. The Committee recommends $10,866,000, an increase of 
$4,000,000 only for low-light, solid state electro-optic 
cameras.

                        ship self-defense system

    The Navy requested $5,841,000 for the ship-self defense 
system. The Committee recommends $17,841,000, an increase of 
$12,000,000 only for installation of the SSDS on two LSD-41 
class ships with rolling airframe missile launchers to be 
allocated from assets procured in 1998 or earlier fiscal years.

                        aegis support equipment

    The Navy requested $26,813,000 for Aegis support equipment. 
The Committee recommends $21,113,000, a reduction of $5,700,000 
due to reduced requirements because of ship deactivations.

                   surface tomahawk support equipment

    The Navy requested $65,502,000 for surface Tomahawk support 
equipment. The Committee recommends $65,302,000, a decrease of 
$200,000 due to reduced requirements because of ship 
deactivations.

               Fleet Ballistic Missile Support Equipment

                  strategic missile systems equipment

    The Navy requested $231,528,000 for strategic missile 
systems equipment. The Committee recommends $228,728,000, a 
decrease of $2,800,000 due to excess funds identified by the 
General Accounting Office.

                    Other Ordnance Support Equipment

                        unmanned seaborne target

    The Navy requested $4,271,000 for unmanned seaborne target 
development. The Committee recommends $2,271,000, a decrease of 
$2,000,000 due to reduced requirements.

                       Other Expendable Ordnance

                 surface training device modifications

    The Navy requested $4,829,000 for surface training device 
modifications. The Committee recommends $13,329,000, an 
increase of $8,500,000 only for procurement of Carry-on Combat 
Systems Trainers (COCST) for the Battle Force Tactical Training 
(BFTT) system.

                  Civil Engineering Support Equipment

                 construction and maintenance equipment

    The Navy requested $3,700,000 for construction and 
maintenance equipment. The Committee recommends $5,200,000, an 
increase of $1,500,000 only for laser leveling devices.

                          amphibious equipment

    The Navy requested $6,233,000 for amphibious equipment. The 
Committee recommends $11,233,000, an increase of $5,000,000 
only for the Elevated Causeway (Modular).

                      pollution control equipment

    The Navy requested $28,650,000 for pollution control 
equipment. The Committee recommends $25,080,000, a decrease of 
$3,570,000 due to reduced requirements because of ship 
deactivations.

                       command support equipment

    The Navy requested $15,915,000 for command support 
equipment. The Committee recommends $17,915,000, an increase of 
$2,000,000 only for the Advanced Technical Information System.

                                 Other

                        spares and repair parts

    The Navy requested $248,717,000 for spares and repair 
parts. The Committee recommends $228,717,000, a decrease of 
$20,000,000 due to reduced requirements because of ship 
deactivations.

                          Program Recommended

    The total recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:



                       PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................      $569,073,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................       374,306,000
Committee recommendation..............................       491,198,000
Change from budget request............................      +116,892,000
                                                                        

    This appropriation provides the Marine Corps with funds for 
procurement, delivery, and modification of missiles, armament, 
communication equipment, tracked and wheeled vehicles, and 
various support equipment.

                       Committee Recommendations

                         authorization changes

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

                                            [In thousand of dollars]                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Committee      Change from 
                              Item                                Budget request    recommended       request   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Javelin.........................................................          42,146          59,146         +17,000
Communications and Elec Infrastructure Supt.....................          41,809          84,409         +42,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Weapons and Combat Vehicles

               items under $2 million (tracked vehicles)

    The Marine Corps requested $99,000 for items under $2 
million (tracked vehicles). The Committee recommends 
$1,999,000, an increase of $1,900,000 only for a supplemental 
fuel carrying capability.

             Other Communications and Electronics Equipment

                     intelligence support equipment

    The Marine Corps requested $16,413,000 for Intelligence 
Support Equipment. The Committee recommends an increase of 
$5,392,000. Of this amount, $4,600,000 is only to procure CI/
HUMINT Program equipment, and $792,000 is to procure portable 
satcom radios.

                           Tactical Vehicles

              high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles

    The Marine Corps requested $696,000 for High Mobility 
Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV). The Committee 
recommends $40,696,000, an increase of $40,000,000 only to 
begin the production of a HMMWV service-life extension program.

                            General Property

                        field medical equipment

    The Marine Corps requested $1,081,000 for field medical 
equipment. The Committee recommends $11,081,000, an increase of 
$10,000,000 only to procure equipment for the Chemical 
Biological Incident Response Force.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:



                    AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................    $6,404,980,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................     5,684,847,000
Committee recommendation..............................     6,386,479,000
Change from budget request............................      +701,632,000
                                                                        

    This appropriation provides for the procurement of 
aircraft, and for modification of in-service aircraft to 
improve safety and enhance operational effectiveness. It also 
provides for initial spares and other support equipment to 
include aerospace ground equipment and industrial facilities. 
In addition, funds are provided for the procurement of flight 
training simulators to increase combat readiness and to provide 
for more economical training.

                       Committee Recommendations

                         Authorization Changes

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

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Committee      Change from 
                              Item                                Budget request  recommendation      request   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B-2.............................................................         174,086         505,286        +331,200
EC-130J.........................................................               0          49,900         +49,900
JPATS...........................................................          65,415          77,615         +12,200
Predator UAV....................................................         116,506         146,506         +30,000
B-1B Mods.......................................................         114,245         138,245         +24,000
H-1 Mods........................................................           2,778           3,578            +800
DARP Mods.......................................................          67,136         139,136         +72,000
DARP............................................................         141,493         146,493          +5,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Combat Aircraft

                    advanced tactical fighter (F-22)

                          advance procurement

    The Air Force requested $80,864,000 for advance procurement 
for the F-22 aircraft. The Committee recommends $74,864,000, a 
decrease of $6,000,000. The Air Force has indicated that these 
funds will be used for redesign efforts associated with Out of 
Production Parts (OPPs). Since such redesign efforts are 
properly funded in the research and development account, the 
Committee has reduced F-22 procurement by $6,000,000 and has 
increased F-22 research and development by a like amount. The 
Committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to budget for 
these redesign efforts in the research and development accounts 
in future budgets.
    In addition to OPP redesign efforts, the Air Force has 
requested authority to use procurement funds to purchase OPPs 
for more than one aircraft lot. The Committee understands that 
these parts are defined as electro/mechanical components or 
electronic piece parts. Electro/mechanical components include 
parts below the Line Replaceable Units/Line Replaceable Module 
(LRU/LRM) level, such as actuators, fuel pumps, or hydraulic 
pumps; however such components do not include structural parts 
such as wings, bulkheads, flaps, ailerons, doors, or landing 
gear struts; or subsystems at or above the LRU/LRM level such 
as an auxiliary power unit. Electronic piece parts include 
parts below the LRU/LRM level such as multi-chip modules, 
Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs), 
microprocessors, integrated circuits, microcircuits, diodes, 
and transistors. OPPs are parts that are currently unavailable 
or projected to be unavailable from the original equipment 
supplier or any alternative source. Often these parts become 
unavailable because industry has moved to the next generation 
of technology and no longer finds it cost effective to maintain 
the capability to produce the older technology, or the supplier 
elects to end business with the government, or the supplier 
goes out of business.
    The Committee approves the Air Force request to use 
procurement funds to purchase OPPs for multiple aircraft lots 
based on the following criteria: (1) the OPPs must meet the 
definition of parts described above; (2) the OPPs must meet the 
definition of ``out of production'' as described above; (3) 
OPPs can only be purchased in cases in which a redesign of the 
parts cannot be accomplished in time to prevent an impact to 
the production schedule; (4) the Air Force shall not procure 
more parts than required to bridge the gap between the end of 
availability of the parts and the availability of the 
redesigned part; and (5) no more than five aircraft lots of 
parts can be procured. Any purchases beyond the scope of the 
criteria above require prior notification to the congressional 
defense committees. Finally, the Committee is aware that the 
Air Force needs to procure a video tape deck because of 
diminishing manufacturing sources. Since such an item would not 
otherwise meet the criteria above, the Committee provides 
separate and specific approval for this item.

                                  f-16

    The Air Force requested no funding for the F-16 program. 
The Committee recommends $82,500,000 for 3 additional aircraft.

                            Airlift Aircraft

                                  C-17

    The Air Force requested $1,923,311,000 for the C-17 
aircraft. The Committee recommends $1,914,211,000, a decrease 
of $9,100,000. This GAO recommended reduction is based on C-17 
program office financial execution forecasts that show that 
fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 funds will not be 
obligated prior to funds expiration.

                        c-17 advance procurement

    The Air Force requested $278,200,000 for C-17 advance 
procurement in support of fiscal year 1999 aircraft. The 
Committee recommends $265,600,000, a decrease of $12,600,000. 
This GAO recommended reduction is based on contract savings 
associated with prior year advance procurement contracts.

                            civil air patrol

    The Air Force requested $2,645,000 for the Civil Air 
Patrol. The Committee recommends $4,498,000, an increase of 
$1,853,000.

                             Other Aircraft

                                  E-8C

    The Air Force requested $313,991,000 for the E-8C (JSTARS) 
aircraft. The Committee recommends $317,991,000, a net increase 
of $4,000,000. The adjustment includes an additional 
$16,000,000 to address funding requirements rephased from 
fiscal year 1996 and an additional $1,000,000 only for 
integration of an Improved Data Modem on the JSTARS aircraft. 
The adjustment also includes a $13,000,000 reduction based on 
unjustified growth in the Engineering Change Order (ECO) line. 
The Committee notes that the Air Force is requesting 
$21,400,000 for ECOs in fiscal year 1998 to support one 
aircraft, compared to $3.6 million in fiscal year 1997 for two 
aircraft. The Air Force has indicated that the JSTARS airframe 
estimates have already been increased in the fiscal year 1998 
budget to reflect recent experience of increased costs 
associated with refurbishing used airframes. Since these higher 
costs are already built into the airframe estimate, the level 
of growth in ECO funding is unwarranted.

                   Modification of Inservice Aircraft

                           B-52 modifications

    The Air Force requested $28,907,000 for B-52 modifications. 
The Committee recommends $31,807,000, an increase of $2,900,000 
only for B-52 Electro-optical Viewing System Reliability and 
Maintainability upgrade, identified by the Air Force as a high 
priority unfunded requirement.

                           F-15 modifications

    The Air Force requested $169,568,000 for F-15 
modifications. The Committee recommends $157,068,000, a net 
decrease of $12,500,000. The adjustment includes an increase of 
$22,800,000 only for additional PW-220E engine modifications, a 
decrease of $11,800,000 based on two recently terminated 
modifications in fiscal year 1997, a decrease of $13,500,000 
for APG-63 radar upgrade pricing, and a decrease of $10,000,000 
for radar support equipment. The $11,800,000 reduction for the 
terminated modifications is based on a $21,200,000 GAO 
recommended reduction adjusted for amounts already reprogrammed 
to support an Air Traffic Control and Landing System 
initiative. With regard to the radar upgrade modification, the 
Committee notes that the Air Force has not adequately justified 
the unusually high cost of the radar in fiscal year 1998 as 
compared to the budget last year and as compared to other 
fiscal years in the current budget. The Committee reduction 
brings the fiscal year 1998 program in line with the fiscal 
year 1997 column of the current budget. The Air Force has also 
indicated that funds are no longer required for radar equipment 
as displayed in the current budget, but needed instead for 
support equipment. No justification for this latter requirement 
has been provided to the Committee.
    The Committee is concerned with the new cost estimates 
appearing in the budget this year; the average unit cost of the 
radar over the life of the program has approximately doubled. 
To date, the Air Force has not provided a satisfactory 
explanation of this change. Further, this $600,000,000 program 
has been justified as a reliability and maintainability (R&M) 
upgrade, not a performance upgrade. Given the doubling in cost, 
the original cost/benefit assumptions for the program may no 
longer be valid. Accordingly, the Committee directs the 
Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to the 
congressional defense committees including an explanation of 
the average unit cost growth compared to the budget last year 
and a revised cost/benefit analysis, including break even 
point, justifying continued pursuit of the program. The 
Committee directs that this report be provided at least 15 days 
prior to award of the first production contract.

                           F-16 modifications

    The Air Force requested $216,158,000 for F-16 
modifications. The Committee recommends $199,358,000, a 
decrease of $16,800,000. The decrease includes a $13,000,000 
reduction to GPS and a $3,800,000 reduction to Block 40 CAS 
Night Vision Imaging System (NVIS). The Air Force budget 
requests 330 GPS kits in fiscal year 1998, up from 150 in 
fiscal year 1997 and higher than the outyears. The rate of 
production resulting from the fiscal year 1998 buy exceeds the 
rate in which the kits can be installed, resulting in kits 
unnecessarily sitting on the shelf for up to five months. A 
reduction of 94 kits will bring the production rate in line 
with the installation rate. The budget also includes $3,800,000 
for NVIS integration. However, the Air Force has indicated no 
further integration is required.

                          C-130 modifications

    The Air Force requested $94,511,000 for C-130 
modifications. The Committee recommends $119,211,000, an 
increase of $24,700,000 only for the electronic suite 
modifications associated with the new production EC-130 funded 
separately in this account.

               Aircraft Support Equipment and Facilities

                      F-15 post production support

    The Air Force requested $8,089,000 for F-15 Post Production 
Support. The Committee recommends $6,289,000, a decrease of 
$1,800,000. This GAO recommended adjustment is based on 
prematurely budgeting for F-15 tooling disposition given 
continued production of F-15 attrition aircraft.

                            war consumables

    The Air Force requested $67,565,000 for war consumables. 
The Committee recommends $60,165,000, a decrease of $7,400,000. 
The GAO has identified excess engineering change order (ECO) 
funding in the towed decoy program.

                    miscellaneous production charges

    The Air Force requested $275,805,000 for miscellaneous 
production charges. The Committee denies the budget request of 
$6,221,000 to procure podded electro-optical camera systems. 
The Committee disagrees with the Air Force's acquisition 
strategy to sole-source the second Theater Airborne 
Reconnaissance System (TARS) sensor and Advanced TARS Medium 
Altitude Electro-optical (MAEO) sensor.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:



                     MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Fiscal Year 1997 appropriation.......................     $2,297,145,000
Fiscal Year 1998 budget request......................      2,557,741,000
Committee recommendation.............................      2,320,741,000
Change from budget request...........................       -237,000,000
                                                                        

    The appropriation provides for the procurement, 
installation, and checkout of strategic ballistic and other 
missiles, modification of in-service missiles, and initial 
spares for missile systems. It also provides for operational 
space systems, boosters, payloads, drones, associated ground 
equipment, non-recurring maintenance of industrial facilities, 
machine tool modernization, and special program support.

                       Committee Recommendations

                         authorization changes

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

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Committee      Change from 
                              Item                                Budget request  recommendation      request   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JSOW............................................................           1,139          30,139         +29,000
AGM-130.........................................................           1,539          42,539         +41,000
MAVERICK........................................................               0          11,000         +11,000
Titan Space Boosters............................................         555,304         473,304         -82,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             Other Missiles

                                 amraam

    The Air Force requested $117,768,000 for continued 
production of AMRAAM. The Committee recommends $107,168,000, a 
reduction of $10,600,000. This GAO-recommended reduction is 
based on unneeded funds for engineering change orders (ECOs). 
The Committee also notes that the AMRAAM program has 
inappropriately budgeted recurring efforts such as program 
management, technical services, production support, and 
acceptance testing in its nonrecurring budget line. Such 
budgeting practices are misleading and should be corrected in 
future budget submissions.

                   Modification of Inservice Missiles

                           conventional alcm

    The Air Force requested no funding for the Conventional Air 
Launched Cruise Missile program. The Committee recommends 
$15,300,000 to continue conversions of nuclear Air Launched 
Cruise Missiles. The Committee notes that this effort has been 
identified as a high priority by the Air Force.

                             Space Programs

             global positioning system (gps) space segment

    The Air Force requested $163,837,000 for the acquisition of 
3 GPS Block IIF satellites. The Committee recommends 
$122,137,000, a decrease of $41,700,000. The funds provided by 
the Committee will enable the Air Force to acquire 2 Block IIF 
satellites in fiscal year 1998.
    In making this recommendation the Committee notes that the 
present GPS constellation contains 24 satellites consisting of 
21 operational spacecraft and three on-orbit spares. If present 
delivery schedules are maintained one to five spacecraft will 
be in storage available for launch within 60 days of an on-
orbit failure as called for by present department policy. The 
Committee believes that the probability is extremely low that 
three GPS satellites will ever fail simultaneously or in rapid 
succession. Even in the highly unlikely event that such a 
failure should occur, the Air Force does not have enough medium 
class launch vehicles available to replenish the constellation 
as swiftly as called for by present DoD policy. In essence, by 
requesting GPS satellites for acquisition before they are 
needed or could ever be launched, the Air Force is attempting 
to underwrite an ``insurance policy'' that, in practical terms, 
it could never implement.
    The Committee recognizes the importance of the total GPS 
system to the Department of Defense and remains totally 
supportive of the program. The Committee also feels that as a 
cost savings measure and a more realistic phasing of program 
funding to requirements, the acquisition of one GPS Block IIF 
satellite can be deferred until the next multi-year block buy. 
Accordingly, the Committee makes this recommendation without 
prejudice.

                         medium launch vehicles

    The Air Force requested $165,783,000 for the medium launch 
vehicle program. The Committee recommends $147,783,000, a 
decrease of $18,000,000. According to the General Accounting 
Office lower than expected cost growth in fiscal year 1997, and 
the overstatement of funds requested for Delta launch failure 
recovery efforts in fiscal year 1998 makes this reduction 
possible. The Committee makes this recommendation without 
prejudice to the program.

                        defense support program

    The Air Force requested $113,708,000 for the Defense 
Support Program. The Committee recommends $108,708,000, a 
decrease of $5,000,000. The Committee has reduced the budget 
request due to the availability of prior year program funds and 
the Air Force's recent decision not to pursue research studies 
to identify modifications needed to launch the DSP satellite on 
the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle. Funds for these studies 
were requested as part of this year's budget.

                            special programs

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

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:



                  PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE

Fiscal Year 1997 appropriation.......................       $293,153,000
Fiscal Year 1998 budget request......................        403,984,000
Committee recommendation.............................        414,884,000
Change from budget request...........................        +10,900,000
                                                                        

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

                       Committee Recommendations

                         authorization changes

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

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Budget       Committee    Change from
             Item                 request    recommendation    request  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GBU-28 Hard Target Penetrator.            0         16,800       +16,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   wind corrected munitions dispenser

    The Air Force requested $19,871,000 for the Wind Corrected 
Munitions Dispenser. The Committee recommends $10,471,000, a 
decrease of $9,400,000 based on contract savings identified by 
the GAO.

                               Cartridges

                              20mm pgu-28

    The Air Force requested no funds for 20MM PGU-28 
ammunition. The Committee recommends $3,500,000 only to procure 
20MM PGU-28 ammunition

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:



                      OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................    $5,944,680,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................     6,561,253,000
Committee recommendation..............................     6,588,939,000
Change from budget request............................       +27,686,000
                                                                        

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

                       Committee Recommendations

                         authorization changes

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

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Committee      Change from 
                              Item                                Budget request  recommendation      request   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weather observ/forecast.........................................          18,013          22,013          +4,000
TAC SIGINT support..............................................           4,114           9,114          +5,000
Radio Equipment.................................................          12,844          19,344          +6,500
DARP RC-135.....................................................          12,778          47,778         +35,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Cargo and Utility Vehicles

                       items less than $2,000,000

    The Air Force requested $5,025,000 for items less than 
$2,000,000. The Committee recommends $3,625,000, a reduction of 
$1,400,000. The budget request included $1.4 million for minor 
replacement items. However, Air Force officials advised that 
there are no known requirements for these items.

                        Special Purpose Vehicles

                             hmmwv, armored

    The Air Force requested $24,181,000 for armored HMMWVs. The 
Committee recommends $7,781,000, a reduction of $16,400,000. 
The fiscal year 1998 budget requested additional funds for the 
Force Protection/Anti-Terrorism initiative. However, these 
vehicles are already budgeted in the Force Protection/Anti-
terrorism line of the budget.

                       items less than $2,000,000

    The Air Force requested $6,738,000 for items less than 
$2,000,000. The Committee recommends $6,194,000, a reduction of 
$544,000 based on fiscal year 1997 contract savings and 
unrequired contingency funding.

                      Materials Handling Equipment

                             60K A/C loader

    The Air Force requested $83,143,000 for the 60K A/C leader 
program. The Committee recommends $51,143,000, a reduction of 
$32,000,000. This program has been troubled by producibility 
and reliability problems which have led to testing delays and a 
production stop. Independent Operational Test and Evaluation 
will now occur in December 1997, with the first contract award 
after the production break to follow in April 1998. The 
Committee notes that the Air Force has budgeted a full rate lot 
in fiscal year 1998 of 60 units, and has scheduled delivery of 
the first units in just nine months, even though the loader's 
normal manufacturing lead-time is 16 months. Given the 
production problems in this program, the Committee views this 
recovery plan to be overly aggressive. Accordingly, the 
Committee recommends reducing the fiscal year 1998 buy from 60 
to 45 loaders, the level that had been planned in fiscal year 
1997.

                         Intelligence Programs

                   intelligence data handling system

    The Air Force requested $20,739,000 for intelligence data 
handling. The Committee recommends $24,339,000, an increase of 
$3,600,000 only to provide JSAS to Air Force battlelabs.

                          Electronic Programs

                     strategic command and control

    The Air Force requested $20,505,000 for Strategic Command 
and Control. The Committee recommends $19,005,000 a net 
decrease of $1,500,000. The adjusted amount includes a decrease 
of $10,000,000 for the terminated Improved Technical Data 
System (ITDS) and an increase of $8,500,000 only for the DIRECT 
program. The Committee notes that the Air Force has identified 
DIRECT as a high priority unfunded requirement.

              Special Communications-Electronics Projects

                           C3 COUNTERMEASURES

    The Air Force requested $14,904,000 for Command, Control, 
and Communications Countermeasures. The Committee recommends 
$13,004,000, a reduction of $1,900,000 based on excess funds 
available in fiscal year 1997.

                        Air Force Communications

                    base information infrastructure

    The Air Force requested $88,945,000 for Base Information 
Infrastructure enhancements. The Committee recommends 
$136,945,000, an increase of $48,000,000 only for security 
enhancements to Air Force base information systems.

                  air force satellite control network

    The Air Force requested $32,197,000 for satellite control 
network activities. The Committee recommends $23,097,000, a 
reduction of $9,100,000 based on cancellation of the fiscal 
year 1997 Military Satellite Communications system.

                          Organization and Base

                       items less than $2,000,000

    The Air Force requested $8,960,000 for items less than 
$2,000,000. The Committee recommends $6,160,000, a reduction of 
$2,800,000 based on contract award problems and delayed 
obligation of funds for the Power Conditioning and Continuation 
Interface Equipment (PCCIE) program.

                 Personnel Safety and Rescue Equipment

                          night vision goggles

    The Air Force requested $2,371,000 for night vision 
goggles. The Committee recommends $13,271,000, an increase of 
$10,900,000 only for accelerated procurement of night vision 
goggles and test sets.

                          Electrical Equipment

                       floodlights set type nf2d

    The Air Force requested $7,696,000 for floodlights. The 
Committee recommends $4,696,000, a reduction of $3,000,000 
based on production contract award delays associated with the 
FL-1D floodlight.

                         Base Support Equipment

                        medical/dental equipment

    The Air Force requested $13,295,000 for medical and dental 
equipment. The Committee recommends $8,095,000, a reduction of 
$5,200,000 based on prior year contract savings in several 
programs.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:



                       PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................    $1,978,005,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................     1,695,085,000
Committee recommendation..............................     2,186,669,000
Change from budget request............................      +491,584,000
                                                                        

    This appropriation provides funds for the Procurement 
activities of centrally managed programs and the Defense 
Agencies.

                       Committee Recommendations

                         authorization changes

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

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Budget         Committee      Change from 
                                                                      request     recommendation      request   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Equipment, DSPO...........................................          19,334          14,334          -5,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            major equipment

    The Department requested $104,601,000 for Major Equipment. 
The Committee recommends $114,601,000, an increase of 
$10,000,000 only for the Mentor-Protege program.

                     automated document conversion

    Information on this project can be found in the Information 
Resources Management section of this report.

             ballistic missile defense organization (BMDO)

    The Department requested no funds in Procurement, Defense-
wide for Patriot PAC-3, Navy Lower Tier and Battle Management 
and Control. The Committee recommends that funds provided for 
these programs in other Service accounts be transferred to 
BMDO, as proposed in the House-passed Defense Authorization 
bill.

                       Special Operations Command

                           pc, cyclone class

    The Department requested no funds for Cyclone Class, Patrol 
Coastal craft. The Committee recommends $10,700,000 only for 
the completion of the fourteenth CYCLONE Patrol Coastal craft.

                        sof intelligence systems

    The Department requested $21,175,000 for SOF intelligence 
systems. The Committee recommends $25,475,000, an increase of 
$4,300,000. Of this amount, $800,000 is to procure additional 
data collection systems to support the Integrated Survey 
Program; $1,500,000 is to purchase eight B-Multi-Mission 
Advanced Tactical Terminals; and $2,000,000 is only for the 
development of training capabilities for the Joint Threat 
Warning System (JTWS). Additional O&M and RDT&E funds are also 
provided for JTWS.

                Chemical and Biological Defense Program

                         individual protection

    The Department requested $64,855,000 for Chemical and 
Biological Individual Protection. The Committee recommends 
$74,855,000, an increase of $10,000,000 only for 5,000 chemical 
biological (JSLIST) suits.

                         collective protection

    The Department requested $17,316,000 for Chemical and 
Biological Collective Protection. The Committee recommends 
$37,316,000, an increase of $20,000,000. Within this increase, 
$10,000,000 is only for Collective Protection Equipment 
shortfalls in Korea, $4,000,000 is only for 300 additional M-
17LDS water sprayers for decontamination of airfields, and 
$6,000,000 is only for 14 HMVV medical shelters.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:



                  NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................      $780,000,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................  ................
Committee recommendation..............................       850,000,000
Change from budget request............................      +850,000,000
                                                                        

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

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $850,000,000 to meet high priority 
requirements of the National Guard and Reserve. This is in 
addition to $1,770,300,000 provided elsewhere in Title III of 
the Committee bill for equipment which the Committee intends to 
be provided to the National Guard and the Reserve Components.

                            melios an/pvs-6

    The Committee is aware that the Army National Guard has a 
requirement for an improved eye-safe laser range finder that is 
compatible with the devices fielded in the Active Army. The 
Mini-Eye-safe Laser Infrared Observation Set (MELIOS) provides 
an improved capability and is being fielded to the active Army. 
The Committee recommends $5,000,000 only for procurement of 
MELIOS for the Army National Guard.

                       t-39 replacement aircraft

    The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to procure T-39 
replacement aircraft for the Marine Corps Reserve. The 
Committee directs that these aircraft should meet the speed, 
range, payload, and cost per passenger mile requirements as 
identified by the Commanding General, Marine Forces Reserve.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:



                        miscellaneous equipment

    The Committee has provided $143,000,000 for miscellaneous 
equipment and believes that the Chiefs of the Reserve and 
National Guard components should exercise control of funds 
provided for miscellaneous equipment. The Committee directs 
that separate, detailed submissions of its modernization 
priorities by each of the Guard and Reserve component 
commanders be submitted to the congressional defense committees 
and recommends including bill language carried in previous 
years requiring this submission. The Committee expects the 
component commanders to give priority consideration to the 
following items: all-terrain cranes, modular airborne fire 
fighting system units, CH-47 internal crash worthy fuel cells, 
back scatter truck inspection systems, ALR-56M radar warning 
receivers, theater deployable communication packages, AN/TQM-41 
MMS, M1A2s, M2A2s, night vision equipment, CH-47 ICH aircraft, 
litening target and navigation pods, commercial industrial 
equipment, high speed dirt compactors, AH-64 combat mission 
simulators, heavy equipment transporter vehicles, MLRS 
launchers, high mobility trailers for HMMWV, palletized loading 
systems, heavy expanded mobility tactical truck wreckers, 
avengers, M109A6, automatic building machines, air defense 
alerting device systems, interactive simulators, master cranes, 
deployable universal combat earth movers, palletized loading 
systems, and HEMTT wreckers.

                    INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

    The Defense Department requested $10,273,037,000 for 
information resources management. The Committee recommends 
$10,387,937,000, an increase of $114,900,000 as explained 
below:

Operation and Maintenance, Army:sands of dollars]
    High Risk Automation Systems..............................   -25,000
    Army Logistics Automation.................................    11,200
Operation and Maintenance, Navy:
    High Risk Automation Systems..............................   -25,000
    Software Program Managers Network.........................     6,000
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force:
    High Risk Automation Systems..............................   -25,000
    REMIS.....................................................     8,900
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide:
    High Risk Automation Systems..............................   -15,000
    Automated Document Conversion.............................    30,000
    Military Personnel Information System.....................     5,000
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve:
    NSIPS.....................................................    43,500
Operation and Maintenance, Defense Health Program:
    High Risk Automation Systems..............................   -20,000
    PACMEDNET.................................................    10,000
Other Procurement, Army:
    Army Logistics Automation.................................    13,800
    SBIS......................................................    13,000
Other Procurement, Navy:
    NSIPS.....................................................    20,500
    JEDMICS...................................................     5,000
Other Procurement, Air Force:
    Base Information Infrastructure...........................    48,000
Procurement, Defense-Wide:
    Automated Document Conversion.............................    10,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

        Total.................................................   114,900

                                 remis

    The Air Force requested $32,647,000 for the Reliability and 
Maintainability Information System (REMIS). The Committee 
recommends an increase of $8,900,000 in Operation and 
Maintenance, Air Force to be used only for REMIS projects 
related to IMDS conversion.

                                jedmics

    The Navy requested $35,528,000 for the Joint Engineering 
Data Management Information and Control System (JEDMICS). The 
Committee is concerned that the unprotected transmittal of 
sensitive but unclassified data to remote users via the 
Internet subjects JEDMICS data to potential unauthorized 
access. The Department of Defense has made a substantial 
investment in JEDMICS. Without the incorporation of required 
security precautions, the system cannot be used with assurance. 
To maximize the utility of JEDMICS and to protect the 
information as required by law and regulation, the Committee 
provides $5,000,000 in the Other Procurement, Navy account to 
be used only to acquire and integrate an information security 
solution.

                  sustaining base information services

    The Army requested $18,459,000 to maintain Sustaining Base 
Information Services, which consists of 13 applications fielded 
to 33 installations. To take maximum advantage of the 
substantial investment already made in software development, 
the Committee recommends adding $13,000,000 to the Other 
Procurement, Army account only to field these existing 
applications to another 15 installations.

                       army logistics automation

    The Army requested $37,521,000 for its Total Distribution 
Program. The Committee recommends $62,521,000 an increase of 
$11,200,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Army and an increase 
of $13,800,000 in Other Procurement, Army. One of the 
deficiencies the Army identified during Operation Desert 
Shield/Desert Storm was an inability to track shipments and 
quickly locate particular supplies as they moved through the 
distribution system. The Army has begun acquiring technology 
that will automatically record when supplies move past each 
major checkpoint as well as allowing personnel to 
electronically query the contents of a container without having 
to open it. The Committee strongly supports this high priority 
effort.

                     automated document conversion

    The Committee supports the Department of Defense goal of 
digitizing all weapons engineering drawings by the year 2000 
and all other drawings by the year 2002. The Committee agrees 
to provide a total of $40,000,000 over the budget request only 
for this effort, of which $30,000,000 is in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-Wide for outsourcing bulk conversion 
services and $10,000,000 is in Procurement, Defense-Wide for 
data conversion products. These funds are to be directly 
managed by the Computer Aided Logistics System executive within 
the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

                 military personnel information systems

    The Committee continues to strongly support the fiscal year 
1997 appropriation conference report direction regarding DoD-
wide military personnel information systems and the Navy 
Standard Integrated Personnel System (NSIPS) program management 
and implementation. The Department of Defense has officially 
designated the Navy as the executive agent and program manager 
for the DoD-wide or objective military personnel information 
system. The Committee commends this action. After an 
administrative delay, DoD and the Navy have begun work again 
and the Committee directs both to provide the necessary 
resources to put this critical program back on schedule and 
accelerate it if possible. The Committee directs the Department 
of the Navy to maintain project and program management and 
executive agent responsibilities for the objective or DoD-wide 
system under the operational control and command of the 
Commander, Naval Reserve Forces.
    The Committee has provided $69,000,000 for NSIPS and DoD 
objective system shortfalls and related Navy Reserve and Navy 
personnel information management system functions and needs. Of 
this total amount, the Committee directs that $30,500,000 in 
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve and $18,000,000 in 
Other Procurement, Navy be allocated only to the Commander, 
Naval Reserve Forces, to: (1) address NSIPS and Navy objective 
system program management funding shortfalls; (2) continue and 
escalate Navy central design activity (CDA) consolidations and 
the consolidation of all Navy manpower and personnel 
information systems with the Naval Reserve Information Systems 
Office; (3) evaluate and maintain current personnel/manpower 
legacy systems for migration to NSIPS and the DoD objective 
systems; (4) establish requirements data bases and development 
platforms as well as develop pilot projects with industry and 
academia to attract, train and retain needed skilled software 
personnel for software incentive projects within the Navy and 
DoD; and (5) provide initial outfitting equipment, 
communications, local area network (LAN) equipment, software, 
hardware and related infrastructure support requirements for 
information system facilities.
    Of the total amount, the Committee directs that $13,000,000 
in Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve and $2,500,000 in 
Other Procurement, Navy be allocated only to the Commander, 
Naval Reserve Forces for the Naval Reserve Information Systems 
Office for Naval Reserve information management systems and 
related contractor support, COTS integration efforts, and 
continuing electronic medium, communications and LAN 
improvements to existing Naval Support Activity and Naval Air 
Station facilities.
    Of the total amount, the Committee has also provided an 
additional $5,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-
Wide, only for the DoD-wide objective military personnel system 
to be used by the Joint Requirements and Integration Office.

                   software program managers network

    The Committee continues to support service programs and 
related activities provided by the Software Program Managers 
Network (SPMN). Despite support for this program at the DoD 
level and previous Committee direction, the budget requested no 
funds. The Committee recommends $6,000,000 only for this effort 
in Operation and Maintenance, Navy. The Committee directs that 
these funds and operational control of the SPMN effort be 
transferred to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research 
and Development to: (1) continue original SPMN efforts to 
improve acquisition and management of software development and 
maintenance within all the services and DoD; (2) assist the 
Navy and Naval Reserve in their program management efforts 
regarding DoD-wide and Naval military manpower personnel 
information systems; and (3) assist the Navy and Naval Reserve 
in the development of industry and academia pilot projects to 
attract, train and retain skilled software personnel for 
software intensive projects within the Navy and DoD. It is the 
Committee's intent that SPMN reflect the needs of program 
managers at the ``grass roots'' level and that it not become an 
OSD top-down directed program.

                      high risk automation systems

    The General Accounting Office (GAO) has identified a number 
of major DoD automation systems as ``high risk''. The central 
weakness in these automation systems is that the development 
effort is moving ahead without a completed economic analysis, 
proper milestones, measurable goals or a reengineering study of 
the process being automated. The Committee believes that it is 
preferable to limit development until these steps have been 
taken than to risk a major program failure after significant 
funds have been spent.
    The Committee therefore recommends a reduction of 
$110,000,000 to be allocated as follows:

Operation and Maintenance, Army.......................      -$25,000,000
Operation and Maintenance, Navy.......................       -25,000,000
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force..................       -25,000,000
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide...............       -15,000,000
Defense Health Program (CHCSII).......................       -20,000,000
                                                                        

    The Committee directs that DoD provide a report to the 
congressional defense committees on how these reductions are 
being applied no later than March 1, 1998. In addition, the 
Committee directs that none of these reductions are to be 
applied against Year 2000 conversion efforts, automation 
programs to which the Committee has recommended increased 
funding over the budget request, the Reserve Component 
Automation System or to any item of special interest.
                                TITLE IV

               RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

                  Estimates and Appropriation Summary

    The fiscal year 1998 Department of Defense Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation budget requests totals 
$35,934,491,000. The accompanying bill recommends 
$36,704,924,000. The total amount recommended is an increase of 
$770,433,000 above the fiscal year 1998 budget estimate, and is 
$736,197,000 less than the total provided in fiscal year 1997. 
The table below summarizes the budget estimates and the 
Committee's recommendations.



       federally funded research and development centers (ffrdcs)

    The Committee notes that the fiscal year 1998 plan for 
Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) is 
well above the level of effort for the prior year. The planned 
increase of 231 staff technical years of effort (STE) 
represents almost a seven percent increase in level of effort 
over the limitation set by Congress in 1996. Also, given the 
prior year limitation of $1,161,000,000 and the reduction of 
$52,000,000 taken against FFRDCs in 1997, the Committee fails 
to understand why the Department is reporting an increase in 
actual fiscal year 1997 spending.
    Moreover, it appears the Department now plans to increase 
fiscal year 1998 FFRDC expenditures by $49,520,953 over 1997 
levels. These trends and increases are not consistent with 
prior Congressional direction nor the recommendation of the 
Defense Science Board (DSB) in January 1997. The DSB report 
challenged the Department's use of FFRDCs and concluded that 
the current FFRDC system ``does not provide the best available 
service at the most reasonable cost.'' The DSB Task Force 
recommended that: (1) work done by FFRDCs be ``more carefully 
defined and limited'' (2) that competition be introduced and, 
(3) that management practices be changed at the beginning of 
1998 to incorporate these changes. The Committee therefore 
recommends a funding level that is consistent with the DSB 
report and prior Congressional direction on FFRDCs and 
recommends a reduction of $55,000,000 to bring FFRDC spending 
back in line with the established Congressional funding 
limitation of $1,100,000,000.

                             BASIC RESEARCH

    The Department of Defense requested over $1.1 billion for 
basic research in fiscal year 1998, an increase of over ten 
percent compared to the current fiscal year 1997 level. While 
the Committee supports the need for the Defense Department to 
conduct a robust basic university research program, in the 
context of the overall fiscal year 1998 defense budget such 
funding growth is unwarranted. In each of the services there 
are many programs that have long-standing yet unfulfilled 
warfighting requirements and which have successfully completed 
R&D, yet no production funds are requested in the budget 
ostensibly due to lack of funds.
    In addition, as in past years this year's budget submission 
included large, unfunded shortfalls in defense medical 
programs, training and readiness accounts, and other programs 
such as munitions which have direct and immediate relevance to 
warfighting needs and the provision of an adequate quality of 
life for service members and their families. The Committee has 
provided additional funds in this bill to address these and 
other critical shortfalls. However the Committee questions 
whether never-ending budget growth in basic research is wise, 
particularly in the context of the Administration's failure to 
adequately address the Defense Department's weapon system 
modernization needs. In light of the Department's proposed 
misallocation of resources, the Committee recommends reductions 
to basic research funding to maintain this program at the 1997 
level.

                     NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    The Department requested $53,479,000 for NATO Research and 
Development across Service accounts. The Committee recommends 
no appropriation.
    The Committee remains concerned that the NATO Research and 
Development program is an example of a well intentioned federal 
program which, once begun, never ends. This program, which 
provides initial funding for international cooperative research 
and development projects, began in fiscal year 1986 at the 
height of the Cold War. Since that time, over $800,000,000 has 
been spent to start cooperative projects, very few of which 
have actually resulted in systems being fielded to U.S. troops, 
and all of which require the military departments to find ways 
to finance outyear costs. The Committee believes that this type 
of program is not a priority program and is no longer 
affordable, particularly as the Department and Services are 
trying to find ways of financing higher priority requirements 
in areas such as readiness and modernization. Therefore, the 
Committee recommends no appropriation.

                            tactical radios

    The Committee commends the Assistant Secretary of Defense 
for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (ASDC3I) 
for establishing an overall policy and providing planning, 
programming, and budgetary guidance to the Services, CINC's, 
and DoD agencies for the acquisition of tactical radios. Given 
the annual budget for tactical radios, the Committee endorses 
the ASDC3I's efforts to ensure that diverse Service and CINC 
communications requirements are satisfied, while at the same 
time, ensuring that the acquisitions are cost effective. The 
Committee is pleased that the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition and Technology USD(A&T) and the ASDC3I are 
currently reviewing Service communications programs and will 
make recommendations for the establishment of a joint program 
to consolidate existing and planned Service efforts. Since the 
review is currently on-going, the Committee directs that no 
more than 25 percent of the funds appropriated for the research 
and development of a tactical radio may be obligated until the 
ASDC3I certifies that the development program meets 
interoperability requirements, is not duplicative of other 
developmental efforts, and is fully funded in the budget.

                        SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAMS

    The Committee is concerned about the apparent reluctance of 
the military services to respond to Committee requests for 
budgetary data on Special Access Programs (SAPs). In several 
instances, most notably with the Army, the services failed to 
provide the Committee with requested information in a timely 
manner. In each case, the data was eventually provided, but 
only after repeated requests. This situation is unacceptable. 
Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
take necessary actions to ensure the services respond fully and 
expeditiously to Committee requests to the military departments 
for information on Special Access Programs.
    The Committee, during the course of its review, has 
discovered a number of programs in the Department that have 
been treated in a SAP-like manner, but have not been formally 
identified to the Committee as SAPs. Such practices do not 
conform with agreements between the Congress and the Department 
on handling such information, and severely complicate 
Congressional oversight of Departmental activities. The 
Committee has resolved one such problem with the Air Force 
already. However, the Committee is aware of a problem with a 
Navy program that has not been adequately resolved. 
Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to the Committee no later than September 30, 
1997 that includes (1) a description of the program, (2) the 
amount of funding for the program, past and future, by year, 
with account and line-item detail, and (3) the steps the 
Department is taking to avoid such problems in the future. 
Further details are provided separately in the classified annex 
of this report.

          COMBAT SURVIVOR EVADER LOCATOR (CSEL) SURVIVAL RADIO

    The Combat Survivor Evader Locator (CSEL) survival radio 
system was developed to satisfy a requirement for a 
communication capability to be used in the search and rescue of 
downed airman and crew. Although the CSEL was designed and 
developed to include a secure airborne interrogator, this 
capability was not included in the current program. The 
Committee understands that this deficiency increases the risk 
to an airborne rescue force because the downed crew can not 
provide secure, real-time position location data and 
situational awareness to the rescue force. Therefore, the 
Committee recommends that the Department of Defense provide the 
necessary funding in future budgets for a secure, airborne 
interrogator in CSEL.

                     institute for defense analyses

    The Committee directs that not more than one-third of the 
funds (100 staff technical years of effort) in all 
appropriations in the bill for the Institute for Defense 
Analyses (IDA) may be obligated until the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition and Technology provides the Committee 
with the results of any and every recent IDA study dealing with 
tactical aircraft modernization or technical performance 
issues, at any level of classification. The Committee 
designates funds for IDA to be an item of special interest, and 
this prior approval restriction shall be so noted on DD Form 
1414 (Base for Reprogramming Actions) for fiscal year 1998.

                          classified programs

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

            RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, ARMY

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation.......................     $5,062,763,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request......................      4,510,843,000
Committee recommendation.............................      4,686,427,000
Change from budget request...........................       +175,584,000
                                                                        

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

                       Committee Recommendations

                         authorization changes

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

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Committee      Change from 
                              Item                                Budget request    recommended       request   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ballistics Technology...........................................          33,317          38,317          +5,000
Combat Vehicle and Automotive Adv Tech..........................          32,685          35,685          +3,000
Joint Service Small Arms Program................................           4,754          11,754          +7,000
Armament Enhancement Initiative.................................          40,313          60,313         +20,000
All Source Analysis System......................................          24,045          27,545          +3,500
Aircraft Mod/Prod Improvements..................................           2,609          22,609         +20,000
Information Systems Security....................................           9,647          12,147          +2,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             Basic Research

                      IN-HOUSE LABORATORY RESEARCH

    The Army requested $15,113,000 for in-house laboratory 
research. The Committee recommends $14,113,000, a decrease of 
$1,000,000 due to fiscal constraints.

                       defense research sciences

    The Army requested $138,165,000 for defense research 
sciences. The Committee recommends $120,165,000 a decrease of 
$18,000,000 to limit program growth. Of the available funds, 
$1,000,000 is only to accelerate Intelligent Software Agent 
Research at the Army Research Laboratory.

                university and industry research centers

    The Committee recognizes the importance of electric gun 
research and directs that adequate funds be provided in future 
budget submissions.

       army research institute for behavioral and social sciences

    The Army requested $16,000,000 for the Army Research 
Institute (ARI) for Behavioral and Social Sciences. The 
Committee recommends the budget request. The Committee 
recognizes the importance of the ARI's research activities 
related to personnel recruitment and training, as well as 
issues related to gender and racial integration. The Committee 
encourages the Army to adequately fund ARI research activities 
in future budget submissions.

                        Exploratory Development

                  sensors and electronic survivability

    The Army requested $19,294,000 for sensors and electronic 
survivability. The Committee recommends $24,294,000, an 
increase of $5,000,000 only for the continued development of 
the passive millimeter wave camera.

                      aviation advanced technology

    The Army requested $27,282,000 for aviation advanced 
technology. The Committee recommends $22,282,000 a decrease of 
$5,000,000 which maintains funding at the fiscal year 1997 
appropriated level.

                combat vehicle and automotive technology

    The Army requested $33,112,000 for combat vehicle and 
automotive technology. The Committee recommends $40,112,000 an 
increase of $7,000,000. This includes an increase of $6,000,000 
only to modernize the Army's Tank and Vehicle Simulation 
Laboratory, an increase of $3,000,000 only for the continued 
development of a Voice Instructional Device for use on the 
National Automotive Center's Smart Truck program, and a 
decrease of $2,000,000 for program termination.
    The Committee directs that of the available funds, 
$1,000,000 is only to develop the High Output Diesel Engine at 
the National Automotive Center.

          chemical, smoke, and equipment defeating technology

    The Army requested $4,739,000 for chemical, smoke and 
equipment defeating technology. The Committee recommends 
$2,739,000, a decrease of $2,000,000 to limit program growth.

                    joint service small arms program

    The Army requested $4,786,000 for the joint service small 
arms program. The Committee recommends $9,286,000, an increase 
of $4,500,000 only for the accelerated development of the 
Objective Crew Served Weapon.

                    weapons and munitions technology

    The joint Army and Defense Special Weapons Agency program 
for Electro-Thermal Chemical technology development (ETC) is 
evaluating ETC for direct fire applications. The Committee 
believes that ETC technology may also have indirect fire 
applications. Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary of 
the Army to conduct a study which explores the benefits of ETC 
for Army indirect fire applications. The study is to address 
the issues associated with propellant and ETC ignitor 
development, as well as system issues associated with platform 
integration. The study is to be completed by March 1998. If the 
study proves that ETC has indirect fire applications, the 
Committee encourages the Army to include this program in the 
fiscal year 1999 budget request.

                   electronics and electronic devices

    The Army requested $20,192,000 for electronics and 
electronic devices. The Committee recommends $22,692,000, an 
increase of $2,500,000 only for the development of standard-
combustion, fuel driven, man-portable, thermophotovoltaic 
generators.

                          COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS

    The Committee encourages the Army to examine potential 
funding for the Charged Particle Beam Countermine System (CPB-
CMS), which the Committee believes has the potential to detect 
and detonate all types of suface or buried mines at a safe 
stand-off distance through the use of a high current electron 
beam.

                  human factors engineering technology

    The Army requested $14,256,000 for Human Factors 
Engineering. The Committee recommends $18,256,000, an increase 
of $4,000,000 only for Medical Teams.

                    environmental quality technology

    The Army requested $17,519,000 for Environmental Quality 
Technology. The Committee recommends $42,219,000, an increase 
of $24,700,000. Of this amount, $5,000,000 is only for support 
of life-cycle environmental and manufacturing technologies 
research related to weapons systems and munitions technology 
assessment and analysis at the Gallo Center, Picatinny Arsenal. 
In addition, $2,000,000 is only for the U.S. Army Construction 
and Engineering Research Laboratory to conduct an industry 
cost-shared demonstration of emerging high-efficiency natural 
gas boiler technology. This increase also provides $5,000,000 
only for the implementation of the Commercialization of 
Technologies to Lower Defense Costs Initiative. Finally, the 
Committee provides $4,000,000 only for Bioremediation 
Education, Science and Technology and $8,700,000 only for the 
Plasma Energy Pyrolysis System as provided for in the House-
passed Defense authorization bill.

                    MILITARY ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY

    The Army requested $36,422,000 for military engineering 
technology. The Committee recommends $43,922,000, an increase 
of $7,500,000 only for further technology development to 
enhance the military capabilities and economic efficiency of 
climate change fuel cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
Construction Engineering Research Laboratories.

                           MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY

    The Army requested $74,684,000 for Medical Technology. The 
Committee recommends $142,484,000, an increase of $67,800,000. 
Within this increase, $25,000,000 is only for the continuation 
of the Army-managed Neurotoxin Exposure Treatment Research 
Program, $9,800,000 is only for neurofibromatosis, $3,500,000 
is only for Army nutrition research, $3,500,000 is only for 
orthopedic implant research, $6,000,000 is only for the LSTAT, 
$10,000,000 is only for prostate cancer research, and 
$10,000,000 is only for ovarian cancer research.

                           neurofibromatosis

    The Committee recommends $9,800,000 to continue the Army 
neurofibromatosis medical research program which has produced 
important advances in the understanding of NF. This work 
includes important investigations into genetic mechanisms 
governing peripheral nerve regeneration after injury from such 
things as missile wounds and chemical toxins, and is important 
to gaining better understandings of wound healing. The 
Committee compliments the Army Medical Research and Material 
Command for structuring a highly regarded, peer-reviewed 
program that is well coordinated with other research conducted 
at the National Institutes of Health. The Committee urges the 
Army to focus these funds on research leading to clinical 
trials of promising treatments and therapies for NF.

                            prostate disease

    The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to continue the 
Department's nationally-recognized program to conduct basic and 
clinical research studies to combat diseases of the prostate. 
The goal of this program is to develop more effective, more 
specific and less toxic forms of therapy for patients in all 
stages of prostate disease. The Center for Prostate Disease 
Research established under this program uses the large network 
of military hospitals around the country as a resource for 
information on the improved detection and treatment of prostate 
disease. The Department should continue to give the highest 
priority to funding research that is multi-institutional, 
multi-disciplinary and regionally focused.

                          Advanced Development

                      MEDICAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY

    The Department requested $10,677,000 for Medical Advanced 
Technology. The Committee recommends $142,177,000, an increase 
of $131,500,000. Within this increase, $100,000,000 is only for 
the Army peer-reviewed breast cancer program, $8,000,000 is 
only for the National Medical Testbed, $6,000,000 is only for 
catheterization lab upgrades at Walter Reed, $3,500,000 is only 
for advanced cancer detection, $3,000,000 is only for 
cooperative teleradiology, $6,000,000 is only for advanced 
trauma care, $1,500,000 is only for artificial lung research, 
and $3,500,000 is only for emergency telemedicine, as proposed 
in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill.

                      aviation advanced technology

    The Army requested $31,330,000 for aviation advanced 
technology. The Committee recommends $53,830,000, an increase 
of $22,500,000. Within this increase, $5,000,000 is only to 
begin development of a short-range unmanned aerial vehicle, 
$2,500,000 is only to define the potential operational value 
and key technical issues related to an integrated manned and 
unmanned aerial vehicle scout team, $11,600,000 is only for 
development of the Stinger Universal Launcher (SUL), and 
$3,400,000 is only for the Starstreak missile. The Committee 
provides the additional funds for the SUL and Starstreak 
missile to ensure the Army maintains the schedule for a fiscal 
year 1999 side-by-side test of both the Stinger and the 
Starstreak missile on the Apache helicopter. The Committee 
directs the Army to take all necessary steps, including 
budgeting adequate fiscal year 1999 funds, to ensure such a 
side-by-side test will take place in fiscal year 1999.

               weapons and munitions advanced technology

    The Army requested $18,255,000 for weapons and munitions 
advanced technology. The Committee recommends $25,255,000, an 
increase of $7,000,000. Of the increase, $5,000,000 is only to 
accelerate trajectory correctable munitions development and 
$2,000,000 is only for precision guided mortar munitions 
development.

                 missile and rocket advanced technology

    The Army requested $117,139,000 for missile and rocket 
advanced technology development. The Committee recommends 
$59,439,000, a reduction of $57,700,000 based on the 
termination of the Army's Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile 
(EFOG-M). The Committee notes that EFOG-M was not recommended 
for authorization this year based on technical and testing 
concerns.
    This program, as currently structured, is essentially a 
multiyear procurement program incrementally funded in the 
Army's science and technology (S&T) research budget. Using 
funds normally associated with fundamental research and 
technology demonstrations, the Army plans to procure and field 
256 missiles, 12 launch vehicles, and 4 command vehicles to the 
82nd Airborne for a ``limited go to war capability.'' The Army 
plans to field the weapon system without independent 
operational testing and evaluation (IOT&E), formal milestone 
reviews, or many of the other fundamental acquisition 
requirements in place to ensure DoD only procures safe, cost 
effective, operationally suitable, and supportable weapon 
systems.
    The EFOG-M program is part of a larger Rapid Force 
Projection Initiative (RFPI) Advanced Concept Technology 
Demonstration (ACTD). A ``principle'' of ACTDs is that after a 
technology is demonstrated, it can be left behind to 
operational units for further use and evaluation. The Army is 
abusing this ``principle'' by procuring missiles and vehicles 
far in excess of those required for the ACTD. The ACTD requires 
only 44 missiles, 8 launch vehicles, and 2 command vehicles. 
The Army is using S&T funds to buy an additional 256 missiles 
that will not be consumed in ACTD testing as well as additional 
launchers and command vehicles to field an entire company in 
the 82nd Airborne.
    Since the program's funding is buried within a larger R&D 
line-item, neither Congress nor OSD has visibility into the 
yearly quantities and costs that would normally appear in a 
missile procurement budget that complies with the ``full 
funding'' policy. The Committee also notes that the 256 
missiles are being produced under a multiyear contract that has 
never been explicitly approved by Congress as would be required 
had the missiles been funded in a procurement account. Abuse of 
so many basic acquisition and financial policies jeopardizes 
the Committee's support of the ACTD ``leave behind'' principle. 
The Committee expects DoD to review its ACTD programs to ensure 
the minimum amount of equipment is being developed to support 
only the ACTD. The Committee has also included a general 
provision that addresses this overall growing problem within 
DoD by prohibiting the use of R&D funds to buy end-items that 
will not be used in support of testing.

            landmine warfare and barrier advanced technology

    The Army requested $19,332,000 for landmine warfare and 
barrier advanced technology. The Committee recommends 
$25,932,000, an increase of $6,600,000. Of the increase, 
$3,900,000 is only to continue the development of the Vehicular 
Mounted Mine Detection (VMMD) system and $2,700,000 is only to 
test the Ground Stand-off Mine detection system as part of the 
VMMD advanced technology demonstration.

                 line-of-sight technology demonstration

    The Army requested $13,000,000 for the Line-Of-Sight 
Advanced Technology anti-tank missile system. The Committee 
recommends no funding for this program, a decrease of 
$13,000,000. Starting with the fiscal year 1998 President's 
Budget, the Army has restructured the LOSAT program as an ACTD 
using an acquisition model very similar to the EFOG-M program 
(discussed elsewhere in this report). Like EFOG-M, the Army is 
using the ``leave behind'' principle of ACTDs to develop, 
procure, and field 13 fire units and 178 missiles to the 82nd 
Airborne using science and technology research funding. The 178 
missiles will not be consumed in testing and Army documentation 
shows a FY 2003 ``fielding'' date with a note that states, 
``funded [R&D] program provides initial operating capability.'' 
The Committee strongly objects to this kind of R&D funded 
procurement scheme and states its intent to deny or realign 
funding for any programs in the future where such abuse of 
fundamental and traditional acquisition program and budget 
procedure is discovered.
    The Committee is also concerned with the number of ``tank 
killers'' the Army is trying to field in the 82nd Airborne. In 
the coming years, the 82nd Airborne's anti-tank capabilities 
will include Hellfire, Javelin, and Follow-On To Tow (FOTT) 
weapon systems. Each of these will be by far the most advanced 
anti-tank weapons of their kind on the battlefield. LOSAT would 
provide the 82nd Airborne with a capability that will be, in 
many ways, duplicative to FOTT. Both weapon systems are 
employed on HMMWVs and have similar ranges. While LOSAT has the 
advantage of extreme lethality, FOTT has the advantage of 
having greater targeting flexibility and being a fire and 
forget weapon. Also, FOTT is an objective system for the entire 
Army and will be proliferated throughout the Service using the 
existing Tow infrastructure. Given these considerations, the 
Committee views the LOSAT acquisition program as both 
inappropriately structured and wasteful and therefore 
recommends its termination.

                      Demonstration and Validation

                army missile defense systems integration

    The Army requested $24,138,000 for Army missile defense 
systems integration. The Committee recommends $55,638,000, an 
increase of $31,500,000 only to test the Tactical High Energy 
Laser (THEL) demonstrator. Subsequent to the budget submission, 
the Secretary of Defense and Israel agreed the THEL 
demonstrator should undergo U.S. government developmental 
testing. The government developmental test would be the first 
opportunity to validate the capability of the demonstrator to 
shoot down rockets in flight before it is given to Israel. The 
Secretary of Defense proposed that the U.S. provide two-thirds 
and the Israeli government one-third of the funds required to 
complete the government developmental test. However, no funds 
are included in the fiscal year 1998 budget request for the 
government developmental test. The recommended increase will 
pay the two-thirds share for THEL testing as proposed by the 
Secretary of Defense. The Committee notes that the fiscal year 
1998 budget includes $16,500,000 for THEL development and 
contractor testing. The Committee has also recommended an 
additional $10,000,000 in program element 0605605A, High Energy 
Laser Systems Test Facility, for test site preparation.

                     aviation advanced development

    The Army requested $7,132,000 for aviation advanced 
development. The Committee recommends $15,132,000, an increase 
of $8,000,000. Of the amount, $3,000,000 is only to continue 
the development of the aircrew integrated common helmet 
development and $5,000,000 is only to develop retinal display 
technologies for the aircrew integrated common helmet.

                     artillery systems development

    The Army requested $324,380,000 for artillery systems 
development (Crusader). The Committee recommends the amount 
requested. The Committee expresses its continued support for 
the Crusader development program and believes that the Crusader 
artillery system has the potential to increase future artillery 
and maneuver force effectiveness. The Committee encourages the 
Army to provide adequate funding program in future budget 
submissions to ensure that the Crusader acquisition plan 
remains on schedule.

               Engineering and Manufacturing Development

                             ew development

    The Army requested $66,212,000 for EW Development. The 
Committee recommends $86,524,000, an increase of $20,312,000 to 
integrate lessons learned in the Force XXI Advanced Warfighting 
Experiment and meet the goal of IOT&E in fiscal year 1998.

                   family of heavy tactical vehicles

    The Army requested no funding for the family of heavy 
tactical vehicles. The Committee recommends $5,000,000 only to 
design, develop, and integrate state-of-the-art technologies 
into future tactical trailers.

                          air traffic control

    The Army requested $1,705,000 for air traffic control. The 
Committee recommends $4,705,000, an increase of $3,000,000. The 
Committee has learned that inadequate funds were budgeted to 
complete testing of the Air Traffic Navigation Integration and 
Coordination System (ATNAVICS). Therefore, the Committee has 
transferred funds from ATNAVICS procurement to research and 
development to complete testing.

                     light tactical wheeled vehicle

    The Army requested $9,909,000 for light tactical wheeled 
vehicle development. The Committee recommends no funding for 
this program. The Army is currently developing a light tactical 
wheeled vehicle strategy based on future requirements and 
budgets and is considering four alternatives: continue to 
procure the current vehicle; modify the current vehicle; 
procure a new commercial vehicle; or develop a new light 
tactical wheeled vehicle. The Committee has requested that the 
Army provide detailed cost and requirement analysis of the 
light tactical wheeled vehicle strategy; however, the study 
will not be complete until fiscal year 1998. Although the Army 
has not completed its evaluation of various alternatives for 
light weight tactical vehicles, the Army's budget request 
essentially is predetermining the outcome of the study. The 
Committee directs that the Army provide by September 15, 1997 a 
report outlining the light weight tactical vehicle alternatives 
which the Army is currently evaluating. The report is to 
include the requirements, estimated development and acquisition 
costs, and estimated operation and support costs for each 
alternative.

                combat feeding, clothing, and equipment

    The Army requested $55,964,000 for combat feeding, clothing 
and equipment development. The Committee recommends $65,264,000 
an increase of $9,300,000 only for the continued testing and 
development of the Force XXI Landwarrior system.

                  automatic test equipment development

    The Army requested $2,582,000 for automatic test equipment 
development. The Committee recommends $11,582,000, an increase 
of $9,000,000 only for Integrated Family of Test Equipment 
development.

                     combined arms tactical trainer

    The Army requested $2,823,000 for the development of the 
Combined Arms Tactical Trainer. The Committee recommends 
$13,323,000, an increase of $10,500,000 only for the 
development and testing of the Close Combat Tactical Trainer 
(CCTT). After the fiscal year 1998 budget was submitted to the 
Congress, the Army made significant changes to the CCTT 
acquisition schedule because of problems associated with system 
reliability. The new acquisition schedule delays operational 
testing until April 1998 and the delivery of an operational 
system by at least one year. Since the fiscal year 1998 budget 
does not reflect the revised acquisition schedule, the 
Committee has recommended additional funding to resolve 
reliability issues associated with the development of the CCTT.

            landmine warfare/barrier engineering development

    The Army requested $22,605,000 for landmine warfare/barrier 
engineering development. The Committee recommends $8,905,000, a 
decrease of $13,700,000. The Committee has deleted the funds 
for the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) of the 
Airborne Standoff Minefield Detection System (ASTAMIDS). The 
Committee has and continues to be a strong supporter of 
countermine systems and has added funding for the development 
of such systems. Last year, the Congress believed that the 
ASTAMIDS system was not ready to enter EMD until results from a 
Bosnia qualification test were available. Therefore, the 
Congress provided an additional $12,000,000 to complete 
advanced development work required on the two competing systems 
in anticipation of a Bosnia qualification test. Since the 
budget submission, the Committee has learned that neither 
system met the exit criteria for the Bosnia qualification test 
and that both ASTAMIDS systems are encountering technical 
difficulties. Once again, the Committee believes that it is 
premature to enter EMD and appropriates no funds.

                   sense and destroy armament missile

    The Army requested $22,372,000 the Sense and Destroy 
Armanent Missile (SADARM). The Committee recommends $5,494,000, 
a decrease of $16,878,000 to delay the development of the 
product improvement program of SADARM. The Committee is a 
strong supporter of the SADARM program and has provided funding 
to procure SADARM. However, the baseline SADARM development 
program was plagued with technical difficulties. Until 
scheduled testing is completed on the baseline system in fiscal 
year 1998, the Committee believes that the product improvement 
program can be delayed.

                        RDT&E Management Support

                  dod high energy laser test facility

    The Army requested $14,952,000 for the DoD High Energy 
Laser Test Facility (HELSTF). The Committee recommends 
$30,952,000, an increase of $16,000,000 of which $10,000,000 is 
only to conduct live fire tests of the Tactical High Energy 
Laser System at HELSTF and $6,000,000 is only for the solid 
state laser development program.

                       materiel systems analysis

    The Army requested $29,707,000 for material systems 
analysis. The Committee recommends $14,707,000, a decrease of 
$15,000,000. The Committee notes that the fiscal year 1998 
budget request includes the transfer of funds from operation 
and maintenance. However, the Committee does not believe that 
the Army's budget submission adequately justifies the costs 
associated with material systems analysis. The budget 
submission does not provide cost data for salaries, travel, and 
number of personnel. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned 
with the level of operational testing resources dedicated for 
Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations, Advanced Technology 
Demonstrations, and the Advanced Warfighting Experiments. The 
Committee believes that since these activities are 
demonstrations and not formal acquisition programs, testing 
costs should be included in the budget lines funding the 
individual demonstrations and experiments. Additionally, given 
the decrease in Major Defense Acquisition Programs, the 
Committee believes that the management and support cost 
associated with the operational test of such systems should 
also decrease.

                     support of operational testing

    The Army requested $81,672,000 for support of operational 
testing. The Committee recommends $51,672,000, a decrease of 
$30,000,000. The Committee is aware that the budget request for 
this activity increased in fiscal year 1998 because funding was 
transferred from operation and maintenance to research and 
development. Based on the Army budget materials, the Committee 
believes the majority of the fiscal year 1998 funding is to 
conduct operational testing associated with the Advanced 
Warfighting Experiments. Furthermore, the Army's budget 
justification materials do not provide cost data for the number 
of personnel, salaries, travel and associated operational costs 
for test and evaluation support activities. The Committee notes 
that some of the systems scheduled to undergo operational 
testing in fiscal year 1997 have been delayed, such as the 
ASTAMIDS, Close Combat Tactical Trainer, and the ATNAVICS 
system. Therefore, fiscal year 1997 funds should be available 
to address any fiscal year 1998 shortfalls.

                         programwide activities

    The Army requested $86,208,000 for programwide activities. 
The Committee recommends $66,208,000, a decrease of 
$20,000,000. The fiscal year 1998 budget request is 30 percent 
higher than last year's appropriated amount. The Committee 
notes that the majority of the increase was to fund the federal 
workforce restructure. However, the Committee believes that the 
Army budget justification materials do not provide sufficient 
rationale to warrant such an increase in fiscal year 1998.

          munitions standardization, effectiveness and safety

    The Army requested $6,317,000 for munitions 
standardization, effectiveness, and safety. The Committee 
recommends $9,317,000, an increase of $3,000,000 only to 
develop a blast chamber for demilitarizing excess and obsolete 
ammunition at the Blue Grass Army Depot.

                        environmental compliance

    The Army requested $51,378,000 for environmental 
compliance. The Committee recommends $56,378,000, an increase 
of $5,000,000 only for the U.S. Army Construction and 
Engineering Research Laboratory for further technology 
development to enhance the military applications and economic 
efficiency of fuel cells.
    In the fiscal year 1994 Defense Appropriations Act, the 
Congress provided an increase of $2,700,000 in this program 
element for an environmental remediation project that was 
authorized in the fiscal year 1994 Defense Authorization Act. 
The Committee is disappointed to note that the Department 
redirected $1,700,000 of this funding to another project. The 
Committee understands that work has already begun in 
coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers, but it cannot be 
completed as planned without the restoration of the funds. The 
Committee therefore directs the Department to provide 
$1,700,000 from within available funds to complete this effort 
and to expand the project area accordingly.

                     aerostat joint project office

    The Army requested $86,193,000 for the Aerostat Joint 
Program Office. The Committee recommends no funding for this 
activity. The Aerostat Joint Program Office has been conducting 
concept of operation studies and developing an operational 
requirements document. Since fiscal year 1996, the Army has 
spent over $30,000,000 for concept studies; however, there is 
still not a validated requirement or a completed vulnerability 
assessment for the Aerostat system. According to the joint 
program office, the total cost of the concept development and 
Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration phase of the Aerostat 
program will be over $600,000,000 after which the Army will 
have one operational Aerostat. The Committee is also aware that 
the Army five year budget plan for this program is underfunded 
by $120,000,000.
    The Committee is, frankly, taken aback by the Army 
development community's grandiose plans for this program in 
light of the well-documented and understood shortfalls in not 
only other Army modernization programs, but in all Army 
accounts. Absent any firm program requirements, validated 
mission or user need, vulnerability assessment, or plans to 
ultimately procure Aerostats, the Committee recommends 
termination of this program, as well as rescission of available 
prior year appropriations.

                   combat vehicle improvement program

    The Army requested $136,520,000 for the combat vehicle 
improvement program. The Committee recommends $152,520,000, an 
increase of $16,000,000 of which $12,000,000 is only to 
integrate field emission flat panel displays on the Abrams tank 
and $4,000,000 is only to continue the development of the AN/
VVR-1 laser warning receiver.

                              digitization

    The Army requested $156,960,000 for digitization. The 
Committee recommends $75,560,000, a decrease of $81,400,000. Of 
the amount, $38,900,000 has been transferred to the Force XXI 
Initiative appropriation and $52,500,000 has been transferred 
to fund Warfighting Rapid Acquisition Program (WRAP) 
initiatives not included in the fiscal year 1998 budget 
submission. Further details are provided under the heading 
Force XXI Initiatives. An additional $10,000,000 is only to 
procure Tactical Personnel Communications Services for 
experimentation at the next Advanced Warfighting Experiment at 
Fort Hood.
    The Army's Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) has 
played an important role in the digitization program; however, 
the Committee believes that TRADOC's dominant role should not 
continue into the system acquisition phase. TRADOC represents 
the ``user'' and the Committee believes that digitization 
development, operational tests, and evaluation should be under 
the management of an acquisition executive. Therefore, the 
Committee directs that the Army designate a Program Manager and 
establish a Battlefield System Acquisition Program Office prior 
to the Milestone I/II decision to initiate the system 
acquisition phase. The Committee is concerned that without the 
establishment of an acquisition program office, that major 
technical, cost, and schedule issues can not be adequately 
managed.
    During the March 1997 Advanced Warfighting Experiment, the 
Army found that voice-data contention on SINCGARS nets 
seriously limited the Commander's ability to command and 
control his forces. The Army has plans to replace SINCGARS with 
an interim Near Term Digital Radio (NTDR) followed by Future 
Digital Radio (FDR). The NTDR is currently in development. FDR 
development is scheduled for fiscal year 1999; fielding would 
begin in fiscal year 2004. The Army wants to field its interim 
digitized division in fiscal year 2000; however, until the FDR 
is fielded, the division will have a very limited capability to 
transmit data. The Committee believes that the digital tactical 
radio acquisition program is not in sync with the overall 
digitization of the battlefield plan and directs the Army to 
submit with the fiscal year 1999 budget a tactical radio plan 
which would meet the requirements of the interim digitized 
division. The plan is to include requirements, cost, and 
acquisition schedule. Furthermore, the Committee directs that 
the Army coordinate the plan with the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence.

            missile/air defense product improvement program

    The Army requested $17,412,000 for air defense missile 
improvements. The Committee recommends $27,412,000, an increase 
of $10,000,000 only for the Patriot Anti-Cruise Missile 
program.

                      joint tactical ground system

    The Army requested $3,195,000 for the Joint Tactical Ground 
System. The Committee recommends $6,195,000, an increase of 
$3,000,000 to continue the upgrades under Phase I of the JTAGS 
P3I program.

              end item industrial preparedness activities

    The Army requested $44,326,000 for end item industrial 
preparedness activities. The Committee recommends $54,326,000, 
an increase of $10,000,000. Of that amount $5,000,000 is only 
for the development of the M829E3 munitions production 
capability and $5,000,000 only to accelerate munitions 
manufacturing technology.

                          force xxi initiative

    The Army requested no funds for Force XXI initiatives. The 
Committee recommends $38,900,000 only for the Warfighting Rapid 
Acquisition Program (WRAP). The budget request includes 
$100,000,000 for WRAP initiatives in the Army's digitization 
appropriation. Last year, the Congress established a separate 
program element for WRAP initiatives. In accordance with last 
year's Act, the Committee recommends the transfer of WRAP 
funding from the Digitization to the Force XXI Initiative 
program element. The Army has identified fiscal year 1998 WRAP 
funding to continue initiatives which were approved in fiscal 
year 1997. The Committee has established new program elements 
for the fiscal year 1997 initiatives and transferred the fiscal 
year 1998 WRAP funding as identified by the Army to continue 
each initiative. The Committee has provided funding for the 
following WRAP initiatives in fiscal year 1998:

            Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army            
                                                                        
Striker...............................................        $3,900,000
Mortar Fire Control...................................        10,000,000
Applique (funded in Digitization).....................         2,600,000
Tactical Internet (funded in Digitization)............         6,000,000
                                                                        
                         Other Procurement, Army                        
                                                                        
Gun Laying Positioning System.........................         6,000,000
Radio Frequency Technology............................         2,900,000
Lightweight Laser Designator/Range Finder.............         2,800,000
Combat Synthetic Training Assessment Range............         5,400,000
Airborne Command and Control System...................        11,100,000
Avenger Slew to Cue...................................         7,400,000
Palletized Loading System Enhanced....................         3,000,000
                                                                        

    The Committee has recommended a new general provision which 
prohibits the DoD from using research and development funds to 
procure end-items for delivery to military forces. To comply 
with the general provision, the Committee has recommended that 
the funding budgeted for the procurement of WRAP items be 
transferred to Other Procurement, Army.
    As in fiscal year 1997, the Congress directs that no funds 
may be obligated from the Force XXI Initiative appropriation 
without prior notification to the congressional defense 
committees. Notification is to include the supporting criteria 
outlining the technical merit and maturity; criticality and 
priority to warfighting requirements; affordability; 
effectiveness; and sustainability in future budget submissions 
for the items under consideration. Once again, the Committee 
directs that none of the Force XXI funds may be used for 
technologies included in the budget request, such as applique, 
night vision equipment, and radios. Instead, Force XXI funds 
are to be reprogrammed, with prior notification, to the 
appropriate account for obligation.
    The Committee notes that the Army's unfunded requirements 
list included approximately $90,000,000 for digitization 
efforts. The Committee believes that those shortfalls, which 
ensure interoperability and systems architecture development, 
should be funded before Force XXI initiatives.

                                striker

    The Army requested no funds for Striker. The Committee 
recommends $3,900,000 only for Striker. Additional details are 
provided under the heading ``Force XXI Initiatives.''

                          mortar fire control

    The Army requested no funds for Mortar Fire Control (MFC). 
The Committee recommends $10,000,000 only for MFC. Additional 
details are provided under the heading ``Force XXI 
Initiatives.''

                  theater precision strike operations

    The Army requested no funds for Theater Precision Strike 
Operations (TSPO). The Committee recommends $5,000,000 only for 
TSPO.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:



            RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, NAVY

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................    $8,208,946,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................     7,611,022,000
Committee recommendation..............................     7,907,837,000
Change from budget request............................      +296,815,000
                                                                        

    This appropriation provides funds for the Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation activities of the Department 
of the Navy and the Marine Corps.

                       Committee Recommendations

                         authorization changes

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

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Budget       Committee    Change from
                                  request    recommendation    request  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW systems development                                                 
 (ADLFP)......................       22,869         26,669        +3,800
Advanced submarine combat                                               
 systems development..........       61,122         62,422        +1,300
Carrier systems development...       98,587         10,187       -88,400
Shipboard system component                                              
 development..................       19,194         22,694        +3,500
Advanced submarine system                                               
 development..................       59,067        162,067      +103,000
Marine Corps assault vehicles.       60,134         70,134       +10,000
Marine Corps ground combat                                              
 support system...............       36,464         40,064        +3,600
Standards development.........       36,297         40,297        +4,000
Tactical command system.......       31,518         41,518       +10,000
H-1 Upgrades..................       80,735         86,335        +5,600
Acoustic search sensors (AEER)       16,947         20,947        +4,000
Arsenal ship..................      102,994              0      -102,994
Distributed surveillance......       33,048         43,448       +10,400
F/A-18 squadrons..............      316,976        207,776      -109,200
Tomahawk and Tomahawk mission                                           
 planning center..............       93,359         91,500        -1,859
Consolidated training systems                                           
 development..................       58,956         36,456       -22,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             Basic Research

                in-house independent laboratory research

    The Navy requested $15,834,000 for in-house independent 
laboratory research. The Committee recommends $14,683,000, a 
decrease of $1,151,000 due to fiscal constraints.

                       defense research sciences

    The Navy requested $366,283,000 for defense research 
sciences. The Committee recommends $336,463,000, a decrease of 
$29,820,000. This includes a decrease of $39,820,000 to hold 
the program to the 1997 level and an increase of $10,000,000 
only for molecular design research as recommended in the House-
passed Authorization bill.

                        Exploratory Development

         surface/aerospace surveillance and weapons technology

    The Navy requested $32,273,000 for surface/aerospace 
surveillance and weapons technology. The Committee recommends 
$29,273,000, a decrease of $3,000,000 due to fiscal 
constraints.

                        surface ship technology

    The Navy requested $46,859,000 for surface ship technology. 
The Committee recommends $53,859,000, an increase of 
$7,000,000. This includes increases recommended in the House-
passed Defense Authorization bill: $6,000,000 only for power 
electronic building blocks, $1,500,000 only for power node 
control centers, and $2,500,000 only for micromechanical 
systems technology for damage tolerant networks. An additional 
$2,000,000 is only to enhance on-going Navy collaborative 
efforts for the application for underwater vehicle derived 
component level intelligent distributed control technology to 
Navy surface ship automation. A decrease of $5,000,000 is also 
recommended due to fiscal constraints.

                          aircraft technology

    The Navy requested $23,590,000 for aircraft technology. The 
Committee recommends $25,390,000, an increase of $1,800,000. 
Within this amount, $2,800,000 is only to continue the 
technical evaluation and integration of advanced high 
resolution and brightness pixel flat panel displays into Navy 
integrated day/night all-weather helmet mounted displays. A 
decrease of $1,000,000 is also recommended due to fiscal 
constraints.

            command, control, and communications technology

    The Navy requested $65,566,000, for C3 technology. The 
Committee recommends $59,566,000, a decrease of $6,000,000 due 
to fiscal constraints.

       readiness, training, and environmental quality technology

    The Navy requested $31,762,000 for readiness, training, and 
environmental quality technology. The Committee recommends 
$47,362,000, an increase of $15,600,000. Within this amount, 
$16,000,000 is only for development of sea-state 3 lighterage 
systems and $2,600,000 is only for the Smart Aircrew Integrated 
Life Support System and psycho-physiological assessment. A 
decrease of $3,000,000 is also recommended due to fiscal 
constraints. Concerning lighterage, the Committee recommends 
that the Navy test extensively the capabilities of the current 
ELCAS(M) style pontoons and potential upgrades to perform sea 
state 3 missions.

            materials, electronics, and computer technology

    The Navy requested $76,653,000 for materials, electronics, 
and computer technology. The Committee recommends $73,653,000, 
a decrease of $3,000,000. Within this amount $2,000,000 is only 
for qualification of new processes such as resin transfer 
molding and second source materials such as carbon fibers and 
$2,000,000 is only to develop a composite storage capsule for 
laboratory and at-sea testing for use by Navy SEALs on 
submarines. A decrease of $7,000,000 is also recommended due to 
fiscal constraints.

                     electronic warfare technology

    The Navy requested $22,810,000 for electronic warfare 
technology. The Committee recommends $21,810,000, a decrease of 
$1,000,000 due to fiscal constraints.

                undersea surveillance weapon technology

    The Navy requested $51,033,000 for undersea surveillance 
weapon technology. The Committee recommends $46,033,000, a 
decrease of $5,000,000 due to fiscal constraints.

                oceanographic and atmospheric technology

    The Navy requested $48,211,000 for oceanographic and 
atmospheric technology. The Committee recommends $77,711,000, 
an increase of $29,500,000 as recommended in the House-passed 
Defense Authorization bill. Within this amount, $10,000,000 is 
only to continue autonomous underwater vehicle and sensor 
development, $16,000,000 is only for ocean partnerships, 
$2,750,000 is only to implement the consolidation of the Naval 
Surface Warfare Center South Florida Test Facility through 
continuation of collaborative marine vehicle research efforts, 
and $750,000 is only for PM-10. In addition, $2,000,000 from 
available funds is available only for arctic research as 
recommended by the House-passed Defense Authorization bill.

                  undersea warfare weaponry technology

    The Navy requested $35,736,000 for undersea warfare 
weaponry technology. The Committee recommends $31,736,000, a 
decrease of $4,000,000 due to fiscal constraints. Of the amount 
provided, $5,000,000 is only for continued development of COTS 
airgun technology as an acoustic surveillance source as 
recommended in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill.

                          Advanced Development

              air systems and weapons advanced technology

    The Navy requested $35,093,000 for air systems and weapons 
advanced technology. The Committee recommends $41,193,00, an 
increase of $6,100,000. Within that amount, $11,500,000 is only 
for Maritime Avionics Subsystems and Technology (MAST) and 
$2,000,000 is only for Integrated High Payoff Rocket 
Technology. A decrease of $7,400,000 is also recommended due to 
fiscal constraints.

                    precision strike and air defense

    The Navy requested $43,320,000 for precision strike and air 
defense. The Committee recommends $44,320,000, an increase of 
$1,000,000. This includes an increase of $5,000,000 only for 
mobile off-shore basing and a decrease of $4,000,000 due to 
fiscal constraints.

                 advanced electronic warfare technology

    The Navy requested $18,144,000 for advanced electronic 
warfare technology. The Committee recommends $17,144,000, a 
decrease of $1,000,000 due to fiscal constraints.

                         ship propulsion system

    The Navy requested $39,737,000 for ship propulsion 
technology. The Committee recommends $34,737,000, a decrease of 
$5,000,000. Within this amount, $5,000,000 is only for active 
control of machinery rafts (Project M) which shall be applied 
to both surface ship and submarine applications. A decrease of 
$10,000,000 is also recommended due to fiscal constraints.

             marine corps advanced technology demonstration

    The Marine Corps requested $34,178,000 for the Marine Corps 
advanced technology demonstration. The Committee recommends 
$63,478,000, an increase of $29,300,000. Within the increase, 
$20,300,000 is only for the Commandant's Warfighting 
Laboratory, $5,000,000 is only to continue the SMAW product 
improvement program and $4,000,000 is only for two kilowatt 
proton exchange membrane fuel cell development.

                           Medical Technology

    The Navy requested $18,332,000 for Medical Technology. The 
Committee recommends $72,732,000, an increase of $54,400,000. 
Within this increase, $34,000,000 is available only for bone 
marrow, $2,600,000 is only for the naval biodynamics lab, 
$5,500,000 is only for biocide materials research, $2,500,000 
is only for freeze-dried blood, $4,000,000 is only for dental 
research, $4,000,000 is only for the mobile medical monitor and 
$3,000,000 is only for rural health. In addition, the Committee 
recommends a reduction of $1,200,000 for fleet health.

                    Manpower, Personnel and Training

    The Navy requested $18,812,000 for manpower, personnel, and 
training technology. The Committee recommends $20,502,000, an 
increase of $1,690,000. Within this amount, $3,690,000 is only 
for virtual reality environment research for training for 
military and non-combat operations. The goal of this research 
is to develop virtual reality training capability for the 
Department of Defense, including safe mission rehearsal and 
realistic battlefield scenario depiction, and flexible training 
simulations to provide three dimensional tactical pictures. A 
decrease of $2,000,000 is also recommended due to fiscal 
constraints.

                  Environmental Quality and Logistics

    The Navy requested $18,249,000 for environmental quality 
and logistics technology. The Committee recommends $18,999,999, 
an increase of $750,000. Within this amount, $1,750,000 is only 
for a 250 kilowatt proton exchange membrane fuel cell 
demonstration recommended in the House-passed Defense 
Authorization bill and $1,000,000 is only for visualization of 
technical information. A decrease of $2,000,000 is also 
recommended due to fiscal constraints.

                  Undersea Warfare Advanced Technology

    The Navy requested $54,785,000 for undersea warfare. The 
Committee recommends $46,385,000, a decrease of $8,400,000 due 
to fiscal constraints.

                    Shallow Water MCM Demonstrations

    The Navy requested $41,602,000 for shallow water mine 
countermeasure demonstrations. The Committee recommends 
$38,352,000, a decrease of $3,250,000. This includes an 
increase of $750,000 only for obstacle destruction through 
mounting a GPU-5 gunpod on LCAC craft and a decrease of 
$4,000,000 due to fiscal constraints.

                     Advanced Technology Transition

    The Navy requested $87,285,000 for advanced technology 
transition. The Committee recommends $73,052,000, a decrease of 
$14,233,000. This includes a decrease of $18,233,000 to hold 
the program to the 1997 level and an increase of $4,000,000 
only for the high frequency surface wave radar. The Committee 
directs that none of the reduction be applied to the RAMICS or 
affordable array technology projects.

                         c3 advanced technology

    The Navy requested $23,768,000 for C3 advanced technology. 
The Committee recommends $22,368,000, a reduction of $1,400,000 
due to fiscal constraints.

                      Demonstration and Validation

                         aviation survivability

    The Navy requested $7,859,000 for aviation survivability. 
The Committee recommends $16,959,000, an increase of $9,100,000 
only for development of the Navy Integrated day/night all-
weather display helmet into the AV-8B, F/A-18, and Advance 
Strike Fighter aircraft and $3,000,000 is only for 
visualization architecture and technology at the Naval Aircraft 
Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Patuxent River.

             surface and shallow water mine countermeasures

    The Navy requested $58,231,000 for surface and shallow 
water mine countermeasures. The Committee recommends 
$71,131,000, an increase of $12,900,000, of which $7,900,000 is 
for the remote minehunting system and $5,000,000 is only for 
the Integrated Combat Weapon System on MCM and MHC mine hunting 
ships. Both projects are recommended in the House-passed 
Defense Authorization bill.

                 advanced submarine system development

    The Navy requested $59,067,000 for advanced submarine 
system development. The Committee recommends $162,067,000, an 
increase of $103,000,000 as recommended in the House-passed 
Defense Authorization bill. The Committee directs that none of 
these funds may be used for a technology demonstrator program 
until the Navy submits a program plan to the Appropriations 
Committees at least 30 days prior to obligation of funds that 
provides a plan, acquisition strategy, costs, and schedule.

                   advanced surface machinery systems

    The Navy requested $49,741,000 for advanced surface 
machinery systems. The Committee recommends $44,741,000, a 
decrease of $5,000,000 to the Intercooled Recuperative gas 
turbine engine. The Intercooled Gas Turbine engine program is 
an international cooperative development program to develop a 
more fuel efficient powerplant for surface combatant ships. 
During hearings this year the Committee discovered that the 
program requires an additional $100 million to complete 
development. After that, there remains an unfunded requirement 
for an additional $100 million for at-sea testing of the 
engine. Without at-sea testing, the engine could never be a 
candidate for installation in U.S. warships even after 
expenditure of over $400 million. The Navy testified this year 
that it would recommended termination of the ICR program if the 
United Kingdom and France do not pay at least half of the 
shortfall for full engine qualification as well as make 
suitable arrangements for sharing future cost growth in the 
development program. The Committee makes this reduction in 
anticipation of savings to the United States due to successful 
negotiation of an international cost-sharing agreement.

                         Conventional munitions

    The Navy requested $34,190,000 for conventional munitions 
technologies. The Committee recommends $38,190,000, an increase 
of $4,000,000 only for development of optical correlator 
technology.

                      advanced warhead development

    The budget requested $2,012,000 in the MK-50 torpedo line-
item. The Committee recommends no appropriations since the 
effort planned is unrelated to the MK-50 torpedo. The Committee 
has instead moved these funds to the lightweight torpedo 
development line-item, and expects the Navy to budget for the 
effort in the appropriate line-item in the future.

                         cooperative engagement

    The Navy requested $139,229,000 for development of 
cooperative engagement capability. The Committee recommends 
$223,229,000, an increase of $84,000,000. Within this amount 
$20,000,000 is for E-2/CEC integration, $15,000,000 is for CEC/
TBMD development efforts, $15,000,000 is for development of a 
low cost common equipment set, $13,000,000 is for reduced 
schedule risk and integrated logistics support, $5,000,000 is 
for CEC/SSDS integration, $5,000,000 is for Hawk/CEC 
integration, $5,000,000 is for design agent transfer, 
$3,000,000 is for fleet CEC exercises, and $3,000,000 is for 
LAMPS data link interference. The Navy may allocate these funds 
within the CEC program to best meet overall program objectives.

                        environmental protection

    The Navy requested $52,401,000 for Environmental 
Protection. The Committee recommends $56,401,000, an increase 
of $4,000,000 only for the Resource Recovery Technology Center.

                         facilities improvement

    The Navy requested $1,720,000 for facilities improvement. 
The Committee recommends $6,720,000, an increase of $5,000,000 
only for wood composite research.

                         land attack technology

    The Navy requested $37,809,000 for land attack technology. 
The Committee recommends $81,909,000, an increase of 
$44,100,000. Within this amount, the following increases are 
recommended in accordance with the House-passed Defense 
Authorization bill: $20,000,000 only for Navy TACMS, 
$15,100,000 for the Extended Range Guided Munition, and 
$5,000,000 for microelectromechanical systems guidance and 
control. An additional $4,000,000 is only for the Land Attack 
Standard Missile (LASM). The Navy should not assume Committee 
approval of the LASM program until and unless funds are 
provided in the final Fiscal Year 1998 Defense Appropriations 
Act. The Committee strongly supports the next-generation Naval 
gun system and directs the Navy to keep this initiative on 
schedule for program definition and risk reduction 
demonstrations leading to the fielding of an advanced Naval 
155mm gun system.

                          joint strike fighter

    The Navy requested $448,855,000 for the Joint Strike 
Fighter. The Committee has approved the budget request for this 
program in full in Navy, Air Force, and DARPA accounts. Within 
this amount, $6,000,000 is only to develop and test a high 
temperature version of the eddy current sensor and an eddy 
current array sensor for use on the propulsive lift system and 
the engine turbo-machinery. Developing these sensors now will 
allow their inclusion in the Joint Strike Fighter baseline 
design, as well as make them available for other aircraft 
engine diagnostics. An additional $1,000,000 is available only 
for engine turbine fan improvement.

               Engineering and Manufacturing Development

                         other helo development

    The Navy requested $73,354,000 for other helicopter 
development. The Committee recommends $85,354,000, an increase 
of $12,000,000 of which $7,000,000 is only to maintain the 
schedule of the block II upgrade and support the insertion of 
ruggedized, scalable commercial off-the-shelf avionics 
technology for the SH-60R helicopter program and $5,000,000 is 
only for the air interoperability center fiber optic backbone 
at the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Patuxent 
River.

                      aircrew systems development

    The Navy requested $12,111,000 for aircrew systems 
development. The Committee recommends $18,111,000, an increase 
of $6,000,000 only to continue phase two of the NACES II 
ejection seat product improvement program.

                           electronic warfare

    The Navy requested $101,803,000 for electronic warfare. The 
Committee requested $104,603,000, an increase of $2,800,000 
only for precision targeting as recommended in the House-passed 
Defense Authorization bill.

              surface combatant combat system engineering

    The Navy requested $87,934,000 for surface combatant combat 
system engineering. The Committee recommends $142,134,000, an 
increase of $54,200,000. This includes $43,000,000 only for 
TBMD/UYQ-70 architecture development and $14,000,000 for 
program shortfalls. A reduction of $2,800,000 is recommended by 
the General Accounting Office since a joint tactical control 
sea test has been postponed until 1999.

                              arsenal ship

    The Navy requested $102,994,000 and DARPA requested 
$47,200,000 for development of an Arsenal Ship demonstrator. 
The Committee agrees with the House National Security Committee 
that a delay in the program is appropriate, given the great 
number of changes the Navy proposes to make in purpose and 
scope of the demonstrator ship. The Committee questions the 
acquisition strategy of continuing with arsenal ship contracts 
to construct a $500 million ship which is twice the size of the 
surface combatant application to be demonstrated, and which 
includes contract options for arsenal ships that differ from a 
land attack combatant demonstrator. The Navy should first 
define its requirements, and then award contracts; the current 
acquisition strategy is the reverse. The Committee is also 
concerned that CINC's have not requested such a ship. In the 
context of the fiscal year 1998 budget, where the Navy proposes 
no funding for installation of critical warfighting 
improvements such as cooperative engagement, ship self defense, 
CIWS surface mode, and TBMD capabilities for DDG-51 ships, the 
Arsenal ship is clearly of much lower priority. As noted in the 
Committee's hearings with Navy witnesses this year, converting 
Trident submarines to a conventional land attack configuration 
after START II is probably a more effective and affordable 
solution to meeting warfighting requirements. Finally, as 
discussed elsewhere in this report, the Committee is disturbed 
about the Administration's plan to field 12 new production DDG-
51 destroyers to the fleet without cooperative engagement and 
theater ballistic missile defense capabilities. The Committee 
notes that if the Navy were to cancel the Arsenal Ship 
Demonstrator, sufficient funds would be available to fix the 
destroyer problem as well as many other pressing surface 
warfare issues.

                    lpd-17 class systems integration

    The Navy requested $471,000 for LPD-17 class systems 
integration. The Committee recommends $13,471,000, an increase 
of $13,000,000 only for initial design studies and ship 
development efforts for command ship replacement, land attack 
weapons integration, shipboard personnel reduction technology 
and work process improvements for LPD-17 class ships.

                                 tssam

    The Navy requested $9,644,000 for the Navy's participation 
in the Air Force JASSM program. The Committee recommends no 
funds for this program. The Committee has recommended 
termination of the JASSM program discussed elsewhere in this 
report since the Navy's SLAM-ER+ missile, in production in 
fiscal year 1998, meets the JASSM threshold requirements.

                              vla upgrade

    The Navy requested no funds for VLA Upgrades. The Committee 
recommends $12,000,000 only for integration of the lightweight 
hybrid torpedo on the VLA rocket.

                     airborne mine countermeasures

    The Navy requested $16,503,000 for airborne mine 
countermeasures. The Committee recommends $19,503,000, an 
increase of $3,000,000 only for SWIMS projector development.

                   ssn-688 and trident modernization

    The Navy requested $42,294,000 for SSN-688 and Trident 
submarine modernization. The Committee recommends $52,294,000, 
an increase of $10,000,000 for multi-purpose processors as 
recommended in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill.

                        submarine combat system

    The Navy requested $23,701,000 for development of submarine 
combat systems. The Committee recommends $2,366,000, a decrease 
of $21,335,000 as recommended by the General Accounting Office 
due to postponement of the SSN-21 submarines' AN/BSY-2 combat 
system technical evaluation and operational evaluations beyond 
fiscal year 1998.

                             new design ssn

    The Navy requested $311,076,000 for development of the New 
Attack Submarine. The Committee recommends $331,076,000, an 
increase of $20,000,000 of which $17,000,000 is recommended in 
the House-passed Defense Authorization bill for the Advanced 
Submarine Tactical Electronic Combat System/Integrated Mast and 
$3,000,000 is only for glass reinforced plastic and rubber 
sandwich sonar domes.

                          ssn-21 developments

    The Navy requested $49,542,000 for SSN-21 developments. The 
Committee recommends $12,332,000, a decrease of $37,210,000 
recommended by the General Accounting Office due to a delay in 
installation of an advanced special hull treatment and system 
qualification/inspection during SSN-21 post shakedown 
availability.

                 ship contract design/live fire testing

    The Navy requested $75,713,000 for ship contract design and 
live fire testing. The Committee recommends $64,713,000, a 
decrease of $11,000,000. This includes an increase of 
$17,000,000 to accelerate advanced technology development for 
the next aircraft carrier (CVN-77) as recommended in the House-
passed Defense Authorization bill and a decrease of $28,000,000 
to slow the pace of development of the next generation 
destroyer (DD-21). These funds have been applied to more urgent 
requirements for CIWS surface mode and infrared search and 
track development.

                    navy tactical computer resources

    The Navy requested $4,794,000 for tactical computer 
resources. The Committee recommends $39,294,000, an increase of 
$34,500,000 of which $17,500,000 is only for integration of AN/
UYQ-70 displays into submarines, $10,000,000 is only for 
virtual prototyping of electronic circuits, and $7,000,000 is 
only to integrate the AN/UYQ-70 Advanced Display System into 
existing Marine Expeditionary Force command elements.

                    lightweight torpedo development

    The Navy requested $17,290,000 for development of the 
lightweight hybrid torpedo. The Committee recommends 
$19,302,000, an increase of $2,012,000 only for lightweight 
hybrid torpedo software development.

                           ship self-defense

    The Navy requested $132,270,000 for ship self-defense. The 
Committee recommends $190,870,000, an increase of $58,600,000. 
Within this amount, $19,000,000 is for the Quick Reaction 
Combat Capability, $12,000,000 is for the ship self-defense 
test ship, $8,600,000 is only to refurbish an AN/SPS-48E for 
the Wallops Island ship defense test facility, $9,000,000 is 
only for the development of the SPQ-9B radar, and $10,000,000 
is only for Infrared Search and Track.

                          Medical Development

    The Navy requested $3,620,000 for Medical Development. The 
Committee recommends $16,920,000, an increase of $13,300,000. 
Within this increase, $8,500,000 is only for casualty 
monitoring and $4,800,000 is only for Navy Telemedicine.

                    distributed surveillance system

    The Navy requested $33,048,000 for the Distributed 
Surveillance System program. The Committee recommends 
$43,448,000, an increase of $10,400,000. Of this amount, 
$7,800,000 is only to package the all-optical deployable system 
(AODS) into an advanced deployable system (ADS) and to test the 
deployment of this system at sea. The remaining $2,600,000 is 
for the development of signal processing and detection 
algorithms for the ADS.

                        RDT&E Management Support

                       target systems development

    The Navy requested $48,308,000 for target systems 
development. The Committee recommends $45,408,000, a reduction 
of $2,900,000 due to cancellation of the Non-Cooperative 
Airborne Vector Scorer after the budget was submitted.

                          major t&e investment

    The Navy requested $33,236,000 for major test and 
evaluation investment. The Committee recommends $39,236,000, an 
increase of $6,000,000 only for development of an East Coast 
Communications Network at the Naval Aircraft Warfare Center 
Aircraft Division, Patuxent River.

                      studies and analysis support

    The Navy requested $8,755,000 for studies and analysis 
support. The Committee recommends $6,679,000, a decrease of 
$2,076,000 to hold the program at the 1997 level.

                     technical information services

    The Navy requested $8,763,000 for technical information 
services. Included in that amount is $8,000,000 proposed for 
the Acquisition Center of Excellence. When the Committee agreed 
to a Navy proposal last year to provide funds for the center 
($500,000 was provided in the Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1998), the Committee did not 
know that an additional $16,000,000 is required in fiscal years 
1998 and 1999, and an undetermined amount thereafter. This 
amount of funding is inappropriate for a simple support 
activity to the acquisition community. The Committee notes that 
this amount of funding in fiscal year 1998 could equip two 
amphibious assault ships with ship self-defense suites, or six 
combatant ships with CIWS surface mode, or six LMSR sealift 
ships with lighterage, or funded the baseline 6/7 shortfall in 
the DDG-51 program to provide theater ballistic missile defense 
capability to three ships in 1998. The Committee questions the 
Navy preference for funding acquisition laboratories in the 
National Capital Region at the expense of theater CINC critical 
warfighting requirements. The Committee recommends $763,000, a 
reduction of $8,000,000 with prejudice.

            management, technical, and international support

    The Navy requested $24,305,000 for management, technical, 
and international support. The Committee recommends 
$19,305,000, a decrease of $5,000,000 to hold the program at 
the 1997 level.

                   science and technology management

    The Navy requested $57,591,000 for science and technology 
management. The Committee recommends $55,961,000, a decrease of 
$1,630,000 due to fiscal constraints.

                      test and evaluation support

    The Navy requested $263,934,000 for test and evaluation 
support. The Committee recommends $235,908,000, a decrease of 
$28,026,000. This includes a decrease of $30,026,000 to hold 
the program to the fiscal year 1997 level and an increase of 
$2,000,000 only for safety items as recommended in the House-
passed Defense Authorization bill.

                   marine corps program wide support

    The Marine Corps requested $8,207,000 for Marine Corps 
program wide support. The Committee recommends $12,707,000, an 
increase of $4,500,000 only for the development of a small unit 
biological detector.

                    Operational Systems Development

                            HARM improvement

    The Navy requested $6,169,000 for anti-radiation missile 
development activities. The Committee recommends $41,169,000, 
an increase of $35,000,000 only for continued development of 
AARGM.

                         aviation improvements

    The Navy requested $60,025,000 for aviation improvements. 
The Committee recommends $51,025,000, a decrease of $9,000,000 
to defer proposed engine component improvement new start 
initiatives until next year when the production programs are 
more mature.

                   marine corps communications system

    The Marine Corps requested $38,296,000 for Marine Corps 
Communications Systems. The Committee recommends $45,296,000, 
an increase of $7,000,000. Of the increase, $2,000,000 is only 
for the development of a tactical hand-held radio and 
$5,000,000 is only to develop a secure digital data link 
capability for UAV systems.

               marine corps ground combat/supporting arms

    The Marine Corps requested $12,568,000 for Marine Corps 
Ground Combat and Supporting Arms. The Committee recommends 
$14,668,000, an increase of $2,100,000 only for the development 
of the AN/VVR-1 laser warning receiver.

            defense meteorological satellite program (space)

    The Navy requested $3,165,000 for the Defense 
Meteorological Satellite Program. The Committee recommends 
$1,198,000, a decrease of $1,967,000. The Committee has deleted 
funds for sensor development for the next generation weather 
satellite as this effort is premature at this time. The 
Committee's recommendation concerning this program is discussed 
more fully in the ``Research, Development, Test, and 
Evaluation, Air Force'' section of this report.

                        manufacturing technology

    The Navy requested no funds for manufacturing technology. 
The Committee recommends $55,000,000. The Committee makes this 
recommendation because Navy witnesses testified that the Navy 
has identified over $100,000,000 of manufacturing technology 
proposals which are deemed by the Navy to have a significant 
return on investment by lowering the risk of acquisition and to 
make weapon systems more affordable.

                          Program Recommended

    The total recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:



         RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation.......................    $14,499,606,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request......................     14,451,379,000
Committee recommendation.............................     14,315,456,000
Change from budget request...........................       -135,923,000
                                                                        

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

                       Committee Recommendations

                         authorization changes

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

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Budget       Committee    Change from
             Item                 request    recommendation    request  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Command, Control,                                                       
 Communications...............       86,067         89,067        +3,000
ICBM DEMVAL...................       32,837         49,337       +16,500
ICBM EMD......................      137,944        152,944       +15,000
TITAN.........................       82,384         67,384       -15,000
DARP..........................            0         14,990       +14,990
RSLP..........................        8,013         33,013       +25,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Air Force and Army Laboratory Restructuring

    The Committee understands the need to streamline research 
and development activities in view of budgetary constraints. 
However, the Committee is concerned about plans to combine 
runway R&D conducted by the Air Force with R&D the Army is 
pursuing on pavement repair. The Committee understands the 
importance of the airbase deployment and sustainment work 
currently being conducted by the Air Force and urges the 
Department to ensure that this capability is not lost due to 
consolidation of activities at its existing laboratories.

                             Basic Research

                       defense research sciences

    The Air Force requested $226,832,000 for defense research 
sciences. The Committee recommends $183,332,000, a net decrease 
of $43,500,000. The Committee has recommended a reduction of 
$48,500,000 and an increase of $5,000,000 only for the Center 
for Adaptive Optics.
    The Committee's recommendation includes the requested 
amount of $650,000 for support to the Sacramento Peak 
Observatory. The Committee directs that the full amount be 
provided to Sacramento Peak and designates this project to be 
of specific Committee interest.

                        Exploratory Development

                               materials

    The Air Force requested $70,224,000 for materials 
exploratory development. The Committee recommends $73,224,000, 
an increase of $3,000,000 only for development of composite 
shelters.

                           aerospace avionics

    The Air Force requested $69,401,000 for aerospace avionics. 
The Committee recommends $68,061,000, a decrease of $1,340,000 
which brings the program more in line with the fiscal year 1997 
level.

                  phillips lab exploratory development

    The Air Force requested $111,136,000 for Phillips Lab 
exploratory development. The Committee recommends $131,636,000, 
an increase of $20,500,000. Within this amount $8,000,000 is 
only for Phase III of the Terabit fiber optic technology 
program, $10,000,000 is only for the MightySat program, and 
$7,500,000 is only for integrated high payoff rocket propulsion 
technology applications.

                    Advanced Technology Development

                 advanced material for weapons systems

    The Air Force requested $20,596,000 for advanced material 
for weapons systems. The Committee recommends $26,596,000, an 
increase of $6,000,000 only for developing enhanced 
manufacturing capabilities for infrared absorbing aircraft 
coatings.

              aerospace propulsion subsystems integration

    The Air Force requested $30,564,000 for aerospace 
propulsion subsystems integration. The Committee recommends 
$28,318,000, a reduction of $2,246,000 which brings the program 
more in line with the fiscal year 1997 level.

                          aerospace structures

    The Air Force requested $15,032,000 for aerospace 
structures. The Committee recommends $10,423,000, a reduction 
of $4,609,000 which brings the program more in line with the 
fiscal year 1997 level.

            crew systems and personnel protection technology

    The Air Force requested $17,204,000 for crew systems and 
personnel protection technology. The Committee recommends 
$26,204,000, an increase of $9,000,000 which includes 
$5,000,000 only for ejection seat technology, $3,000,000 only 
for helmet display technology and $1,000,000 only for laser eye 
protection.

                 flight vehicle technology integration

    The Air Force requested $7,795,000 for flight vehicle 
technology integration activities. The Committee recommends 
$6,423,000, a reduction of $1,372,000 which brings the program 
more in line with the fiscal year 1997 level.

                      electronic combat technology

    The Air Force requested $25,621,000 for electronic combat 
technology. The Committee recommends $30,871,000, an increase 
of $5,250,000 only for the closed loop infrared countermeasure 
(CLIRCM) technology program.

                  space and missile rocket propulsion

    The Air Force requested $16,247,000 for space and missile 
rocket propulsion. The Committee recommends $30,047,000, an 
increase of $13,800,000. Within this amount $3,800,000 is only 
for the high payoff rocket propulsion technology initiative, 
and $10,000,000 is only for the continuation of rocket testing 
efforts for the Scorpius low cost expendable launch vehicle 
technology project.

                      ballistic missile technology

    The Air Force requested no funding for the ballistic 
missile technology program. The Committee recommends $8,000,000 
to continue this program.

                     advanced spacecraft technology

    The Air Force requested $40,846,000 for advanced spacecraft 
technology. The Committee recommends $72,846,000, an increase 
of $32,000,000. Within this amount $15,000,000 is only for the 
military spaceplane program, $10,000,000 is only for the solar 
thermionics orbital transfer vehicle, and $7,000,000 is only 
for the miniature threat satellite reporting system.

                    conventional weapons technology

    The Air Force requested $26,227,000 for conventional 
weapons technology. The Committee recommends $28,227,000, an 
increase of $2,000,000 only for development of optical 
correlator technology.

                      advanced weapons technology

    The Air Force requested $41,238,000 for advanced weapons 
technology. The Committee recommends $56,238,000, an increase 
of $15,000,000. Of the amount added, $10,000,000 is only for 
Geo Space Object Imaging and $5,000,000 is only for the Special 
Laser Technology Program (LIME).

                             airborne laser

    Though the core mission of the Airborne Laser (ABL) is 
ballistic missile defense, the program is being funded in the 
Air Force rather than the Ballistic Missile Defense 
Organization (BMDO). The Committee believes that ballistic 
missile defense funding should be centrally managed to ensure 
all such programs are properly integrated into a common 
architecture and to ensure resources are applied to programs 
based on overall ballistic missile defense priorities. 
Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees no 
later than November 15, 1997 discussing whether the ABL program 
is or is not more properly budgeted within BMDO.

                      Demonstration and Validation

                           advanced milsatcom

    The Air Force requested $41,448,000 for Advanced Milsatcom. 
The Committee recommends $41,000,000, a decrease of $448,000. 
The Committee notes that program management costs for the 
Advanced Milsatcom program are requested to grow at a rate in 
excess of forecast inflation in fiscal year 1998.

                             polar adjunct

    The Air Force requested $29,585,000 for the Polar Adjunct 
program. The Committee recommends no funding, a decrease of 
$29,585,000. The Committee's recommendation concerning this 
program is discussed more fully in the classified annex to this 
report.

  national polar-orbiting operational environmental satellite system 
                                (npoess)

    The Air Force requested $51,504,000 for the National Polar-
Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS). 
The Committee recommends $26,504,000, a decrease of 
$25,000,000. The Committee notes that the launch date of the 
first NPOESS satellite has been delayed until 2007 versus 2004 
as presented in the fiscal year 1997 budget justification 
material. Despite this launch delay of three years, the Air 
Force has decided not to substantially alter the near term 
funding profile for the NPOESS system. In fact, the Air Force 
has requested funds to begin sensor design and development work 
in fiscal year 1998, ten years prior to the scheduled first 
launch. The Committee judges this approach to be overly 
conservative even for the satellite community.
    The Committee remains fully supportive of the NPOESS 
program and the ultimate convergence of the meteorological 
satellite systems of the Departments of Defense and Commerce. 
In making this reduction the Committee has still provided 
adequate funding to continue risk reduction and planning 
efforts for the system in fiscal year 1998.
    The Committee believes that the present program schedule 
provides an opportunity for the Department of Defense Space 
Architect to conduct a review of the defense space-based 
meteorological mission area. The space architect has already 
conducted reviews in the areas of military satellite 
communications and space control which have proven to be very 
beneficial to department planning in these areas. The Committee 
therefore directs the Space Architect to conduct an 
architectural review of the NPOESS program as part of its 
fiscal year 1998 program plan. The Office of the Space 
Architect is further directed to submit to the Committee a 
report detailing its plans to conduct the review no later than 
January 15, 1998.

               space based infrared architecture-dem/val

    The Air Force requested $222,401,000 for the demonstration/
validation phase of the space-based infrared system (SBIRS). 
The Committee recommends $217,401,000, a decrease of 
$5,000,000. The Committee recommends this reduction due to 
unwarranted cost growth in the areas of program management and 
FFRDC support.
    The Committee also shares the concern of the Defense 
Science Board Task Force on the Space and Missile Tracking 
System (SMTS) which found in its August 1996 report that the 
current lack of an overall system design plan for both SBIRS 
high and low segments has added ``confusion, time and risk to 
the program.'' The Committee is also disturbed that the Air 
Force has retained the present developer of the SBIRS high 
component as the overall system of systems engineer for the 
entire program. As a potential competitor on the SMTS, this 
arrangement places the SBIRS high component developer in a 
potential conflict of interest. The Committee, consistent with 
the recommendations of the Defense Science Board, directs the 
Department of the Air Force to appoint an independent third 
party systems engineer for the entire SBIRS system. The 
Committee believes that by doing so, an objective party will be 
in a position to assess the crucial technical trade-offs needed 
for a robust SBIRS constellation and ensure deployment at the 
earliest possible date. The Committee further directs that none 
of the funds appropriated for the SBIRS program may be used to 
fund the SBIRS high component developer as the overall system 
engineer. The Committee also directs the Air Force to report to 
the Committee on its efforts to establish the independent 
system engineer no later than January 15, 1998.

                              warfighter-1

    Warfighter-1 is a joint government and industry funded 
venture which will provide hyperspectral imaging data to both 
warfighters and commercial users at 25 percent of the cost of a 
conventional DoD funded satellite system. An integrated product 
team (IPT) initiated by the Director of Defense Research and 
Engineering (DDR&E) recently recommended that the Warfighter-1 
program be terminated just days before the Air Force was to 
make the contract award. The IPT concerns with the program 
centered around the belief that the Warfighter program did not 
adequately stress pure technology goals for the processing and 
exploitation of hyperspectral imaging data. The Committee does 
not concur with the recommendation of the IPT.
    It is the Committee's belief that the Warfighter program 
will benefit operational users in the field in a timely and 
cost-effective manner. It is strongly supported by the Air 
Force, the CINC United States Space Command, the National 
Imagery and Mapping Agency, and the Central MASINT Office. All 
of these organizations would be operational users of the data 
collected by Warfighter-1.
    The Committee also believes that the Department should take 
advantage of the unique leveraging opportunity offered by 
Warfighter which stands to benefit both operational DoD and 
commercial users. The conclusion of the IPT does not adequately 
consider the views and requirements of this community.
    The Committee therefore directs the Department of the Air 
Force to immediately award the contract for the original 
Warfighter-1 program and also directs the Under Secretary of 
Defense (Comptroller) to release all fiscal year 1997 funds 
appropriated for the program. Should the IPT's subsequent 
deliberations on the Warfighter program lead to a 
recommendation for a restructured technology approach to 
hyperspectral imaging, the results can be provided to the Air 
Force for incorporation into the Warfighter-1 system design. 
The Committee further directs the Assistant Secretary of the 
Air Force for Reserach, Development, and Acquisition to submit 
a report to the Committee no later than September 15, 1997 
detailing his plans to follow this direction.

            evolved expendable launch vehicle program (eelv)

    In December of 1996, the Air Force selected two competitors 
to develop a new $2 billion, Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle 
(EELV). EELV is important not only to reducing the launch costs 
of the Department of Defense, but also to the continued world-
wide competitiveness of the U.S. commercial launch industry. 
However, the Committee is concerned that the Department is 
focusing too narrowly on its national security requirements and 
not adequately reflecting the needs of the U.S. commercial 
space launch industry. For example, in order to meet its 
projected reductions in life cycle costs, the EELV needs to 
capture at least 15 percent of the commercial market. This will 
be difficult to achieve since recent projections show that the 
EELV will not be able to meet the requirements of as much as 42 
percent of the estimated commercial market. If that is the 
case, then the Air Force will have developed a new family of 
launch vehicles that will be primarily used only for national 
security payloads, resulting in higher overhead costs to DoD, 
while missing an opportunity to maximize the competitive 
posture of U.S. industry.
    The EELV program is a partnership between the government 
and industry. In return for its $2 billion investment, the 
Department will obtain a family of launch vehicles with reduced 
recurring costs of 25 to 50 percent per launch. The ultimate 
EELV developer will have its competitive posture enhanced and 
be relieved of internal investment requirements to remain 
viable in the worldwide launch market.
    The Committee would note that while partners share 
benefits, they also share costs. The Committee believes that 
the Air Force should aggressively pursue commercial cost 
sharing and recoupment contractual mechanisms as part of the 
EELV EMD contract. Accordingly the Committee directs the Air 
Force to include as significant factors in the EELV acquisition 
the degree to which the competitive proposals include the 
commercial needs of the U.S. launch vehicle industry as well as 
government compensation and cost recoupment offers from the 
EELV competitors. The Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition and Technology is directed to provide to the 
Committee not later than January 1, 1998, a revised EELV Single 
Acquisition and Management Plan (SAMP) that addresses these 
concerns.

                        global broadcast service

    The Air Force requested $56,977,000 for the Global 
Broadcast System (GBS). The Committee recommends $46,977,000, a 
decrease of $10,000,000. The Committee recommends this 
reduction due to the delay in the release of proposal requests 
for systems engineering and ground terminal development 
efforts. The Committee is also concerned that under the present 
program schedule GBS space segment payloads will be on orbit 8 
to 12 months prior to the availability of the ground control 
segment and terminals. The Committee makes this recommendation 
without prejudice to the GBS program. Funding provided by the 
Committee in fiscal year 1998 will still allow the GBS program 
to proceed to its next phase and allow the program office to 
incorporate greater user input into GBS requirements 
definition.

               Engineering and Manufacturing Development

              integrated avionics planning and development

    The Air Force requested $16,494,000 for integrated avionics 
planning and development. The Committee recommends $12,994,000, 
a reduction of $3,500,000 based on a 4 month delay in the JHMCS 
EMD contract award.

                                  b-1b

    The Air Force requested $216,886,000 for B-1B upgrade 
activities. The Committee recommends $222,886,000, a net 
increase of $6,000,000. This adjustment includes a reduction of 
$7,000,000 to CMUP engineering change orders (ECOs) and an 
increase of $13,000,000 only for acceleration of JSOW and JSLAM 
integration.

                specialized undergraduate pilot training

    The Air Force requested $80,238,000 for specialized 
undergraduate pilot training improvements. The Committee 
recommends $77,238,000, a decrease of $3,000,000 based on a 3 
month delay in T-38 upgrade activities caused by a contract 
protest.

                                  f-22

    The Air Force requested $2,071,234,000 for the F-22 
program. The Committee recommends $2,077,234,000, an increase 
of $6,000,000 transferred from F-22 procurement to this line-
item for redesign work associated with out of production parts 
(OPP).

                             ew development

    The Air Force requested $78,465,000 for electronic warfare 
system development. The Committee recommends $65,965,000, a 
decrease of $12,500,000. This adjustment includes a $6,000,000 
decrease associated with contract award delays on the F-15 
IDECM program and a $6,500,000 decrease based on the 
cancellation of the F-15 CMWS program. The Committee notes that 
the Air Force canceled the F-15 CMWS program for fiscal year 
1998 and out, but fiscal year 1997 funds are still identified 
in the budget for the program and these funds are therefore 
available to finance other fiscal year 1998 EW requirements.

                    munitions dispenser development

    The Air Force requested $18,076,000 for munitions dispenser 
development. The Committee recommends $15,900,000, a decrease 
of $2,176,000. Of this decrease, $1,300,000 is for Wind 
Corrected Munition Dispenser (WCMD) contract savings, and 
$862,000 is for 20 WCMD assets inappropriately budgeted in the 
research and development (R&D) account.
    Fiscal year 1998 is the first year the Air Force has 
requested production funding for the WCMD program and 
ostensibly the Congress must, for the first time, assess the 
readiness of the program to enter production. However, the 
Committee was dismayed to learn that the decision to initiate 
production was made not by the Congress but by the Air Force 
when it signed a contract to produce 200 WCMD units using 
fiscal year 1997 R&D funding. The Committee has learned that 
150 of these weapons are not required for development or test 
of the WCMD at all, but will instead be fielded with B-52 
squadrons as an ``interim operational capability.'' Though the 
fiscal year 1997 R&D budget requested 200 WCMDs, these were 
described in the budget backup documents as ``EMD'' assets with 
no mention of an intent to field the weapons in operational 
units. Procuring assets solely for the purpose of operational 
use is clearly a production expense and should be funded in the 
production account. The Committee is concerned with what 
appears to be a growing trend to get the production ``camel's 
nose under the tent'' by using R&D funds to initiate 
procurement. The Committee has included a general provision in 
the bill that is intended to end such practices.
    The Committee further notes that though the Air Force 
signed a contract for 200 WCMD units in fiscal year 1997, these 
units were not all fully funded in that year as a consequence 
of the R&D incremental funding policy. In fiscal year 1998, the 
Air Force is requesting funds to complete assembly on 130 units 
initiated in fiscal year 1997 and to buy an additional 20 units 
for a total of 150 intended for the early B-52 capability. The 
Committee notes that the 20 all-up-rounds funded in fiscal year 
1998 R&D cost $43,000 each whereas in the same fiscal year 
(1998), the Air Force intends to buy production units for 
$13,000 each. The Committee sees no reason to pay a 300 percent 
premium to buy a weapon in the wrong appropriation. 
Accordingly, the Committee recommends a reduction of $862,000 
for the 20 R&D funded WCMD units.

                  joint direct attack munition (jdam)

    The Air Force requested $19,553,000 for development of the 
JDAM weapon. The Committee recommends $15,353,000, a decrease 
of $4,200,000 based on the availability of funds beyond that 
required to finance the contractor's revised estimate at 
completion (EAC).

                          life support system

    The Air Force requested $3,726,000 for life support system 
development. The Committee recommends $5,726,000, an increase 
of $2,000,000 only for ejection seats.

                computer resource technology transition

    The Air Force requested $1,459,000 for computer resource 
technology transition. The Committee recommends $6,459,000, an 
increase of $5,000,000 only for the National Product Line Asset 
Center (NPLACE) Program/Product Line Asset Support (PLAS).

             joint air-to-surface standoff missile (jassm)

    The Air Force requested $203,321,000 for the JASSM program. 
The Committee recommends no appropriation for the program, and 
instead proposes a new joint program based on the Navy's SLAM-
ER+ missile. JASSM is a follow-on to the very troubled and now 
terminated TSSAM program. The Air Force invested $4.3 billion 
in the missile until the program was terminated in response to 
severe technical problems, massive cost overruns, and numerous 
schedule delays. In creating the follow-on JASSM program, the 
Air Force has not only applied lessons learned from the TSSAM 
program, but has also applied lessons from recently successful 
acquisition programs like JDAM. Therefore, in making its 
recommendation, the Committee does not fault the Air Force's 
management of the JASSM program. In fact, it is too early even 
to assess the JASSM program given that the missile is still 
``on the drawing board'' with at least four years of 
development remaining.
    The SLAM-ER program, on the other hand, is already in 
production with an automatic target acquisition (ATA) upgrade 
entering production in fiscal year 1998. According to the Navy, 
this SLAM-ER ``+'' variant meets or exceeds every threshold 
requirement for the JASSM program, including the key 
performance parameters of range, missile mission effectiveness, 
and carrier suitability. The Navy believes that modifications 
required to deploy the missile on Air Force aircraft (including 
bombers) are minor.
    The Committee notes that cancellation of JASSM and pursuit 
of a joint SLAM-ER+ program could save taxpayers anywhere from 
$450 to $800 million while fielding the required capability to 
the Air Force sooner. The Department of Defense must break the 
habit of spending hundreds of millions of dollars pursuing the 
last few ounces of performance when an existing weapon with 
minor modifications can meet its requirements. Even while faced 
with severely constrained outyear modernization budgets, the 
Department failed to seriously consider this alternative to 
JASSM in either of its recent Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) 
or Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) deliberations. 
Both forums were formed to make recommendations on just these 
types of issues. The Committee is dismayed that the JROC, in 
particular, would postpone consideration of the Navy's SLAM-ER+ 
proposal 6 times before deciding the matter was best addressed 
by the acquisition community in a process that will take 
another year. The Committee does not believe that taxpayers or 
warfighters should have to wait another year and spend another 
$200 million on JASSM before considering whether SLAM-ER+ 
already meets the JASSM requirements. The Committee has 
carefully reviewed data provided by the Air Force, Navy, and 
industry on each of the various proposals. The Committee finds 
the merits of a Joint SLAM-ER+ program compelling and in the 
absence of a joint, requirements-based analysis conducted 
expeditiously by the Department, recommends termination of the 
JASSM program.

                                 jslam

    The Air Force requested no funds for the JSLAM program. The 
Committee recommends $63,000,000 only for Air Force 
participation in a joint SLAM-ER+ program. Though the Navy has 
offered to provide the Air Force excess Harpoon missiles for 
JSLAM conversions, the Committee notes that Air Force inventory 
requirements will ultimately require production of new build 
missiles. To take efficient advantage of the existing engine 
manufacturing capability, the Committee believes that the Air 
Force program should include new build missiles at the front-
end of Air Force JSLAM production.

                        RDT&E Management Support

                      threat simulator development

    The Air Force requested $51,846,000 for threat simulator 
development. The Committee recommends $50,346,000, a decrease 
of $1,500,000. The Committee notes that the budget funds the 
entire SADS-2b/f effort in fiscal year 1998 though the program 
is projected to extend well into fiscal year 1999. Since 
research and development is incrementally funded, the fiscal 
year 1999 effort should be funded in that year.

                          major t&e investment

    The Air Force requested $47,336,000 for investment in major 
test and evaluation facilities. The Committee recommends 
$62,136,000, an increase of $14,800,000 only for 
instrumentation required to modernize range C4I capabilities at 
Eglin Air Force Base.

                      test and evaluation support

    The Air Force requested $389,348,000 for test and 
evaluation support. The Committee recommends $386,348,000, a 
net decrease of $3,000,000. The Committee recommendation 
includes a $3,000,000 reduction based on unjustified growth in 
aircraft support, an $8,000,000 reduction based on unobligated 
fiscal year 1996 funds, and an $8,000,000 increase only for 
enhancements to the South Base Birk Flight Test Facility 
(BFTF).

                    Operational Systems Development

           advanced medium range air-to-air missile (amraam)

    The Air Force requested $50,781,000 for the AMRAAM program. 
The Committee recommends $33,781,000, a decrease of 
$17,000,000. This decrease includes a $14,000,000 GAO 
recommended reduction based on rephased missile upgrade 
efforts, and a $3,000,000 reduction to delay initiation of 
AMRAAM P3I Phase III until fiscal year 1999.

             aircraft engine component improvement program

    The Air Force requested $93,122,000 for the engine 
component improvement program. The Committee recommends 
$115,122,000, an increase of $22,000,000. The Committee is 
concerned about the growing costs in the Air Force flying hour 
program attributable to engine reliability and maintainability 
issues. Therefore, the Committee recommends additional funds 
for the CIP program to help reduce these operating costs.

        agm-86c conventional air-launched cruise missile system

    The Air Force requested no funds for CALCM research and 
development. The Committee recommends $3,500,000 only for 
development of a hard target penetrator variant.

              airborne warning and control system (awacs)

    The Air Force requested $46,807,000 for AWACS. The 
Committee recommends $47,807,000, an increase of $1,000,000. 
The Committee notes the availability of $12,500,000 in fiscal 
year 1997 funds from the terminated AWACS reengine program. The 
Committee recommends the Air Force use these prior year funds, 
in addition to the additional funds provided in fiscal year 
1998, for the AWACS Extend Sentry program identified by the Air 
Force as a high priority unfunded requirement.

       JOINT SURVEILLANCE AND TARGET ATTACK RADAR SYSTEM (JSTARS)

    The Air Force requested $119,189,000 for the JSTARS 
program. The Committee recommends $123,189,000, an increase of 
$4,000,000 only for integration of an Improved Data Modem on 
the JSTARS platform.

             WORLD-WIDE MILITARY COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM

    The Air Force requested $6,820,000 for the Global Command 
and Control System (GCCS). The Committee recommends $7,820,000, 
an increase of $1,000,000 only for integration of JSAS into 
GCCS.

                  SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES

    The Air Force requested $530,000 for security and 
investigative services. The Committee recommends $1,530,000, an 
increase of $1,000,000 only for the AFOSI Computer Crime 
Investigations Program.

                      AIR CARGO MATERIAL HANDLING

    The Air Force requested $7,947,000 for air cargo material 
handling equipment. The Committee recommends $3,447,000, a 
decrease of $4,500,000. The Committee notes that the fiscal 
year 1998 budget includes $4,500,000 for testing of the Next 
Generation Small Loader that is not scheduled to take place 
until fiscal year 1999.

                        INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS

    The Air Force requested $48,429,000 for industrial 
preparedness. The Committee recommends $48,429,000 and directs 
that of this amount, $1,000,000 is available only to allow the 
National Technology Transfer Center to compile, analyze, value 
and license technologies available for commercialization from 
Air Force research labs.

PRODUCTIVITY, RELIABILITY, AVAILABILITY, MAINTAINABILITY PROGRAM (PRAM)

    The Air Force requested $1,032,000 for the PRAM program. 
The Committee recommends $12,032,000, an increase of 
$11,000,000 only for efforts to develop structural fatigue 
repairs, corrosion prevention and control techniques, and 
reliability and maintainability improvement opportunities for 
aging aircraft fleets. The Committee notes that the Air Force 
has identified this effort as a high priority unfunded 
requirement.

                            NATO JOINT STARS

    The Air Force requested $36,061,000 for the NATO JOINT 
STARS program. The Committee recommends $18,061,000, a 
reduction of $18,000,000 based on the lack of any NATO decision 
to proceed with JSTARS acquisition. The Committee directs that 
none of the funds can be obligated until such obligations meet 
the requirements of current law. The Committee further directs 
that none of the funds may be reprogrammed out of the NATO 
JOINT STARS program element without the prior approval of the 
congressional defense committees.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:



        RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE-WIDE

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................    $9,362,800,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................     9,069,680,000
Committee recommendation..............................     9,494,337,000
Change from budget request............................      +424,657,000
                                                                        

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

                       Committee Recommendations

                         authorization changes

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

                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Committee      Change from 
                                                                  Budget request  recommendation      request   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Technical Support.......................................          11,750           9,750          -2,000
Verification Technology.........................................          83,370          69,070         -14,300
Commerical Insertion Technology.................................          47,889  ..............         -47,889
Boost Phase Intercept...........................................          12,885  ..............         -12,885
National Missile Defense........................................         504,091         978,091        +474,000
Navy Lower Tier.................................................         267,822         289,822         +22,000
Defense Imagery and Mapping.....................................         109,430         134,430         +25,000
Defense Reconnaissance Support..................................          49,403          41,003          -8,400
Manned Reconnaissance...........................................          27,784          51,784         +24,000
Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Mgt.............................          21,543           7,543         -14,000
Counter drug....................................................  ..............           2,500          +2,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             Basic Research

                     in-house independent research

    The Department requested $2,169,000 for In-House 
Independent Research. The Committee notes that there are ample 
funds available from fiscal year 1997 for this activity because 
of poor obligation rates. Therefore, the Committee recommends 
no appropriation.

                       defense research sciences

    The Department requested $76,009,000 for Defense Research 
Sciences. The Committee recommends $70,000,000, a decrease of 
$6,009,000. The Committee notes that the Department has used 
this activity as a source for reprogramming funds in prior 
fiscal years and therefore recommends a reduction of $6,009,000 
to reflect an appropriate level of funding.

                      university research sciences

    The Department requested $237,788,000 for University 
Research Sciences. The Committee recommends $215,212,000. This 
amount includes an increase of $10,000,000 only for the Defense 
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research 
(DEPSCOR) and a net reduction of $22,576,000 due to program 
growth and poor execution. The Committee directs that funds 
available within the University Research Initiatives account 
for Gulf War Illness related research may be used only for that 
purpose. The Committee also directs that $3,000,000 be 
available only for Clinical Assessment Recording Environment 
(CARE), as authorized. The Committee notes that while the 1997 
total program funds were lower than in 1996 (ostensibly due to 
a change in award dates not a reduction in the level of effort) 
in fact, on a monthly basis, the Department spent 41 percent 
more per month in 1997 on university graduate fellowships, 
traineeships and research instrumentation than in 1996. The 
Committee therefore recommends a reduction of $32,576,000 due 
to program growth.

      government and industry cosponsorship of university research

    The Department requested $14,713,000 for Government and 
Industry Cosponsorship of University Research (GICUR). The 
Committee notes that this proposed new activity is aimed at 
encouraging cooperation and collaboration between government 
and industry on semiconductor electronics issues. The Committee 
agrees that semiconductors are a critical priority for the 
Department. However, the Committee also believes that the 
Department's prior year investment of $840,000,000 was adequate 
to meet the challenges that were presented to the semiconductor 
industry over the past decade and therefore, the Committee 
recommends no appropriation.

                chemical and biological defense program

    The Department requested $25,190,000 for Chemical and 
Biological Defense basic research. The Committee recommends 
$28,690,000, an increase of $3,500,000. The Committee 
recommends an increase of $1,500,000 only for basic medical 
research to develop non-antibiotic therapies for anthrax and 
$2,000,000 only for novel agent research.

                        Exploratory Development

                        next generation internet

    The Department requested $40,000,000 for the Next 
Generation Internet (NGI) program. The Committee recommends 
$50,000,000, an increase of $10,000,000 to support the DARPA 
component of the multi-agency Next Generation Internet program. 
The goal of the NGI program is to develop and demonstrate the 
technologies, protocols, and standards for a very high speed, 
broad bandwidth Next Generation Internet that will offer 
reliable, affordable, secure information delivery at rates 
thousands of times faster than today. This should enable the 
use of a wide variety of new nationally important applications 
that cannot be accommodated on today's Internet. The additional 
$10,000,000 is to be used to support 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 recognizes the large potential benefit that 
Next Generation Internet technology will have for many 
important sectors of our economy as well as for national 
defense. The Committee also recognizes the value of including 
technical contributions from as many sources of innovation as 
possible in developing future Internet technology. Accordingly, 
the Committee directs that all geographic regions and all 
qualified concentrations of technical expertise (including 
government, university, and commercial) be afforded the 
opportunity and the access necessary to have comparable 
connectivity to current ``very-high speed backbone network 
service point of presence'' (VBNS-POP) on the Internet.

                 support technologies--applied research

    The Department requested $101,932,000 for Support 
Technologies. The Committee recommends $141,932,000, an 
increase of $40,000,000. Within this increase, $30,000,000 is 
only for Atmospheric Interceptor Technology (AIT) to develop 
new capabilities for current theater missile defense 
interceptors. In addition, the Committee recommends $10,000,000 
only for wide band gap technologies, as proposed in the House-
passed Defense Authorization bill.

                  lincoln laboratory research program

    The Department requested $20,474,000 for Lincoln Laboratory 
innovative research and development (IR&D). The Committee 
recommends $13,730,000, a reduction of $6,744,000. The 
Committee notes that the fiscal year 1998 plan for Federally 
Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) is well above 
the level of effort for the prior year. The planned increase of 
200 staff technical years of effort (STE) for Lincoln 
Laboratory represents a 7 percent increase in level of effort 
and a potential $41,000,000 increase in funding. Furthermore, 
this increase is not consistent with prior Congressional 
direction, the Department's FFRDC management plan, nor the 
recommendation of the Defense Science Board (DSB) Report of 
January 1997. The DSB report challenged the Department's use of 
FFRDCs and concluded that the current FFRDC system ``does not 
provide the best available service at the most reasonable 
cost.'' The DSB Task Force recommended that: (1) work done by 
FFRDCs be ``more carefully defined and limited'' (2) that 
competition be introduced and, (3) that management practices be 
changed at the beginning of 1998 to incorporate these changes. 
The Committee therefore recommends a funding level that is 
consistent with the DSB report and prior Congressional 
direction on FFRDCs.

            computing systems and communications technology

    The Department requested $341,752,000 for Computing Systems 
and Communications Technology. The Committee recommends 
$325,057,000, a reduction of $16,695,000 due to program growth. 
Within the amounts provided, $7,500,000 is available only for 
the Reuse Technology Adoption Program (RTAP), a technology 
program that enhances the reuse of information technology and 
complex event sequences or software algorithms.

                chemical and biological defense program

    The Department requested $60,023,000 for Chemical and 
Biological Defense exploratory development. The Committee 
recommends $75,323,000, an increase of $15,300,000. Within this 
increase, $9,500,000 is available only for medical biological 
research and $5,800,000 is only for Safeguard.

                          tactical technology

    The Department requested $157,329,000 for Tactical 
Technology. The Committee recommends $126,244,000, a reduction 
of $31,085,000 for program growth. This amount includes an 
increase of $3,000,000 only for the continuation of simulation 
based design and virtual reality efforts, in a collaborative 
program with private industry, for the Gulf Coast Region 
Maritime Technology Center. The Committee notes that the 
request for Tactical Technology has increased by 28 percent 
without substantial justification. Therefore the Committee 
recommends a reduction of $31,085,000, as proposed in the 
House-passed Defense Authorization bill.

               integrated command and control technology

    The Department requested $37,000,000 for Integrated Command 
and Control Technology. The Committee recommends $39,000,000, 
an increase of $2,000,000 only for the high definition camera. 
Within this amount, $4,000,000 shall be made available only for 
high definition display systems technology.

                  materials and electronics technology

    The Department requested $192,192,000 for Materials and 
Electronics technology. The Committee recommends $208,192,000, 
an increase of $16,000,000. Within this increase, $10,000,000 
is only for the Defense Microelectronics Activity and 
$6,000,000 is only for the Nanofabrication Laboratory as 
proposed in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill.

                     defense special weapons agency

    The Department requested $211,971,000 for the Defense 
Special Weapons Agency. The Committee recommends $200,593,000, 
a net reduction of $11,378,000 to maintain the program at the 
1997 funding level. The amount includes an increase of 
$5,000,000 only to continue ongoing bioenvironmental research.

                          Advanced Development

                 explosives demilitarization technology

    The Department requested $12,259,000 for Explosives 
Demilitarization Technology. Within this amount, the Committee 
recommends $2,000,000 only for the cryogenic washout program.

                      counterproliferation support

    The Department requested $58,264,000 for 
Counterproliferation Support. The Committee recommends 
$67,264,000, an increase of $9,000,000 only for the 
Counterproliferation Analysis and Planning System (CAPS).

                      automatic target recognition

    The Department requested $4,789,000 for Automatic Target 
Recognition. The Committee recommends $5,989,000, an increase 
of $1,200,000 only for optical correlators. The Committee 
encourages the Director of Defense Research and Engineering to 
provide assistance to the services in their development of 
miniature ruggedized optical correlators for use on the Navy 
Standard missile and the Air Force's AGM 130 missile.

                chemical and biological defense program

    The Department requested $41,223,000 for Chemical and 
Biological Defense advanced development. The Committee 
recommends $50,773,000, an increase of $9,550,000. Within this 
increase, $6,700,000 is available only for medical biological 
programs, and $2,850,000 is only for Joint Service Integrated 
Suit (JSLIST) industrial production.

                       special technical support

    The Department requested $11,750,000 for Special Technical 
Support. The Committee recommends $9,750,000, a reduction of 
$2,000,000, as proposed in the House-passed Defense 
Authorization bill.

                        verification technology

    The Department requested $83,370,000 for Verification 
Technology Demonstration. The Committee recommends $69,070,000, 
a net reduction of $14,300,000, as proposed in the House-passed 
Defense Authorization bill. Within this amount, the Committee 
recommends an increase of $5,000,000 only for the continuation 
of an industry-based program begun by DARPA to accelerate 
development of nuclear detection systems, including specialized 
cryocoolers for portable and remote operations and 
optoelectronics for portal monitoring for detection of nuclear 
materials, $3,000,000 is only for the continuation of an 
industry-based program begun by DARPA for enhanced segregated-
surface solid state detectors, forensics, and analysis 
techniques in support of nuclear non proliferation and counter 
terrorism, and $3,000,000 is only for the continuation of the 
Russian Monitoring Technologies Project begun by DARPA and for 
a system to provide early warning of the hazards posed by 
Russian nuclear reactors in Cuba.

                    Nuclear Monitoring Technologies

    In addition, of the amount available for Nuclear Arms 
Control Technology $8,800,000 shall be available only for 
competitive, peer-reviewed basic research in nuclear monitoring 
technologies--$7,100,000 for explosion seismology only, and 
$700,000 available only for hydroacoustics, infrasound and 
radionuclide analysis.
    To ensure the peer review process works properly, the 
Committee directs that the program be moved from the Defense 
Special Weapons Agency to the Nuclear Treaty Programs Office 
and a program manager position be established within the 
Nuclear Treaty Programs Office to oversee the program. 
Contracting for the program and associated operation and 
maintenance funds should be transferred to the U.S. Army Space 
and Strategic Defense Command. The Committee directs that the 
program be managed in accordance with the National Research 
Council recommendations provided to the Department on the 
research needed to meet nuclear treaty monitoring goals. The 
Committee requests that the Department provide a report to 
Congress responding to the National Research Council 
recommendations and explaining how this program meets 
congressionally mandated objectives.

                           Seismic Monitoring

    The Committee concurs with the concerns expressed in the 
House-passed Defense Authorization bill on seismic monitoring 
and directs that no funds be available to create redundant 
capability to that of the U.S. Geological Survey for 
monitoring, analyzing and reporting on domestic seismic events.

            generic logistics r&d technology demonstrations

    The Department of Defense requested $17,267,000 for Generic 
Logistics R&D Technology Demonstrations. The Committee 
recommends $23,867,000, an increase of $6,600,000 only for the 
Computer Assisted Technology Transfer Program (CATT). The 
Committee notes that there can be a high percentage of ``no-
bids'' when the military seeks to purchase spare parts in small 
quantities, as was the case with the KC-135. CATT, designated 
by the Defense Logistics Agency as a National Reinvention 
Laboratory, seeks to increase the industrial base available to 
support DoD spare parts procurement by enhancing the 
competitiveness of small and medium sized firms.

                strategic environmental research program

    The Department requested $54,874,000 for the Strategic 
Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP). The 
Committee recommends $61,874,000, an increase of $7,000,000 
above the budget request. Of these funds $3,000,000 is to be 
used only to develop new environmentally insensitive energetic 
materials as provided for in the House-passed Defense 
Authorization bill.
    In addition, the Committee directs the Director of Defense 
Research and Engineering, in consultation with the Deputy Under 
Secretary of Defense for Environmental Security to continue the 
research, development and demonstration program devoted to 
health and safety issues of environmental cleanup workers as it 
relates to the development and introduction of environmental 
remediation technologies. The program shall continue to develop 
and evaluate protection and safety methods and techniques 
necessary for the safe use and application of environmental 
remediation technology and to transfer such methods and 
techniques to field use. The Committee recommends an increase 
of $2,000,000 to the Strategic Environmental Research and 
Development Program only for this purpose.
    Finally, the Committee provides $2,000,000 only for a risk-
based approach to research the effects of toxic chemicals on 
human health and the environment. This research should address 
questions needed to establish cleanup criteria related to toxic 
chemicals associated with base operations and remediation of 
waste sites. This research should improve DoD capabilities for 
site specific remediation of toxic chemicals.

                   advanced electronics technologies

    The Department requested $277,044,000 for Advanced 
Electronics Technologies. The Committee recommends 
$285,044,000, an increase of $8,000,000. Within this increase, 
the Committee recommends $3,000,000 only for the Center for 
Microstructures and $5,000,000 only for cryoelectronics. Within 
available funds, the Committee recommends $18,000,000 for Flat 
Panel Displays.

                          maritime technology

    The Committee supports the idea that of the funds provided 
for Maritime Technology (MARITECH) approximately 15 percent 
should be made available to small businesses which have the 
technical expertise and that DARPA should have the flexibility 
to waive or reduce the matching requirement.

                           electric vehicles

    The Department requested no appropriation for electric 
vehicles. The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for Electric 
Vehicles to continue ongoing programs in this area.

               advanced concept technology demonstrations

    The Department requested $121,076,000 for Advanced Concept 
Technology Demonstrations (ACTDs). The Committee recommends 
$61,076,000, a reduction of $60,000,000 due to unsubstantiated 
program growth. The Committee notes that the ACTD budget 
request has doubled since last year.

                commercial technology insertion program

    The Department requested $47,889,000 for the Commercial 
Technology Insertion Program. The Committee recommends no 
appropriation as proposed in the House-passed Defense 
Authorization bill. The Committee believes that many commercial 
technologies may have promise and should be considered by the 
Service program managers and acquisition executives as viable 
alternatives to military-unique equipment. However, the 
Committee believes this approach should be embedded in the 
development and procurement plans of the Services.

                  electronic commerce resource centers

    The Department requested $14,972,000 for Electronic 
Commerce Resource Centers (ECRCs). The Committee recommends 
$47,972,000, an increase of $33,000,000.

            high performance computing modernization program

    The Department requested $126,211,000. The Committee 
recommends $124,880,000, a reduction of $1,331,000 for program 
growth.
    The Committee is concerned that the High Performance 
Computing Modernization Program future budget plans de-
emphasize the purchase of new supercomputers for DoD, as 
evidenced by a reduction in planned procurement account funds, 
yet the plans provide for increasing RDT&E account budgets for 
the sustainment of operations and related services. According 
to the DoD HPC Modernization Plan, dated June 1994, ``. . . the 
mission of this program is to modernize the high performance 
computational capability of DoD laboratories . . .'' Because of 
this, the Committee believes that a more equal balance between 
Procurement and RDT&E funds is appropriate and that sustainment 
of operations and related services should not dominate the 
program budgets. The Committee directs therefore, that DoD 
provide it verification that the future procurement budgets are 
adequate to ensure that the high performance computing needs of 
the DoD-wide user community can be met at the levels planned.
    The Committee also notes that DoD, despite a previous 
request, has not published an updated High Performance 
Computing Modernization Program Plan or Program Implementation 
Plan since June 1994. The Committee, therefore, directs again 
that such plans be published annually no later than March 15.

                     sensor and guidance technology

    The Department requested $166,855,000 for Sensor and 
Guidance technology. The Committee recommends $154,855,000, a 
net reduction of $12,000,000. Within this amount, $13,000,000 
is available only for GEOSAR technology and $6,000,000 is 
available only for the GPS Guidance Package (GGP). The 
Committee also recommends a reduction of $25,000,000 as 
proposed in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill.
    The Committee understands DARPA is developing a very 
promising inertial navigation technology under the Sensor and 
Guidance Technology Program. The GPS Guidance Package (GGP) is 
a Fiber Optic Gyro System which has the potential to 
significantly lower the cost, size and weight of military 
inertial navigation systems. If the objectives of the program 
are met, this activity could drastically reduce the cost and 
size of inertial navigation systems, making precise inertial 
navigation and positioning available to a much greater number 
of platforms, both airborne and ground vehicles.
    The Committee understands that due to the aggressive 
program goals and the difference in technology between the two 
original competitors, DARPA, the Army and the Navy felt 
strongly that competition should be maintained at least through 
the remaining development program. The Committee strongly 
agrees that competition should be maintained and directs DoD to 
provide not less than $6,000,000 under the Sensor and Guidance 
Technology Program to maintain GGP as a competitive program.

                           marine technology

    The Department requested $69,143,000 for Marine Technology. 
The Committee recommends $21,943,000, a reduction of 
$47,200,000 for Arsenal Ship, as proposed in the House-passed 
Defense Authorization bill. Within amounts available, 
$6,000,000 is available only for smart anti-submarine warfare 
(ASW) and Sonar STP technology.

                        land warfare technology

    The Department requested $82,580,000 for Land Warfare 
Technology. The Committee recommends $89,180,000, an increase 
of $6,600,000 only for Active Structural Control. Active 
Structural Control technology reduces aircraft noise and 
vibrations.

                           dual use programs

    The Department requested $225,000,000 for Dual Use 
programs. The Committee recommends $100,000,000, a reduction of 
$125,000,000.

              joint wargaming simulation management office

    The Department requested $71,338,000 for the Joint 
Wargaming Simulation Management Office. The Committee 
recommends $59,968,000, a reduction of $11,370,000 due to 
program growth in conformance with authorization action.

                      Demonstration and Validation

                      physical security equipment

    The Department requested $31,553,000 for Physical Security 
Equipment. The Committee recommends $18,676,000, a reduction of 
$12,877,000 due to program growth. The Committee notes the 
substantial increase in the physical security account and 
reduces the account to prior year levels.

                         joint robotics program

    The Committee encourages the department to pursue a Joint 
Robotic Vehicle Technology Development Program for manned and 
unmanned ground vehicle systems, and make funds available to 
the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Research, 
Development and Engineering Center to improve the situational 
awareness, crew safety, and autonomous control of current and 
future Army ground vehicle systems that operate in hazardous 
and hostile environments.

                            cals initiative

    The Department requested $1,916,000 for the CALS 
Initiative. The Committee recommends $5,916,000, an increase of 
$4,000,000 only for the CALS Integrated Data Environment (IDE).

                 Ballistic Missile Defense Organization

    The Department requested $2,581,944,000 for Ballistic 
Missile Defense in the Research, Development, Test and 
Evaluation title of the bill. The Committee recommends 
$3,289,059,000 for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization's 
(BMDO) research and development programs, an increase of 
$707,115,000. The Committee recommends specific changes in 
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization programs as detailed in 
the table below.

                                            BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE                                           
                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Committee      Change from 
                                                                  Budget request  recommendation      request   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Missile Defense........................................         504,091         978,091        +474,000
Navy Upper Tier.................................................         194,898         444,898        +250,000
MEADS (Corps SAM)...............................................          47,956          47,956  ..............
Boost Phase Intercept...........................................          12,885               0         -12,885
Theater High-Altitude Area Defense                                                                              
    Dem/Val.....................................................         294,647         238,647         -56,000
Theater High-Altitude Area Defense                                                                              
    EMD.........................................................         261,480         261,480  ..............
                                                                                                                
AIT.............................................................  ..............  ..............         +30,000
Navy Lower Tier EMD.............................................         267,822         289,822         +22,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)

    The Department requested $294,647,000 for Theater High 
Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) Demonstration and Validation and 
$261,480,000 for Theater High Altitude Area Defense Engineering 
and Manufacturing. The Committee recommends $238,647,000 for 
Demonstration and Validation, a reduction of $56,000,000.
    Due to the slip in the THAAD schedule, associated with 
flight test failures, fiscal year 1998 funds that were budgeted 
as the second increment for a contract to acquire 40 User 
Operational Evaluation System (UOES) missiles are no longer 
required. The Committee understands that the flight test 
schedule for THAAD has been restructured and that should an 
intercept occur in 1998, prior year funds would be available 
for the UOES contract.
    The Committee is very concerned about the Theater High 
Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) program and the four consecutive 
test failures which did not achieve an intercept. This type of 
error points to the need for greater quality control on the 
part of the contractor and tighter management on the part of 
the program manager. Despite these concerns, the Committee 
supports the objectives of the THAAD program and believes the 
system should be deployed at the soonest possible date.

                            Navy Lower Tier

    The Department requested $267,822,000 for the Navy Lower 
Tier program. The Committee recommends $289,822,000, an 
increase of $22,000,000 as proposed in the House-passed Defense 
Authorization bill. The Committee was pleased with the recent 
successful test of the Navy Lower Tier system and has provided 
funds for additional targets to reduce program risk.

                            navy upper tier

    The Department requested $194,898,000 for Navy Upper Tier. 
The Committee recommends $444,898,000, an increase of 
$250,000,000. The Committee believes that the Navy Upper Tier 
program will provide a substantial defense capability and is 
concerned that the Administration's proposed plan does not 
include deployment of the Navy Upper Tier system. Additional 
funds will enable the Navy to plan for 12 flight tests, to 
include an intercept in 1999 using the Lightweight 
Exoatmospheric Projectile (LEAP) and a modified SM-3 Standard 
Missile. In addition, additional funds will permit engineering 
and kinetic kill vehicle work needed for system deployment. The 
current plan only provides for a flight demonstration program 
and does not plan for deployment.

 medium extended air defense system (meads) and boost phase intercept 
                                 (bpi)

    The Committee is concerned about the lack of focus in the 
Medium Extended Area Defense System (MEADS) program, formerly 
Corps SAM, and the Boost Phase Interceptor (BPI) program. While 
the Committee supports the general concept underlying both 
programs, it believes that neither program is affordable. Due 
to the international commitment involved with the MEADS 
program, the Committee recommends a completion of the 
Preliminary Design and Review program but remains concerned 
about the future funding of this expensive program. 
Furthermore, the Committee sees the Air Force Airborne Laser 
(ABL) program as the prime program for pursuing a boost phase 
capability. Therefore, the Committee recommends no 
appropriation for BPI as proposed in the House-passed Defense 
Authorization bill.

                        national missile defense

    The Committee believes that National Missile Defense (NMD) 
is one of the highest national security priorities. The 
Committee is concerned about the proliferation of weapons of 
mass destruction and the possible emergence of a ballistic 
missile threat from a rogue nation.
    The Department requested $504,091,000 for National Missile 
Defense (NMD). The Committee recommends $978,091,000, an 
increase of $474,000,000, as proposed in both the House and 
Senate Authorization bills. The Committee concurs with the 
recommendations of the Quadrennnial Defense Review and 
recommends additional funds to significantly reduce the cost, 
schedule and technical risk associated with the current NMD 
program. The Committee is pleased with the recent successful 
NMD flight test which demonstrated the ability of an 
Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) optical seeker to identify 
and track a set of threat targets and discriminate between 
warheads and decoys. However, the Committee remains concerned 
about the six month delay in the program which was caused 
because of an earlier flight test malfunction that was 
attributed to human error. The Committee believes, as with the 
THAAD program, that quality control and close management are 
critical to timely deployment of this system.

                     Engineering and Manufacturing

                chemical and biological defense program

    The Department requested $120,535,000 for Chemical and 
Biological Defense. The Committee recommends $138,535,000, an 
increase of $18,000,000. Within this increase, $8,000,000 is 
only for the Joint Vaccine Program and $10,000,000 is only for 
decontamination technologies.

                           technical studies

    The Department requested $38,376,000 for technical studies. 
The Committee recommends $31,248,000, a reduction of $7,128,000 
due to program growth.

                       defense support activities

    The Department requested $5,992,000 for Defense Support 
Activities. The Committee recommends $7,492,000, an increase of 
$1,500,000 only for the Commodity Management System 
Consolidation.

                        management headquarters

    The Department requested $39,193,000 for management 
headquarters. The Committee recommends $34,469,000, a reduction 
of $4,724,000. The recommended amount funds management 
headquarters at the prior year level.

                             tactical uavs

    The Department requested $122,004,000 for tactical unmanned 
aerial vehicles (UAVs). The Committee recommends $60,007,000, a 
reduction of $61,997,000.
    The Committee agrees with the recommendations set forth in 
the House-passed fiscal year 1998 Defense Authorization bill 
regarding the Outrider UAV and therefore denies the funding 
request of $87,497,000 for this program. The Committee strongly 
urges the Department to immediately pursue the recommendation 
to procure a tactical UAV for the Army.
    The Committee provides an additional $11,500,000 to develop 
the Tactical Control System (TCS) for the Predator UAV system. 
The Committee understands that a memorandum of agreement is 
being developed between the TCS program office and the Naval 
Strike Warfare Center to coordinate the use of the Predator 
system in support of CONOPS development. Additionally, the 
Department should consider integrating the TCS in the Pioneer 
UAV system, especially since the Navy has decided to extend the 
service life of the Pioneer UAV.
    The Committee also recommends $4,000,000 to continue the 
UAV multi-function self-aligned gate array technology 
development and demonstration program.
    An additional $10,000,000 is recommended to support a 
vertical takeoff and landing UAV competition.

                             endurance uavs

    The Department requested $216,712,000 for the High Altitude 
Endurance (HAE) UAV program. The Committee recommends 
$192,812,000, a reduction of $23,900,000. Of this amount, 
$14,990,000 is a transfer from this account to an Air Force 
RDT&E account, PE 0305154F. The request included $9,000,000 for 
testing the common ground segment. The Committee understands 
that there has been considerable delay in both HAE advanced 
technologies demonstrations and that prior year funds are 
available for continued testing. Therefore, the Committee 
denies the request of $9,000,000.

                    airborne reconnaissance systems

    The Department requested $212,961,000 for airborne 
reconnaissance systems. The Committee recommends $193,961,000, 
a reduction of $19,000,000. The adjustments to this account are 
described below.
    The following are recommended changes in accordance with 
authorization action:

JMTE Advanced Technology Demonstration................       +$8,000,000
E-O Framing Technology................................       +15,000,000
ABIT System Test & Evaluation.........................        +3,000,000
JASA Standards........................................        -3,000,000
HFE Development.......................................        -3,000,000
Global Hawk SIGINT Design.............................       -16,200,000
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends the following additional 
adjustments:
    The Department requested $25,800,000 for the development 
and testing of the JSAF Highband Prototype. The Committee is 
concerned about the significant amount of funds that have been 
used to develop a joint SIGINT system. The Committee does not 
understand why there continues to be multiple efforts to 
develop a SIGINT system to satisfy U-2 requirements: the high 
band sub-system (HBSS), high band prototype (HBP), and the U-2 
Senior Glass upgrade. Because of these reasons, the Committee 
denies the $25,800,000 budget request. The Committee recommends 
an additional $3,000,000 to continue the development of the 
long range, high data rate airborne lasercom system.

           special operations advanced technology development

    The Department requested $8,009,000 for Special Operations 
advanced technology development. The Committee recommends 
$9,009,000, an increase of $1,000,000 to continue the 
development of the PRIVATEER II electronic suite.

          special operations intelligence systems development

    The Department requested $4,914,000 for Special Operations 
Intelligence Systems Development. The Committee recommends 
$13,914,000, an increase of $9,000,000. Of this amount 
$5,000,000 is to provide enhancements to the Special Operations 
Intelligence Vehicle, and $4,000,000 for the Joint Threat 
Warning System (JTWS).

                      sof operational enhancements

    The Department requested $26,357,000 for SOF operational 
enhancements. The Committee recommends $32,937,000, an increase 
of $6,580,000. Of this amount, $5,800,000 is for the Special 
Technology Assault Craft, and $780,000 for a classified program 
which is explained in the classified annex to this report.

                   casting emission reduction program

    The Department of Defense requested no funds for the 
Casting Emission Reduction Program. The Committee recommends 
$12,000,000 only to continue this five-year research and 
development initiative between DoD and the private sector to 
develop a cleaner and more efficient metal casting process in 
order to meet Clean Air Act requirements.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:



               DEVELOPMENTAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................      $282,038,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................       268,183,000
Committee recommendation..............................       268,183,000
Change from budget request............................  ................
                                                                        

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

                       Committee Recommendations

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:



                OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................       $24,968,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................        23,384,000
Committee recommendation..............................        32,684,000
Change from budget request............................        +9,300,000
                                                                        

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

                       Committee Recommendations

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:



                           Live Fire Testing

    The Department requested $10,197,000 for Live Fire Testing. 
The Committee recommends $19,497,000, an increase of $9,300,000 
only for simulation and modeling.
                                TITLE V

                     REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS

                     DEFENSE WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................      $947,900,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................        33,400,000
Committee recommendation..............................       971,952,000
Change from budget request............................       938,552,000
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $971,952,000 
for the Defense Working Capital Fund. The recommendation is an 
increase of $24,052,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal 
year 1997. As described elsewhere in this report, the Committee 
supports the recommendations in the House-passed fiscal year 
1998 Defense Authorization bill to incorporate the Commissaries 
into the Defense Working Capital Fund rather than establishing 
a separate account as proposed in the budget request.

                transition to the working capital funds

    The Committee notes that, in the fiscal year 1998 budget 
request, DoD proposed revising the title and structure of the 
Defense Business Operations Fund and replacing it with the Army 
Working Capital Fund, the Navy Working Capital Fund, the Air 
Force Working Capital Fund, and the Defense Working Capital 
Fund. Despite the change in name, the Committee recognizes that 
the financial management improvements brought about by the 
Defense Business Operations Fund such as capital budgeting and 
recognition of total costs will continue under the Working 
Capital Funds. However, the Committee is also aware that the 
problems that confronted DoD during its use of the Defense 
Business Operations Fund have not changed with the inception of 
the Working Capital Funds.
    In particular, the cash management problems that the 
Committee has noted in the past continue under the Working 
Capital Funds. The Committee has repeatedly expressed its 
concern about the problems DoD has experienced in maintaining 
adequate cash balances, and DoD's consequent need to use 
advance billing. The Committee is encouraged by the steps DoD 
has taken in the fiscal year 1998 budget request to establish 
rates that more accurately reflect the costs of the Working 
Capital Fund activity groups. However, the Committee believes 
there is room for further improvement, especially in the area 
of collections. The Committee is aware that the Department has 
just over $5 billion of aging accounts receivable due to 
Working Capital Fund activity groups. Of this amount, the 
Committee understands that $1.5 billion are 90 days old or 
older, and over $1 billion are over 120 days old. It seems 
clear that this performance can, and should be improved, and 
that such improvement would aid DoD's overall efforts to 
improve cash management in the Working Capital Fund activities. 
Therefore, the Committee directs that the Department of Defense 
submit a report, not later than April 30, 1998, detailing 
measures to improve cash management by reducing the amount of 
aging accounts receivable.

                   MILITARY COMMISSARY FUND, DEFENSE

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................                 0
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................      $938,552,000
Committee recommendation..............................                 0
Change from budget request............................      -938,552,000
                                                                        

    The Committee supports the recommendation in the House-
passed fiscal year 1998 Defense Authorization bill to 
incorporate the Commissaries into the Defense Working Capital 
Fund rather than establishing a separate account as proposed by 
the budget request. The Committee believes that this 
realignment should improve the management flexibility for the 
operation of the Defense Commissary Agency.

                     NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................    $1,428,002,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................     1,191,426,000
Committee recommendation..............................     1,199,926,000
Change from budget request............................        +8,500,000
                                                                        

    This appropriation provides funds for the lease, operation, 
and supply of prepositioning ships; operation of the Ready 
Reserve Force; and acquisition of ships for the Military 
Sealift Command, the Ready Reserve Force, and the Marine Corps.

            large medium speed roll-on/roll-off (lmsr) ships

    The Navy budgeted $812,900,000 for acquisition of LMSR 
ships. The Committee recommends $806,400,000, a reduction of 
$6,500,000 due to excess advanced procurement funds.

                               lighterage

    The Defense Department requested no funds for lighterage, 
equipment which is vital for off-loading sealift ships to get 
equipment and supplies to shore. Lighterage consists of 
floating platforms known as RO/RO discharge facilities, 
floating piers, or causeway ferries. The first LMSR ship went 
to sea this year without any lighterage. The Committee is 
disturbed that the Department of Defense is buying 19 LMSR 
sealift ships for over $6,000,000,000 for which the proper 
support equipment is not planned nor budgeted. The Committee 
recommends $15,000,000 only for procurement of sea-state two 
lighterage to meet theater CINC requirements.
                                TITLE VI

                  OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

                         DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation.......................    $10,207,308,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request (as amended).........     10,301,650,000
Committee Recommendation.............................     10,309,750,000
Change from budget request...........................          8,100,000
                                                                        

    The Department requested $10,301,650,000 for the Defense 
Health Program. The Committee notes that the fiscal year 1998 
President's Budget request submitted to Congress in February 
underfunded the Defense Health Program by $274,000,000. 
Subsequent to the submission of the budget, the Administration 
submitted a budget amendment to correct this shortfall. The 
Committee strongly agrees with this action and fully funds the 
Defense Health Program to include the shortfall of 
$274,000,000. The Committee recommends $10,309,750,000 a net 
increase of $8,100,000 over the amended budget request in 
operations and maintenance only for the following:

Breast Cancer...........................................     $25,000,000
Head Injury.............................................       1,000,000
Air Force Neuroscience..................................       4,900,000
Diabetes Research.......................................       4,000,000
Epidermolysis Bullosa...................................       1,000,000
Medical Imaging.........................................       4,700,000
Tissue Engineering......................................       4,700,000
HIV.....................................................      15,000,000
Minimally Invasive Research.............................      13,000,000
Lab Upgrades............................................       8,000,000
Nervous System Studies..................................       4,500,000
Gulf War Illness........................................       4,500,000
PACMEDNET...............................................      10,000,000
High Risk Automation Systems (CHCSII)...................     -20,000,000
Tax Liability...........................................     -70,800,000
Economic Adjustment.....................................      -1,400,000

                            Medical Research

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

602716A:
    Med Teams...........................................      $4,000,000
602787A:
    Nutrition...........................................       3,500,000
    LSTAT...............................................       6,000,000
    Orthopedic implants.................................       3,500,000
    Neurotoxin Exposure.................................      25,000,000
    Ovarian Cancer......................................      10,000,000
    Neurofibromatosis...................................       9,800,000
    Prostate Cancer.....................................      10,000,000
603002A:
    Breast Cancer.......................................     100,000,000
    National Medical Testbed............................       8,000,000
    Lab Upgrades........................................       6,000,000
    Advanced Cancer Detection...........................       3,500,000
    Teleradiology.......................................       3,000,000
    Advanced Trauma Care................................       6,000,000
    Artificial Lung Research............................       1,500,000
    Emergency Telemedicine..............................       3,500,000
603706N:
    Bone Marrow.........................................      34,000,000
    Naval Biodynamics...................................       2,600,000
    Biocide Materials...................................       5,500,000
    Freeze-Dried Blood..................................       2,500,000
    Dental Research.....................................       4,000,000
    Mobile Medical Monitor..............................       4,000,000
    Rural Health........................................       3,000,000
    Fleet Health Technology.............................      -1,200,000
604771N:
    Casualty Monitoring.................................       8,500,000
    Navy Telemedicine...................................       4,800,000

                             breast cancer

    The Committee has provided an increase of $125,000,000 only 
for breast cancer-related research and treatment. The Committee 
is pleased that funds appropriated to the Army in prior years 
for breast cancer research have been well used. This year the 
Committee has again provided funding for valuable research and 
to help improve access to care and improve treatment for 
military members and their dependents with breast cancer. The 
Committee recommends an increase of $100,000,000 for peer-
reviewed research and $25,000,000 to improve access to care for 
military members and their families.

                            gulf war illness

    The Department estimates that it will spend $74,100,000 for 
various Gulf War Illness programs in fiscal year 1998. The 
Committee recommends fully funding these programs. In addition, 
the Committee recommends an increase of $4,500,000 in 
conformance with authorization action, only for Gulf War 
Clinical Trials to be established by the Secretary of Defense 
and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for a total program of 
$78,600,000. This represents an increase of $15,500,000, or 25 
percent, over the fiscal year 1997 program for Gulf War Illness 
initiatives.
    The Committee is concerned that the Departments of Defense 
and Veterans Affairs do not currently have a systematic 
approach to monitoring the health of Gulf War veterans after 
their initial examination and are unable to provide information 
on the effectiveness of treatment or whether veterans are 
better or worse than when first examined.
    The Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs should 
develop and implement a plan to address the concerns raised in 
the June 1997 GAO report on this subject providing: (1) data on 
the effectiveness of the treatments received by these veterans; 
and (2) data on the long-term progress of veterans who have 
reported illnesses after the war to identify health conditions 
which are resistant to current therapies. The application of 
validated severity indices may be appropriate, but the 
departments may suggest other methods.

                                tricare

    The Committee is pleased with the progress that has been 
made in implementing TRICARE. However, the Committee believes 
that there are several areas that deserve further study 
including: the feasibility of adopting the APR-DRG system; 
standards relating to quality and access for children with 
special needs; and corrective measures for outlier payments. 
The Committee directs the Department of Defense to provide a 
report on these matters by May 1, 1998.

                          bone marrow research

    The Committee recommends an increase of $34,000,000 only 
for the C.W. Bill Young Marrow Donor Recruitment and Research 
Program, which is administered by the Naval Medical Research 
Institute.
    The Committee believes that the C.W. Bill Young Marrow 
Donor Recruitment and Research Program is uniquely qualified to 
provide support to the Metropolitan Emergency Medical Response 
teams established by the Defense Against Mass Destruction Act 
of 1996 (P.L. 104-201). The Committee recommends that 
procedures be established to make available to these teams the 
infrastructure and medical expertise of the DoD marrow donor 
program in the event of an emergency covered by the Act.

                           smoking cessation

    Tobacco smoking in the military is estimated to cost the 
Department of Defense an estimated $930 million in health 
expenses and lost productivity. It is the stated goal of the 
Department of Defense to reduce smoking prevalance among active 
duty personnel from the current level of 32 percent to 20 
percent of all service personnel. Nicotine replacement therapy, 
such as nicotine patches or gum, may offer a cost-effective 
means of significantly increasing success rates among service 
personnel attempting to quit smoking. The Committee urges the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs to implement 
an effective smoking reduction plan that meets the objectives 
of Healthy People 2000. Furthermore, the Committee urges the 
Department to make replacement therapy available to military 
members and their families.

                                diabetes

    The Committee has included $4,000,000 only for improved 
methods of diabetes detection, prevention, and care. The 
Committee recommends that the Department of Defense consider 
opportunities to conduct this research in conjunction with the 
Veterans Administration. The Committee directs the Department 
of Defense to provide a report on the status of this project by 
February 15, 1998.

                      minimally invasive research

    The Committee recommends $13,000,000 to support a 
collaborative effort of industry, medical research 
institutions, and the Department's health care organizations to 
identify and evaluate technologies to permit the extensive 
surgical treatment of patients while minimizing the requirement 
to open the body with long, deep incisions. Technologies and 
techniques under development employing lasers, computers, 
special optics, and robotics hold promise for advancing 
minimally invasive surgical capabilities. This could have 
direct and useful application for battlefield medicine and 
could reduce the pain, danger, and cost of surgery provided to 
the military healthcare population.

                         Air Force Neuroscience

    The Committee recommends $4,900,000 to fund a Cooperative 
Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) at Wright Patterson 
Air Force Base for neuroscience technology.

                 Central Nervous System Injury Research

    The Committee recommends $4,500,000 to continue active 
research programs under Cooperative Agreement DAMD17-93-V-3018 
relating to the mechanism and treatment of central nervous 
system injury (brain trauma, spinal cord injury, stroke) and 
cognitive dysfunction. It is expected that these funds will 
support multi-institutional research and training programs in 
the areas of brain imaging, cognitive science, central nervous 
system injury/plasticity, and telemedicine with the Walter Reed 
Institute of Research, the National Institutes of Health, and 
other Army medical organizations.

                 walter reed army institute of research

    The Committee recommends $8,000,000 to acquire essential 
equipment for the new Walter Reed Army Institute of Research 
(WRAIR). Because the planned occupancy date for the new 
replacement laboratory has recently been accelerated from April 
1999 to August 1998, funds to equip the facility were not 
included in this year's budget request.

                       Mobile Breast Care Center

    The Committee believes the Mobile Breast Care Center is 
absolutely essential to effectively addressing the basic and 
clinical research needs of at-risk underserved rural and urban 
communities, and encourages the Department to provide support 
for this effort from within available funds.

                           Peer Review Panels

    The Committee is pleased with the level of diversity of the 
DoD prostate cancer initiative's program medical review panel 
and encourages that it be sustained. In conjunction with the 
Institute of Medicine's fiscal year 1993 report on strategies 
for managing the breast cancer research program, the Committee 
recognizes the critical importance of the participation of 
minorities on the program management team, advisory council, 
and peer review group of the DoD breast cancer research 
program. Thus, the Committee recommends that the DoD breast 
cancer research program medical review panel maintain equitable 
representation of minorities.

           CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION, DEFENSE

Fiscal year 1997 appropriated amount..................      $758,447,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................       620,700,000
Committee recommendation..............................       595,700,000
Change from budget request............................       -25,000,000
                                                                        

                       Committee Recommendations

                           Program Reductions

    The DoD requested $620,700,000 for the destruction of 
chemical agents and munitions. The Committee recommends 
$595,700,000, a decrease of $25,000,000 due poor obligation 
rates.

                           storage facilities

    In June 1997, the GAO issued a report which stated that 
communities surrounding the Umatilla Depot lack a number of 
safety measures, including decontamination equipment, sirens, 
and tone alert radios. The GAO report, if accurate, causes the 
Committee concern for the citizens in the towns surrounding the 
storage facility. Therefore, the Committee directs the Army to 
ensure the integrity of the nerve gas storage facilities and to 
minimize the degree of risk to the surrounding communities.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1997:



         DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEFENSE

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................      $807,000,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................       652,582,000
Committee recommendation..............................       713,082,000
Change from budget request............................       +60,500,000
                                                                        

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

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Department of Defense requested $652,582,000 for Drug 
Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, a reduction of 
$154,418,000 from the fiscal year 1997 appropriated level. The 
Committee recommends $713,082,000, an increase of $60,500,000.

                  national guard counter-drug program

    Once again the Department of Defense has not adequately 
provided funds for the National Guard Counter-Drug Support 
Program. The budget request would fund less than half the state 
and local law enforcement requests for National Guard Counter-
Drug Support. The Committee has provided additional funds for 
specific National Guard activities and directs the Department 
to follow proper reprogramming procedures for each program in 
this account.

                              lea support

    The Committee provided additional funds in fiscal year 1997 
for operation Laser Strike and other projects in the Southern 
Command area of responsibility. These additional resources, in 
combination with the programs requested in the budget, have led 
to recent success achieved by participating nations in stemming 
the production and transfer of illegal drugs. Among the more 
immediate effects of this effort is the dramatic reduction in 
traffic along the air bridge in the Andean region which had 
been used as the chief means of transport for raw coca to 
processing sites. The Committee compliments the Commander-in-
Chief of the Southern Command and the Department for their 
contribution and leadership in this area. The Committee 
recommends an additional $15,000,000 over the budget request in 
the LEA Support program to be used to continue and build on 
this effort in the Source Nations and directs the Department to 
present a detailed plan on how it will utilize this additional 
funding to the congressional defense committees within 60 days 
of enactment of this act.

                         gulf states initiative

    The Committee recommends $16,166,000 for the Gulf States 
Initiative (GSI), an addition of $12,800,000 over the budget 
request. The Committee believes that the infrastructure and 
capabilities developed by the participants in the GSI have 
direct application to counter-terrorism activities. 
Accordingly, the Committee directs that funds for the GSI shall 
be used for sustainment costs for the C4 of GSI, improvements 
to existing processing and analysis centers for the four GSI 
states, and for broadening the GSI focus to include counter-
terrorism. The Committee directs that $3,031,000, an addition 
of $800,000 over the budget request, be provided to the 
Regional Counter-drug Training Academy (RCTA).
    The Committee is disappointed in the Department's lack of 
budgetary and management support for the GSI, and in its 
proposal to shift management responsibility to the Defense 
Information Systems Agency (DISA). The Committee believes such 
action is unwise and instead directs the Department to submit a 
plan to the Committee prior to conference committee action on 
the fiscal year 1998 bill to transfer all program funding 
responsibility and program management of the GSI, except those 
dealing with the RCTA, to the Joint Military Intelligence 
program.

                      hidta crack house demolition

    The Committee is aware that various Guard units have been 
used to demolish crack houses in Texas, in a manner which 
enhances readiness. The Committee is also aware of an urgent 
need to expand this activity to the state of Indiana. 
Therefore, the Committee recommends $2,300,000 above the budget 
request for Guard State plans only for Crack House Demolition 
and related missions for the National Guard in the Indiana High 
Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA).

                            civil air patrol

    The Committee recommends $2,800,000 above the budget 
request, for the Civil Air Patrol (CAP). Funds made available 
to the CAP for the Department of Defense Drug Interdiction 
activities may be used for CAP's demand reduction program 
involving youth programs as well as operational and training 
drug reconnaissance missions for federal, state, and local 
government agencies; for administrative costs, including the 
hiring of CAP employees; for travel and per diem expenses of 
CAP personnel in support of those missions; and for equipment 
needed for mission support performance. The Department of the 
Air Force should waive reimbursement from the federal, state 
and local government agencies for use of these funds.

              c-26 aircraft photo reconnaissance upgrades

    The Committee recommends $11,000,000 only to form fit 
upgrade the KS-87 sensors on Air National Guard C-26 counter-
drug aircraft to electro optical framing capability to include 
image processing equipment and spares support.

                multijurisdictional task force training

    The Committee recommends $4,000,000 above the budget 
request for multijurisdictional task force training and 
Military Police School training at the Criminal Justice 
Institute.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1998:

                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Change 
                                          Budget    Committee     from  
                                          request  recommended   budget 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dismantling Cartels....................    54,306      54,306   ........
Source Nation Support..................   166,763     180,963    +14,200
    National Imagery & Mapping Agency..     8,374       7,574       -800
    LEA Support (1004).................     3,585      18,585    +15,000
Detection & Monitoring.................   124,686     124,686   ........
Law Enforcement Agency Support.........   223,589     269,389    +45,800
    Gulf States Initiative.............     3,366      16,166    +12,800
    Multi-Jurisdictional Task Force....     2,047       6,047     +4,000
    Southwest Border Information System  ........       5,000     +5,000
    Civil Air Patrol...................     1,175       3,975     +2,800
    National Interagency Counterdrug                                    
     Institute.........................  ........       3,000     +3,000
    Southwest Border Fence.............  ........       7,000     +7,000
    Optionally Piloted Air Vehicle.....  ........       2,500     +2,500
    HIDTA Crack House Demolition.......  ........       2,300     +2,300
    C-26 Aircraft Photo Reconnaissance                                  
     Upgrade...........................  ........      11,000    +11,000
    Non-Intrusive Inspection Systems                                    
     RDT&E.............................    16,013      11,413     -4,600
Demand Reduction.......................    83,238      83,738       +500
    Young Marines Programs.............       500       1,000       +500
      Total, Drug Interdiction and                                      
       Counter-drug Activities, Defense   652,582     713,082    +60,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................      $139,157,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................       138,380,000
Committee recommendation..............................       142,980,000
Change from budget request............................        +4,600,000
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $142,980,000 
for the Office of the Inspector General. The recommendation is 
an increase of $3,823,000 from the amount appropriated in 
fiscal year 1997.
                               TITLE VII

                            RELATED AGENCIES

                 NATIONAL FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM

                              Introduction

    The National Foreign Intelligence Program consists of those 
intelligence activities of the Government which provide the 
President, other officers of the Executive Branch, and the 
Congress with national foreign intelligence on broad strategic 
concerns bearing on U.S. National security. These concerns are 
stated by the National Security Council in the form of long-
range and short-range requirements for the principal users of 
intelligence, and include political and support to military 
theater commanders.
    The National Foreign Intelligence Program budget funded in 
the Department of Defense Appropriations Act consists primarily 
of resources of the Central Intelligence Agency; the Defense 
Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the 
National Security Agency, the National Imagery and Mapping 
Agency, the intelligence services of the Department of the 
Army, Navy and the Air Force; the Intelligence Community 
Management Staff; and the CIA Retirement and Disability System 
Fund.

                            classified annex

    Because of the highly sensitive nature of intelligence 
programs, the results of the Committee's budget review are 
published in a separate, detailed and comprehensive classified 
annex. The intelligence community, Department of Defense and 
other organizations are expected to comply fully with the 
recommendations and directives in the classified annex 
accompanying the fiscal year 1998 Defense Approprations bill.

   CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM FUND

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................      $196,400,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................       196,900,000
Committee recommendation..............................       196,900,000
Change from budget request............................                 0
                                                                        

    This appropriation provides payments of benefits to 
qualified beneficiaries in accordance with the Central 
Intelligence Agency Retirement Act of 1964 for Certain 
Employees (P.L. 88-643). This statue authorized the 
establishment of a CIA Retirement and Disability System 
(CIARDS) for a limited number of CIA employees, and authorized 
the establishment and maintenance of a Fund from which benefits 
would be paid to those beneficiaries.

               INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................      $129,164,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................       122,580,000
Committee recommendation..............................       125,580,000
Change from budget request............................        +3,000,000
                                                                        

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

                        Committee recommendation

    The budget requested $122,580,000 for the Intelligence 
Community Management Account. The Committee recommends 
$125,580,000, an increase of $3,000,000. Details of adjustments 
to this account are included in the classified annex 
accompanying this report.

                 NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION TRUST FUND

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................        $5,100,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................         2,000,000
Committee recommendation..............................         2,000,000
Change from budget request............................                 0
                                                                        

    The National Security Education Trust Fund was established 
to provide scholarships and fellowships to U.S. students to 
pursue higher education studies abroad and grants to U.S. 
institutions for programs of study in foreign areas and 
languages. The budget requested $2,000,000. The Committee 
recommends funding the budget request.

PAYMENT TO KAHO'OLAWE ISLAND CONVEYANCE, REMEDIATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL 
                            RESTORATION FUND

Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................       $10,000,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request.......................        10,000,000
Committee recommendation..............................        10,000,000
Change from budget request............................                 0
                                                                        

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,000,000 
for Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and 
Environmental Restoration Fund. The Committee recommendation 
does not change from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 
1997.
                               TITLE VIII

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The accompanying bill includes 102 general provisions. Most 
of these provisions were included in the Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1997 and many have been 
included in the Defense Appropriations Act for a number of 
years.
    Actions taken by the Committee to amend last year's 
provisions or new provisions recommended by the Committee are 
discussed below or in the applicable section of the report.

              Definition of Program, Project and Activity

    For purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177) as amended by the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act 
of 1987 (Public Law 100-119) and by the Budget Enforcement Act 
of 1990 (Public Law 101-508), the following information 
provides the definitions of the term ``program, project, and 
activity'' for appropriations contained in the Department of 
Defense Appropriations Act. The term ``program, project, and 
activity'' shall include the most specific level of budget 
items, identified in the Department of Defense Appropriations 
Act, 1997, the accompanying House and Senate Committee reports, 
the conference report and accompanying joint explanatory 
statement of the managers of the Committee on Conference, the 
related classified reports, and the P-1 and R-1 budget 
justification documents as subsequently modified by 
Congressional action.
    In carrying out any Presidential sequestration, the 
Department of Defense and agencies shall conform to the 
definition for ``program, project, and activity'' set forth 
above with the following exception:
    For Military Personnel and the Operation and Maintenance 
accounts the term ``program, project, and activity'' is defined 
as the appropriations accounts contained in the Department of 
Defense Appropriations Act.
    The Department and agencies should carry forth the 
Presidential sequestration order in a manner that would not 
adversely affect or alter Congressional policies and priorities 
established for the Department of Defense and the related 
agencies and no program, project, and activity should be 
eliminated or be reduced to a level of funding which would 
adversely affect the Department's ability to effectively 
continue any program, project and activity.

                Military Personnel Budget Justification

    The Committee has included Section 8092 in the General 
Provisions, which directs the Department to forward to the 
congressional defense committees a budget justification 
document for the active and reserve personnel accounts with the 
fiscal year 1999 budget submission. The Committee directs this 
``M-1'' document to identify at the budget activity, activity 
group, and subactivity group level, the amounts requested by 
the President for fiscal year 1999.

   Limitation on Field Operating Agencies and Headquarters Activities

    The Committee supports efforts to reduce personnel in 
headquarters activities, but is concerned some organizations 
may reassign their personnel to other organizations while those 
personnel continue to perform the same headquarters mission. 
The Committee therefore recommends amending a previously-
enacted General Provision (Section 8052) to place additional 
limits on the manner in which personnel shifts can take place. 
The provision does not affect personnel assigned to a non-
headquarters activity who take a rotational assignment at a 
headquarters for career development purposes.

                               Warranties

    The Committee has included a new general provision, Section 
8095, which reduces $50,000,000 of the funds in the Procurement 
title of the bill due to the proposed elimination of the 
requirement in Title X of United States Code mandating 
warranties for the acquisition of defense weapon systems. A 
recent General Accounting Office report indicates that the 
Department of Defense spends $271,000,000 annually on 
warranties as required by Title X even though most warranties 
under this legislation have proven to be not cost-effective. 
The Defense Department has proposed on numerous occasions that 
the warranty legislation be repealed, and the General 
Accounting Office now also makes the same recommendation. The 
House National Security Committee proposes to repeal the 
warranty legislation in Title X (Section 2403 of Title 10, 
United States Code) in the House Defense Authorization Bill for 
fiscal year 1998, while the Senate Armed Services Committee 
proposes to modify the warranty legislation in the Senate 
Defense Authorization Bill for fiscal year 1998 to make it 
optional rather than mandatory. Thus, there is broad consensus 
that the warranty requirements of Title X will be removed and 
the Department of Defense will be able to eliminate cost 
ineffective warranty provisions from defense weapon system 
acquisition contracts. The Committee recommends a reduction of 
$50,000,000 in anticipation of savings from these actions.

                  National Imagery and Mapping Agency

    The National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) has not 
complied with previous directives regarding the use of the 
qualifications based selection process for its contracts for 
mapping production services. Therefore, a General Provision 
(Section 8096) is included which requires NIMA to use this 
selection process, commonly referred to as the Brooks Act, for 
mapping related services. The Committee has provided an 
exception to this requirement only for purposes that are 
critical to national security and after the Deputy Secretary of 
Defense has submitted a notification report to the Committee on 
Appropriations explaining the reasons for exceptions to this 
contracting out provision.

                    Navigation and Safety Equipment

    Last year, in the wake of the fatal air crash in Croatia 
involving the Secretary of Commerce, Congress appropriated $96 
million in support of Department of Defense initiative to 
upgrade its military passenger-carrying aircraft with modern, 
safety related equipment such as global positioning system 
receivers, flight data recorders, cockpit voice recorders, 
ground proximity warning systems, and traffic collision 
avoidance systems. This was intended to be a high priority 
effort spanning several years. The Committee is disappointed 
that, despite the Department's stated commitment to make this 
program a matter of the highest priority, the Air Force failed 
to request funds in its fiscal year 1998 budget to fully fund 
the second phase of this program for troops and passenger 
aircraft. Instead, the Air Force has identified this program as 
an unfunded requirement. Accordingly, the Committee has 
designated in the bill $20 million only for this program to be 
derived from funds in the Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 
account. The Committee directs that these modifications may not 
be funded from any other programs in this bill for which funds 
have been added over the budget request, or from the phase I 
navigational safety modifications contained in the fiscal year 
1998 President's Budget. The Committee directs the Secretary of 
the Air Force to report to the congressional defense committees 
on sources of the funds 30 days prior to phase II obligations. 
The Committee has further included a general provision (Section 
8098) that directs the Department to submit an aviation safety 
program plan specifying the appropriate level of safety 
upgrades required for all DoD aircraft and the associated 
funding profile no later than November 15, 1997.

                                 TACWAR

    The Committee recognizes the importance of theater combat 
simulations for the purpose of acquiring insight into future 
force structure decisions and funding choices. However, the 
Committee is concerned over the adequacy of the models being 
used by the Department to evaluate and determine these 
significant future decisions. The Committee is particularly 
concerned over the outdated nature of the TACWAR model which 
played a key role in supporting the Quadrennial Defense Review 
(QDR), and its inability to meaningfully assess asymmetrical 
U.S. advantages such as stealth, communications and airpower. 
The committee notes that in testimony before the Congress, all 
four service chiefs and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have 
testified to the inadequacy of the current DOD models.
    The Committee believes it is necessary to direct a 
thorough, independent review of the current models and modeling 
structure. As such, in Section 8099 of the bill, the Committee 
directs the Defense Science Board (DSB) to review the current 
models used by Department of Defense and report back to the 
Committee as to 1) the DSB's evaluation of the current models 
utilized by DOD with particular emphasis on the TACWAR model 
and its ability to adequately measure airpower, stealth and 
other asymmetrical U.S. advantages and, 2) DSB recommendations 
for improvements to current models and modeling techniques. The 
Committee directs the Department to advise the Congress no 
later than April 15, 1998 of the best alternatives for theater 
combat simulations.
            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

    The following items are included in accordance with various 
requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

                 Changes in Application of Existing Law

    Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of 
Representatives, the following statements are submitted 
describing the effect of provisions which directly or 
indirectly change the application of existing law.
    Language is included in various parts of the bill to 
continue on-going activities which require annual authorization 
or additional legislation, which to date has not been enacted.
    The bill includes a number of provisions which place 
limitations on the use of funds in the bill or change existing 
limitations and which might, under some circumstances, be 
construed as changing the application of existing law.
    The bill includes a number of provisions, which have been 
virtually unchanged for many years, that are technically 
considered legislation.
    The bill provides that appropriations shall remain 
available for more than one year for some programs for which 
the basic authorizing legislation does not presently authorize 
such extended availability.
    In various places in the bill, the Committee has earmarked 
funds within appropriation accounts in order to fund specific 
programs and has adjusted some existing earmarkings.
    The bill includes a number of provisions which make 
portions of the appropriations subject to enactment of 
authorizing legislation.
    Those additional changes in the fiscal year 1998 bill, 
which might be interpreted as changing existing law, are as 
follows:

                        appropriations language

    Language has been deleted in ``Operation and Maintenance, 
Army'' which makes funds available to the Department of the 
Interior to support the Memorial Day and Fourth of July 
ceremonies in the National Capital Region.
    Language has been amended in ``Operation and Maintenance, 
Navy'' which changes the amount available for emergency and 
extraordinary expenses.
    Language has been deleted in ``Operation and Maintenance, 
Defense-Wide'' which earmarked funds for federally owned 
education facilities located on military facilities, and which 
transferred funds to the Harnett County School Board, 
Lillington, North Carolina. Language has also been amended to 
change the amount available for emergency and extraordinary 
expenses.
    Language has been included in the ``Overseas Contingency 
Operations Transfer Fund'' to allow the Secretary of Defense to 
transfer funds from this account to operation and maintenance 
and working capital funds.
    Language has been amended in ``United States Court of 
Appeals for the Armed Forces'' to change the amount available 
for official representation purposes.
    Language has been deleted in ``Environmental Restoration, 
Army'' which restricted the amount of funds which could be used 
by the Corps of Engineers for total environmental remediation 
contracts.
    Language has been included in ``Former Soviet Union Threat 
Reduction'' which limits the obligational availability of funds 
in this account.
    Language has been deleted for the ``Quality of Life 
Enhancements, Defense'' appropriation account.
    Language has been included in ``Aircraft Procurement, 
Army'' which earmarks funds for UH-60 helicopters for the Army 
National Guard and for the Navy Reserve.
    Language has been deleted in ``Procurement of Weapons and 
Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army'' which allowed funds to be 
obligated for future year V903 diesel engine requirements.
    Language has been deleted in ``Other Procurement, Army'' 
which allowed funds to be obligated for future year V903 diesel 
engine requirements and which authorized the procurement of 
passenger replacement vehicles.
    Language has been deleted in ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, 
Navy'' which earmarked funds for certain ship programs and 
includes language which restricts the availability of funds for 
the overhaul of the CVN-69 and the production of DDG-51 
destroyers..
    Language has been included in ``Other Procurement, Navy'' 
concerning the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for 
replacement.
    Language has been amended in ``Procurement, Marine Corps'' 
which changes the number of passenger vehicles to be procured.
    Language has been included in ``Aircraft Procurement, Air 
Force'' which earmarks funds for navigational safety 
modifications for Air Force troop and passenger aircraft.
    Language has been amended in ``Other Procurement, Air 
Force'' which changes the number of passenger vehicles to be 
procured and the price limitation per vehicle.
    Language has been amended in ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'' 
to change the number of passenger vehicles to be procured.
    Language has been deleted in ``Research, Development, Test 
and Evaluation, Air Force'' which earmarked funds for the F-22 
two seat variant study and for development of reusable launch 
vehicle technologies.
    Language has been included in ``Research, Development, Test 
and Evaluation, Air Force'' which earmarked funds for coal-
derived jet fuel technologies.
    Language has been included in ``Research, Development, Test 
and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' concerning the Dual-Use 
Application Program. Language has also been amended to change 
the amount of funds earmarked for the Navy Upper Tier program.
    Language has been amended in ``Revolving and Management 
Funds'' to change the name of the ``Defense Business Operations 
Fund'' to ``Defense Working Capital Funds''.
    Language has been deleted from ``Defense Health Program'' 
which earmarks funds for obtaining emergency communications 
funds from the Red Cross and which allows the Secretary of 
Defense to obligate funds for private physicians to work with 
the U.S. Army on Desert Storm Syndrome research.
    Language has been deleted in ``Chemical Agents and 
Munitions Destruction, Defense'' which earmarks funds for the 
Johnston Atoll off-island leave program and which provides 
authority for service secretaries to grant travel allowances 
for participants in the program.
    Language has been amended in ``Office of the Inspector 
General'' to change the amount available for emergency and 
extraordinary expenses.
    Language has been added to the ``Intelligence Community 
Management Account'' which restricts obligational availability 
of funds for the Advanced Research and Development Committee, 
the Environmental Intelligence and Applications program, and 
the National Drug Intelligence Center.

                           General Provisions

    Section 8006 has been amended to allow transfers to be made 
between working capital funds and the ``Foreign Currency 
Fluctuations, Defense'' appropriation.
    Section 8008 has been amended to require formal submission 
of multiyear contract proposals and to authorize the multiyear 
procurement of the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles.
    Section 8022 has been amended to change a citation with 
respect to title 10 of the United States Code.
    Section 8030 has been amended to change the amount of 
overall funding made available to the Civil Air Patrol and the 
amount available for operation and maintenance.
    Section 8031 has been amended to delete language which 
limits the number of staff years of technical effort which may 
be funded for defense FFRDCs and amends language directing the 
Secretary of Defense to reduce the number of staff years to be 
performed by defense FFRDCs and reduces funds for FFRDCs and 
consultants by $141,300,000 in fiscal year 1998.
    Section 8044 has been amended to change the title of the 
appropriation from the ``Defense Business Operations Fund'' to 
``Working Capital Funds''.
    Section 8045 has been amended to make permanent the 
prohibition on the use of appropriated funds to modify 
aircraft, weapons, ships or other end-items of the Military 
Departments that are planned to be retired or disposed of 
within five years of the completion of the modification.
    Section 8052 has been amended concerning the increase or 
transfer of DoD personnel assigned to headquarters activities 
and field operating agencies.
    Section 8055 has been included to rescind funds from the 
following programs:

          FISCAL YEAR 1996............................                  
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy:                                      
    AFS ship conversion...............................       $35,600,000
Other Procurement, Navy:                                                
    Shipboard Tactical Communications.................         3,300,000
                                                                        
          FISCAL YEAR 1997............................                  
Aircraft Procurement, Army:                                             
    Blackhawk Advance Procurement.....................        10,000,000
Procurement of Ammunition, Army:                                        
    Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support......         5,000,000
Other Procurement, Army:                                                
    20-ton Dump Trucks................................        40,000,000
    Maneuver Control System...........................         6,000,000
Aircraft Procurement, Navy:                                             
    F/A-18E/F Advance Procurement.....................        24,000,000
Other Procurement, Navy:                                                
    Shipboard Tactical Communications.................         2,200,000
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force:                                        
    Small VCX.........................................        27,000,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army:                       
    Aerostat..........................................         7,000,000
                                                                        

    Section 8062 has been amended to change the amount of the 
Pentagon Reservation renovation total cost cap.
    Section 8076 has been amended to extend the obligational 
availability of funds for the B-2 program.
    Section 8078 has been amended concerning the transfer of 
funds for the ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy'' account, 
and for the ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air 
Force'' account for the F-22 project.
    Section 8079 has been amended to require a specific date 
for the Defense Department Comptroller to submit a report to 
the congressional defense committees detailing programs whose 
budget request was reduced because Congress appropriated funds 
above the budget request in the previous fiscal year.
    Section 8082 has been amended concerning the National Guard 
Distance Learning project.
    Section 8084 has been added which makes a technical 
correction extending the availability of funds appropriated to 
the Army in the fiscal year 1992 Defense Appropriations Act.
    Section 8085 has been added which makes a technical 
correction extending the availability of funds made available 
in the fiscal year 1994 Defense Appropriations Act for certain 
activities at Homestead Air Force Base.
    Section 8086 has been added which provides for continuation 
of the graduate education program at the Air Force Institute of 
Technology.
    Section 8087 has been added concerning the deposit of funds 
to the Foreign Military Sales Trust Fund for credit to the 
Canadian Government.
    Section 8088 has been added concerning the Fisher House 
Trust Fund.
    Section 8089 has been added which grants authority for 
refunds from Government travel cards to be credited to 
operation and maintenance accounts.
    Section 8090 has been added which grants authority for 
withdrawal credits for military customers of the Marine Corps 
supply activity group.
    Section 8091 has been added which allows DoD to pay 
interest penalties associated with the purchase of supplies, 
materials, services, and other contractual obligations from the 
appropriation account which made the purchase.
    Section 8092 has been added requiring the Department of 
Defense to submit budget justification documents for the active 
and reserve Military Personnel accounts which identifies all 
requested amounts at the budget activity, activity group, and 
subactivity levels.
    Section 8093 has been added which reduces the ``Operation 
and Maintenance, Army'' budget request by $15,000,000 and the 
``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'' budget request by 
$85,000,000 to compensate for excess inventory held by these 
services.
    Section 8094 has been added which reduces the 
``Environmental Restoration, Army'' budget request by 
$73,000,000 to reflect funds carried by the Army as a result of 
shared cleanup costs.
    Section 8095 has been added which reduces the budget 
request by $50,000,000 to reflect savings from the proposed 
repeal of Section 2403 of title 10, United States Code.
    Section 8096 has been added restricting the use of 
appropriated funds for the National Imagery and Mapping Agency 
for mapping, charting, and geodesy activities unless contracts 
for these services are awarded in accordance with the selection 
process in 40 U.S.C. 541 et seq. and 10 U.S.C. 2855.
    Section 8097 has been added which provides for the use of 
contract authority in Working Capital Funds of the Department 
of Defense to support the practice of capital budgeting.
    Section 8098 has been added requiring the Secretary of 
Defense to submit a report on an aviation safety plan.
    Section 8099 has been added requiring the Secretary of 
Defense to submit a report on alternatives for current theater 
combat simulations.
    Section 8100 has been added which restricts the use of 
Research and Development funding for the procurement of end-
items.
    Section 8101 has been added which requires the Department 
of Defense to establish new budget subactivities in the 
applicable appropriations accounts to separately identify all 
costs associated with NATO expansion. This section also 
requires that DoD provide detailed budget justification 
estimates for the cost of such expansion.
    Section 8102 has been added which restricts the 
obligational availability of funds for the deployment of U.S. 
ground forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina after 
June 30, 1998 or a later date as specifically proscribed by 
law. The section also prohibits the use of appropriated funds 
for support of law enforcement activities in the Republic of 
Bosnia and Herzegovina and directs the President to submit a 
report no later than December 15, 1997 on the political and 
military conditions in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina 
and restricts the availability of funds for the operation of 
United States ground forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina to 60 percent 
of the fiscal year 1998 appropriation before the report is 
submitted.

                  Appropriations not Authorized by Law

    Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of 
Representatives, the following lists the appropriations in the 
accompanying bill which are not authorized by law:

Military Personnel, Army
Military Personnel, Navy
Military Personnel, Marine Corps
Military Personnel, Air Force
Reserve Personnel, Army
Reserve Personnel, Navy
Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps
Reserve Personnel, Air Force
National Guard Personnel, Army
National Guard Personnel, Air Force
Operation and Maintenance, Army
Operation and Maintenance, Navy
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard
Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Environmental Restoration, Army
Environmental Restoration, Navy
Environmental Restoration, Air Force
Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide
Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites
Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid
Aircraft Procurement, Army
Missile Procurement, Army
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles
Procurement of Ammunition, Army
Other Procurement, Army
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
Weapons Procurement, Navy
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
Other Procurement, Navy
Procurement, Marine Corps
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
Missile Procurement, Air Force
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force
Other Procurement, Air Force
Procurement, Defense-Wide
National Guard and Reserve Equipment
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide
Developmental Test and Evaluation, Defense
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense
Defense Capital Working Fund
National Defense Sealift Fund
Defense Health Program
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense
Office of the Inspector General
Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System 
    Fund
Intelligence Community Management Account
Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation and 
    Environmental Restoration Fund
National Security Education Trust Fund

                           Transfer of Funds

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

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

    Language has been included in ``Overseas Contingency 
Operations Transfer Fund'' which provides for the transfer of 
funds out of this account to other appropriation accounts of 
the Department of Defense.
    Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, 
Army'' which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into 
this account.
    Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, 
Navy'' which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into 
this account.
    Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, 
Air Force'' which provides for the transfer of funds out of and 
into this account.
    Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, 
Defense-Wide'' which provides for the transfer of funds out of 
an into this account.
    Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, 
Formerly Used Defense Sites'' which provides for the transfer 
of funds out of and into this account.
    Language has been included in ``Drug Interdiction and 
Counter-Drug Activities, Defense'' which transfers funds to 
other appropriations accounts of the Department of Defense.
    Language has been included in the ``Intelligence Community 
Management Account'' which transfers funds to the Department of 
Justice.
    Section 8078 contains language which transfers funds as 
follows:

                                                                        
                                                             Amount     
                                                                        
Appropriations to which transfer is made:                               
    Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1989/2000.......       $21,572,000
    Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1991/2001.......        24,633,000
    Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1996/2000.......         5,592,000
    Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1997/2001.......        24,160,000
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air                     
 Force 1997/98........................................        73,531,000
                                                       -----------------
      Total...........................................       149,488,000
                                                       =================
Appropriations from which transfer is made:                             
    Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1989/2000.......        21,572,000
    Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1991/2000.......        24,633,000
    Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1994/1998.......         1,454,000
    Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1995/1999.......           715,000
    Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1996/2000.......        23,983,000
    Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1997/2001.......         3,600,000
    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 1997/1999.........        73,531,000
                                                       -----------------
      Total...........................................       149,488,000
                                                                        

    Six provisions (Sections 8006, 8014, 8037, 8062, 8064, 
8078) contain language which allows transfer of funds between 
accounts.

                              Rescissions

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


Aircraft Procurement, Army 1997/1999..................       $10,000,000
Procurement of Ammunition, Army 1997/1999.............         5,000,000
Other Procurement, Army 1997/1999.....................        46,000,000
Aircraft Procurement, Navy 1997/1999..................        24,000,000
Other Procurement, Army 1997/1999.....................         2,200,000
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 1997/1999.............        27,000,000
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1996/2000...........        35,600,000
Other Procurement, Navy 1996/1998.....................         3,300,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army 1997/                  
 1999.................................................         7,000,000
                                                                        

                        Constitutional Authority

    Clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives states that: ``Each report of a committee on a 
bill or joint resolution of a public character, shall include a 
statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in 
the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the joint 
resolution.''
    The Committee on Appropriations based its authority to 
report this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I 
of the Constitution of the United States of America which 
states: ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in 
consequence of Appropriations made by law . . .''
    Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to 
this specific power granted by the Constitution.

                   Comparision With Budget Resolution

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

                                            [In millions of dollars]                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  602(b) Allocation             This bill       
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Budget                    Budget               
                                                               authority     Outlays     authority     Outlays  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary...............................................      248,140      244,574      248,138      244,563
Mandatory...................................................          197          197          197          197
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                    Five-Year Projection of Outlays

    In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as 
amended, the following table contains five-year projections 
associated with the budget provided in the accompanying bill.

                        [In millions of dollars]                        
                                                                        
Budget authority in the bill..........................          $248,335
    1998..............................................           165,067
    1999..............................................            49,031
    2000..............................................            18,369
    2001..............................................             8,002
    2002..............................................             6,132
                                                                        

          Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(D) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as 
amended, no new budget or outlays are provided by the 
accompanying bill for financial assistance to state and local 
governments.




                   DISSENTING VIEWS OF HON. DAVE OBEY

    Our former Chairman Jamie Whitten used to insist on 
referring to this bill as a ``military spending'' bill as 
opposed to a ``defense'' bill. The point being that the 
``spending'' inserted in this bill didn't always coincide with 
our country's highest ``defense'' priorities. I certainly 
agreed with him back then, and I think his point is magnified 
many times by what is happening in today's era.
    Today, despite the collapse of the Soviet Empire, and an 
80% drop in Russian military spending; despite the dissipation 
of other serious conventional military threats from places like 
Iraq and the slow motion disintegration of the North Korean 
military; despite Defense Secretary Cohen's studied conclusion 
that the United States will have no ``global peer competitor'' 
between now and at least the year 2015; and despite clear 
warnings that we should be paying more attention to new, more 
insidious threats such as:
          the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, 
        especially chemical and biological weapons, to rogue 
        states and even to terrorist organizations;
          the proliferation of sophisticated conventional 
        weapons capabilities throughout East Asia, the Middle 
        East and now possibly Latin America;
          the ability of international drug lords to corrupt 
        entire countries and even regions of the world,
          the growing capability of some nations and other 
        groups to conduct ``cyber warfare'' attacks to disrupt 
        critical computer systems that control our banking 
        system, electric grids, telephone systems, air traffic 
        control system, Wall Street, as well as many 
        battlefield information systems;
despite all of these realities, this Congress continues to plow 
billions of dollars into systems like the F-22 fighter, the B-2 
bomber, and the Seawolf submarine that were literally justified 
and designed to fight the old Soviet Empire at the height of 
its military power.
    One of the Navy personnel assigned to serve on the brand 
new $2.4 billion Seawolf submarine summed up this situation 
pretty well according to an article in the July 19, 1997 
Washington Post. In describing the new Seawolf submarine he 
said:

          This is an incredible system, and although a lot of 
        people complain about the cost of the Seawolf, I think 
        it's worth every penny * * * Now if we could just find 
        somebody to fight with it.

    This couldn't be more poignant. This submarine is a $2.4 
billion anti-ship weapon that lost its military rationale the 
day the Berlin Wall fell. It is being built and put into 
service at the same time we are retiring scores of Los Angeles 
class attack submarines years earlier than planned because the 
threat has evaporated and they don't have a bona fide mission. 
The Seawolf can't be justified on a military basis, yet 
Congress simply can't kick the military spending habit with the 
result that billions of taxpayers' money is wasted.

                    Getting Ready for the Wrong War?

    But the problem is much deeper than the issue of simply 
wasting billions of tax dollars on unneeded military systems. 
The pattern of Congressional military spending since the end of 
the Cold War raises serious questions as to whether backward-
looking Congressional defense policies are causing us to get 
ready for the wrong war.
    This is not a new phenomenon, nor is it unique to the 
United States. The status quo ethos among military decision 
makers around the world seems to be one of preparing to re-
fight the last war instead of preparing for the next. There are 
countless examples of this throughout history, including such 
recent examples as the continued emphasis of the U.S. Navy on 
battleshipsprior to World War II instead of moving to air power 
and aircraft carriers, or the stubborn insistence of the French 
military to continue to rely on the Maginot Line and outdated tactics 
in the face of changed German Blitzkrieg tactics.
    But this problem extends beyond the halls of Congress. 
History shows that Congress has rarely taken meaningful, 
comprehensive defense policy initiatives on its own. There is 
no question that Congress depends on the Pentagon and the 
Administration to lead the way, with Congress making changes 
mainly on the margins.
    Unfortunately, recent leadership from the Pentagon has been 
disappointing as well. Service turf battles, bureaucratic 
momentum, and defense industry politics appear to have 
hamstrung the Pentagon in the critical task of modernizing its 
overall defense strategy to meet our new post-Cold War defense 
challenges. The recently completed Quadrennial Defense Review 
is a case in point. It missed the opportunity to push us 
forward. Months of work on the QDR by Pentagon strategists 
culminated in a familiar ``Cold War'' vision: a force built 
around carriers, jets, tanks, and other traditional big ticket 
items.
    Former Reagan Administration official Richard Perle said 
this about the Quadrennial Defense Review:

        the QDR is an extremely important missed opportunity. 
        It is, by and large business as usual * * * I wish we 
        had some radical document but we don't. It nibbled at 
        the edges.

    An analyst within the Office of the Secretary of Defense 
put it more clearly:

        the QDR put the profits of defense contractors and the 
        interests of the congressional pork barrel before the 
        welfare of the soldier or the taxpayer. [Defense Week, 
        6-30-97]

    A good question is whether our potential adversaries of the 
future are also standing pat. For instance, many observers have 
expressed concern about the future direction of China. Although 
we should resist the notion of creating a self-fulfilling 
prophecy about Chinese foreign and military aspirations, there 
is also no doubt that Chinese military and foreign policy 
actions must be watched. In this respect, the Pentagon's Office 
of Net Assessment says the lessons of Desert Storm were not 
lost on Chinese military planners. Here is what one press 
report said about a recent Pentagon study of Chinese military 
doctrine:

          Rather than gird for the open land and air battles at 
        which the United States excels, potential foes can 
        invest in cheap but sophisticated sea mines, jamming 
        gear, and missiles. * * * Instead of tanks, ships, and 
        jets, the Chinese theorists list anti-satellite 
        devices, defenses against stealthy aircraft, lasers, 
        and electronic sabotage equipment as key weapons of the 
        future. [U.S. News, 5-12-97]

    Pentagon military planners have made similar assessments. 
The ``Joint Strategy Review'' issued by the Joint Staff at the 
Pentagon was summarized as follows:

        [the Joint Strategy Review] projected that potential 
        enemies cannot hope to challenge U.S. forces in head-
        to-head engagements, and instead would seek to strike 
        at potential U.S. vulnerabilities in protecting its 
        vast information infrastructure, engage in acts of 
        terrorism and develop chemical or biological weapons 
        and the long range launchers to use them. * * * 
        Moreover, the assessment found most combat will take 
        place in urban areas where enemies can easily mix with 
        the population. This reduces the advantages of 
        precision weapons * * *'' [Defense News, March 30, 
        1997]

    One has to ask why we continue to pour billions into Cold 
War weapons systems designed to fight a huge Soviet Army on the 
plains of central Europe when our experts tell us the threats 
of the future will likely come from a different direction. 
Continuing these expensive, unnecessary Cold War systems 
squeezes important programs that do have relevance for our 
future national security, such as the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative 
Threat Reduction Program and, more importantly, exacts a price 
from our other non-defense programs to pay for these 
extravagances.

                  Pell Grants/Cancer Research/Highways

    I for one, think we should take the billions we are wasting 
in this bill for more B-2 bombers the Air Force doesn't want, 
for more submarines wedon't need, for the F-22 fighter that is 
being brought into service years earlier than it needs to be, and for 
many other programs the Pentagon doesn't even have in its five-year 
spending plan and apply it to Pell Grants to give more of our kids an 
education.
    If we cut out the $4.7 billion in this bill for redundant 
Cold War weapons like the F-22 fighter, the new attack 
submarine, and the B-2 bomber and instead applied it to 
education and cancer research, we could help over 400,000 more 
kids go to college under the Pell Grant program, raise their 
maximum grant from $3,000 to $3,900, and, as an added bonus, 
more than double the NIH cancer research program. This could 
all be done starting next fiscal year.
    If we used the $20 billion ``rainy day'' reserve fund that 
is buried in the five-year DoD procurement budget to fix up our 
roads and bridges, we could increase national highway 
investments by 20% a year--creating 200,000 additional jobs and 
helping the local economy in all 50 states.
    That is what the American People would like to spend their 
money on, and that is what this Committee could decide today if 
it had the will.

                            Follow the Money

    Why can't we find savings in the military and apply it to 
these worthy areas?
    Why is it that all the rhetoric we hear from our Republican 
friends about cutting the waste out of government programs and 
making sure that we are spending only for essential items just 
seems to melt away when this bill, the single largest spending 
bill we vote on each year, moves forward?
    The answer becomes clearer when you look a little deeper as 
to where the hundreds of billions of dollars in this bill are 
spent, and who it benefits. How this bill is put together has 
much more to do with where the spending occurs and who it is 
spent on, than what it is for.
    There is enormous pressure in Congress to keep the dollars 
and jobs flowing to the same areas, to the same corporations, 
for the same systems.
    There is also a strong incentive to keep the revolving door 
going between the Pentagon and the military contractors they 
have come to know so well.
    There is pressure to keep military spending up in vote-rich 
states like California and Texas.
    That all adds up to maintaining the status quo and mis-
allocating literally billions of dollars that could be better 
used for a host of more important national purposes.
    I had the GAO pull together some information on where the 
Defense Department spends its money. They produced an extensive 
report put out by the DoD Directorate for Information entitled 
``Atlas/Data Abstract for the United States and Selected 
Areas'' that lists where over $215 billion in DoD spending for 
FY 1996 for operating costs like military and civilian 
payrolls, retired pay, and for military procurement/R&D prime 
contracts over $25,000 were spent by state and even within the 
states. These data aren't perfect, but the report as a whole 
gives as complete a picture of the geographic distribution of 
military spending as there is. I would suggest every Member 
take a look at this report. It explains much about why budget 
priorities are as they are.
    It probably won't surprise anyone that the Southern states 
and California come out the winners and the Midwest, Mountain, 
and small New England states come out the losers. But what some 
may not know is how lopsided the military spending geography is 
between California and the South on the one hand, and the rest 
of the country on the other.

             Top 4 States Get More Than 38 States Combined

    For instance, according to this report, the top four states 
receiving DoD funds in FY 1996--California, Virginia, Texas, 
and Florida--received nearly 40% of the total spent.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Amount received                    
               State                  (in billions)     Percent of total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. California.....................              $31.0               14.5
2. Virginia.......................               21.0                9.8
3. Texas..........................               17.4                8.1
4. Florida........................               12.6                5.9
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total.......................               82.0               38.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These four states received more military funds than the sum 
total of 39 other states (including the District of Columbia):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Amount received                    
               State                  (in billions)     Percent of total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
51. Vermont.......................               $0.3                0.1
50. Wyoming.......................                0.3                0.1
49. South Dakota..................                0.4                0.2
48. Montana.......................                0.4                0.2
47. Delaware......................                0.4                0.2
46. West Virginia.................                0.5                0.2
45. Idaho.........................                0.5                0.2
44. North Dakota..................                0.6                0.2
43. Iowa..........................                0.6                0.3
42. Oregon........................                0.7                0.3
41. Rhode Island..................                0.8                0.4
40. New Hampshire.................                0.8                0.4
39. Arkansas......................                1.0                0.5
38. Wisconsin.....................                1.0                0.5
37. Nebraska......................                1.0                0.5
36. Nevada........................                1.1                0.5
35. Utah..........................                1.3                0.6
34. Maine.........................                1.3                0.6
33. Minnesota.....................                1.4                0.7
32. Alaska........................                1.5                0.7
31. Kansas........................                1.9                0.9
30. New Mexico....................                1.9                0.9
29. Michigan......................                2.1                1.0
28. Tennessee.....................                2.2                1.1
27. Louisiana.....................                2.4                1.2
26. Indiana.......................                2.6                1.2
25. Kentucky......................                2.6                1.2
24. District of Columbia..........                2.8                1.3
23. Oklahoma......................                3.0                1.4
22. Mississippi...................                3.3                1.5
21. Connecticut...................                3.3                1.5
20. South Carolina................                3.3                1.6
19. Hawaii........................                3.3                1.6
18. Illinois......................                3.3                1.6
17. New Jersey....................                4.0                1.9
16. Alabama.......................                4.1                1.9
15. Colorado......................                4.2                2.0
14. Arizona.......................                4.8                2.3
13. Ohio..........................                5.1                2.4
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total.......................           \1\ 79.1           \1\ 36.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not add due to rounding.                                       

              Nine Southern States Plus California Get 51%

    Split another way, these data are even more striking. The 
DoD spends over half of its funds (51%) in nine Southern states 
and California.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Amount received                    
               State                  (in billions)     Percent of total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California........................              $31.0               14.5
Virginia..........................               21.0                9.8
Texas.............................               17.4                8.1
Florida...........................               12.6                5.9
Georgia...........................                8.4                3.9
North Carolina....................                5.7                2.7
Alabama...........................                4.1                1.9
South Carolina....................                3.3                1.5
Mississippi.......................                3.3                1.5
Louisiana.........................                2.4                1.1
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total.......................              109.2               50.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ten states received about $109 billion in military spending 
for FY 1996 and the other 40 states and the District of 
Columbia received about $106 billion. Four military dollars are 
spent in these 10 states for every one dollar spent in the 40 
other states.
    California alone received more DoD dollars than 26 other 
states combined.
    Virginia alone received more DoD dollars than 22 states 
combined.
    Texas alone received more DoD dollars than 20 states 
combined.
    Florida alone received more DoD dollars than 14 states 
combined.
    Georgia alone received more DoD dollars than 13 states 
combined.

              Military Spending--GOP Leadership Connection

    When we see this geographic disparity in the distribution 
of funds and then compare it to a list of the home states of 
the persons who sit in the top leadership positions in the 
Congress, and the states represented by those who control the 
major military spending committees, it becomes crystal clear 
why we see the distorted and lopsided spending priorities 
coming out of this Body.
    Many people in the rest of the country are being denied 
educational opportunities, are not getting their roads and 
bridges fixed, are drinking contaminated water and worrying 
about the safety of their food supply because the current House 
leadership won't cut the billions in pork out of this bill--
pork that is headed straight home. Billions that can be cut 
without hurting our national security.
    Even though poll after poll shows the American People want 
to invest more in education, in the environment, in 
transportation, and in the National Parks, this Congressional 
leadership is more than willing to give these national 
priorities short shrift in order to keep pumping money into 
this military spending machine.
    And, for the same reason, this Congressional leadership 
will continue its heavy resistance to cutting systems designed 
for yesterday's military threats to pay for meeting the real 
threats of tomorrow.
    These lopsided military spending patterns combined with the 
geographic representation of the current House leadership all 
but ensure that we will continue to see larger than necessary 
military budgets and status quo military policy guidance from 
Congress.
    The following table depicts key state-by-state data on 
Department of Defense spending for FY 1996 derived from the 
Department of Defense report Atlas/Data Abstract for the United 
States and Selected Areas, Fiscal Year 1996.

                       DOD EST. PAYROLL, CONTRACTS, AND GRANTS BY STATE--FISCAL YEAR 1996                       
                                          [Dollar amounts in thousands]                                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         State  
                 State                         Total           Total       Grants \3\    Grand total    percent 
                                         compensation \1\  contracts \2\                                of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. California.........................     $12,331,651      $18,229,724     $480,332     $31,041,707      14.46
 2. Virginia...........................      11,355,738        9,562,978       73,442      20,992,138       9.78
 3. Texas..............................       8,382,520        8,819,096      161,353      17,362,969       8.09
 4. Florida............................       6,669,595        5,862,639      116,062      12,648,296       5.89
 5. Missouri...........................       1,630,373        7,093,009       38,523       8,761,905       4.08
 6. Georgia............................       4,332,083        3,965,723       52,833       8,350,639       3.89
 7. Maryland...........................       3,264,795        4,136,785       98,039       7,499,619       3.49
 8. Washington.........................       3,812,840        2,382,417       48,132       6,243,389       2.91
 9. Pennsylvania.......................       2,218,245        3,687,357       89,035       5,994,637       2.79
10. North Carolina.....................       4,259,461        1,421,071       44,667       5,725,199       2.67
11. Massachusetts......................         842,895        4,674,647      123,102       5,640,644       2.63
12. New York...........................       1,687,611        3,501,013      110,062       5,298,686       2.47
13. Ohio...............................       2,336,540        2,732,748       48,924       5,118,212       2.38
14. Arizona............................       1,864,504        2,910,935       45,937       4,821,376       2.25
15. Colorado...........................       2,157,396        2,045,076       27,742       4,230,214       1.97
16. Alabama............................       2,182,770        1,838,276       33,918       4,054,964       1.89
17. New Jersey.........................       1,418,681        2,564,266       44,777       4,027,724       1.88
18. Nebraska...........................         711,294        3,220,337        9,317       3,940,948       1.84
19. Illinois...........................       1,988,147        1,256,010       65,983       3,310,140       1.54
20. Hawaii.............................       2,330,507          928,480       49,911       3,308,898       1.54
21. South Carolina.....................       2,262,837        1,012,497       32,781       3,308,115       1.54
22. Connecticut........................         613,098        2,638,260       30,492       3,281,850       1.53
23. Mississippi........................       1,300,819        1,912,106       46,468       3,259,393       1.52
24. Oklahoma...........................       2,171,991          771,232       11,940       2,955,163       1.38
25. District of Columbia...............       1,236,791        1,482,673       39,589       2,759,053       1.29
26. Kentucky...........................       1,723,007          874,094       14,886       2,611,987       1.22
27. Indiana............................       1,021,635        1,552,012       31,085       2,604,732       1.21
28. Louisiana..........................       1,333,057        1,077,869       28,537       2,439,463       1.14
29. Tennessee..........................       1,071,609        1,137,232       26,537       2,235,378       1.04
30. Michigan...........................         763,592        1,241,336      108,379       2,113,307       0.98
31. New Mexico.........................       1,168,071          676,391       20,408       1,864,870       0.87
32. Kansas.............................       1,079,437          762,593       12,300       1,854,330       0.86
33. Alaska.............................         878,995          564,890       15,893       1,459,778       0.68
34. Minnesota..........................         393,418          960,361       72,548       1,426,327       0.66
35. Maine..............................         524,536          797,224       10,216       1,331,976       0.62
36. Utah...............................         915,508          394,678       15,570       1,325,756       0.62
37. Nevada.............................         776,969          285,262        4,732       1,066,963       0.50
38. Wisconsin..........................         412,549          551,276       44,655       1,008,480       0.47
39. Arkansas...........................         730,388          249,281       27,155       1,006,824       0.47
40. New Hampshire......................         239,909          567,892       28,243         836,044       0.39
41. Rhode Island.......................         437,243          333,969       13,163         784,375       0.37
42. Oregon.............................         481,196          202,863       40,326         724,385       0.34
43. Iowa...............................         244,354          370,617       21,547         636,518       0.30
44. North Dakota.......................         438,501          106,089       10,176         554,766       0.26
45. Idaho..............................         346,324          132,517        9,073         487,914       0.23
46. West Virginia......................         241,691          199,324       20,920         461,935       0.22
47. Delaware...........................         331,551          101,554       12,303         445,408       0.21
48. Montana............................         297,566           90,611        8,904         397,081       0.18
49. South Dakato.......................         257,727          109,969        5,075         372,771       0.17
50. Wyoming............................         232,534           91,513        5,314         329,361       0.15
51. Vermont............................          89,800          225,426        6,818         322,044       0.15
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................  ................  .............  ...........     214,638,651    100.00 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes funds for civilian pay, military active duty pay, reserve and National Guard pay, retired military 
  pay.                                                                                                          
\2\ Prime contract awards over $25,000 for civil functions contracts and military functions contracts. Prime    
  contracts are generally reported at the location where the work is performed. For example, if a contractor is 
  located in Nevada and wins a construction job in Utah, the contract will be listed for Utah.                  
\3\ Funds obligated by grants, cooperative agreements, or other non-procurement instruments reported at the     
  location where the work is performed.                                                                         

                                                         Dave Obey.

                                
