[House Report 106-162]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




   106th Congress                                               Report
                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES        
   1st Session                                                  106-162
=======================================================================

                                     

 
        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

                               ----------                              

                              R E P O R T

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                   ON

                               H.R. 1401

                             together with

                     ADDITIONAL, SUPPLEMENTAL, AND
                            DISSENTING VIEWS

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

                                     


                                     

  May 24, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed
                                      

        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000



   106th Congress                                               Report
                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES        
   1st Session                                                  106-162
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     


        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                   ON

                               H.R. 1401

                             together with

                     ADDITIONAL, SUPPLEMENTAL, AND

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

                                     



                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
56-735                     WASHINGTON : 1999
                                     

  May 24, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed


                   HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

               FLOYD D. SPENCE, South Carolina, Chairman
BOB STUMP, Arizona                   IKE SKELTON, Missouri
DUNCAN HUNTER, California            NORMAN SISISKY, Virginia
JOHN R. KASICH, Ohio                 JOHN M. SPRATT, Jr., South 
HERBERT H. BATEMAN, Virginia             Carolina
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah                SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania            OWEN PICKETT, Virginia
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado                LANE EVANS, Illinois
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey               GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
STEVE BUYER, Indiana                 NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
TILLIE K. FOWLER, Florida            MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JAMES TALENT, Missouri               PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
TERRY EVERETT, Alabama               ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland         SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
HOWARD ``BUCK'' McKEON, California   TOM ALLEN, Maine
J.C. WATTS, Jr., Oklahoma            VIC SNYDER, Arkansas
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas                JIM TURNER, Texas
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana          ADAM SMITH, Washington
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia             LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee              JAMES H. MALONEY, Connecticut
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida             MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North          CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas
    Carolina                         CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina       ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
JIM RYUN, Kansas                     ROBERT BRADY, Pennsylvania
BOB RILEY, Alabama                   ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada                  BARON P. HILL, Indiana
MARY BONO, California                MIKE THOMPSON, California
JOSEPH PITTS, Pennsylvania           JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
STEVEN KUYKENDALL, California
DONALD SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
                    Andrew K. Ellis, Staff Director

                                  (ii)

  
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Explanation of the Committee Amendments..........................     1
Purpose..........................................................     2
Relationship of Authorization to Appropriations..................     2
Summary of Authorization in the Bill.............................     2
  Summary Table of Authorizations................................     3
Rationale for the Committee Bill.................................    10
  The Administration's Defense Budget Request....................    11
  The Committee Bill: Managing Risk..............................    12
Hearings.........................................................    13

DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION..................    13

TITLE I--PROCUREMENT.............................................    13
  OVERVIEW.......................................................    13
    Aircraft Procurement, Army...................................    17
      Overview...................................................    17
      Items of Special Interest..................................    21
        AH-64 modifications......................................    21
        Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE)...................    21
        Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE) modifications.....    22
        CH-47 cargo helicopter modifications.....................    22
        Longbow..................................................    22
        UH-60 Blackhawk..........................................    23
        UH-60 modifications......................................    23
        Utility/cargo airplane modifications.....................    24
    Missile Procurement, Army....................................    24
      Overview...................................................    24
      Items of Special Interest..................................    27
        Avenger modifications....................................    27
        Avenger system summary...................................    27
        Brilliant anti-armor (BAT) submunition...................    27
        Multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) launcher systems....    27
    Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army....................    28
      Overview...................................................    28
      Items of Special Interest..................................    32
        Abrams upgrade program/heavy assault bridge (HAB)........    32
        Bradley base sustainment.................................    32
        M113 carrier modifications...............................    33
        M240 series medium machine gun...........................    33
        M249 squad automatic weapon (SAW)........................    33
        MK19-3 grenade launcher..................................    33
    Ammunition Procurement, Army.................................    34
      Overview...................................................    34
      Items of Special Interest..................................    38
        Ammunition...............................................    38
        Hydra 70 rockets.........................................    38
        Provision of industrial facilities.......................    38
    Other Procurement, Army......................................    39
      Overview...................................................    39
      Items of Special Interest..................................    51
        Area common user system (ACUS) modification program......    51
        Army data distribution system (ADDS).....................    51
        Artillery accuracy equipment.............................    51
        Automated data processing equipment (ADPE)...............    52
        Combat support medical...................................    52
        Family of heavy tactical vehicles........................    53
        General purpose vehicles.................................    53
        High speed compactor.....................................    53
        Hunter unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).....................    53
        Information system security program (ISSP)...............    54
        Integrated family of test equipment (IFTE)...............    54
        Items less than $2.0 million (construction equipment)....    54
        Joint surveillance target attack radar system (Joint 
          STARS) Common ground station (CGS).....................    55
        Lightweight video reconnaissance system (LVRS)...........    55
        M56 smoke generator system...............................    55
        Modification of in-service equipment.....................    56
        Modification of in-service equipment (tactical 
          surveillance)..........................................    56
        Night vision devices.....................................    57
        Nonsystem training devices...............................    57
        Product improved (PI) combat vehicle crewman (CVC) 
          headset................................................    58
        Ribbon bridge............................................    58
        Shortstop................................................    59
        Single channel ground and airborne radio systems 
          (SINCGARS) family......................................    59
        Small pusher tug.........................................    60
        Standard teleoperating kit...............................    60
        Super high frequency (SHF) terminal......................    60
        Vibratory self-propelled roller..........................    61
        Wheel-mounted 25-ton crane...............................    61
    Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army..............    61
      Overview...................................................    61
      Item of Special Interest...................................    63
        Chemical agents and munitions destruction................    63
    Aircraft Procurement, Navy...................................    63
      Overview...................................................    63
      Items of Special Interest..................................    68
        CH-60S...................................................    68
        Common data link (CDL)...................................    68
        Common ground equipment..................................    68
        E-2 modifications........................................    68
        EA-6B modifications......................................    69
        F-18 series modifications................................    69
        F/A-18E/F................................................    69
        Joint primary air training system (JPATS)................    70
        KC-130J..................................................    70
        Lightweight environmentally sealed parachute assembly 
          (LESPA)................................................    71
        MV-22....................................................    71
        P-3 series modifications.................................    71
        T-45 training system (TS)................................    72
        UC-35....................................................    72
    Weapons Procurement, Navy....................................    72
      Overview...................................................    72
      Items of Special Interest..................................    76
        Aerial targets...........................................    76
        Evolved seasparrow missile (ESSM)........................    76
        Hellfire II missile......................................    76
        Joint stand-off weapon (JSOW)............................    76
        Rolling airframe missile.................................    77
        Standard missile.........................................    77
        Tomahawk missiles........................................    78
    Ammunition Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps....................    78
      Overview...................................................    78
      Items of Special Interest..................................    81
        Navy ammunition..........................................    81
        Marine corps ammunition..................................    81
    Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................    81
      Overview...................................................    81
      Items of Special Interest..................................    84
        Attack submarine force level.............................    84
        LHD-8 amphibious assault ship............................    84
        Strategic sealift........................................    84
    Other Procurement, Navy......................................    85
      Overview...................................................    85
      Items of Special Interest..................................    96
        AN/BPS-16 submarine navigation radar upgrade.............    96
        AN/SPS-73 (V) surface search radar.......................    96
        AN/USC-42 mini-demand assigned multiple access (DAMA) 
          ultra-high frequency (UHF) satellite communications 
          (SATCOM) terminals.....................................    96
        Computer aided submode training (CAST) lesson authoring 
          system (CLASS).........................................    97
        Fire fighting equipment..................................    97
        Joint engineering data management and information control 
          system (JEDMICS).......................................    97
        Minesweeping equipment...................................    98
        Mobile remote emitter simulator (MRES)...................    98
        Other training equipment.................................    98
        Shipboard display emulator (SDE) equipment...............    99
        Sonobuoys................................................    99
        Surface sonar support equipment..........................    99
        WSN-7B ring laser gyro (RLG) and WQN-2 doppler sonar 
          velocity log (DSVL)....................................   100
        Undersea Warfare support equipment.......................   100
    Procurement, Marine Corps....................................   100
      Overview...................................................   100
      Items of Special Interest..................................   106
        155 millimeter (mm) lightweight towed howitzer...........   106
        Body armor...............................................   106
        Communications and electronic infrastructure support.....   106
        Marine corps air ground task force (MAGTF) command, 
          control, communications, computers, and intelligence 
          (C4I) modification kits................................   107
        Material handling equipment..............................   107
        Modification kits (tracked vehicles).....................   107
        Night vision equipment...................................   108
    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force..............................   108
      Overview...................................................   108
      Items of Special Interest..................................   114
        Bomber modernization.....................................   114
        C-17.....................................................   114
        C-17A aircraft modifications.............................   114
        C-130J...................................................   115
        C-135 modifications......................................   115
        Defense airborne reconnaissance program (DARP)...........   115
        E-8C joint surveillance and target attack radar system 
          (STARS)................................................   116
        F-15 modifications.......................................   116
        F-16C....................................................   117
        F-16 improved avionics intermediate shop (IAIS)..........   117
        F-16 modifications.......................................   117
        F-22.....................................................   118
        Predator unmanned aerial vehicle.........................   119
        T-38 modifications.......................................   120
        Terrain awareness and warning system (TAWS)..............   120
    Ammunition Procurement, Air Force............................   120
      Overview...................................................   120
      Items of Special Interest..................................   123
        Air Force ammunition.....................................   123
        Laser guided bombs (LGB).................................   123
    Missile Procurement, Air Force...............................   123
      Overview...................................................   123
      Items of Special Interest..................................   127
        AGM-65 modifications.....................................   127
        Minuteman III modifications..............................   127
        Spaceborne equipment.....................................   127
        Titan....................................................   128
    Other Procurement, Air Force.................................   128
      Overview...................................................   128
      Items of Special Interest..................................   135
        60K a/c loader...........................................   135
        Aircrew laser eye protection.............................   135
        Automatic data processing equipment (ADPE)...............   135
        Master crane.............................................   135
        Military satellite communications terminals..............   136
        National eagle system....................................   136
        Radio equipment..........................................   136
        Supply asset tracking system (SATS)......................   137
        Tactical communications-electronics (CE) equipment.......   137
        Theater air control system (TACSI).......................   137
    Procurement, Defense-Wide....................................   138
      Overview...................................................   138
      Items of Special Interest..................................   143
        Automated document conversion system (ADCS)..............   143
        Mentor protege...........................................   143
        Nightstar binocular......................................   143
    National Guard and Reserve Equipment.........................   143
      Overview...................................................   143
      Items of Special Interest..................................   145
        National guard and reserve equipment.....................   145
        Reconnaissance aircraft augmentation.....................   145
    Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense...........   146
      Overview...................................................   146
      Items of Special Interest..................................   148
        Chemical agents and munitions destruction................   148
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   149
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   149
      Sections 101-109--Authorization of Appropriations..........   149
    Subtitle B--Army Programs....................................   149
      Section 111--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Army 
        Program..................................................   149
      Section 112--Extension of Pilot Program on Sales of 
        Manufactured Articles and Services of Certain Army 
        Industrial Facilities Without Regard to Availability from 
        Domestic Sources.........................................   149
      Section 113--Revision to Conditions for Award of a Second-
          Source Procurement Contract for the Family of Medium 
          Tactical Vehicles......................................   149
    Subtitle C--Navy Programs....................................   150
      Section 121--F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Aircraft Program.......   150
    Subtitle D--Chemical Stockpile Destruction Program...........   150
      Section 141--Destruction of Existing Stockpile of Lethal 
        Chemical Agents and Munitions............................   150
      Section 142--Alternative Technologies for Destruction of 
          Assembled Chemical Weapons.............................   151
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   151
      Section 151--Limitation on Expenditures for Satellite 
        Communications...........................................   151

TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION............   152
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   152
    Army RDT&E...................................................   155
      Overview...................................................   155
      Items Of Special Interest..................................   164
        Aircraft avionics........................................   164
        All source analysis system...............................   164
        Alternative vehicle propulsion initiative................   164
        Armament enhancement initiative..........................   164
        Army aircrew coordination training program...............   165
        Army technical test instrumentation and targets..........   165
        Comanche.................................................   165
        Combat vehicle improvement programs......................   165
        Combined turbine diesel engine...........................   166
        Combustion driven eye-safe laser.........................   166
        Concepts experimentation program.........................   166
        Defense healthcare information assurance program.........   166
        Defense manufacturing technology program.................   167
        Environmental quality technology.........................   168
        Full spectrum active protection..........................   168
        Future combat vehicle....................................   168
        Geographic synthetic aperture radar......................   170
        Geo-positioning system--inertial measurement unit 
          integration............................................   170
        Heart rate variability technology........................   170
        High energy laser test facility..........................   171
        High mobility artillery rocket system....................   172
        Joint service small arms program.........................   172
        Joint surveillance target attack radar system (Joint 
          STARS).................................................   172
        Kwajalein missile range modernization....................   173
        Lightweight x-band radar.................................   173
        Medical materiel/medical biological defense equipment....   173
        MedTeams.................................................   174
        Night vision advanced technology.........................   174
        Panoramic night vision goggle............................   174
        Passive millimeter wave imaging..........................   174
        Patriot anti-cruise missile defense......................   174
        Plasma energy pyrolysis system...........................   175
        Proximity fuzing for dual-purpose improved conventional 
          munition submunitions..................................   175
        Security and intelligence activities.....................   176
        Self-destruct fuse.......................................   176
        Semi-automated imagery processor.........................   177
        Small arms fire control system...........................   177
        Tactical voice control for maneuver control system.......   177
        Trichloromelamine testing................................   177
        University and industrial research centers...............   178
    Navy RDT&E...................................................   178
      Overview...................................................   178
      Items Of Special Interest..................................   188
        Advanced amphibious assault vehicle......................   188
        Advanced anti-radiation guided missile...................   188
        Advanced waterjet propulsor demonstration program........   188
        Affordable advanced acoustical arrays....................   189
        Analysis of alternatives for follow-on support jammer....   189
        Aquifer vulnerability/contamination assessment...........   190
        Aviation depot maintenance technology....................   190
        Beartrap nonlinear dynamics and environmental 
          characterization.......................................   190
        C-2 eight-blade composite propeller system...............   191
        Claymore marine..........................................   191
        Cooperative engagement capability........................   191
        Cruiser conversion.......................................   192
        Distributed surveillance system..........................   193
        DP-2 thrust vectoring system proof-of-concept 
          demonstration..........................................   193
        E-2C radar modernization.................................   194
        Electric drive propulsion for Navy ships.................   194
        Electro-optical framing technologies.....................   195
        Environmentally safe energetic materials.................   195
        Extended range guided munition and projectile common 
          guidance...............................................   195
        F/A-18C/D BOL chaff countermeasure.......................   196
        Free electron laser......................................   197
        Hybrid fiberoptic/wireless communications system 
          technology.............................................   197
        Hyper-spectral analysis..................................   198
        Improved software production management..................   198
        Intercooled recuperated gas turbine engine...............   199
        Joint experimentation program............................   200
        Joint non-lethal weapons programs........................   200
        Joint tactical combat training system....................   200
        Lightweight 155MM howitzer...............................   201
        Littoral warfare fast patrol craft.......................   201
        Location of global positioning systems jammers...........   202
        Marine Corps H-1 helicopter upgrade......................   202
        Marine mammal research...................................   203
        Multi-function self-aligned gate technology..............   203
        Multipurpose processor...................................   203
        National oceanographic partnership program...............   204
        Navy aviation survivability..............................   205
        Navy land attack missile program.........................   205
        Navy theater missile defense and fleet defense radar 
          upgrades...............................................   206
        NSSN advanced submarine systems technology development 
          and insertion..........................................   207
        Optical correlation technology for automatic target 
          recognition............................................   208
        Optically fed and controlled phased array antenna........   208
        Optically multiplexed wideband radar beamformer..........   208
        P-3 maritime patrol aircraft combat systems research and 
          development............................................   209
        Parametric airborne dipping sonar........................   209
        Phased array weather radar...............................   210
        Power electronic building blocks and power node control 
          centers................................................   211
        Project ``M''............................................   211
        S-3B surveillance system upgrade program.................   212
        Ship survivability and personnel protection..............   212
        Silicon carbide semiconductor substrates.................   212
        Smart propulsor product model............................   213
        SSGN conversion from Trident-class SSBN submarines.......   213
        Superconducting waveform generator.......................   214
        SWATH ship mine counter-measures demonstrator............   214
        Tactical control system..................................   215
        Tactical Tomahawk........................................   215
        Trajectory correctable munitions development.............   216
        Ultra-high thermal conductivity fibers...................   217
        Undersea warfare advanced technology.....................   217
        Unmanned aerial vehicles.................................   217
        Upgrading fleet systems..................................   218
        Vacuum electronics.......................................   218
        Vectored thrust ducted propeller compound helicopter 
          demonstration..........................................   218
        Virtual test bed for advanced electrical ship systems....   219
    Air Force RDT&E..............................................   219
      Overview...................................................   219
      Items Of Special Interest..................................   229
        Airborne Laser...........................................   229
        Aircrew laser eye protection.............................   229
        Air Force/National Reconnaissance Office partnership.....   230
        Air Force science and technology funding.................   230
          Automatic target recognition...........................   231
          Crew technology........................................   231
          Friction stir welding..................................   231
          Hyperspectral imaging..................................   231
          Tactical missile propulsion............................   232
        Ballistic missile technology.............................   232
        B-2 upgrades.............................................   232
        B-52 squadrons...........................................   233
        Combat training ranges...................................   233
        Commercial standardized cockpit and crew seats...........   234
        Common imagery processor.................................   234
        Evolved expendable launch vehicle........................   235
        Global combat support system.............................   235
        Global Hawk high altitude endurance unmanned aerial 
          vehicle................................................   235
        Integrated satellite communications control..............   235
        Joint airborne SIGINT program............................   236
        Joint air-to-surface standoff missile....................   236
        Joint strike fighter.....................................   236
        Kinetic energy anti-satellite............................   237
        Microsatellite technology................................   237
        Military spaceplane......................................   238
        Miniature satellite threat reporting system..............   238
        Miniaturized munitions capability........................   238
        National polar-orbiting operational environmental 
          surveillance system....................................   239
        Precision location and identification (PLAID) technology.   239
        Satellite control network................................   240
        Simulation based forecasting decision support system 
          (SBFDSS)...............................................   240
        Space-based infrared system-high.........................   240
        Space-based infrared system-low..........................   242
        Space launch and spacelift ranges........................   242
        Spacetrack...............................................   244
        Synthetic theater operations research model..............   244
    Defense Agencies RDT&E.......................................   244
      Overview...................................................   244
      Items of Special Interest..................................   253
        Advanced concept technology demonstration................   253
        Advanced moving target indicator radar...................   253
        Aeronautical test facilities.............................   253
        Airborne common sensor...................................   254
        Ballistic missile defense................................   255
          Advanced technology development........................   255
          Applied research.......................................   256
          Atmospheric interceptor technology.....................   256
          Ballistic missile defense test targets.................   257
          International cooperative programs.....................   257
          Low cost launch technology.............................   257
          Medium extended air defense system.....................   258
          National missile defense...............................   258
          Navy area defense......................................   259
          Patriot advanced capability-3 (PAC-3)..................   260
          Space-based laser......................................   261
          Technical operations...................................   261
          Theater high altitude area defense.....................   262
          Upper tier.............................................   262
        Biological warfare defense program.......................   263
        Chemical-biological defense program......................   264
          Chemical and biological point detectors................   265
          Optical computing device materials for chemical sensors   265
          Safeguard..............................................   265
          Small unit biological detector and chemical-biological 
            individual sampler...................................   266
        Complex systems design...................................   266
        Cryofracture disposal of anti-personnel landmines........   267
        CV-22 Osprey.............................................   267
        Domestic preparedness for response to terrorism involving 
          weapons of mass destruction............................   267
        Facial recognition technology............................   268
        Flat panel displays......................................   268
        Forging lead time technology.............................   269
        Ground-based common sensor/prophet.......................   269
        Information systems technology, superiority, and security   269
          Global networked information enterprise security.......   270
          Information assurance..................................   271
          Information assurance for national critical 
            infrastructures......................................   271
          Report on information superiority......................   271
        Joint theater air and missile defense organization.......   272
        Logistics sustainment technology.........................   272
        Medical free electron laser..............................   273
        National technology alliance.............................   273
        Pilot program for revitalizing the laboratories and test 
          and evaluation centers of the Department of Defense....   274
        Special operations forces reconnaissance.................   274
        Special operations forces small boat improvements........   274
        Special operations tactical systems development..........   275
        Strategic environmental research program.................   275
        Thermionics..............................................   275
        University research initiatives..........................   276
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   276
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   276
      Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations...............   276
      Section 202--Amount For Basic and Applied Research.........   276
    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 
      Limitations................................................   276
      Section 211--Collaborative Program To Evaluate And 
        Demonstrate Advanced Technologies For Advanced Capability 
        Combat Vehicles..........................................   276
      Section 212--Revisions in Manufacturing Technology Program.   277
    Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense........................   277
      Section 231--Additional Program Elements for Ballistic 
        Missile Defense Programs.................................   277
    Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   277
      Section 241--Designation of the Secretary of the Army as 
        Executive Agent for High Energy Laser Technologies.......   277

TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.............................   277
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   277
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   309
    Budget Request Increases.....................................   309
      Critical Readiness Accounts Increases......................   309
        Aircraft spare parts.....................................   309
        Depot Maintenance........................................   309
        Training Accounts........................................   309
        Real property maintenance and base operations support....   310
        Miscellaneous unfunded requirements......................   311
        Mobility Enhancement Funding.............................   311
      Modern Field Kitchen Burner Unit...........................   311
      Army Cold Weather Clothing.................................   312
    Budget Request Reductions....................................   312
      Administration and Support Accounts........................   312
      Advisory and Assistance Services...........................   313
      Civilian Personnel Overstatement Reductions................   313
      Joint Chiefs of Staff Training Exercises...................   313
    Other Items of Special Interest..............................   314
      Commercial Activity Studies................................   314
      Defense Fuel Surcharges....................................   314
      Information Technology.....................................   315
    Environmental Issues.........................................   315
      Alternative Technologies for Asbestos Treatment and 
        Disposal.................................................   315
      Environmental Contamination in Watershed Surrounding the 
        Former Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant at 
        McGregor, Texas..........................................   316
      Navy Environmental Leadership Program......................   316
    Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Issues.......................   316
      Overview...................................................   316
      Appropriated Fund Support of Morale, Welfare, and 
        Recreation Programs......................................   316
      Combined Stores at Closed Installations....................   317
      Commissary Surcharge Fund..................................   317
      Military Exchange Privileges for Disabled Veterans.........   318
      Nonappropriated Fund Retirement Plans......................   318
      Restrictions on Patron Access to Overseas Commissaries and 
        Exchange Stores..........................................   318
      Sale of Value Brand Products in Commissary Stores..........   319
      Vendor Representatives Overseas............................   319
    Other Issues.................................................   319
      Abrams Integrated Management Program.......................   319
      Apache Helicopter Support..................................   320
      Army Battery Management Program............................   321
      Army Maintenance and Personnel Systems.....................   321
      Automatic Document Conversion Technology...................   322
      Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence--Public-
        Private Partnerships.....................................   322
      Civilian Marksmanship Program..............................   322
      Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities.........   323
      Communicator Automated Emergency Notification System.......   323
      Corrosion Prevention and Control Programs..................   324
      Department of Defense Dependent Schools....................   324
      Excess Military Property for Law Enforcement Agencies......   325
      Home Schooled Children Overseas............................   325
      Information Systems Security Education.....................   325
      Joint Warfare Analysis Center..............................   326
      Military Affiliate Radio System............................   326
      Tugboat Operations.........................................   327
      Urban Warfare Training.....................................   327
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   328
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   328
      Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding.............   328
      Section 302--Working Capital Funds.........................   328
      Section 303--Armed Forces Retirement Home..................   328
      Section 304--Transfer From National Defense Stockpile 
        Transaction Fund.........................................   328
      Section 305--Transfer to Defense Working Capital Funds to 
        Support Defense Commissary Agency........................   328
    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 
      Limitations................................................   329
      Section 311--Reimbursement of Navy Exchange Service Command 
        for Relocation Expenses..................................   329
    Subtitle C--Environmental Provisions.........................   329
      Section 321--Remediation of Asbestos and Lead Based Paint..   329
    Subtitle D--Performance of Functions by Private-Sector 
      Sources....................................................   329
      Section 331--Expansion of Annual Report on Contracting for 
        Commercial and Industrial type Functions.................   329
      Section 332--Congressional Notification of A-76 Cost 
        Comparison Waivers.......................................   329
      Section 333--Improved Evaluation of Local Economic Effect 
        of Changing Defense Functions to Private Sector 
        Performance..............................................   330
      Section 334--Annual Report on Expenditures for Performance 
        of Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair Workloads by Public 
        and Private Sectors......................................   330
      Section 335--Applicability of Competition Requirement in 
        Contracting Out Workloads Performed by Depot-Level 
        Activities of Department of Defense......................   330
      Section 336--Treatment of Public Sector Winning Bidders for 
        Contracts for Performance of Depot-Level Maintenance and 
        Repair Workloads Formerly Performed at Certain Military 
        Installations............................................   330
      Section 337--Process for Modernization of Computer Systems 
        at Army Computer Centers.................................   330
      Section 338--Evaluation of Total System Performance 
        Responsibility Program...................................   331
      Section 339--Identification of Core Logistics Capability 
        Requirements for Maintenance and Repair of C-17 Aircraft.   331
    Subtitle E--Defense Dependents Education.....................   332
      Section 341--Assistance to Local Education Agencies that 
        Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and 
        Department of Defense Civilian Employees.................   332
      Section 342--Continuation of Enrollment at Department of 
        Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary 
        Schools..................................................   332
      Section 343--Technical Amendments to Defense Dependents' 
        Education Act of 1978....................................   332
    Subtitle F--Military Readiness Issues........................   333
      Section 351--Independent Study of Department of Defense 
        Secondary Inventory and Parts Shortages..................   333
      Section 352--Independent Study of Adequacy of Department 
        Restructured Sustainment and Reengineered Logistics 
        Product Support Practices................................   333
      Section 353--Independent Study of Military Readiness 
        Reporting System.........................................   334
      Section 354--Review of Real Property Maintenance and its 
        Effect on Readiness......................................   335
      Section 355--Establishment of Logistics Standards for 
        Sustained Military Operations............................   335
    Subtitle G--Other Matters....................................   336
      Section 361--Discretionary Authority to Install 
        Telecommunication Equipment for Persons Performing 
        Voluntary Services.......................................   336
      Section 362--Contracting Authority for Defense Working 
        Capital Funded Industrial Facilities.....................   336
      Section 363--Clarification of Condition on Sale of Articles 
        and Services of Industrial Facilities to Persons Outside 
        Department of Defense....................................   336
      Section 364--Special Authority of Disbursing Officials 
        Regarding Automated Teller Machines on Naval Vessels.....   336
      Section 365--Preservation of Historic Buildings and Grounds 
        at United States Soldiers' and Airmen's Home, District of 
        Columbia.................................................   337
      Section 366--Clarification of Land Conveyance Authority, 
        United States Soldiers' and Airman's Home................   337
      Section 367--Treatment of Alaska, Hawaii, and Guam in 
        Defense Household Goods Moving Programs..................   337

MILITARY PERSONNEL OVERVIEW......................................   338
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS......................   342
    Subtitle A--Active Forces....................................   342
      Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces...............   342
      Section 402--Revision in Permanent End Strength Minimum 
        Levels...................................................   342
      Section 403--Appointments to Certain Senior Joint Officer 
        Positions................................................   343
    Subtitle B--Reserve Forces...................................   344
      Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve............   344
      Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in 
        Support of the Reserves..................................   344
      Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual 
        Status)..................................................   345
      Section 414--Increase in Number of Army and Air Force 
        Members in Certain Grades Authorized to Serve on Active 
        Duty in Support of the Reserves..........................   346
      Section 415--Selected Reserve End Strength Flexibility.....   346
    Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations..................   346
      Section 421--Authorization of Appropriations for Military 
        Personnel................................................   346

TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY...............................   348
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   348
      Backlog in Requests for Replacement of Military Awards and 
        Decorations..............................................   348
      Commissioning of Ms. Ella E. Gibson........................   348
      Electronic Transmission of Certificates of Release or 
        Discharge from Active Duty...............................   349
      Enlisted Promotions........................................   349
      Junior Reserve Officer Training Program (JROTC)............   349
      Merchant Marine Academy Midshipmen.........................   350
      Recruiting.................................................   350
      Senior Reserve Officers' Training Program (SROTC)..........   351
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   351
    Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy.........................   351
      Section 501--Recommendations for Promotion by Selection 
        Boards...................................................   351
      Section 502--Technical Amendments Relating to Joint Duty 
        Assignments..............................................   352
    Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Reserve Components...........   352
      Section 511--Continuation on Reserve Active Status List to 
        Complete Disciplinary Action.............................   352
      Section 512--Authority to Order Reserve Component Members 
        to Active Duty to Complete a Medical Evaluation..........   352
      Section 513--Eligibility for Consideration for Promotion...   352
      Section 514--Retention until Completion of 20 Years of 
        Service for Reserve Component Majors and Lieutenant 
        Commanders Who Twice Fail of Selection for Promotion.....   352
      Section 515--Computation of Years of Service Exclusion.....   352
      Section 516--Authority to Retain Reserve Component 
        Chaplains Until Age 67...................................   353
      Section 517--Expansion and Codification of Authority for 
        Space-Required Travel for Reserves.......................   353
      Section 518--Financial Assistance Program for Specially 
        Selected Members of the Marine Corps Reserve.............   353
      Section 519--Options to Improve Recruiting for the Army 
        Reserve..................................................   353
    Subtitle C--Military Technicians.............................   354
      Section 521--Revision to Military Technician (Dual Status) 
        Law......................................................   354
      Section 522--Civil Service Retirement of Technicians.......   354
      Section 523--Revision to Non-Dual Status Technicians 
        Statute..................................................   355
      Section 524--Revision to Authorities Relating to National 
        Guard Technicians........................................   355
      Section 525--Effective Date................................   355
      Section 526--Secretary of Defense Review of Army Technician 
        Costing Process..........................................   355
      Section 527--Fiscal Year 2000 Limitation on Number of Non-
        Dual Status Technicians..................................   355
    Subtitle D--Service Academies................................   356
      Section 531--Waiver of Reimbursement of Expenses for 
        Instruction at Service Academies of Persons from Foreign 
        Countries................................................   356
      Section 532--Compliance by United States Military Academy 
        with Statutory Limit on Size of Corps of Cadets..........   356
      Section 533--Dean of Academic Board, United States Military 
        Academy, and Dean of the Faculty, United States Air Force 
        Academy..................................................   356
      Section 534--Exclusion from Certain General and Flag 
        Officer Grade Strength Limitations for the 
        Superintendents of the Service Academies.................   356
    Subtitle E--Education and Training...........................   357
      Section 541--Establishment of a Department of Defense 
        International Student Program at the Senior Military 
        Colleges.................................................   357
      Section 542--Authority for Army War College to Award Degree 
        of Master of Strategic Studies...........................   357
      Section 543--Authority for Air University to Award 
        Graduate-Level Degrees...................................   357
      Section 544--Correction of Reserve Credit for Participation 
        in Health Professional Scholarship and Financial 
        Assistance Program.......................................   357
      Section 545--Permanent Expansion of ROTC Program to Include 
        Graduate Students........................................   357
      Section 546--Increase in Monthly Subsistence Allowance for 
        Senior ROTC Cadets Selected for Advanced Training........   358
      Section 547--Contingent Funding increase for Junior ROTC 
        Program..................................................   358
      Section 548--Change from Annual to Biennial Reporting under 
        the Reserve Component Montgomery GI Bill.................   358
      Section 549--Recodification and Consolidation of Statutes 
        Denying Federal Grants and Contracts by Certain 
        Departments and Agencies to Institutions of Higher 
        Education that Prohibit Senior ROTC Units or Military 
        Recruiting on Campus.....................................   358
    Subtitle F--Decorations and Awards...........................   358
      Section 551--Waiver of Time Limitations for Award of 
        Certain Decorations to Certain Persons...................   358
      Section 552--Sense of Congress Concerning Presidential Unit 
        Citation for Crew of the U.S.S. Indianapolis.............   358
    Subtitle G--Other Matters....................................   359
      Section 561--Revision in Authority to Order Retired Members 
        to Active Duty...........................................   359
      Section 562--Temporary Authority for Recall of Retired 
        Aviators.................................................   359
      Section 563--Service Review Agencies Covered by 
        Professional Staffing Requirement........................   359
      Section 564--Conforming Amendment to Authorize Reserve 
        Officers and Retired Regular Officers to Hold a Civil 
        Office while Serving on Active Duty for Not More than 270 
        Days.....................................................   359
      Section 565--Revision to Requirement for Honor Guard 
        Details at Funerals of Veterans..........................   360
      Section 566--Purpose and Funding Limitations for National 
        Guard Challenge Program..................................   361
      Section 567--Access to Secondary School Students for 
        Military Recruiting Purposes.............................   361
      Section 568--Survey of Members Leaving Military Service on 
        Attitudes Toward Military Service........................   361
      Section 569--Improvement in System for Assigning Personnel 
        to Warfighting Units.....................................   361
      Section 570--Requirement for Department of Defense 
        Regulations to Protect the Confidentiality of 
        Communications Between Dependents and Professionals 
        Providing Therapeutic or Related Services Regarding 
        Sexual or Domestic Abuse.................................   362

TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS..............   363
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   363
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   364
    Tax Deferred Savings Plans...................................   364
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   364
    Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances...............................   364
      Section 601--Fiscal Year 2000 Increase in Military Basic 
        Pay and Reform of Basic Pay Rates........................   364
      Section 602--Pay Increases for Fiscal Years after Fiscal 
        Year 2000................................................   364
      Section 603--Additional Amount Available for Fiscal year 
        2000 Increase in Basic Allowance for Housing Inside the 
        United States............................................   365
    Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays...........   365
      Section 611--Extension of Certain Bonuses and Special Pay 
        Authorities for Reserve Forces...........................   365
      Section 612--Extension of Certain Bonuses and Special Pay 
        Authorities for Nurse Officer Candidates, Registered 
        Nurses, and Nurse Anesthetists...........................   365
      Section 613--Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment 
        of Other Bonuses and Special Pays........................   366
      Section 614--Aviation Career Incentive Pay for Air Battle 
        Managers.................................................   366
      Section 615--Expansion of Authority to Provide Special Pay 
        to Aviation Career Officers Extending Period of Active 
        Duty.....................................................   366
      Section 616--Diving Duty Special Pay.......................   366
      Section 617--Reenlistment Bonus............................   366
      Section 618--Enlistment Bonus..............................   366
      Section 619--Revised Eligibility Requirements for Reserve 
        Component Prior Service Enlistment Bonus.................   366
      Section 620--Increase in Special Pay and Bonuses for 
        Nuclear-Qualified Officers...............................   367
      Section 621--Increase in Authorized Monthly Rate of Foreign 
        Language Proficiency Pay.................................   367
      Section 622--Authorization of Retention Bonus for Special 
        Warfare Officers Extending period of Active Duty.........   367
      Section 623--Authorization of Surface Warfare Officer 
        Continuation Pay.........................................   367
      Section 624--Authorization of Career Enlisted Flyer 
        Incentive Pay............................................   367
      Section 625--Authorization of Judge Advocate Continuation 
        Pay......................................................   368
    Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances.............   368
      Section 631--Provision of Lodging in Kind for Reservists 
        Performing Training Duty and Not Otherwise Entitled to 
        Travel and Transportation Allowances.....................   368
      Section 632--Payment of Temporary Lodging Expenses for 
        Members Making their First Permanent Change of Station...   368
      Section 633--Emergency Leave Travel Cost Limitations.......   368
    Subtitle D--Retired Pay Reform...............................   368
      Section 641-644--Redux Retired Pay System Applicable Only 
        to Members Electing New 15-Year Career Status Bonus......   368
    Subtitle E--Other Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits Matters..   369
      Section 651--Effective Date of Disability Retirement for 
        Members Dying in Civilian Medical Facilities.............   369
      Section 652--Extension of Annuity Eligibility for Surviving 
        Spouses of Certain Retirement Eligible Reserve Members...   369
      Section 653--Presentation of United States Flag to Retiring 
        Members of the Uniformed Services Not Previously Covered.   370
      Section 654--Accrual Funding for Retirement System for 
        Commissioned Corps of National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
        Administration...........................................   370
    Subtitle F--Other Matters....................................   370
      Section 671--Payments for Unused Accrued Leave as Part of 
        Reenlistment.............................................   370
      Section 672--Clarification of Per Diem Eligibility for 
        Military Technicians Serving on Active Duty without Pay 
        Outside the United States................................   370
      Section 673--Overseas Special Supplemental Food Program....   370
      Section 674--Special Compensation for Severely Disabled 
        Uniformed Services Retirees..............................   371
      Section 675--Tuition Assistance for Members Deployed in a 
        Contingency Operations...................................   371

TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE MATTERS...................................   372
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   372
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   372
      Automated Clinical Practice Guidelines.....................   372
      Defense Health Program Unfunded Requirements...............   373
      Report on Portability of TRICARE Prime Benefits............   373
      Report on Preventive Healthcare Services...................   373
      Study on the Effect of TRICARE Cost Sharing on the 
        Financial Status of Enlisted Service Members in Pay 
        Grades E-1 Through E-4...................................   374
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   374
    Subtitle A--Health Care Services.............................   374
      Section 701--Provision of Health Care to Members on Active 
        Duty at Certain Remote Locations.........................   374
      Section 702--Provision of Chiropractic Health Care.........   375
      Section 703--Continuation of Provision of Domiciliary and 
        Custodial Care for Certain CHAMPUS Beneficiaries.........   375
      Section 704--Removal of Restriction on Use of Funds for 
        Abortions in Cases of Rape or Incest.....................   376
    Subtitle B--TRICARE Program..................................   376
      Section 711--Improvements to Claims Processing Under the 
        TRICARE Program..........................................   376
      Section 712--Authority to Waive Certain TRICARE Deductibles   376
    Subtitle C--Other Matters....................................   376
      Section 721--Pharmacy Benefits Program.....................   376
      Section 722--Improvements to third-Party Payer Collection 
        Program..................................................   377
      Section 723--Authority of Armed Forces Medical Examiner to 
        Conduct Forensic Pathology Investigations................   378
      Section 724--Trauma Training Center........................   378
      Section 725--Study on Joint Operations for the Defense 
        Health Program...........................................   378

TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 
    RELATED MATTERS..............................................   379
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   379
      Section 801--Sale, Exchange, and Waiver Authority for Coal 
        and Coke.................................................   379
      Section 802--Extension of Authority to Issue Solicitations 
        for Purchases of Commercial Items in Excess of Simplified 
        Acquisition Threshold....................................   379
      Section 803--Expansion of Applicability of Requirement to 
        Make Certain Procurements From Small Arms Production 
        Industrial Base..........................................   379
      Section 804--Repeal of Termination of Provision of Credit 
        Towards Subcontracting Goals for Purchases Benefiting 
        Severely Handicapped Persons.............................   379
      Section 805--Extension of Test Program for Negotiation of 
        Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plans........   379
      Section 806--Facilitation of National Missile Defense 
        System...................................................   380
      Section 807--Options for Accelerated Acquisition of 
        Precision Munitions......................................   380
      Section 808--Program to Increase Opportunity for Small 
        Business Innovation in Defense Acquisition Programs......   380

TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT......   381
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   381
      Section 901--Limitation on Amount Available for Contracted 
        Advisory and Assistance Services.........................   381
      Section 902--Responsibility for Logistics and Sustainment 
        Functions of the Department of Defense...................   381
      Section 903--Management Headquarters and Headquarters 
        Support Activities.......................................   382
      Section 904--Further Reductions in Defense Acquisition and 
        Support Workforce........................................   383
      Section 905--Center for the Study of Chinese Military 
        Affairs..................................................   383
      Section 906--Responsibility Within Office of the Secretary 
        of Defense for Monitoring OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO..........   384
      Section 907--Report on Military Space issues...............   385
      Section 908--Employment and Compensation of Civilian 
        Faculty Members of Department of Defense African Center 
        for Strategic Studies....................................   385
      Section 909--Additional Matters for Annual Report on Joint 
        Warfighting Experimentation..............................   385

TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS......................................   386
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   386
  Counter-Drug Activities........................................   386
    Overview.....................................................   386
    Items of Special Interest....................................   387
      Air National Guard fighter operations......................   387
      Colombian detection and monitoring.........................   387
      Joint interagency task force-West..........................   388
      Other joint military intelligence programs.................   388
      Requirement for Report on Forward Operating Locations......   388
      Southwest border fence.....................................   389
      Tethered aerostat radar system.............................   389
      Transfer of military construction funding for forward 
        operating locations......................................   389
      Transit zone detection and monitoring......................   389
    Other Matters................................................   390
      Counterterrorism and Defense Against Weapons of Mass 
        Destruction..............................................   390
      Department of Defense Responsiveness to Congressional 
        Questions for the Record.................................   392
      Illegal Immigration to Guam................................   392
      Pentagon Reservation Renovation Security Upgrades..........   392
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   393
    Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................   393
      Section 1001--Transfer Authority...........................   393
      Section 1002--Incorporation of Classified Annex............   393
      Section 1003--Authorization of Prior Emergency Military 
        Personnel Appropriations.................................   393
      Section 1004--Repeal of Requirement for Two-Year Budget 
        Cycle for the Department of Defense......................   394
      Section 1005--Consolidation of Various Department of the 
        Navy Trust and Gift Funds................................   394
      Section 1006--Budgeting for Operations in Yugoslavia.......   394
    Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards......................   396
      Section 1011--Revision to Congressional Notice-and-Wait 
        Period Required Before Transfer of a Vessel Stricken from 
        Naval Vessel Register....................................   396
      Section 1012--Authority to Consent to Retransfer of Former 
        Naval Vessel.............................................   396
      Section 1013--Report on Naval Vessel Force Structure 
        Requirements.............................................   396
      Section 1014--Auxiliary Vessels Acquisition Program for the 
        Department of Defense....................................   396
      Section 1015--Authority to Provide Advance Payments for the 
        National Defense Features Program........................   396
    Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Counter Drug Activities......   396
      Section 1021--Support for Detection and Monitoring 
        Activities in the Eastern Pacific Ocean..................   396
      Section 1022--Condition on Development of Forward Operating 
        Locations for United States Southern Command Counter-Drug 
        Detection and Monitoring Flights.........................   397
      Section 1023--United States Military Activities in Colombia   398
    Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   399
      Section 1031--Identification in Budget Materials of Amounts 
        for Declassification Activities and Limitation on 
        Expenditures for Such Activities.........................   399
      Section 1032--Notice to Congressional committees of 
        Compromise of Classified Information within Defense 
        Programs of the United States............................   400
      Section 1033--Revision to Limitation on Retirement or 
        Dismantlement of Strategic Nuclear Delivery Systems......   400
      Section 1034--Annual Report by Chairman of Joint Chiefs of 
        Staff on the Risks in Executing the Missions Called for 
        Under the National Military Strategy.....................   401
      Section 1035--Requirement to Address Unit Operations Tempo 
        and Personal Tempo in Department of Defense Annual Report   402
      Section 1036--Preservation of Certain Defense Reporting 
        Requirements.............................................   403
      Section 1037--Technical and Clerical Amendments............   403
      Section 1038--Contributions for Spirit of Hope Endowment 
        Fund of United Service Organizations, Incorporated.......   403
      Section 1039--Chemical Defense Training Facility...........   403

TITLE XI--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL...............   404
    LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.......................................   404
      Section 1101--Increase of Pay Cap for Nonappropriated Fund 
        Senior Executive Employees...............................   404
      Section 1102--Restoration of Leave for Certain Department 
        of Defense Employees who Deploy to a Combat Zone Outside 
        the United States........................................   404
      Section 1103--Expansion of Guard-and-Reserve Purposes for 
        which Leave under Section 6323 of Title 5, United States 
        Code, May be Used........................................   404

TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS.....................   405
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   405
    Arms Control Implementation..................................   405
    Ballistic Missile Defense Discussions with Russia............   406
    Department of Defense Review of Satellite Licenses...........   406
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   407
      Section 1201--Report on Strategic Stability Under START III   407
      Section 1202--One Year Extension of Counterproliferation 
        Authorities for Support of United Nations Weapons 
        Inspection Regime in Iraq................................   408
      Section 1203--Military-to-Military contacts with Chinese 
        People's Liberation Army.................................   408
      Section 1204--Report on Allied Capabilities to Contribute 
        to Major Theater Wars....................................   410
      Section 1205--Limitation on Funds for Bosnia Peacekeeping 
        Operations for Fiscal Year 2000..........................   410

TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF FORMER 
    SOVIET UNION.................................................   411
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   411
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   412
      Arms Elimination Projects in Russia........................   412
      Arms Elimination Projects in Ukraine.......................   414
      Biological Weapons Proliferation Prevention in Russia......   414
      Chemical Weapons Destruction in Russia.....................   415
      Fissile Material Storage Facility..........................   417
      Nuclear Reactor Core Conversion............................   418
      Nuclear Warhead Dismantlement Processing in Russia.........   419
      Nuclear Weapons Storage Security in Russia.................   419
      Nuclear Weapons Transportation Security....................   419
      Other Support Programs.....................................   419
      Prohibition of Specified Activities........................   420
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   420
      Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction 
        Programs and Funds.......................................   420
      Section 1302--Funding Allocations..........................   420
      Section 1303--Prohibition on Use of Funds for Specified 
        Purposes.................................................   420
      Section 1304--Limitation on Use of Funds for Fissile 
        Material Storage Facility................................   420
      Section 1305--Limitation on Use of Funds for Chemical 
        Weapons Destruction......................................   421
      Section 1306--Limitation on Use of Funds for Biological 
        Weapons Proliferation Prevention Activities..............   421
      Section 1307--Limitation on Use of Funds Until Submission 
        of Report and Multiyear Plan.............................   421
      Section 1308--Requirement to Submit Report.................   421
      Section 1309--Report on Expanded Threat Reduction 
        Initiative...............................................   421

DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS.................   423
  PURPOSE........................................................   423
  MILITARY CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW.................................   423
  STRUCTURE OF THE BUDGET REQUEST................................   424

TITLE XXI--ARMY..................................................   444
  SUMMARY........................................................   444
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   444
      Improvements to Military Family Housing....................   444
      Environmental Remediation at Volunteer Army Ammunition 
        Plant, Chattanooga, Tennessee............................   444
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   444
      Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   444
      Section 2102--Family Housing...............................   445
      Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units   445
      Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army........   445

TITLE XXII--NAVY.................................................   446
  SUMMARY........................................................   446
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   446
      Headquarters, Commander-in-Chief, Pacific..................   446
      Acquisition of Prepositioned Equipment Maintenance 
        Facilities, Blount Island Jacksonville, Florida..........   446
      Improvements to Military Family Housing....................   447
      Unspecified Minor Construction.............................   447
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   447
      Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   447
      Section 2202--Family Housing...............................   447
      Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units   447
      Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy........   447
      Section 2205--Authorization to Accept Electrical Substation 
        Improvements, Guam.......................................   447
      Section 2206--Correction in Authorized Use of Funds, Marine 
        Corps Combat Development Command, Quantico, Virginia.....   448

TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE...........................................   449
  SUMMARY........................................................   449
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   449
      Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   449
      Section 2302--Family Housing...............................   449
      Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units   449
      Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force...   449

TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES.....................................   450
  SUMMARY........................................................   450
  ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST.......................................   450
      Military Construction in Support of Base Closure and 
        Realignment Activities...................................   450
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   450
      Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and 
        Land Acquisition Projects................................   450
      Section 2402--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units   450
      Section 2403--Military Housing Improvement Program.........   451
      Section 2404--Energy Conservation Projects.................   451
      Section 2405--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense 
        Agencies.................................................   451
      Section 2406--Increase in Fiscal Year 1997 Authorization 
        for Military Construction Projects Pueblo Chemical 
        Activity, Colorado.......................................   451
      Section 2407--Condition on Obligation of Military 
        Construction Funds for Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug 
        Activities...............................................   451

TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION....................   452
  SUMMARY........................................................   452
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   452
      Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   452
      Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO........   452

TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES..................   453
  SUMMARY........................................................   453
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   453
      Section 2601--Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and 
        Land Acquisition Projects................................   453

TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS..........   454
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   454
      Section 2701--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts 
        Required to be Specified by Law..........................   454
      Section 2702--Extensions of Authorizations of Certain 
        Fiscal Year 1997 Projects................................   454
      Section 2703--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal 
        Year 1996 Projects.......................................   454
      Section 2704--Effective Date...............................   454

TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS.................................   455
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   455
    Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family 
        Housing Changes..........................................   455
      Section 2801--Contributions for North Atlantic Treaty 
        Organization Security Investment.........................   455
      Section 2802--Development of Ford Island, Hawaii...........   455
      Section 2803--Restriction on Authority to Acquire or 
        Construct Ancillary Supporting Facilities for Housing 
        Units....................................................   456
      Section 2804--Planning and Design for Military Construction 
        Projects for Reserve Components..........................   456
      Section 2805--Limitation on Authority to Carry Out Small 
        Projects for Acquisition of Facilities for Reserve 
        Components...............................................   456
      Section 2806--Expansion of Entities Eligible to participate 
        in Alternative Authority for Acquisition and Improvement 
        of Military Housing......................................   456
    Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration......   457
      Section 2811--Extension of Authority for Lease of Land for 
        Special Operations Activities............................   457
      Section 2812--Utility Privatization Authority..............   457
      Section 2813--Acceptance of Funds to Cover Administrative 
        Expenses Relating to Certain Real Property Transactions..   457
      Section 2814--Study and Report on Impacts to Military 
        Readiness of Proposed Land Management Changes on Public 
        Lands in Utah............................................   457
    Subtitle C--Defense Base Closure and Realignment.............   458
      Section 2821--Continuation of Authority to Use Department 
        of Defense Base Closure Account 1990 for Activities 
        Required to Close or Realign Military Installations......   458
    Subtitle D--Land Conveyances.................................   458
      Part I--Army Conveyances...................................   458
      Section 2831--Transfer of Jurisdiction, Fort Sam Houston, 
        Texas....................................................   458
      Section 2832--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, 
        Kankakee, Illinois.......................................   458
      Section 2833--Land Conveyance, Fort Des Moines, Iowa.......   458
      Section 2834--Land Conveyance, Army Maintenance Support 
        Activity (Marine) Number 84, Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania...   458
      Section 2835--Land Conveyance, Army Docks and Related 
        Property, Alaska.........................................   459
      Section 2836--Land Conveyance, Fort Huachuca, Arizona......   459
      Section 2837--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Cannon 
        Falls, Minnesota.........................................   459
      Section 2838--Land Conveyance, Nike Battery 80 Family 
        Housing Site, East Hanover Township, New Jersey..........   459
      Section 2839--Land Exchange, Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois.   460
      Section 2840--Modification of Land Conveyance, Joliet Army 
        Ammunition Plant, Illinois...............................   460
      Section 2841--Land Conveyance, Twin Cities Army Ammunition 
        Plant, Minnesota.........................................   460
      Part II--Navy Conveyances..................................   460
      Section 2851--Land Conveyance, Naval Weapons industrial 
        Reserve Plant No. 387, Dallas, Texas.....................   460
      Section 2852--Land Conveyance, Naval and Marine Corps 
        Reserve Center, Orange County, Texas.....................   461
      Section 2853--Land Conveyance, Marine Corps Air Station, 
        Cherry Point, North Carolina.............................   461
      Part III--Air Force Conveyances............................   461
      Section 2861--Conveyance of Fuel Supply Line, Pease Air 
        Force Base, New Hampshire................................   461
      Section 2862--Land Conveyance, Tyndall Air Force Base, 
        Florida..................................................   461
      Section 2863--Land Conveyance, Port of Anchorage, Alaska...   462
      Section 2864--Land Conveyance, Forestport Test Annex, New 
        York.....................................................   462
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   462
      Section 2871--Expansion of Arlington National Cemetery.....   462

DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATION 
    AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.....................................   463

TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS......   463
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   463
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   476
      Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative.................   476
      Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative Construction 
        Projects.................................................   476
      Arms Control and Nonproliferation..........................   477
      Commercializing Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention...   477
      Commission to Review Nuclear Policy and Management.........   478
      Comptroller General Audit of Department of Energy Contract 
        Management Practices.....................................   478
      Construction Projects......................................   479
      Education..................................................   479
      Eligibility to Bid on Excess Department of Energy Equipment 
        at the Savannah River Site...............................   480
      Environmental Management Science Program...................   480
      Environmental Management Environmental, Safety, and Health.   480
      Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP)...   480
      Hanford Site Tri-Party Agreement Compliance................   481
      Hanford Plutonium Finishing Plant Deactivation.............   481
      Hanford Reactor Decontamination and Decommissioning........   481
      Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory 
        (INEEL) Post 2006 Completion.............................   481
      Inertial Confinement Fusion................................   481
      In-Tank Precipitation Process..............................   482
      International Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting   482
      International Nuclear Safety...............................   482
      Naval Reactors.............................................   483
      Nuclear Weapons Industrial Complex.........................   483
      Nuclear Weapons Personnel Reserve..........................   483
      Oak Ridge Operations Compliance Obligations................   484
      Office of Counterintelligence..............................   484
      Pit Production.............................................   484
      Program Direction for Defense Programs.....................   485
      Program Direction for Environmental Management.............   485
      Records Declassification...................................   485
      Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site Closure Project..   485
      Savannah River Site Infrastructure Investment..............   485
      Security Investigations....................................   486
      Stockpile Management.......................................   486
      Stockpile Management Fissile Material Storage and 
        Disposition..............................................   487
      Technology Partnerships....................................   487
      Worker and Community Transition............................   488
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   488
    Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorization.........   488
      Section 3101--Weapons Activities...........................   488
      Section 3102--Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste 
        Management...............................................   488
      Section 3103--Other Defense Activities.....................   488
      Section 3104--Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal...............   488
      Section 3105--Defense Environmental Management 
        Privatization............................................   489
    Subtitle B--Recurring General Provisions.....................   489
      Section 3121--Reprogramming................................   489
      Section 3122--Limits on General Plant Projects.............   489
      Section 3123--Limits on Construction Projects..............   489
      Section 3124--Fund Transfer Authority......................   489
      Section 3125--Authority for Conceptual and Construction 
        Design...................................................   489
      Section 3126--Authority for Emergency Planning, Design and 
        Construction Activities..................................   490
      Section 3127--Funds Available for all National Security 
        Programs of the Department of Energy.....................   490
      Section 3128--Availability of Funds........................   490
      Section 3129--Transfers of Defense Environmental Management 
        Funds....................................................   490
    Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and 
      Limitations................................................   490
      Section 3131--Limitation on Use at Department of Energy 
        Laboratories of Funds Appropriated for the Initiatives 
        for Proliferation Prevention Program.....................   490
      Section 3132--Prohibition on Use for Payment of Russian 
        Government Taxes and Customs Duties of Funds Appropriated 
        for the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention Program.   491
      Section 3133--Modification of Laboratory Directed Research 
        and Development to Provide Funds for Theater Ballistic 
        Missile Defense..........................................   491
      Section 3134--Support of Theater Ballistic Missile Defense 
        Activities of the Department of Defense..................   492
    Subtitle D--Commission on Nuclear Weapons Management.........   492
      Section 3151-3159--Commission to Examine Nuclear Weapons 
        Policy Management and Oversight..........................   492
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   493
      Section 3161--Procedures for Meeting Tritium Production 
        Requirements.............................................   493
      Section 3162--Extension of Authority of Department of 
        Energy to Pay Voluntary Separation Payments..............   493
      Section 3163--Fellowship Program for Development of Skills 
        Critical to the Department of Energy Nuclear Weapons 
        Complex..................................................   494
      Section 3164--Department of Energy Records Declassification   494
      Section 3165--Management of Nuclear Weapons Production 
        Facilities and National Laboratories.....................   494
      Section 3166--Notice to Congressional Committees of 
        Compromise of Classified Information within Nuclear 
        Energy Defense Programs..................................   495

TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD.............   496
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISION..........................................   496
      Section 3201--Authorization................................   496

TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE.........................   497
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISION..........................................   497
      Section 3301--Definitions..................................   497
      Section 3302--Authorized Uses Of Stockpile Funds...........   497
      Section 3303--Elimination of Congressionally Imposed 
        Disposal Restrictions on Specific Stockpile Materials....   497

TITLE XXXIV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION.............................   498
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   498
      Great Lakes Maritime Academy...............................   498
      Merchant Marine Academy....................................   498
      Repair and Maintenance of Maritime Administration Vessels..   498
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   499
      Section 3401--Short Title..................................   499
      Section 3402--Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal 
        Year 2000................................................   499
      Section 3403--Amendments to Title XI of the Merchant Marine 
        Act of 1936..............................................   499
      Section 3404--Extension of War Risk Insurance..............   499
      Section 3405--Ownership of the JEREMIAH O'BRIEN............   500

TITLE XXXV--PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION..............................   501
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   501
      Section 3501--Short Title..................................   501
      Section 3502--Authorization of Expenditures................   501
      Section 3503--Purchase of Vehicles.........................   501
      Section 3504--Office of Transition Administration..........   501
Departmental Data................................................   502
  Department of Defense Authorization Request....................   502
  Military Construction Authorization Request....................   502
Committee Position...............................................   503
Communications From Other Committees.............................   503
Fiscal Data......................................................   511
  Congressional Budget Office Estimate...........................   511
  Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................   512
    Authorization of Appropriations..............................   512
  Committee Cost Estimate........................................   527
Oversight Findings...............................................   527
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................   527
Statement of Federal Mandates....................................   527
Roll Call Votes..................................................   528
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............   534
Additional, Dissenting, and Supplemental Views...................   685
  Additional views of Roscoe G. Bartlett, Gene Taylor, Joseph R. 
    Pitts........................................................   685
  Additional views of Patrick J. Kennedy.........................   687
  Additional views of Loretta Sanchez, Robert A. Brady, Lane 
    Evans, Thomas H. Allen, Ellen O. Tauscher, Patrick J. 
    Kennedy, Neil Abercrombie, Rob R. Blagojevich, Mike Thompson.   688
  Additional views of Ike Skelton................................   689
  Additional views of Ike Skelton, Norman Sisisky, John M. 
    Spratt, Jr., Solomon P. Ortiz, Owen Pickett, Lane Evans, Gene 
    Taylor, Neil Abercrombie, Martin T. Meehan, Robert A. 
    Underwood, Patrick J. Kennedy, Rod R. Blagojevich, Silvestre 
    Reyes, Thomas H. Allen, Jim Turner, Adam Smith, Loretta 
    Sanchez, James H. Maloney, Ellen O. Tauscher, Robert A. 
    Brady, Robert E. Andrews, Baron P. Hill, Mike Thompson, John 
    B. Larson....................................................   690
  Additional views of James M. Talent--Army Logistics 
    Modernization................................................   692
  Additional views of James M. Talent--Navy's F/A 18E/F Super 
    Hornet.......................................................   695
  Additional views of Gene Taylor................................   696
  Additional views of Robert A. Underwood........................   698
  Additional views of Robert A. Underwood, Lane Evans, Norman 
    Sisisky, Thomas H. Allen, Solomon P. Ortiz, and Neil 
    Abercrombie..................................................   700
  Supplemental views of Ciro D. Rodriguez........................   702
  Dissenting views of Cynthia A. McKinney........................   704
106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    106-162

======================================================================




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

                                _______
                                

  May 24, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

             ADDITIONAL, SUPPLEMENTAL, AND DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1401]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 1401) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
2000 and 2001 for military activities of the Department of 
Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal 
years 2000 and 2001, and for other purposes, having considered 
the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and 
recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
    The amendment strikes out all after the enacting clause of 
the bill and inserts a new text which appears in italic type in 
the reported bill.
    The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment 
to the text of the bill.

                EXPLANATION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS

    The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute during the consideration of H.R. 1401. The title of 
the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to the text of the 
bill. The remainder of the report discusses the bill, as 
amended.

                                PURPOSE

    The bill would--(1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 2000 for procurement and for research, development, test 
and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 2000 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working 
capital funds; (3) Authorize for fiscal year 2000: (a) the 
personnel strength for each active duty component of the 
military departments; (b) the personnel strength for the 
Selected Reserve for each reserve component of the armed 
forces; (c) the military training student loads for each of the 
active and reserve components of the military departments; (4) 
Modify various elements of compensation for military personnel 
and impose certain requirements and limitations on personnel 
actions in the defense establishment; (5) Authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for military construction 
and family housing; (6) Authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 2000 for the Department of Energy national security 
programs; (7) Modify provisions related to the National Defense 
Stockpile; (8) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 
for the operation of the Panama Canal Commission; and (9) 
Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for the Maritime 
Administration.

            RELATIONSHIP OF AUTHORIZATION TO APPROPRIATIONS

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

                  SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZATION IN THE BILL

    The President requested budget authority of $280.5 billion 
for the national defense budget function for fiscal year 2000. 
Of this amount, the President requested $266.9 billion for the 
Department of Defense (including $5.4 billion for military 
construction and family housing) and $12.4 billion for 
Department of Energy national security programs and the Defense 
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
    The committee recommends an overall level of $288.8 billion 
in budget authority. This amount is consistent with the 
discretionary defense spending limitations imposed by the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and it represents an increase of 
approximately $18.3 billion from the amount authorized for 
appropriation by the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261). Overall, the committee's 
recommendation is consistent with the amounts established in 
the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2000 
for the national defense budget function.

                    SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS

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


                      RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 
once again reflects the committee's efforts to address decade-
long concerns about the declining state of the U.S. armed 
forces. The combination of reduced defense resources and 
increased military commitments around the world has resulted in 
a diminished quality of military life, a severe degradation in 
the readiness of units to train for and execute their primary 
combat missions, and an erosion of the technological advantages 
enjoyed by U.S. forces on the battlefield as a result of 
delayed equipment modernization.
    Over the past several months, the challenges confronting 
U.S. armed forces have been put into stark relief by the war in 
the former Yugoslav republic of Kosovo. The unanticipated 
strength of Serb resistance has resulted in a significant 
expansion of the U.S. and NATO air war, to the point where the 
number of aircraft involved in Operation Allied Force is 
nearing levels anticipated in a major theater war. As a result, 
the ability of U.S. armed forces to meet their worldwide 
commitments is increasingly in question. From substantial gaps 
in the regional deployment of aircraft carriers, to shortages 
of cruise missiles and other precision munitions, to strains on 
the fleets of specialized electronic warfare and tanker 
aircraft, and even to stresses on the conventional fighter and 
attack aircraft force, the air campaign over Yugoslavia has 
revealed the extent to which today's U.S. military is 
overextended.
    Should current operations against Yugoslavia evolve into 
ground combat or even peacekeeping operations involving U.S. 
troops, the strains that such a ground operation would place on 
U.S. forces worldwide would escalate rapidly. According to the 
Administration, just a peacekeeping force in Kosovo would 
require 50,000 to 60,000 NATO troops, with perhaps 20,000 U.S. 
soldiers participating in what would likely become a long-term, 
open-ended commitment. There should be no doubt that any future 
requirement for the U.S. Army to sustain a force of such size 
in the Balkans, on a rotational basis, will increase the 
exposure of U.S. interests in other regions of the world to 
challenge.
    For years, the committee has highlighted the difficulties 
U.S. armed forces would face in executing the National Military 
Strategy's requirement to be capable of fighting nearly 
simultaneous wars in the Persian Gulf and in Korea. The 
unforeseen challenges and shortfalls revealed by the need to 
wage a third ``major theater war'' in Europe--even absent the 
deployment of U.S. ground forces--unfortunately affirms the 
committee's long-standing concerns. Testifying earlier this 
month about ongoing operations in the Balkans, Secretary of 
Defense William Cohen admitted that ``we have a situation where 
we have a smaller force and we have more missions, and so . . . 
we are wearing out systems, wearing out people.'' These 
problems are not new, and they are getting worse. The committee 
hopes that the obvious strains being placed on the military 
services as a result of Operation Allied Force will at least 
compel some broader recognition of the shortfalls confronting 
the nation's armed forces and lead to a sustained and 
bipartisan commitment to revitalizing America's military.

              The Administration's Defense Budget Request

    In the context of mounting quality of life, readiness, and 
modernization shortfalls, the committee once again believes the 
Administration's defense budget request falls short. Earlier 
this year, the President declared in his State of the Union 
address that ``it is time to reverse the decline in defense 
spending that began in 1985....My balanced budget calls for a 
sustained increase over the next six years for readiness, for 
modernization, and for pay and benefits for our troops and 
their families.'' The President's words, following as they did 
on the heels of last fall's testimony by the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff (JCS) that the military services had critical unfunded 
requirements of at least $150 billion over the next six years, 
provided a degree of hope that the Administration had ``turned 
the corner'' and recognized the need to substantially increase 
defense spending. The unfortunate reality became apparent, 
however, when the President unveiled his fiscal year 2000 
budget request and six-year defense plan--a plan that relied 
heavily on budgetary gimmicks and optimistic economic 
assumptions and which provided increased funding sufficient to 
address only about one half of the Joint Chiefs' identified 
shortfalls in critical military requirements. Moreover, the 
Administration conditioned even its ``50 percent solution'' on 
the achievement of domestic political objectives involving 
Social Security reform.
    Earlier this year, the Joint Chiefs updated their estimates 
of unfunded quality of life, readiness, and modernization 
requirements. Even assuming the validity of the budget gimmicks 
and optimistic assumptions contained in the Administration's 
budget request, the Joint Chiefs testified that the six-year 
defense plan still fell $46.7 billion short of their minimal 
requirements. If the Administration's budget gimmicks and 
optimistic economic assumptions are judged invalid, the six-
year defense plan falls at least $70 billion short of 
addressing the services' shortfalls.
    Even as the Administration was crafting its fiscal year 
2000 budget request, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were concluding 
that the ability of U.S. armed forces to execute the full range 
of missions required by the National Military Strategy entailed 
``moderate to high'' risk. Marine Commandant General Charles 
Krulak summarized the JCS' assessment in testimony before the 
committee, stating, ``In terms of risk to the [ability to 
execute] the National Military Strategy, I think we've gone too 
far; I think we're there now. If we don't do something about 
this, we're going to be back into the hollow armed forces and 
this nation can't have that, can't take that, because the world 
is changing so rapidly, is so dangerous, that we need to stop 
this now.''
    During months of oversight hearings, the motto of the post-
Cold-War military--``doing more with less''--was once again the 
predominant theme heard from all ranks and services. As Army 
Chief of Staff General Dennis Reimer informed the committee in 
January, ``Army leaders at all levels have been fighting to 
meet expanding requirements with diminishing resources. Our 
commanders are struggling to balance operational readiness--
supporting training and maintaining equipment--with base 
operations expenses and maintaining soldiers' quality of 
life.'' Likewise, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jay Johnson 
expressed ``serious concerns'' about personnel, training, and 
equipment maintenance problems that were creating an ``erosion 
of readiness at home and even the beginning stages of 
degradation in our deployed forces.'' A decade ago, Navy non-
deployed units reported high states of readiness nearly 70 
percent of the time, while today the figure has slipped to 
approximately 50 percent.
    The Air Force is confronting similar problems. Air Combat 
Command has suffered a 56 percent drop in readiness rates since 
1996. The aging of the Air Force fleet and the resulting 
increased costs and expanded maintenance workload caused by 
aircraft fatigue, corrosion, and parts obsolescence underlies 
the Air Force's worsening readiness problems. Under projected 
budgets and modernization plans, the average Air Force aircraft 
will be 20 years old by the turn of the century and 30 years 
old by 2015. Air Force ``non-mission capable'' rates have 
increased 53 percent since the Persian Gulf War while the rate 
of ``cannibalization''--the practice of stripping parts from 
one aircraft or system to replace broken parts on another--has 
increased 75 percent.
    The services' long-term quality of life, readiness, and 
modernization problems seem to be worsening at an exponential 
rate as the force shrinks, the equipment ages, and the pace of 
operations mounts. The mismatch between military ends and means 
is so large that the services' ability to conduct even smaller-
scale contingencies is at risk. In the committee's view, the 
expanding and potentially open-ended mission in the Balkans not 
only highlights these risks, but exacerbates them at the same 
time.

                   The Committee Bill: Managing Risk

    The committee's recommendations in the bill have been 
shaped by the above concerns and guided in large part by the 
priorities identified by the military service chiefs. The 
committee's first step is to put the defense budget on somewhat 
sounder fiscal footing. Thus, the committee bill increases the 
President's budget request by $8.3 billion. Within this topline 
increase, the committee has taken a number of steps to improve 
the quality of military life, to improve the readiness of the 
force, and to accelerate the pace of equipment modernization.
    Major quality of life initiatives include a 4.8 percent 
basic military pay raise, substantial pay table reform, and 
reform of the military retirement system. The committee also 
rejected the Administration's inexplicable $3.1 billion cut to 
the already underfunded military construction accounts, instead 
fully funding military construction at a level of $8.6 billion 
to provide important improvements to the quality of military 
life. The committee also increased spending on critical 
readiness accounts by more than $2 billion, including 
significant increases for real property maintenance and base 
operations support, depot maintenance, aircraft spare parts, 
combat training center operations, as well as more than $700 
million for other unfunded readiness priorities identified by 
the military service chiefs. The committee has also increased 
funding for equipment modernization, adding approximately $4 
billion to the President's underfunded budget request for 
research, development, and procurement programs. Important 
modernization initiatives include the addition of more than 
$400 million to the Administration's request for missile 
defense programs, and substantial increases to upgrade the B-2 
bomber fleet, and for EA-6B, F-15, F-16, Joint Strike Fighter, 
V-22, AH-64 Apache Longbow and Comanche helicopter programs.
    Despite the substantial improvements this bill has made to 
the President's budget request, the committee is under no 
illusions concerning the rising level of risk U.S. armed forces 
are facing. The committee does not believe that ``high risk'' 
in executing the core missions of our National Military 
Strategy is acceptable. The nation is facing a dilemma that 
Secretary Cohen recently articulated in testimony to the 
Congress. The Secretary noted the multiple strains caused by 
conducting Operation Allied Force simultaneously with having to 
meet other important requirements, and commented that ``we've 
got to find a way to either increase the size of our forces or 
decrease the number of our missions.''
    The committee believes that unless the nation fields the 
forces and provides the resources required by the National 
Military Strategy, the inevitable alternative is for the United 
States to retreat from its global responsibilities and 
interests. As it does with regard to the growing risk 
confronting our military forces, the committee also believes it 
is unacceptable for the United States to retreat from the 
aggressive promotion and protection of our interests around the 
world.

                                HEARINGS

    Committee consideration of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 results from extensive 
hearings that began on February 2, 1999 and that were completed 
on March 25, 1999. The full committee conducted 6 sessions. In 
addition, a total of 26 sessions were conducted by five 
different subcommittees and two panels of the committee on 
various titles of the bill.

            DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

                          TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

                                OVERVIEW

    The President's $53.0 billion procurement budget request 
for fiscal year 2000 represents a decrease of $1.1 billion 
below the amount forecast in fiscal year 1999, $9.3 billion 
below the amount first forecast in fiscal year 1996, and 
continues the Department of Defense's delay in achieving the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff goal of a $60.0 billion procurement 
budget by three years (from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 
2001). Even before the initiation of Operation Allied Force the 
service chiefs of staff were lamenting a budget that leaves 
them far short of attaining their modernization requirements, 
despite Congress' having added over $15.0 billion to the 
procurement accounts in the past four years. The ongoing 
campaign in the Balkans has only exacerbated this situation.
    For example, the Army Chief of Staff testified to the 
committee that ``modernization is still underfunded. What I 
don't think will be fixed out of this [referring to the funding 
he expects to receive in fiscal year 2000] will be the 
modernization. We'll have to defer that . . . further.'' 
Commenting on his inability to recapitalize the fleets of naval 
ships and aircraft, the Chief of Naval Operations noted, ``We 
continue to compensate [for readiness and personnel needs] by 
shifting resources from modernization and recapitalization 
accounts to operations and support accounts.'' Even more 
critical of the current predicament, he was the Commandant of 
the Marine Corps, who testified that, ``As I've said for years 
[our problem] is long-term procurement. I have got very great 
concerns about the cancer of modernization that I must 
address.'' And the Air Force Chief of Staff declared that ``if 
we don't modernize by replacing aircraft that are beyond their 
useful life and revitalize those with life left in them, we can 
expect significant additional maintenance requirements, reduced 
reliability, and increased costs as these aircraft 
deteriorate.''
    In order to bring the modernization problem into focus, the 
committee held a hearing on the Department's fleet of aging 
equipment. The Department clearly acknowledged that reduced 
modernization budgets, combined with increased deployments, 
have taken their toll. Its inventory of weapons is not only 
aging chronologically but also technologically, as older and 
overworked weapons systems continue to drain resources because 
of more frequent and more expensive maintenance. Equipment 
expected to leave the inventory years ago is still operational 
and, in some cases, approaching nearly double expected service 
lives. Yet, despite this situation, the procurement budget 
continues to receive low priority.
    Although much has been touted by the Department concerning 
a major increase in its budget in the next six fiscal years, 
the procurement accounts are not the beneficiaries of any 
largesse. As noted above, the fiscal year 2000 procurement 
request actually declines from the amount forecast only one 
year ago. The cumulative addition to these accounts over the 
next four years is projected to be only $4.1 billion-hardly a 
significant part of a proposed six-year $84.0 billion overall 
increase.
    Unfortunately, unless a sustained increase in procurement 
funding is forthcoming, the aging equipment situation will only 
get worse, as the impact of Operation Allied Force is felt. 
With the United States shouldering the largest share of the 
burden in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's air campaign 
against Yugoslavia, inventories of key precision weapons are 
being depleted at much faster rates than ever anticipated; 
units deployed for combat are stripping vital supplies from 
U.S.-based units, contributing to a dramatic drop in their 
readiness ratings; and cannibalization rates are climbing 
rapidly within deployed units because of spare parts shortages. 
Even with the substantial amount of additional funding provided 
by the Congress in fiscal year 1999 supplemental 
appropriations, the process of ``getting well'' from this 
ongoing operation will be slow and likely require substantial 
additional funding in the future.
    Against this backdrop, the committee successfully argued 
for an increase to the funds allocated for national defense in 
the fiscal year 2000 budget resolution and has applied much of 
this additional money to procurement. This marks the fifth 
consecutive year the committee has added funds to modernize the 
Department's weaponry, including:

                        [In millions of dollars]

Army:
    UH-60L helicopters............................................  27.0
    CH-47F upgrades...............................................  56.0
    AH-64D upgrades...............................................  45.0
    MLRS rocket launchers.........................................  56.0
    Bradley fighting vehicles upgrades............................  72.0
    M113A3 carrier mods...........................................  25.0
    Small arms....................................................  48.0
    Ammunition....................................................  55.0
    Night vision devices..........................................  33.0
    Shortstop.....................................................  40.0
    Communications equipment......................................  92.0
    Combat support equipment......................................  63.0
    Construction equipment........................................  33.0
Navy/Marine Corps:
    KC-130J....................................................... 252.0
    MV-22.........................................................  60.0
    CH-60S........................................................  38.0
    UC-35.........................................................  18.0
    E/A-6B upgrades...............................................  45.0
    F/A-18 series modifications...................................  63.0
    P-3 series modifications......................................  75.0
    Tomahawk missiles............................................. 300.0
    Joint stand-off weapon........................................  75.0
    Hellfire missiles.............................................  52.0
    Joint direct attack munition..................................  48.0
    Maritime prepositioning ship-advance procurement..............  80.0
    Base telecommunications upgrades..............................  50.0
    Improve & recovery vehicle....................................  49.0
    AH-1/UH-1 upgrades............................................  27.0
    Ammunition....................................................  75.0
Air Force:
    E-8C-advance procurement......................................  46.0
    B-2 upgrades.................................................. 187.0
    F-15 upgrades.................................................  50.0
    F-16 upgrades.................................................  47.0
    C-135 upgrades................................................  68.0
    Defense airborne reconnaissance program.......................  40.0
    Joint stand-off weapon........................................  35.0
    Minuteman III upgrades........................................  40.0
    AGM-65D Maverick upgrades.....................................  10.0
    Joint direct attack munition..................................  66.0
    Ammunition....................................................  75.0
    Theater deployable communications.............................  35.0
Defense-Wide:
    National guard/reserve miscellaneous equipment................  60.0
       
    
    
                       Aircraft Procurement, Army


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $1,229.9 million for Aircraft 
Procurement, Army in fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends 
authorization of $1,415.2 million for fiscal year 2000.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for 
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless 
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and 
based on affordability considerations. 


                        Items of Special Interest


AH-64 modifications

    The budget request contained $22.6 million for AH-64 
modifications, but included no funds for an oil debris 
detection system (ODDS) or the continuation of the vibration 
management enhancement program (VMEP).
    The ODDS is an on-board detection system that alerts 
aircrews to the presence of metal chips in engines and 
propeller gear boxes, allowing flights to be terminated prior 
to catastrophic failure of critical components. It also permits 
the clearing of smaller particles that routinely accumulate in 
engine oil and cause false impending engine failure alarms, 
resulting in unnecessary termination of aircraft missions and 
costly engine diagnostics.
    The VMEP is an Army National Guard (ARNG) effort currently 
directed toward resolving vibration management problems on the 
ARNG's AH-64 Apache fleet, but the committee understands the 
technology is also applicable to the UH-60 Blackhawk, the CH-47 
Chinook, and the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior. The committee continues 
to support the VMEP because of its belief that such on-board 
diagnostic capabilities contribute significantly to both 
aircrew safety and improved aircraft reliability.
    Since the ODDS, which has been successfully integrated into 
many other Department of Defense aircraft, both reduces 
aircraft maintenance costs and enhances aircrew safety, the 
committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to incorporate 
the ODDS on AH-64 Apaches. The committee also recommends an 
increase of $7.0 million to continue VMEP procurement for the 
ARNG Apache fleet and to transition this technology to other 
aircraft.

Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE)

    The budget request contained $88,000 for ASE, but included 
no funds for the procurement of upgrades to the Aircraft 
Survivability Equipment Trainer (ASET) IV.
    ASET IV is a ground-based, mobile aviation threat emitter 
simulation and training system which enables both fixed and 
rotary wing aviators to recognize surface-to-air-missile (SAM) 
and anti-aircraft artillery threats in order to employ the 
correct aircraft evasive maneuvers. ASET IV systems are 
currently fielded at major training centers throughout the 
United States and Germany and require that an aircraft have a 
fully operational ASE suite of sensors on board for training.
    The Congress added $7.4 million in fiscal year 1998 and 
$6.4 million in fiscal year 1999 for ASET IV upgrades. However, 
additional validated requirements exist and several systems in 
their present configuration still lack the capability to 
simulate the most current infrared (IR) and radio frequency 
(RF) SAM threats, thereby limiting aircrew training against 
older threats-a situation which is not representative of the 
Army's ``train as you fight'' concept.
    Consistent with past committee actions and based on the 
Army's requirement for forces to train in realistic threat 
environments, the committee recommends $18.2 million, an 
increase of $18.1 million for upgrading ASET IV systems with 
current IR and RF SAM threat simulators.

Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE) modifications

    The budget request contained $11.8 million for the 
procurement of ASE modifications, but included no funds for AN/
AVR-2A laser detecting sets (LDS).
    The LDS is the only device in the Army inventory that 
provides warning to helicopter crews when they have been 
illuminated by a laser-targeted weapon. It detects, identifies, 
and characterizes threats 360-degrees-around and plus-or-minus 
45 degrees above-and-below an aircraft. The committee is 
concerned with the growing laser threat to helicopter aircrews 
and notes the limited situational awareness that is currently 
provided by existing AN/AVR-2A technology. The committee 
understands that a quantum improvement to aircrew situational 
awareness is achievable by incorporating the precise laser 
azimuth and discrimination capabilities of the AN/VVR-1 ground 
LDS into the AN/AVR-2A aviation LDS.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the 
Army to expeditiously establish an engineering change proposal 
(ECP) to integrate the precision laser azimuth and 
discrimination capabilities of the AN/VVR-1 into the AN/AVR-2A 
and recommends an increase of $11.5 million, which includes a 
$5.5 million increase for the ECP, and, $6.0 million to procure 
additional AN/AVR-2A LDS until the ECP is in production.

CH-47 cargo helicopter modifications

    The budget request contained $70.7 million for procurement 
of CH-47 Chinook helicopter modifications.
    The CH-47D, the Army's only heavy lift helicopter, is 
capable of lifting multiple types of cargo weighing up to 
26,000 pounds or carrying 33 personnel. The committee 
understands that the average age of the CH-47 fleet is 31 years 
old, yet notes that the Army has delayed the start of a 
comprehensive CH-47 upgrade from fiscal year 1999 to fiscal 
year 2001. However, the committee also notes that the Army 
Chief of Staff has identified a $56.1 million unfunded 
requirement in fiscal year 2000 to accelerate fielding of 
improved CH-47Ds in Korea by 30 months.
    Therefore, based on the critical need to upgrade these 
helicopters, the committee recommends $126.8 million, an 
increase of $56.1 million for CH-47D modifications.

Longbow

    The budget request contained $729.5 million to modify 74 
AH-64A Apache helicopters to the AH-64D Apache Longbow 
configuration and $35.7 million in advance procurement to 
modify 60 aircraft in fiscal year 2001. The budget request did 
not include funds to upgrade Longbow sensor and avionics 
integrated circuits.
    The AH-64D Apache Longbow, a day/night, all weather, heavy 
attack helicopter, is capable of engaging and destroying 
advanced, multiple threat armor targets on the future digital 
battlefield with minimum exposure time. The committee continues 
to support this upgrade. However, it notes that many of the 
aircraft sensors and avionics on the Longbow were not designed 
with an ``open information architecture,'' and, as a result of 
the rapid rate of information technology advances driven by the 
commercial information technology market, military 
specification integrated circuits (IC) in these avionics and 
sensors are no longer produced, resulting in processor 
obsolescence.
    Consequently, replacement of ICs for these components will 
require redesign. The committee understands the cost of this 
redesign is estimated to be $45.0 million. Therefore, the 
committee recommends $45.0 million to replace obsolete Apache 
Longbow ICs.
    The committee is concerned that the current plan for fiscal 
year 2001-the first year of a second five-year multiyear 
procurement (MYP) contract for this aircraft--only includes 60 
airframe upgrades--a 12 aircraft reduction from previously 
approved plans. The committee understands that an additional 
$4.9 million in advance procurement is needed to restore the 
program to previously approved levels.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $774.5 million, an 
increase of $45.0 million for obsolete IC replacement, and 
$40.6 million, an increase of $4.9 million for advance 
procurement for 12 additional aircraft modifications in fiscal 
year 2001. The committee also recommends approval of a second 
five-year MYP contract.

UH-60 Blackhawk

    The budget request contained $86.1 million for procurement 
of eight UH-60L Blackhawk helicopters for the Army National 
Guard (ARNG), of which $283,000 was included for engines and 
accessories.
    The UH-60 Blackhawk is the Army's primary utility 
helicopter in both the active and reserve components. The 
committee understands that a validated requirement for 83 
additional ARNG Blackhawks remains unfilled and, therefore, 
consistent with past committee actions, recommends an increase 
of $27.0 million to accelerate fielding of 3 additional 
Blackhawks.
    The committee is aware that the Army procured 28 additional 
Blackhawk engines in fiscal year 1998 and intends to use some 
of these engines for the helicopters to be procured in fiscal 
year 2000. Additionally, the Army provided no justification for 
accessory equipment. Therefore, the committee recommends a 
decrease of $283,000. In total, the committee recommends $112.8 
million for UH-60L Blackhawks.

UH-60 modifications

    The budget request contained $12.1 million for UH-60 
modifcations, but included no funds to procure either UH-60Q 
aeromedical evacuation (MEDEVAC) modification kits for the Army 
National Guard (ARNG) or a UH-60Q medical mockup training 
device.
    The committee notes that new production UH-60Q MEDEVAC 
aircraft are not planned to be procured until fiscal year 2002; 
however, an interim capability exists through UH-60Q 
modification kits, which internally reconfigure UH-60A utility 
aircraft into MEDEVAC variants.
    The committee also notes that while the Army plans to 
procure UH-60Q aircraft in the future, it has not included 
funds in the Future Years Defense Program for the one required 
UH-60Q medical mockup training device. This fully functional 
training device accurately replicates the interior of a UH-60Q 
MEDEVAC helicopter and will provide flight medics a classroom-
based, ``hands-on,'' training capability, eliminating the 
current need to use dedicated aircraft on the ground for 
extended periods of time for this purpose.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $22.6 million, an 
increase of $9.0 million to procure UH-60Q medical evacuation 
modification kits to reconfigure two ARNG UH-60A Blackhawk 
helicopters and an increase of $1.5 million to accelerate 
procurement of the UH-60Q medical mockup training device.

Utility/cargo airplane modifications

    The budget request contained $6.3 million for avionics 
modifications to the C-12 utility aircraft.
    The C-12 is the Army's primary short to medium range 
utility and personnel transport. The 62 aircraft in the 
service's inventory are located throughout the world, and the 
majority of them continue to operate with analog avionics 
technology that was current at the time they were procured in 
the 1970s and 1980s. Replacement of obsolete avionics with 
state-of-the-art communications, navigation, surveillance and 
flight management equipment will enable the aircraft to be more 
easily deployed around the world to meet emerging global 
requirements.
    The committee is pleased that the Army has requested funds 
for these safety of flight upgrades but believes additional 
funds are required. Accordingly, and consistent with actions 
taken in past fiscal years, the committee recommends $9.3 
million, an increase of $3.0 million to more efficiently 
procure C-12 avionics upgrades.

                       Missile Procurement, Army


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $1,358.1 million for Missile 
Procurement, Army in fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends 
authorization of $1,416.0 million for fiscal year 2000.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for 
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless 
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and 
based on affordability considerations. 


                        Items of Special Interest

Avenger modifications
    The budget request contained no funds to procure Avenger 
slew-to-cue (STC) modifications.
    The STC upgrade enables the Avenger turret to automatically 
and rapidly slew in azimuth and elevation resulting in a 55 
percent increase in target engagements. The committee 
understands that existing Army National Guard (ARNG) Avenger 
fire units require installation of a fire control computer with 
embedded STC capability to provide the most lethal and rapid 
force protection air defense capability.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.3 
million to upgrade one ARNG Avenger battalion with STC-capable 
fire control computers.
Avenger system summary
    The budget request contained $33.8 million to procure 15 
Avengers for the Army National Guard (ARNG), of which $636,000 
was for the installation of environmental control units/prime 
power units (ECU/PPU).
    The Avenger, the Army's primary mobile, short-range, 
surface-to-air defense missile and antiaircraft artillery 
system, is mounted on and operates off the internal power of a 
High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle. The committee 
understands that some Avenger turrets do not have a climate 
control unit, resulting in either extremely high or low turret 
temperatures during hot and cold weather. The committee is 
aware of an ongoing ECU/PPU retrofit program, which provides 
stable turret temperatures as well as an independent power 
supply for the turret.
    Based on the added benefits of these enhancements, the 
committee recommends $35.1 million, an increase of $1.3 million 
for additional ECU/PPU upgrades to ARNG Avengers.
Brilliant anti-armor (BAT) submunition
    The budget request contained $149.3 million to procure 846 
BAT submunitions, of which $5.0 million was included for test 
and evaluation.
    The committee notes that the amount of funds requested for 
test and evaluation represents a 285 percent increase over the 
amount that was authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 1999 
for 420 submunitions. Additionally, the amount planned for this 
same requirement in fiscal year 2001 is only $2.3 million for a 
corresponding 1,028 missiles.
    The committee is concerned with this unjustified, sharp 
increase in test and evaluation funds, and, therefore, 
recommends a decrease of $2.7 million.
Multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) launcher systems
    The budget request contained $114.6 million for the 
procurement of 47 MLRS launcher systems for the active Army, 
but included no funds for the procurement of launcher systems 
for the Army National Guard (ARNG).
    The committee notes that the ARNG provides nearly 70 
percent of the total Army's artillery fire support but further 
notes that an MLRS launcher shortfall continues to exist for 
ARNG units. However, the committee is aware that the Army Chief 
of Staff's fiscal year 2000 unfunded requirements list included 
MLRS launcher systems to fill ARNG MLRS battalion readiness 
shortfalls as a top priority.
    Consistent with actions taken in past fiscal years, the 
committee recommends $170.1 million, an increase of $55.5 
million for additional MLRS launcher systems for the ARNG.

               Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army

                                Overview

    The budget request contained $1,416.8 million for 
procurement of Army weapons and tracked combat vehicles for 
fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends authorization of 
$1,575.1 million for fiscal year 2000.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for 
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless 
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and 
based on affordability considerations. 


                        Items of Special Interest


Abrams upgrade program/heavy assault bridge (HAB)

    The budget request contained $423.0 million to procure 120 
M1A2 Abrams System Enhancement Program (SEP) tanks and $67.3 
million to procure 13 HABs, but included no funds for HAB 
advance procurement.
    The HAB is an 85-foot, military-load class bridge 
transported on a modified M1A2 SEP tank chassis. The system is 
capable of spanning up to 79-foot spaces, is deployable in five 
minutes, and can be retrieved in less than ten minutes--
requirements that resulted from Army bridging system 
deficiencies identified during Operation Desert Storm.
    The committee notes the Secretary of the Army's request for 
a second multiyear procurement (MYP) contract for the M1A2 SEP 
tank beginning in fiscal year 2001 and that an estimated $118.0 
million in savings is expected from the MYP contract through 
fiscal year 2005. Due to the 80 percent commonality between HAB 
and M1A2 hardware, the committee also notes that an estimated 
$190.0 million in savings from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal 
year 2005 could be achieved from the efficiencies of a combined 
HAB and M1A2 MYP contract.
    Based on these larger savings, the committee recommends a 
combined M1A2 SEP/HAB MYP contract. The committee also 
recommends an increase of $14.0 million to synchronize HAB 
advance procurement in fiscal year 2000 with M1A2 SEP tank 
advance procurement.

Bradley base sustainment

    The budget request contained $281.1 million for the 
procurement of 104 Bradley A3 fighting vehicle upgrades, but 
included no funds for upgrading first-generation Bradley A0 
fighting vehicles to the A2 Operation Desert Storm (ODS) 
variant for the Army National Guard (ARNG).
    The Bradley A2ODS variant improves the vehicle's lethality, 
survivability, and mobility, as well as the situational 
awareness of its crew. Modifications include installation of a 
laser range finder, Global Positioning System navigation 
capability, a combat identification system, a driver's thermal 
viewer and a missile countermeasure device.
    When the Army completes all of its planned upgrades to the 
Bradley, the active fleet will include a mix of the most 
advanced A3 variant, along with A2 and A2ODS versions. The 
majority of the ARNG's Bradley fleet, on the other hand, will 
remain unmodified and be comprised mainly of first-generation 
A0 vehicles, which, because of major survivability 
deficiencies, were not used in the Persian Gulf War. However, 
as part of the new ARNG enhanced brigades, the committee notes 
that some of these A0 vehicles will be required to deploy with 
active Army forces.
    Because ARNG enhanced brigades will comprise an increasing 
percentage of the Army's warfighting capability as a result of 
active force reductions, and consistent with actions taken in 
past fiscal years, the committee recommends $353.1 million, an 
increase of $72.0 million for modifying Bradley ``A0'' vehicles 
to the A2ODS variant for the ARNG.

M113 carrier modifications

    The budget request contained $53.5 million for 198 M113A3 
carrier modifications.
    The M113A3 upgrade program, forecast to add an additional 
20 years of service life to the vehicle, includes installation 
of a new engine, transmission, external fuel tanks, driver 
controls, and kevlar spall liners. The committee is aware that 
M113A3 upgrades are one of the Army Chief of Staff's fiscal 
year 2000 top unfunded priorities.
    Therefore, consistent with actions taken in past fiscal 
years, the committee recommends $78.5 million, an increase of 
$25.0 million for additional M113A3 upgrade kits.

M240 series medium machine gun

    The budget request contained $12.2 million for the 
procurement of 1,304 M240 series medium machine guns.
    The M240B is the infantry version of the vehicle-mounted 
M240 machine gun and replaces the older M60 series machine gun 
in light and mechanized infantry and combat engineer units. The 
committee notes that the Army has a validated requirement for 
over 6,000 M240Bs to upgrade its current inventory of 7.62mm 
machine guns.
    Therefore, consistent with actions taken in past fiscal 
years, the committee recommends $40.0 million, an increase of 
$27.8 million to accelerate the fielding of M240B medium 
machine guns.

M249 squad automatic weapon (SAW)

    The budget request contained no funds for the procurement 
of M249 SAW machine guns.
    The M249 SAW is a lightweight weapon capable of delivering 
a sustained volume of automatic, accurate, and highly lethal 
fire up to ranges of 800 meters. This highly mobile machine gun 
is being widely fielded throughout the Army to airborne, light 
and mechanized infantry, as well as air cavalry units. The 
committee is concerned that the Army has eliminated funds for 
this weapon throughout the Future Years Defense Program, yet an 
unfunded requirement for nearly 8,000 SAWs exists. Therefore, 
the committee recommends $10.1 million to continue procurement 
of M249 SAWs to reduce this shortfall.

MK19-3 grenade launcher

    The budget request contained $18.3 million to procure 1,085 
MK19-3 grenade launchers.
    The MK19-3 is a 40 millimeter automatic grenade launcher 
capable of engaging point targets up to 1,500 meters and 
providing suppressive fire up to 2,200 meters in range. This 
infantry weapon can also be mounted on armored vehicles and 
High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles.
    The committee notes that the Army has an unfulfilled 
requirement of over 3,600 MK19-3s and that there are critical 
shortages of this weapon in European-, Republic of Korea-, and 
continental United States-based units. The committee also notes 
this weapon's increased importance in military operations in 
urban terrain (MOUT) and close combat operations.
    Because of the MK19-3's critical shortages and the fact 
that United States military forces are increasingly being 
deployed into MOUT and potential close combat situations, the 
committee recommends $28.3 million, an increase of $10.0 
million to accelerate procurement of MK19-3 grenade launchers.

                      Ammunition Procurement, Army


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $1,140.8 million for 
Ammunition Procurement, Army in fiscal year 2000. The committee 
recommends authorization of $1,196.2 million for fiscal year 
2000.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for 
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless 
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and 
based on affordability considerations. 


                        Items of Special Interest


Ammunition

    The budget request contained $987.0 million for procurement 
of ammunition. The committee recommends $1,037.0 million, an 
increase of $50.0 million for the following types of 
ammunition, which include top unfunded priorities of the Chief 
of Staff of the Army for fiscal year 2000:

                        [In millions of dollars]

Small/Medium Cal Ammunition:
    CTG 25mm All Types............................................   2.0
    CTG 40mm All Types............................................   8.0
Mortar Ammunition:
    CTG 120mm Illum XM930 w/MTSQ FZ...............................   5.0
    CTG 120mm WP Smoke M929A1.....................................   5.0
Artillery Ammunition:
    CTG Arty 105mm DPICM XM915....................................   5.0
Mines:
    Mine, Antitank (Volcano)......................................  10.0
Rockets:
    Bunker Defeating Munition.....................................  10.0
Grenade, All Types:
    Smoke Screening, XM 90........................................   5.0

Hydra 70 rockets

    The budget request contained $144.8 million for Hydra 70 
rockets.
    The committee acknowledges the Army's actions to identify 
and eliminate the problem of early motor blows (EMB) 
experienced by the Hydra 70 from 1992 to 1995. The committee 
asked the General Accounting Office to conduct a review of the 
service's ongoing inspection program and was generally pleased 
with the information it received. However, the committee 
understands that because some of the Army's Hydra 70 rockets 
are prepositioned on ships and in-theater, they will not be 
accessible for inspection before the current inspection 
contract expires in November 1999. Given the potential threat 
EMBs pose to aircraft and crew, the committee urges the Army to 
extend this contract and make every reasonable effort to 
inspect the entire inventory of Hydra 70 rockets that could 
experience this problem.

Provision of industrial facilities

    The budget request contained $46.1 million for Army 
ammunition plant (AAP) future project design, obsolete 
production line equipment replacement, and environmental 
deficiencies and infrastructure corrections, of which $9.1 
million was for production line and facility upgrades to Iowa 
AAP. However, the budget request did not include non-recurring 
engineering costs for the 120 millimeter (mm) tank ammunition 
load, assemble, and pack (LAP) production line enhancements at 
this plant.
    The committee is aware of the Army's future plans to 
improve the Iowa AAP production line, resulting in increased 
efficiency, safety, and reliability, as well as production line 
output. However, based on the implementation timeline of these 
plans, an estimated $4.7 million in annual savings is not 
expected to accrue until fiscal year 2004.
    The committee understands that a $5.4 million increase in 
non-recurring engineering for the LAP production line will 
accelerate these enhancements. Therefore, the committee 
recommends $51.5 million, an increase of $5.4 million for this 
purpose.

                        Other Procurement, Army


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $3,423.9 million for Other 
Procurement, Army in fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends 
authorization of $3,799.9 million for fiscal year 2000.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for 
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless 
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and 
based on affordability considerations. 


                            Items of Special Interest


Area common user system (ACUS) modification program

    The budget request contained $109.1 million for the ACUS 
modification program in order to support its migration to the 
Warfighter Information Network (WIN) systems architecture, but 
included no funds for the procurement of high speed 
multiplexers (HSMUX) for Army National Guard (ARNG) signal 
brigades.
    The WIN architecture will seamlessly link the Army's 
diverse information systems on the 21st century digitized 
battlefield. HSMUX will provide increased bandwidth to the WIN 
in response to the growing demand for video and data in the 
battlefield tactical communications environment. As part of the 
echelon above and below corps force support packages, ARNG 
signal brigades will be required to deploy with these early 
entry units; however, they will not be able to provide state-
of-the-art video and data communications support without HSMUX 
upgrades.
    The committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff has 
identified the ACUS modification program as a fiscal year 2000 
top unfunded priority. In response to this requirement, the 
committee recommends $110.0 million, an increase of $900,000 to 
procure and field HSMUX upgrades to ARNG signal brigades.

Army data distribution system (ADDS)

    The budget request contained $38.8 million to procure 1,280 
Enhanced Position Location Reporting System (EPLRS) radios, but 
included no funds for the procurement of EPLRS for the Army 
National Guard (ARNG).
    The EPLRS radio is the Army's and Marine Corps' primary 
position location reporting system, providing battlefield 
commanders combat information on the position of their forces 
in addition to supporting the majority of the services' data 
communications requirements for brigade and below tactical 
command and control. The system provides secure, jam-resistant, 
near-real-time communications and is essential to support 
tactical operations on the battlefield.
    The committee notes that procurement and fielding of 
additional EPLRS is on both the Army Chief of Staff's and 
Commandant of the Marine Corps' fiscal year 2000 unfunded 
priorities lists. The committee also notes that ARNG enhanced 
brigades must have the necessary data communications 
capabilities to operate alongside active Army units.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $64.7 million, an 
increase of $25.9 million for the procurement of EPLRS for ARNG 
enhanced brigades. The committee also recommends $103.2 
million, an increase of $20.3 million to procure of EPLRS for 
the Marine Corps.

Artillery accuracy equipment

    The budget request contained $4.3 million to procure the 
Artillery Muzzle Velocity System, but included no funds to 
procure the Meteorological Measuring System (MMS). The MMS 
provides data to field artillery units that improves firing 
accuracy. The committee is encouraged that the Army plans to 
procure 14 MMSs for the Army National Guard (ARNG) in fiscal 
year 2001, however, it recognizes that accelerated fielding of 
MMS to the ARNG would benefit total Army mission requirements 
since the ARNG provides nearly 70 percent of the total Army's 
artillery fire support.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $7.3 million for 
artillery accuracy equipment, an increase of $3.0 million to 
accelerate procurement of the MMS for the ARNG.

Automated data processing equipment (ADPE)

    The budget request contained $138.6 million for procurement 
of ADPE, of which $38.9 million was included for the 
procurement of Major Army Command (MACOM) automation systems 
and $4.2 million was for automatic identification technology 
(AIT).
    The committee notes a 27 percent increase in the amount 
requested for MACOM automation systems over the amount 
authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 1999 and believes 
this growth to be excessive. Therefore, the committee 
recommends a decrease of $4.5 million for production of these 
systems.
    AIT devices, which consist of various radio frequency (RF), 
bar code scanning, and data carrier devices, are used as 
components of automated logistics systems, contributing to 
expedited receiving, storage, distribution, and inventory 
management of new and repairable items. For example, the 
committee understands that RF tagging devices are currently 
used in a pilot program implemented at six locations worldwide 
in fiscal year 1998 to track ammunition from point of origin to 
place of destination. The committee understands that these 
devices are also used to automate manufacturing process 
controls for aircraft repair parts and to track ground support 
equipment at various military depots.
    The committee is impressed with the promising results 
achieved to date with RF tagging devices and believes that 
substantial savings can be achieved from further implementation 
of these devices in automated inventory and repair processes. 
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $11.0 
million for ammunition AIT integration efforts and $8.7 million 
for maintenance AIT implementation. In total, the committee 
recommends $153.8 million for ADPE.

Combat support medical

    The budget request contained $25.3 million for the 
procurement of deployable medical systems and field medical 
equipment, but included no funds for the procurement of the 
advanced surgical suite for trauma casualties (ASSTC) for the 
Army National Guard (ARNG).
    The ASSTC is a lightweight, highly mobile, self-contained 
medical facility for on-scene triage, minor surgery, diagnostic 
and preventive medical treatment, which can also be used for 
life-saving, resuscitative surgery for 20 casualties. It is 
capable of operating independently for up to 48 hours in 
support of contingency operations and disaster relief.
    Based on the ARNG's evolving role as ``first responders'' 
to weapons of mass destruction and domestic terrorist 
incidents, and its requirement to deploy in response to natural 
disasters, the committee recommends $40.3 million, an increase 
of $15.0 million for the procurement of ASSTCs for the ARNG.

Family of heavy tactical vehicles

    The budget request contained $190.4 million to procure 
palletized load systems and related equipment, heavy expanded 
transporter system trucks, and heavy repair vehicles, of which 
$36.8 million was for 119 M984 heavy expanded mobility tactical 
truck (HEMTT) wreckers. However, no HEMTT wreckers were 
requested for the Army Reserve (AR). The HEMTT wrecker is a 10-
ton, diesel-powered, eight-wheel drive vehicle designed to 
retrieve other heavy wheeled combat and support vehicles.
    The committee notes that the AR's evolving combat support 
and combat service support mission requirements necessitate the 
need for HEMTT wreckers.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $196.4 million, an 
increase of $6.0 million for 21 HEMTT wreckers for the AR.

General purpose vehicles

    The budget request contained $1.0 million for the 
procurement of general purpose vehicles, but included no funds 
for the procurement of Military (M) Gators.
    The M Gator is a low cost, air-deployable, multipurpose 
vehicle designed for transport of logistics equipment and 
personnel on the battlefield and in urban terrain. The 
committee understands that the XVIII Airborne Corps has 
submitted an urgent operational needs statement for procurement 
of 600 M Gators to the Chief of Staff of the Army and that an 
operational requirements document is currently being staffed. 
The committee also understands that this vehicle has been 
extensively tested and used by both the Army and Special 
Operations Command in Bosnia and in the Middle East.
    Therefore, to fill the XVIII Airborne Corps' urgent 
operational needs, the committee recommends $13.0 million, an 
increase of $12.0 for M Gators.

High speed compactor

    The budget request contained $9.8 million to procure 67 
815F high-speed compactors. The 815F high-speed compactor is a 
commercially produced, self-propelled, diesel powered, tamping 
machine used to build roads, airfields, and dams. The committee 
notes that the amount in this budget request would enable the 
service to reach 199 of its 212 vehicle acquisition objective 
but that the remaining vehicles are not planned to be procured 
until fiscal year 2005.
    The committee believes that meeting the acquisition 
objective should be accelerated and, therefore, recommends 
$12.4 million, an increase of $2.6 million for this purpose.

Hunter unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)

    The budget request contained no funds for the procurement 
of upgrades for the Hunter UAV.
    The Hunter UAV is the Army's only operational UAV system 
and is used to develop corps-, division-, and brigade-level 
tactics, techniques, and procedures, and is also available for 
worldwide contingency operations. It is currently deployed to 
the Balkans as part of Operation Allied Force supporting North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization operations.
    The committee understands that the fielded Hunter systems 
have only partially received hardware and software upgrades 
which improve their operational effectiveness and reduce 
operations and support costs. Additional Hunter systems being 
readied for fielding and those in storage have not been 
similarly upgraded.
    The committee believes that the Hunter UAV system will play 
a major role in tactics development and the enhancement of 
battlefield commander's tactical awareness until the follow-on 
Tactical UAV is fielded.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0 
million to provide these upgrades to the Hunter UAV inventory.

Information system security program (ISSP)

    The budget request contained a total of $28.8 million, 
$64.1 million, and $13.3 million to procure secure voice and 
data terminal equipment for the Army, Navy, and Air Force 
respectively.
    The committee understands that the services are replacing 
older secure voice and data systems with newer multi-media 
secure digital communications equipment and that the systems 
available today provide significant operations and maintenance 
savings over legacy systems.
    Therefore, in order to accelerate the replacement of 
obsolete secure voice and data terminals, the committee 
recommends an increase of $9.0 million to procure additional 
secure terminal equipment: $3.0 million for the Army ISSP, $3.0 
million for the Navy ISSP, and $3.0 million for the Air Force 
command, control, and communications countermeasures program.

Integrated family of test equipment (IFTE)

    The budget request contained $41.6 million to procure IFTE, 
including $12.7 million for 4 IFTE electro-optic test 
facilities (EOTF).
    The EOTF provides automatic electro-optics (EO) test and 
diagnostic support and is capable of satisfying the full range 
of Army EO test requirements. These facilities will replace 
existing electronic equipment repair facilities and the 
committee understands that they will initially support the OH-
58D Kiowa Warrior and the Improve Target Acquisition System 
(ITAS).
    The committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff identified 
a fiscal year 2000 unfunded priority for additional EOTFs. 
Accordingly, the committee recommends $51.6 million, an 
increase of $10.0 million to procure additional EOTFs for Kiowa 
Warrior and ITAS support.

Items less than $2.0 million (construction equipment)

    The budget request contained $4.3 million to procure 
various construction equipment items less than $2.0 million, 
but included no funds to procure ultimate building machines. 
The ultimate building machine system is a highly mobile steel 
fabrication mechanism which can be rapidly set up to construct 
complex steel structures in support of field operations and 
interim shelter requirements.
    The committee notes that each of the services has had 
additional requirements placed on its engineer support and 
construction units as a result of increased deployments for 
contingency, humanitarian assistance, and disaster relief 
operations. The committee recognizes the benefits that easily 
and rapidly constructed shelters contribute to these types of 
operations.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $6.3 million, an 
increase of $2.0 million to procure ultimate building machines 
for the Army and the Army National Guard. The committee also 
recommends an increase of $1.0 million each for procurement of 
these machines by the Navy, Marine Corps, Air National Guard, 
and Air Force Reserve.

Joint surveillance target attack radar system (Joint STARS) common 
        ground station (CGS)

    The budget request contained $82.2 million to procure 12 
Joint STARS CGSs, of which $6.0 million was included for pre-
planned product improvements (P3I).
    The Joint STARS CGS improves ground commanders' battlefield 
command and control capability by integrating into a single 
station the processing of signals, imagery, and other 
intelligence received through a data link from the Air Force's 
E-8 Joint STARS aircraft radar. The system detects, locates, 
tracks, and classifies both moving and stationary targets 
beyond the forward line of troops. The P3I program provides the 
Joint STARS an expanded capability to interface with additional 
airborne intelligence assets while incorporating joint message 
processing and information security upgrades.
    The committee is aware of the proven success of the CGS and 
believes the P3I upgrades will greatly enhance the ground 
commanders' situational awareness. Therefore, the committee 
recommends $112.2 million for Joint STARS CGS, an increase of 
$30.0 million for these upgrades.

Lightweight video reconnaissance system (LVRS)

    The budget request contained $3.4 million to procure 145 
LVRSs.
    The LVRS consists of a small, ruggedized, open architecture 
processor and generation III image intensification night 
vision-capable video camera/recorder. The system allows special 
operations forces (SOF) and light force scout and 
reconnaissance units to photograph, record, and transmit near 
real-time video images over Single Channel Ground and Airborne 
Radio Systems from forward deployed field positions back to 
tactical operations centers. It facilitates rapid target 
identification and analysis critical to mission planning and 
execution on the digitized battlefield and in urban 
environments. The committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff 
identified a $2.5 million unfunded requirement for fiscal year 
2000 to procure an additional 268 LVRSs for SOF and light 
forces.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $5.9 million, an 
increase of $2.5 million to procure 268 additional LVRSs.

M56 smoke generator system

    The budget request contained $6.3 million for the 
procurement of 14 M56 smoke generator systems.
    The M56 smoke generator system, the primary battlefield 
obscurant for Army light forces, is a High Mobility 
Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle-mounted system capable of 
disseminating smoke in both stationary positions and on the 
move. The M56 can defeat enemy sensors such as tank thermal 
sights as well as smart and guided munitions which operate in 
the visual through far infrared portions of the electromagnetic 
spectrum.
    The committee understands that the M56 has been designated 
as an essential item of equipment for early entry forces. The 
committee further understands that while the Army's force 
package one units have a requirement of 300 of these smoke 
generators, only 25 have been funded in fiscal years 2000 and 
2001. Therefore, the committee recommends $22.3 million, an 
increase of $16.0 million for additional M56 smoke generator 
systems.

Modification of in-service equipment

    The budget request contained $24.9 million for upgrades to 
various marine vessels and onboard equipment, construction, and 
logistic vehicles, but included no funds to conduct an Army 
National Guard (ARNG) D-7 dozer service life extension program 
(SLEP).
    The committee understands that the majority of the 
currently fielded ARNG D-7 dozers have an average fleet age of 
27 years, well beyond their intended 15 year service lives and 
that there are no plans to replace the D-7s. The committee 
notes that a reserve component D-7 dozer limited rebuild 
program was initiated in fiscal year 1995, but that a more 
extensive SLEP which would extend the D-7 service life and 
eliminate its ``unsatisfactory'' readiness rating is not 
contemplated in the Future Years Defense Program. This, despite 
the greater demand placed on overage D-7 dozers by increased 
``operations-other-than-war'' deployments.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $34.9 million, an 
increase of $10.0 million for an ARNG D-7 dozer SLEP.

Modification of in-service equipment (tactical surveillance)

    The budget request contained $6.5 million to procure fire 
support digitization hardware and software upgrades for the AN/
TPQ-36 and AN/TPQ-37 Firefinder radars, but included no funds 
to procure additional AN/TPQ-36 radars.
    The AN/TPQ-36 is a High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled 
Vehicle-mounted, phased-array, X-band radar, which locates 
mortars and short-range rocket launchers. The system transmits 
near-real time target data to friendly artillery elements 
enabling these units to rapidly engage the targeted mortars and 
rocket launchers with counterfire.
    The committee notes that the Army does not plan to resume 
procurement of AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder radars until fiscal year 
2002 and is concerned both with this two-year break in 
production and the force protection implications related to it.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $11.5 million, an 
increase of $5.0 million to continue procurement of AN/TPQ-36 
Firefinder radars.

Night vision devices

    The budget request contained $21.0 million for the 
procurement of night vision devices, of which $19.0 million was 
included for 4,550 AN/PVS-7D night vision goggles, but included 
no funds for the procurement of generation III 25 millimeter 
(mm) image intensification tubes.
    The AN/PVS-7D night vision goggle is a head- or helmet-
mounted, third-generation, image intensifying, device used by 
soldiers for nighttime operations. The committee notes that the 
Army acquisition objective for this device has increased by 
100,000 units since fiscal year 1998 to 381,000; however, at 
the end of fiscal year 1999 only 194,409 units will have been 
procured. The committee also notes that the ``Own the Night'' 
concept--the Army's strategy of fighting, dominating and 
winning battles during nighttime operations--remains as one of 
the Army Chief of Staff's top priorities.
    The committee is aware of the joint Army/Navy/Marine Corps 
program to procure generation III 25mm image intensification 
tubes as replacements for less capable generation II tubes 
fielded in the AN/PVS-4 and AN/TVS-5 night vision goggles and 
notes that the generation III tubes provide a minimum 25 
percent resolution increase.
    The committee is aware that the Army Chief of Staff has 
identified several fiscal year 2000 unfunded requirements, two 
of which are, $8.0 million for AN/PVS-7D night vision goggles 
and $25.0 million for generation III 25mm image intensification 
tubes.
    Based on existing shortfalls, the enhanced operational 
capability that night vision devices provide to combat forces, 
and the committee's belief that these devices will provide a 
pivotal ``force multiplier'' in future Army deployments, the 
committee recommends $8.0 million for AN/PVS-7D night vision 
goggles and $25.0 million for generation III 25mm image 
intensification tubes, for a total increase of $33.0million for 
these devices.

Nonsystems training devices

    The budget request contained $67.4 million to procure 
nonsystem training devices, but included no funds to procure 
the area weapons scoring system (AWSS), improved moving target 
simulator (IMTS) upgrades, or the deployable force-on-force 
instrumented range system (DFIRST).
    The AWSS is an electronic aerial gunnery scoring system 
used to accurately score helicopter units in day/night, live 
fire air-to-ground gunnery training. The committee notes that 
this type of training is directly related to the readiness of 
attack helicopter aircrews, especially for short-notice combat 
operations such as Operation Allied Force. The committee 
understands that the Army procured three AWSSs in fiscal year 
1991, however, these systems are capable of supporting only 40 
percent of the total Army's training requirement. The committee 
further understands that a validated requirement for three 
additional systems has existed since fiscal year 1995, yet none 
of these has been procured.
    The 360 degree, high-resolution IMTS is an Army and Marine 
Corps air defense simulation system which trains personnel on 
Stinger surface-to-air missile operations and launch 
proficiency. The committee is aware of IMTS upgrades that would 
provide computer-generated targets, variable scenario computer-
generated background video images, and computer workstations 
for modeling air defense encounters. The committee understands 
that these upgrades would enhance both Army and Marine Corps 
air defense forces' operational proficiency by providing rapid, 
effective, real-world training prior to deploying into 
potential combat situations.
    The committee understands that the DFIRST Global 
Positioning System satellite-based instrumentation system for 
mounted maneuver training exercises would contribute 
significantly to the furtherance of the Army National Guard's 
(ARNG) regional home station instrumentation training plan. 
This plan calls for force-on-force, simulation-based training 
at a number of regional centers that would produce experiences 
for ARNG units comparable to those received at the Army's 
combat training centers. The committee notes the impressive 
results obtained during the DFIRST evaluation and believes that 
this system will not only increase the readiness of ARNG units 
through more effective training but do so at a lower cost and 
with greater safety than is currently done.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $80.7 million, an 
increase of $3.8 million to procure three AWSSs; $1.5 million 
for three Army IMTS upgrades; $1.0 million for an ARNG IMTS 
upgrade; and, an increase of $7.0 million to field two DFIRST 
regional ARNG training sites. In total, the committee 
recommends $13.3 for nonsystems training devices for the Army 
and ARNG. The committee also recommends an increase of $1.0 
million for a Marine Corps IMTS upgrade.

Product improved (PI) combat vehicle crewman (CVC) headset

    The budget request contained no funds to procure PI CVC 
headsets.
    The committee understands that loss of communications in 
CVC headsets was identified in late fiscal year 1998 during 
armored vehicle Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below 
(FBCB2) testing and evaluation. Army testing revealed that 
electromagnetic interference (EMI) created by new, higher 
powered Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio Systems 
installed in armored vehicles to transmit FBCB2 data creates 
these communication problems. The committee believes that such 
communication problems could endanger crews as a result of not 
receiving complete command and control information and data 
transmissions in a high operational tempo or combat 
environment.
    Since the PI CVC headset eliminates EMI communication 
losses, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million 
to procure PI CVC headsets to address this safety issue.

Ribbon bridge

    The budget request contained $12.1 million to procure 
ribbon bridge equipment, but included no funds to procure this 
equipment for Army National Guard (ARNG) multi-role bridge 
companies (MRBC).
    Ribbon bridge equipment consists of 10-ton, 8-wheel drive 
M1977 Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck Common Bridge 
Transporters, M15 Bridge Adaptor Pallets, and M14 Improved Boat 
Cradles. The committee understands that seven ARNG MRBC are 
being established in fiscal year 2001 using existing engineer 
bridging equipment and older, lower capacity five-ton trucks. 
Without increased funds, these new ARNG units will not begin 
conversion to the new equipment required for MRBC until fiscal 
year 2004.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $25.6 million for 
ribbon bridging equipment, an increase of $13.5 million to 
accelerate the fielding of one ARNG MRBC.

Shortstop

    The budget request contained no funds to procure the 
Shortstop Electronic Protection System (SEPS).
    The SEPS is a commercial electronics radio frequency 
countermeasure system that protects personnel and high value 
assets from artillery, mortar rounds, and rockets by detonating 
their proximity fuzes well before they impact. Developed as a 
quick reaction capability system, SEPS was deployed during 
Operation Desert Storm and more recently in Operation Joint 
Endeavor. The committee understands that initial Army testing 
of 5,000 rounds fired at the SEPS resulted in a 100 percent 
pre-detonation success rate and that follow-on tests against 
both artillery and rockets were also highly successful.
    The committee notes that, although the theater commanders-
in-chief have submitted urgent SEPS requirements, the Army has 
failed to fund this system for the fourth straight year. The 
Commander, United States Army Forces Europe has submitted the 
most recent such requirement for over 200 SEPS to support 
Balkan operations. In consideration of this requirement, in 
recognition of the fact that SEPS is also one of the Army Chief 
of Staff's fiscal year 2000 top unfunded priorities, and 
consistent with actions taken in past fiscal years, the 
committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million for the 
procurement of additional SEPS. The committee also recommends 
an increase of $4.0 million for the Marine Corps to ensure that 
Marine expeditionary forces have adequate protection from 
proximity-fuzed artillery rounds, mortars, and rockets.

Single channel ground and airborne radio systems (SINCGARS) family

    The budget request contained $13.2 million for the fielding 
of SINCGARS, but included no funds to procure SINCGARS advanced 
system improvement program (ASIP) radios for the Army National 
Guard (ARNG).
    The SINCGARS ASIP radio upgrades earlier version, voice-
only radios and includes a tactical Internet controller and 
integrated communications security enhancements, which provides 
commanders a highly reliable, easily maintained, secure voice 
and data handling command and control capability. The committee 
is aware of the Army Chief of Staff's unfunded requirement for 
5,100 SINCGARS ASIP radios for force package three, which 
includes the ARNG. The committee understands that without these 
radios, ARNG forces will be unable to transmit to and receive 
data from their active Army components when operating together.
    Therefore, consistent with prior fiscal years, the 
committee recommends $60.4 million, an increase of $47.2 
million to procure SINCGARS ASIP radios for the ARNG.

Small pusher tug

    The budget request contained no funds to procure small 
pusher tugs.
    The small pusher tug is a 60-foot, steel hull, twin 
propeller vessel designed to tow general cargo barges in 
harbors, inland waterways, and along coastlines. It is also 
capable of assisting larger tugs in docking and undocking ships 
of all sizes, movement of floating cranes and machine shops, 
and performing line handling duties.
    The committee is aware of the Army's intent to replace its 
unreliable 40-year old small tugs that were used in Operations 
Desert Shield and Desert Storm and understands that it has 
recently increased its requirement for seven additional tugs to 
replace these older vessels. The committee included an increase 
of $4.7 million in fiscal year 1999 to procure two additional 
tugs to complete the earlier requirement of eight tugs. 
However, the committee notes that the Army has not budgeted for 
the additional seven new tugs in its Future Years Defense 
Program.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0 
million to accelerate procurement of three vessels towards the 
new Army requirement.

Standard teleoperating kit

    The budget request contained $4.0 million to procure 12 
Standardized Robotic System (SRS) vehicle teleoperating kits.
    The SRS kit can be installed on existing tracked, 
construction, or wheeled vehicles to enable them to be operated 
by remote control, if circumstances dictate, to clear mines. 
The committee understands that SRS contingency sets have been 
responsible for detonating hundreds of mines while deployed in 
Bosnia.
    The committee notes that redesigned combat engineer force 
structure requires SRS equipment at all force levels, but that 
the Army only intends to procure 12 kits in a ``one-time buy'' 
during fiscal year 2000. The committee disagrees with the 
Army's procurement strategy for this equipment and recommends 
$24.0 million, an increase of $20.0 million for additional SRS 
kits.

Super high frequency (SHF) terminal

    The budget request contained $32.0 million for the 
procurement of 13 SHF Tri-Band Advanced Range Extension 
Terminals (STAR-T). The STAR-T is a High Mobility Multipurpose 
Wheeled Vehicle-mounted, multi-channel, tactical tri-band 
satellite terminal capable of operating with both commercial 
and military SHF satellites.
    The committee understands that the system has experienced 
an eight month delay in its initial operational test and 
evaluation as a result of contractor team restructuring, a 
$20.0 million cost overrun; program complexities with the 
integration of asynchronous transfer mode, integrated services 
digital network and Internet routing capability; and antennae 
design, and power amplification problems. As a result of this 
delay, the Milestone III procurement decision will not be made 
until September 2000.
    The committee is concerned with these problems but 
recommends the amount requested. However, the committee expects 
the Secretary of the Army to report to the Congressional 
defense committees about any further complications and delays 
with the program and such recommendations as he may deem 
appropriate for dealing with them.

Vibratory self-propelled roller

    The budget request contained no funds to procure vibratory 
self-propelled rollers. The vibratory self-propelled roller is 
a commercial compacting vehicle used to support construction of 
airfields, logistic areas, and roads required to deploy and 
sustain Army forces.
    The committee notes that the last major procurement of this 
equipment occurred in the early 1980s and that its 22-year 
average age, combined with increased deployments, has reduced 
its readiness ratings to unsatisfactory levels. The committee 
also notes that the Army Chief of Staff identified the 
replacement of vibratory self-propelled rollers for both the 
active and reserve components as a fiscal year 2000 unfunded 
priority.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.3 
million to procure additional vibratory self-propelled rollers: 
$5.3 million for active Army units, and $5.0 million for Army 
Reserve units.

Wheel-mounted 25-ton crane

    The budget request contained $12.1 million to procure 47 
wheel-mounted, 25-ton all-terrain cranes (ATECs), but no ATECs 
were requested for the Army Reserve (AR).
    The ATEC is a multi-use, state-of-the-art, commercial all-
terrain crane used for engineer construction excavation, 
lifting and loading general supplies and materiel, and bridging 
movement. The ATEC replaces three existing cranes, which range 
in age from 19 to 30 years old and suffer from low operational 
readiness rates and high operations and support costs with a 
single, state-of-the-art unit that exceeds all three obsolete 
cranes' capabilities and mobility characteristics.
    The committee notes the importance of ATECs in fulfilling 
Army Reserve combat support and combat service support mission 
requirements and recommends $20.1 million, an increase of $8.0 
million to procure ATECs for the Army Reserve.

            Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $1,169.0 million for Chemical 
Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army for fiscal year 2000. 
The committee recommends authorization of no funds for fiscal 
year 2000. 


                        Item of Special Interest


Chemical agents and munitions destruction

    The budget request contained $1,169.0 million for Chemical 
Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army.
    Section 1412(f) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 1986 (Public Law 99-145) requires that funds 
for the destruction of the U.S. stockpile of lethal chemical 
agents and munitions, including funds for military construction 
projects necessary to carrying out the demilitarization 
program, shall be set forth in the budget of the Department of 
Defense as a separate program and shall not be included in the 
budget accounts for any military department.
    The committee reaffirms its belief that funds for the 
chemical demilitarization program must be authorized and 
appropriated in a defense-wide budget account in order to 
emphasize that destruction of the chemical weapons stockpile is 
a national issue, which affects all of the Department of 
Defense, not just a single military service. Section 1412(f) 
was intended to keep this funding separate in order to prevent 
it from being subject to internal service budget priorities and 
to avoid artificially inflating the budgets of any of the 
military departments. The committee believes that the reasoning 
behind the legislative mandate was sound in 1986, when the 
estimated life cycles cost of the chemical stockpile 
demilitarization program was approximately $1.5 billion, and is 
even more valid today, when the estimated cost of the program 
has grown almost ten-fold.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends no funding for 
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army, a decrease of 
$1,169.0 million. The committee recommends an increase of 
$1,012.0 million for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, 
Defense.

                       Aircraft Procurement, Navy


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $8,228.7 million for Aircraft 
Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends 
authorization of $8,804.1 million for fiscal year 2000.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for 
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless 
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and 
based on affordability considerations. 


                         Items of Special Interest


CH-60S

    The budget request contained $208.5 million for 13 CH-60S 
helicopters and $73.8 million for advance procurement of 18 CH-
60S helicopters in fiscal year 2001.
    The CH-60S replaces the H-46, H-1, H-3, and HH-60 
helicopters, which meet combat support taskings for vertical 
replenishment, cargo and personnel transfer, medical 
evacuation, and search and rescue. The committee notes that the 
Chief of Naval Operations included additional CH-60S 
helicopters in his unfunded priority list for fiscal year 2000, 
of which two would be assigned to the Naval Reserve.
    Consequently, the committee recommends $246.5 million, an 
increase of $38.0 million for two additional CH-60S helicopters 
for the Naval Reserve.

Common data link (CDL)

    The budget request contained $28.8 million for 
modifications to special project aircraft, of which $2.0 
million was included for the CDL.
    The CDL, consisting of aircraft and ground terminals, 
allows special project P-3 aircraft to transfer data between 
shore- and sea-based intelligence communication systems. The 
committee understands that the Navy requires two ground 
terminals and all four special project P-3 aircraft to be 
configured with the CDL, but the budget request included 
sufficient funding for only one ground terminal and 
installation of equipment on two aircraft.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $30.8 million, an 
increase of $2.0 million for one additional CDL ground terminal 
and to procure and install the CDL equipment on the remaining 
two special project P-3 aircraft.

Common ground equipment

    The budget request contained $413.7 million for common 
ground equipment.
    The committee notes an approximately 30 percent increase in 
the budget request for common ground equipment when compared to 
previous and future years. The committee also notes that cost, 
schedule, and contractor data is not provided in the 
Department's budget justification material for such equipment. 
Based on the information provided, the committee believes that 
the request exceeds requirements by $20.0 million and, 
therefore, recommends $393.7 million, a decrease of $20 
million.

E-2 modifications

    The budget request contained $28.2 million for E-2 
modifications, but included no funds to upgrade the E-2C 
aircraft fleet to the Hawkeye 2000 configuration.
    The Hawkeye 2000 modification upgrades the E-2C aircraft 
with satellite communications; a commercial-off-the-shelf, 
high-capacity mission computer and associated workstations; and 
cooperative engagement capability. The committee understands 
that this modification will provide the E-2C fleet with a 
quantum leap in situational awareness and fleet-wide 
connectivity and that two aircraft are available to accept this 
modification in fiscal year 2000.
    Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $45.0 
million: $15.0 million for non-recurring engineering and $30.0 
million for the modification of two aircraft to the Hawkeye 
2000 configuration.

EA-6B modifications

    The budget request contained $161.0 million for EA-6B 
modifications, but included no funds for the band 9/10 
transmitter/receiver upgrade.
    The band 9/10 transmitter/receiver upgrade is designed to 
counter the high-frequency radar techniques of a new family of 
electronic threats. In recognition of this emerging 
requirement, the committee recommended an increase of $39.0 
million for fiscal year 1999 and the Congress appropriated 
$20.0 million for this purpose. Additionally, the committee 
notes that the Department has an inventory objective of 196 
band 9/10 transmitter/receiver systems but currently plans to 
procure only 120. The committee understands that the existing 
band 9 transmitter is based on 1960's technology and that the 
cost to maintain these systems through 2015 is approximately 
$25.0 million.
    Consistent with its previous actions, the committee 
recommends $206.0 million, an increase of $45.0 million to 
procure additional band 9/10 transmitter/receivers for the EA-
6B.

F-18 series modifications

    The budget request contained $308.8 million for F-18 series 
modifications, of which $35.1 million was included for 
engineering change proposal (ECP)-583 kits to modify four 
Marine Corps F/A-18A aircraft.
    The ECP-583 modification kit upgrades the avionics and 
weapons capability of the F/A-18A to the same capability as the 
newer F/A-18C. Without this capability, the F/A-18A cannot 
autonomously deliver precision-guided munitions or employ the 
AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile. Despite the 
fact that the Marine Corps has a requirement to upgrade 76 of 
its F/A-18As with this modification, the Department only 
budgeted to upgrade 24 aircraft in its Future Years Defense 
Program.
    Since the Commandant of the Marine Corps identified ECP-583 
among his highest unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2000, the 
committee recommends an increase of $63.0 million to procure 14 
additional upgrade kits: 7 for the active and 7 for the reserve 
components.

F/A-18E/F

    The budget request contained $2,692.0 million for 36 F/A-
18E/F aircraft, and $162.2 million for advance procurement of 
42 aircraft in fiscal year 2001. The committee notes that the 
36 aircraft requested would begin a five-year, 222 aircraft 
multiyear procurement through fiscal year 2004 which is 
projected to cost 7.4 percent less than annual procurement of 
these aircraft.
    During the past two years, the committee has expressed its 
concerns with the F/A-18E/F program due to its higher cost for 
a relatively small capability increase when compared to the 
existing F/A-18C/D aircraft. As a result of prior year 
testimony by the Department's Director of Operational Test and 
Evaluation, the committee has also expressed concern that the 
final production configuration may not be determined until the 
completion of the aircraft's operational evaluation in October 
1999 and that deficiencies in survivablility and radar jamming 
systems may not be corrected until after full-rate production 
begins. However, the committee supports the Navy's requirement 
to replace its aging fighter attack aircraft fleet and believes 
that the Department's proposed multiyear procurement should 
proceed if the aircraft demonstrates that it meets key 
performance parameters and requirements for effectiveness and 
suitability upon completion of the operational evaluation and 
can be procured at the Department's projected 7.4 percent 
multiyear contract cost savings.
    Consequently, the committee recommends a provision (Section 
121) that would limit the Secretary of the Navy's authority to 
enter into the multiyear contract until the Secretary of 
Defense certifies that the results of the aircraft's 
operational test and evaluation meet both key performance 
parameters and requirements for operational effectiveness and 
suitability and that the multiyear procurement contract cost is 
at least 7.4 percent less than procurement of the same number 
of aircraft would be through annually funded contracts. Since 
the committee understands that the five-year multiyear contract 
award date is scheduled for April 2000, it believes that the 
Department will be afforded ample time to review and assess the 
results of the F/A-18E/F's operational evaluation prior to the 
Secretary's certification to the congressional defense 
committees.

Joint primary air training system (JPATS)

    The budget request contained $44.8 million for 8 T-6A 
aircraft and associated ground training systems, and $9.6 
million for advance procurement of 24 aircraft in fiscal year 
2001.
    The JPATS, consisting of the T-6A aircraft and a ground-
based training system, will be used by both the Navy and Air 
Force for primary pilot training. The committee notes that the 
Navy has budgeted $1.0 million for engineering change orders 
(ECO), but the Air Force included no funds for this purpose. 
Since the Navy and Air Force T-6A are the same aircraft, the 
committee does not understand how one service's aircraft 
requires ECOs and the other's does not.
    Consequently, the committee recommends $43.8 million, a 
decrease of $1.0 million.

KC-130J

    The budget request contained $12.3 million for KC-130J 
support costs, but included no funds for procurement of KC-130J 
aircraft.
    The KC-130J is a tactical transport aircraft that also 
serves as a tanker for both helicopters and tactical fighters. 
The KC-130J replaces the Marine Corps' existing KC-130F, R, and 
T model aircraft, providing a 40 percent increase in range, a 
25 percent higher cruise ceiling, a 21 percent increase in 
maximum speed, and a 41 percent decrease in take-off distance 
over the existing older models.
    The Marine Corps currently has an inventory of 35 KC-130Fs, 
14 KC-130Rs, and 28 KC-130Ts. The KC-130F, which was procured 
between 1960 and 1962, is the oldest aircraft in the inventory 
and is approaching the end of its service life. The committee 
understands that a December 1998 assessment of the KC-130F 
fleet revealed that, unless procurement of KC-130Js is 
accelerated or a comprehensive and costly service life 
extension is undertaken, an inventory shortfall of 15 aircraft 
may occur as early as 2001.
    The committee recommended an increase of two KC-130Js in 
fiscal year 1999 and notes that additional KC-130J aircraft is 
the Commandant of the Marine Corps' number two unfunded 
aviation procurement priority for fiscal year 2000.
    Therefore, consistent with its prior actions and the 
Commandant's priorities, the committee recommends $264.3 
million, an increase of $252.0 million for four KC-130J 
aircraft.

Lightweight environmentally sealed parachute assembly (LESPA)

    The budget request contained no funds for the LESPA.
    Due to its longer repack cycle and extended service life, 
the committee continues to believe that the Navy will realize 
substantial life cycle cost savings by procuring LESPA, as 
compared to the use of existing parachutes. Accordingly, the 
committee strongly supports the LESPA to replace old parachutes 
in the P-3 and E-2C aircraft.
    Consistent with its previous actions, the committee 
recommends $10.0 million to procure additional LESPAs: $5.0 
million for the P-3 and $5.0 million for the E-2C.

MV-22

    The budget request contained $796.4 million to procure 10 
MV-22 tiltrotor aircraft and $71.0 million for advance 
procurement of 16 aircraft in fiscal year 2001.
    The committee continues to support accelerated MV-22 
procurement and endorses the Quadrennial Defense Review's (QDR) 
recognition of the urgent need to replace the Marine Corps' 
aging fleet of Vietnam-era CH-46 medium lift helicopters. The 
committee notes that the procurement of additional MV-22 
aircraft in fiscal year 2000 is the Commandant of the Marine 
Corps' highest unfunded aviation procurement priority.
    Therefore, consistent with its prior actions, the QDR's 
findings, and the Commandant's priorities, the committee 
recommends $856.4 million, an increase of $60.0 million to 
procure one additional MV-22 aircraft.

P-3 series modifications

    The budget request contained $276.2 million for P-3 series 
modifications, of which $106.0 million was included for six 
anti-surface warfare improvement program (AIP) kits.
    The AIP improves the P-3's communications, survivability, 
and over-the-horizon targeting capabilities through the 
installation of commercial-off-the-shelf components. The 
committee understands that the Navy's operational objective is 
56 AIP-configured aircraft by fiscal year 2000 but notes that 
only 44, including the six requested in fiscal year 2000, have 
been funded. The committee also notes that the Chief of Naval 
Operations (CNO) has included additional AIP kits among his 
highest unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2000.
    To reduce the Navy's shortfall and in consonance with the 
CNO's priorities, the committee recommends an increase of $70.0 
million for an additional five AIP kits.

T-45 training system (TS)

    The budget request contained $325.5 million for 15 T-45 
aircraft and associated ground training systems, and $9.6 
million for advance procurement of 15 aircraft in fiscal year 
2001.
    The T-45TS, consisting of the T-45 aircraft and ground-
based training, replaces the Navy's TA-4J and T-2C as advanced 
pilot training aircraft.
    The committee supports the T-45TS but notes unexplained 
cost growth for engineering change orders. Consequently, the 
committee recommends $323.5 million, a decrease of $2.0 
million.

UC-35

    The budget request contained no funds for the UC-35.
    The UC-35 is a long-range medium-lift operational support 
aircraft. The committee understands that the Future Years 
Defense Program includes procurement of three UC-35s in fiscal 
years 2001 and 2002 to replace older CT-39s. However, the 
committee further understands that, since submission of the 
budget request, the need to replace the CT-39 has been 
accelerated because two of the Marine Corps' CT-39s have been 
transferred to the Navy for Undergraduate Naval Flight Officer 
training and the third aircraft is approaching the end of its 
service life.
    Since the Commandant of the Marine Corps has included three 
UC-35s among his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2000, the 
committee recommends $18.0 million to procure these aircraft.

                       Weapons Procurement, Navy


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $1,357.4 million for Weapons 
Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends 
authorization of $1,764.7 million for fiscal year 2000.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for 
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless 
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and 
based on affordability considerations. 


                        Items of Special Interest


Aerial targets

    The budget request contained $21.2 million for aerial 
targets, but included no funds for the BQM-74.
    The BQM-74 is a practice aerial target designed to 
replicate anti-ship cruise missiles, and the committee 
understands that, since entering the Navy's inventory, it has 
satisfied over 80 percent of missions requiring high-speed 
aerial targets. While the Department has informed the committee 
that its inventory objective for BQM-74 targets is 240 at the 
end of each fiscal year in the Future Years Defense Program, no 
future BQM-74 targets have been budgeted. The committee is 
concerned that without BQM-74s, adequate crew training and 
weapons system tests will not be possible. Therefore, the 
committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million to procure 
BQM-74 targets.
    The committee notes $2.1 million of unexplained government 
costs for other aerial targets and recommends a decrease of 
this amount.
    In total, the committee recommends $44.1 million for aerial 
targets, an increase of $22.9 million.

Evolved seasparrow missile (ESSM)

    The budget request contained $11.7 million for the ESSM, of 
which $1.1 million was included for fleet support and 
integrated logistics support (ILS).
    The ESSM program is a cooperative effort among 10 North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization nations to develop and produce an 
improved version of the Navy's shipboard ``RIM-7P'' surface-to-
air missile. The committee notes that production of the 
missiles for which funds were appropriated in fiscal year 1999 
has been delayed due to software problems and further notes 
that no missiles are planned for production in fiscal year 
2000.
    Consequently, the committee believes that no funds are 
required for fleet support and ILS and recommends $10.6 
million, a decrease of $1.1 million.

Hellfire II missile

    The budget request contained no funds for Hellfire II 
missiles.
    The Hellfire II missile is a laser-guided, anti-armor and 
anti-ship weapon used by the Marine Corps on the AH-1W 
helicopter and by the Navy on the SH-60B helicopter. The 
committee notes that, despite additional funding provided by 
Congress in fiscal year 1998, the Department has still not met 
its inventory requirement for these missiles. Consequently, the 
Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) has included procurement of 750 
Hellfire II missiles among his unfunded priorities for fiscal 
year 2000.
    The committee supports the CNO's request and recommends an 
increase of $52.0 million to procure 750 Hellfire II missiles.

Joint stand-off weapon (JSOW)

    The Navy budget request contained $154.9 million for 615 
JSOWs, and the Air Force budget request contained $80.0 million 
for 193 JSOWs.
    The JSOW is an air-to-ground glide weapon that uses the 
global positioning system and an inertial navigation system for 
its precision guidance and can be launched outside the range of 
most target-area surface-to-air threat systems. The committee 
understands that the JSOW performed flawlessly on its first 17 
combat deliveries in the first half of fiscal year 1999 during 
Operation Southern Watch in Southwest Asia. As a result of its 
success rate, the committee also understands that current JSOW 
demand for both the European Operation Allied Force and the 
Southwest Asian Operation Southern Watch combat operations 
exceeds supply.
    Consequently, the committee recommends $229.9 million for 
the Navy, an increase of $75.0 million for 401 JSOWs, and 
$115.0 million for the Air Force, an increase of $35.0 million 
for 207 JSOWs.

Rolling airframe missile

    The budget request contained $45.4 million for 90 rolling 
airframe missiles (RAM). The RAM is a lightweight ship self-
defense system designed to engage anti-ship missiles.
    The committee notes unexplained cost growth for component 
improvement, government in-house engineering, and production 
acceptance. Consequently, the committee recommends $44.4 
million, a decrease of $1.0 million.

Standard missile

    The budget request contained $198.9 million for Standard 
missiles, of which $45.9 million was included for 75 Block IIIB 
missiles, $43.6 million for 16 Block IVA missiles, and $93.5 
million for procurement support costs.
    The Standard missile is a surface-to-air missile employed 
on AEGIS cruisers and destroyers. The Block III series missiles 
have improved homing and guidance mechanisms, while the Block 
IVA missile is upgraded with a new booster for better range and 
maneuverability and would add a near-term capability against 
theater ballistic missiles.
    Subsequent to submission of the budget request, the 
committee has learned that technical problems with the 
development of the Block IVA missile have resulted in testing 
delays. The committee understands that, as a result of these 
delays, development and operational evaluation of the Block IVA 
will not be complete until early in fiscal year 2001. Since 
procurement of the Block IVA missile will not occur before 
fiscal year 2001, the committee recommends no funds for this 
program, a decrease of $43.6 million. Elsewhere in this report, 
the committee recommends an increase for Block IVA missile 
engineering and manufacturing development.
    The committee notes, however, that the Chief of Naval 
Operations has included additional Block IIIB missiles among 
his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2000. Accordingly, the 
committee recommends an increase of $19.0 million for 27 
additional Block IIIB missiles.
    The committee also notes a 39 percent increase in 
procurement support costs from fiscal year 1999 appropriated 
levels, despite the fact that the total number of missiles to 
be procured decreases. Therefore, the committee recommends a 
reduction of $14.4 million.
    In total, the committee recommends a decrease of $39.0 
million for the Standard missile.

Tomahawk missiles

    The budget request contained $50.9 million for the 
remanufacture of 148 Block II Tomahawk land attack missiles 
(TLAM) to the Block III configuration, but included no funds to 
remanufacture Tomahawk anti-ship missiles (TASM) to the TLAM 
Block III configuration or to re-start TLAM Block III missile 
production.
    The Tomahawk missile is a long range, precision strike 
cruise missile launched from surface ships or submarines and is 
produced in both TASM or TLAM versions for conventional 
warfare. The TLAM Block III, the most current and the most 
sought-after version by theater commanders-in-chief, has 
increased range and accuracy and involves decreased planning 
time compared to the earlier TLAM block II configuration. In 
the first half of fiscal year 1999, over 500 TLAMs have been 
expended in Southwest Asia and European combat operations, 
substantially reducing the TLAM inventory below required 
levels.
    As a result of the TLAM shortage, the Department requested 
$421.2 million in fiscal year 1999 emergency supplemental 
appropriations for the remanufacture of 424 Block II TLAMs and 
200 TASMs to the Block III configuration. Despite this 
increase, the committee has learned that Tomahawk inventory 
requirements will still not be met in the Future Years Defense 
Program.
    Consequently, the committee recommends $350.9 million, an 
increase of $300.0 million. Of this amount, $260.8 million is 
for the remanufacture of 326 TASMs to the TLAM Block III 
configuration, $40.0 million is for non-recurring costs to re-
start the TLAM Block III production line, and $50.1 million is 
for the procurement of new production TLAM Block III missiles.

               Ammunition Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $484.9 million for Ammunition 
Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps in fiscal year 2000. The 
committee recommends authorization of $612.9 million for fiscal 
year 2000.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for 
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless 
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and 
based on affordability considerations. 


                        Items of Special Interest


Navy ammunition

    The budget request contained $328.7 million for procurement 
of ammunition. The committee recommends $381.7 million, an 
increase of $53.0 million to procure additional Joint Direct 
Attack Munitions which were among the top unfunded priorities 
of the Chief of Naval Operations for fiscal year 2000:

                        [In millions of dollars]

JDAM..............................................................  48.0
MJU-52 BOL IR.....................................................   5.0

Marine Corps ammunition

    The budget request contained $156.2 million for procurement 
of ammunition. The committee recommends $231.2 million, an 
increase of $75.0 million for the following types of 
ammunition, which are among the top unfunded priorities of the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps for fiscal year 2000:

                        [In millions of dollars]

5.56mm, all types.................................................   9.0
7.62mm, all types.................................................   5.0
Linear charges, all types.........................................  10.0
.50 Caliber.......................................................   4.0
40mm, all types...................................................   1.3
60mm, all types...................................................   4.0
CTG 25mm, all types...............................................   8.2
Rocket, 83mm Dual Mode HE.........................................  14.0
Artillery, all types..............................................   8.0
Fuze, Hand Grenade, practice......................................   3.0
Charge, Demolition Assembly.......................................   7.2
Items less than $5.0 million......................................   1.3

                   Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $6,678.5 million for 
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy in fiscal year 2000. The 
committee recommends authorization of $6,687.2 million for 
fiscal year 2000.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for 
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless 
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and 
based on affordability considerations. 


                        Items of Special Interest


Attack submarine force level

    Although a baseline force of 50 nuclear powered attack 
submarines (SSNs) was established in the 1997 Quadrennial 
Defense Review, Department of the Navy witnesses testified in 
1998 that theater Commanders-in-Chief (CINC) requirements for 
SSNs, including aircraft carrier battlegroup deployments, 
Arctic operations, special forces missions, and independent 
presence missions dictate a force of 72 SSNs. Near term fiscal 
constraints make such a force unaffordable.
    Early in the next century, LOS ANGELES Class SSNs, procured 
at relatively high rates of two to four boats per year during 
the 1980s, will reach the end of their service lives and begin 
to leave the fleet in large numbers. The low SSN procurement 
rate between 1990 and 2005, if not redressed, will drive the 
SSN force level below 50 boats. Moreover, by 2015 significant 
military challenges from modernized military forces and the 
proliferation of advanced military weapons could confront our 
armed forces. This situation may require a Navy that has a 
larger SSN force. The committee is concerned that potential 
future threats to U.S. national security interests warrant the 
establishment of an absolute minimum SSN force level of 50 
boats and believes the SSN procurement rates in the Future 
Years Defense Program must be increased and maintained at a 
rate to ensure that this minimum force level is sustained.

LHD-8 amphibious assault ship

    The budget request contained no funds for procurement of a 
Wasp-class (LHD) amphibious assault ship.
    The committee understands that the Navy intends to procure 
the LHD-8 amphibious assault ship in fiscal year 2005 but has 
yet to decide whether or not to conduct a service life 
extension program (SLEP) to the older Tarawa-class (LHA) 
amphibious assault ships in the fleet. Should the Navy choose 
to SLEP the LHA ships, it could cost almost $1.0 billion per 
ship and add only 15 years to the service life of each ship. An 
alternative to the LHA SLEP may be the new construction of LHD-
class amphibious assault ships. The LHD is larger than the LHA 
and in most respects provides more capability. The committee 
understands that, with some modifications, the LHD could meet 
or exceed the capabilities of the LHA in all regards. The 
committee believes that avoiding a break in the production of 
LHD-class ships preserves the option of procuring these vessels 
as an alternative to an LHD SLEP until the Navy determines 
which option is more cost-effective.
    Therefore, to preserve this option, the committee 
recommends an additional $15.0 million for advance procurement 
of long lead materials for the construction of LHD-8.

Strategic sealift

    The budget request contained no funds for the acquisition 
of new sealift ships in the National Defense Sealift Fund.
    The committee is concerned that the Maritime Prepositioning 
Force (Enhanced) MPF(E) conversion program that was intended to 
provide the Marine Corps with three additional prepositioning 
ships by purchasing and converting used foreign vessels has 
proven to be more costly than originally envisioned. Since 
there are insufficient funds to complete all of the planned 
conversions and the Marine Corps prepositioning requirement has 
not been reduced, the committee continues to believe that the 
most sensible way to address the shortfall is to convert a 
Large Medium Speed Roll-on/Roll-off (LMSR) vessel to the Marine 
Corps-required configuration.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $80.0 
million in the National Defense Sealift Fund: $50.0 million for 
the advance procurement of long lead components for the 
construction of an additional LMSR and $30.0 million for 
modification of an existing LMSR for the Marine Corps mission.

                        Other Procurement, Navy


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $4,100.1 million for Other 
Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends 
authorization of $4,260.4 million for fiscal year 2000.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for 
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless 
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and 
based on affordability considerations. 


                            Items of Special Interest


AN/BPS-16 submarine navigation radar upgrade

    The budget request contained no funds for upgrading the AN/
BPS-16 submarine navigation radar to make it compliant with the 
Navy's electronic chart display information systems (ECDIS-N). 
ECDIS-N compliance will eliminate the requirement for paper 
navigational charts on submarines by upgrading radar navigation 
systems with computer-based charts designed to international 
commercial standards.
    The committee added $9.0 million in fiscal year 1999 to 
upgrade AN/BPS-15(H) submarine radar systems to the ECDIS-N 
standard. The committee continues to support the ECDIS-N 
compliance and recommends an increase of $8.0 million to 
provide for the procurement and installation of nine ship sets 
of equipment to upgrade the AN/BPS-16 submarine navigation 
radar.

AN/SPS-73 (V) surface search radar

    The budget request contained $1.1 million for the 
procurement and installation of AN/SPS-73 (V) surface search 
radars.
    The committee understands that the Navy currently operates 
several different surface search radar variants as well as 
commercial navigational radars and plans to replace these 
systems with the AN/SPS-73 (V) surface search radar, a 
commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) system, in order to improve 
performance and standardize logistics and maintenance 
requirements. The committee supports the accelerated adoption 
of a standard COTS surface search radar and believes it can be 
expected to greatly reduce total ownership costs to the Navy.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $15.1 million, an 
increase of $14.0 million for necessary non-recurring combat 
systems integration costs and to procure and install additional 
AN/SPS-73 (V) surface search radars.

AN/USC-42 mini-demand assigned multiple access (DAMA) ultra-high 
        frequency (UHF) satellite communications (SATCOM) terminals

    The budget request contained $237.7 million for SATCOM ship 
terminals, but included no funds for AN/USC-42 mini-DAMA UHF 
SATCOM terminals.
    The AN/USC-42 mini-DAMA terminal is a commercial-off-the-
shelf variant of the shipboard DAMA transceiver miniaturized 
for submarine application. It provides two-way satellite 
encrypted voice and data communications in a much smaller 
package than other DAMA and non-DAMA terminals.
    The committee understands that DAMA terminals may provide 
up to four times more UHF satellite channel capacity than 
conventional terminals through multiplexing, thereby providing 
increased utilization of existing satellite channels and 
reducing the requirement for additional satellites. The 
committee further understands that the Navy plans no additional 
procurement of AN/USC-42 mini-DAMA UHF SATCOM terminals even 
though there remains a shortfall of these units.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $247.7 million, an 
increase of $10.0 million to procure additional mini-DAMA UHF 
SATCOM terminals and associated spares.

Computer aided submode training (CAST) lesson authoring system (CLASS)

    The budget request contained $86.7 million for AEGIS 
support equipment, but included no funds for CLASS to be 
expanded to ships or systems other than AN/UYQ-70-equipped 
AEGIS destroyers.
    CLASS is a commercial-off-the-shelf training system that 
operates with the Navy's existing CAST system, but adds multi-
media capabilities such as video, audio, three-dimensional 
graphics, animation, and interactive simulations. The committee 
understands that the CLASS is being installed on AN/UYQ-70-
equipped AEGIS destroyers, but the Navy does not plan to 
backfit this system on other AEGIS-equipped platforms or to 
expand it to other systems. The committee supports the 
incorporation of effective commercial training technologies 
into Navy warships and believes that the CLASS can provide 
flexible low-cost training capabilities to all AEGIS class 
ships.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $94.7 million for 
AEGIS support equipment, an increase of $8.0 million for the 
purpose of backfitting CLASS on non-AN/UYQ-70-equipped AEGIS 
cruisers and destroyers and to expand this technology to other 
systems such as cooperative engagement capability, joint 
maritime command information system, and global command and 
control system.

Firefighting equipment

    The budget request contained $17.0 million for fire 
fighting equipment, of which $12.0 million was included for the 
procurement and installation of the Fire Fighters Breathers 
Apparatus (FFBA).
    The FFBA is a self-contained, compressed air breathing 
device that is compatible with fire fighter protective wear, 
helmet and other damage control equipment. The committee 
understands that it is a safer system that provides breathable 
air to the fire fighter for a longer period of time than the 
current, less capable oxygen breathing apparatus (OBA).
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $32.0 million, an 
increase of $15.0 million to accelerate the replacement of 
existing OBA systems with the FFBA.

Joint engineering data management and information control system 
        (JEDMICS)

    The budget request contained no funds for JEDMICS, a 
Department of Defense-wide repository for engineering drawings 
and related text.
    The committee believes that the transfer of unclassified 
sensitive information contained in the JEDMICS database via the 
Internet may lead to unacceptable national security risks and 
is aware that, in order to provide better security for the 
system, the program office has identified DiamondTEK, a 
commercial-off-the-shelf network security product as the 
solution to the problem.
    The committee fully supports the integration of DiamondTEK 
technology into JEDMICS and recommends an increase of $12.0 
million for this purpose.

Minesweeping equipment

    The budget request contained $16.3 million for minesweeping 
equipment, of which $900 thousand was included for procurement 
of the versatile mine exercise system (VEMS). The budget 
request included no funds for procurement of the Dyad mine 
countermeasures system.
    The VEMS is a simulation system that provides realistic 
training for fleet and mine countermeasures forces. The system 
also aids in evaluating the effectiveness of mine warfare 
tactics and provides a quantitative assessment of equipment and 
ship vulnerability. The committee understands that the Navy has 
not met its inventory objective for the VEMS.
    The Dyad mine countermeasures system is an influence 
minesweeping system towed behind a small craft that can mimic 
the magnetic and acoustic signature of a larger vessel to clear 
a path through a minefield for that vessel. The committee 
understands that the Navy evaluated this system in 1996 and 
favorably reported its potential for port breakout minesweeping 
missions.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $24.9 million for 
minesweeping equipment, an increase of $4.1 million to procure 
additional VEMS and an increase of $4.5 million to procure Dyad 
countermeasures systems.

Mobile remote emitter simulator (MRES)

    The budget request contained $12.2 million for weapons 
range support but included no funds to procure MRES systems.
    The MRES is a ground-based, high-power electronic warfare 
threat simulator that is capable of tracking fast-moving 
tactical aircraft, surface ships and other signal collection 
platforms. The committee believes that the Navy currently 
operates outdated electronic simulators that are incapable of 
tracking fast-moving tactical aircraft and do not provide high 
fidelity threat representations so critical for realistic 
training.
    Therefore, to improve the quality and availability of 
electronic warfare threat training, the committee recommends 
$20.2 million, an increase of $8.0 million to procure and 
install one MRES system.

Other training equipment

    The budget request contained $44.2 million for other 
training equipment, of which $27.9 million was included to 
procure Battle Force Tactical Training (BFTT) equipment.
    The BFTT system allows surface combatants, submarines and 
aircraft carriers to conduct realistic, coordinated training 
scenarios using ownship equipment instead of shore-based 
training simulators. The committee understands that while BFTT 
is a valuable training system, it currently lacks an Air 
Traffic Control (ATC) training capability for aircraft carriers 
and a complete BFTT Electronic Warfare Trainer (BEWT) 
interface.
    Therefore, in order to improve the utility of the BFTT 
system and to provide realistic low-cost ATC and electronic 
warfare training, the committee recommends $56.2 million, an 
increase of $12.0 million: $7.0 million for the procurement and 
installation of 12 ATC trainers and $5.0 million to complete 
the procurement of 30 BEWT systems.

Shipboard display emulator (SDE) equipment

    The budget request contained no funds for SDE equipment for 
Perry and Spruance class surface combatants and older AEGIS 
class ships not equipped with the Vertical Launching System.
    The committee understands that older surface combatants use 
obsolete display systems that are no longer in production and 
are increasingly more difficult to maintain due to the scarcity 
of repair parts. Consequently, the committee believes that 
these ships, which constitute over one quarter of the Navy's 
surface combatant force and are expected to remain in active 
service for several years, should be upgraded with modern, 
supportable display systems.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 
million to procure and install modern state-of-the-art SDE 
equipment in older surface combatants.

Sonobuoys

    The budget request contained $48.0 million for the 
procurement of sonobuoys, including the AN/SSQ-36, AN/SSQ-53E, 
AN/SSQ-57, AN/SSQ-62E, AN/SSQ-101, and Signal Underwater Sound 
buoys.
    The committee notes that the Navy's peacetime annual 
requirement for sonobuoys is approximately 100,000 units, but 
that the budget request only funds approximately 50,000 
sonobuoys of all types. Despite the end of the Cold War, anti-
submarine warfare remains a primary mission of the Navy that 
requires coordinated realistic training of air, surface, and 
submarine units. Such training necessarily consumes large 
numbers of sonobuoys, and the Navy's procurement rate fails to 
meet the annual peacetime requirements.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 
million to address this shortfall, to be distributed as 
follows: $12.8 million for AN/SSQ-53E, $6.0 million for AN/SSQ-
62E, and $1.2 million for AN/SSQ-101.

Surface sonar support equipment

    The budget request contained no funds for surface sonar 
support equipment.
    The committee understands that the Navy has developed a new 
material and production process for surface ship sonar dome 
windows and that initial testing on FFG-7 frigate keel sonar 
domes has thus far validated the expected performance 
improvements. While the FFG-7 application is useful, the 
majority of Navy surface ships that are equipped with hull 
mounted sonars, including DDG-51 and DD-963 class destroyers, 
and CG-47 class cruisers, have bow-mounted sonar domes which 
require more complex sonar dome windows.
    The committee further understands that efforts are underway 
to fabricate a dome made from the new material for installation 
on a DDG-51 destroyer and recommends an increase of $5.0 
million to refine manufacturing processes and reduce production 
costs of the new sonar dome.

WSN-7B ring laser gyro (RLG) and WQN-2 doppler sonar velocity log 
        (DSVL)

    The budget request contained $67.5 million for navigation 
equipment, of which $40.4 million was included for the 
procurement of 43 WSN-7 RLGs, but included no funds for the 
procurement of WQN-2 DSVLs.
    The WSN-7 RLG is the common RLG ship navigation system for 
surface ships and submarines. The WQN-2 has been designated by 
the Navy as the fleet standard speed log to replace obsolete 
and maintenance intensive electro-magnetic speed logs currently 
in service throughout the fleet. The committee added $18.0 
million in fiscal year 1999 to accelerate introduction of these 
systems into the fleet in order to reduce the life cycle costs 
of ship navigational systems and continues to strongly support 
an accelerated program.
    The committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million for 
the procurement and installation of 30 additional WSN-7B RLGs 
to significantly accelerate the replacement of maintenance 
intensive WSN-2 ship conventional gyro navigation systems in 
surface ships. The committee also recommends an increase of 
$10.0 million for the procurement and installation of 30 
additional WQN-2 DSVLs to upgrade ship speed logs concurrent 
with navigation system upgrades.

Undersea warfare support equipment

    The budget request contained $2.6 million for undersea 
warfare support equipment, of which $1.2 million was included 
for procurement of 55 Launched Expendable Acoustic Devices 
(LEADs).
    The committee is concerned that the Navy has not widely 
fielded effective countermeasures against submarine launched 
torpedoes but notes that the LEAD was approved for full 
production in May 1998.
    To address this concern the committee recommends $11.2 
million, an increase of $8.6 million for procurement of 300 
LEADs and two SSTD test beds for large deck ships in order to 
widely disseminate throughout the fleet a capable defense 
against torpedoes.

                       Procurement, Marine Corps


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $1,137.2 million for 
Procurement, Marine Corps in fiscal year 2000. The committee 
recommends authorization of $1,297.5 million for fiscal year 
2000.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for 
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless 
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and 
based on affordability considerations. 


                         Items of Special Interest


155 millimeter (mm) lightweight towed howitzer

    The budget request did not contain funds to procure the 
155mm lightweight towed howitzer.
    The committee notes that, as a result of production delays, 
the 155mm lightweight towed howitzer program was restructured 
and a new prime contractor was selected. Since this 
restructuring, program performance has improved dramatically 
with engineering, testing and schedule milestones being met 
successfully. While litigation pursued by an arsenal union/
industry team against the Army regarding the original 155mm 
lightweight towed howitzer contract award is unfortunate and a 
cause for concern, the committee believes it should not be 
allowed to interfere with other business opportunities for the 
arsenal.
    The committee also believes that arsenals possess valuable 
capabilities that are underutilized, especially in the areas of 
recoil mechanisms, carriages and gun barrels. The committee 
further believes that given the opportunity, arsenals could 
contribute to improved quality and reduced costs for these and 
other components being subcontracted for the restructured 155mm 
lightweight howitzer program.
    Accordingly, the committee expects the Army to establish a 
process by which arsenals shall be afforded an opportunity to 
submit challenge proposals for appropriate artillery and tank 
system components to be considered for incorporation into these 
weapons systems.

Body armor

    The budget request contained no funds in Procurement, 
Marine Corps for body armor.
    In previous years, the committee noted the effectiveness of 
the all-torso body armor used during Operation Provide Hope in 
Mogadishu, Somalia, and that subsequent analyses have indicated 
that more than 50 percent of all life-threatening wounds 
received in combat could be prevented by using this armor.
    The committee continues to believe that the costs of 
procuring and fielding this type of armor far outweigh the 
medical expenses and loss of human life that would be avoided 
by its employment. Therefore, the committee recommends an 
increase of $5.0 million, for the procurement of all-torso body 
armor.

Communications and electronic infrastructure support

    The budget request contained $81.8 million for 
communications and electronic infrastructure support equipment, 
of which $43.0 million was included for the upgrades to and 
fielding of base telecommunications upgrades.
    For each of the last three years, the Commandant of the 
Marine Corps has designated base telecommunications upgrades to 
the Marine Corps Enterprise Network as his number one non-
aviation unfunded priority.
    Consistent with its past actions to support the Marine 
Corps' demands for transfer of all types of data among its 
bases, the committee recommends $131.8 million, an increase of 
$20.0 million for telecommunications infrastructure upgrades at 
Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, $5.0 million for upgrades at 
Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center Bridgeport, and 
$25.0 million for upgrades at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar.

Marine Corps air ground task force (MAGTF) command, control, 
        communications, computers, and intelligence (C4I) modification 
        kits

    The budget request contained $13.8 million for 
modifications to previously fielded MAGTF C4I equipment, of 
which $5.0 million was included to procure product improvements 
for the mobile electronic warfare support system (MEWSS).
    The MEWSS is an electronic warfare equipment suite included 
in a variant of the Light Armored Vehicle (LAV). The MEWSS 
product improvement program (PIP) replaces obsolete components 
with upgrades that can detect, locate, and demodulate advanced 
adversary communications.
    The committee notes that the Army and the Marine Corps were 
working together to field a joint, seamless ground signals 
intelligence collection capability. The MEWSS PIP was the 
Marine Corps' system, and the ground based common sensor (GBCS) 
was the Army's. However, the Army terminated its portion of the 
program in fiscal year 1998. This action directly impacted the 
MEWSS PIP, resulting in increased costs and delayed fielding. 
The committee understands that the Army has decided to lessen 
the impact of the GBCS termination on the MEWSS by providing 
GBCS residual equipment to the Marine Corps. However, 
modifications to this equipment will be required in order to 
retrofit it into the MEWSS LAV and the Marine Corps did not 
budget for these.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $18.8 million for MAGTF 
C4I modification kits, an increase of $5.0 million to modify 
GBCS sensor systems into the MEWSS LAV.

Material handling equipment

    The budget request contained $50.0 million for the 
procurement of various types of material handling equipment, 
but included no funds for the remanufacture of D7G bulldozers. 
The D7G bulldozer is used throughout Marine Corps combat 
engineer and support units to build airfields, as well as for 
combat clearing and debris excavation.
    The committee notes that the service's bulldozer fleet is 
14 years old and rapidly deteriorating. The committee also 
notes that the D7G remanufacturing program is one of the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps' fiscal year 2000 unfunded 
priorities and that this program will extend the life of 200 
bulldozers for an additional 10 years.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $66.5 million, an 
increase of $16.5 million for D7G bulldozer remanufacturing.

Modification kits (tracked vehicles)

    The budget request contained $22.9 for the procurement of 
various modifications to tracked vehicles, but included no 
funds for upgrading M88A1 recovery vehicles to the more capable 
M88A2 Hercules Improved Recovery Vehicle (IRV) variant.
    The 56-ton M88A1 is capable of towing only vehicles 
weighing less than 60 tons. Consequently, two M88A1s are 
required to safely tow an Abrams tank if it is rendered 
immobile due to combat damage or mechanical failure. The A2 
upgrade includes increased engine horsepower, as well as 
braking, steering, winch, lift, and suspension capabilities 
required to safely recover Abrams tanks and other heavy combat 
systems.
    The committee has recommended an increase for Army IRV 
upgrades elsewhere in this report, and based on the critical 
role that this vehicle will fulfill in future expeditionary 
operations and warfare, the committee also recommends $72.3 
million, an increase of $49.4 million for 24 M88A2 IRV upgrades 
for the Marine Corps.

Night vision equipment

    The budget request contained $9.0 million for the 
procurement of night vision equipment, of which $3.2 million 
was included for the procurement of generation III 25 
millimeter (mm) image intensification tubes, but no funds were 
included to procure AN/PEQ-2 laser Target/Illuminator/Aiming 
Light (TPIAL).
    The committee is aware of the joint Army/Navy/Marine Corps 
program to procure generation III 25mm image intensification 
tubes as replacements for less capable generation II tubes 
fielded in the AN/PVS-4 and AN/TVS-5 night vision goggles and 
notes that the generation III tubes provide a minimum 25 
percent resolution increase. The AN/PEQ-2 TPIAL is a dual 
laser, consisting of highly collimated infrared aiming light 
and infrared target illuminator, which are visible only through 
night vision goggles. These lasers can either be operated 
independently or in combination.
    The committee notes that both generation III 25mm image 
intensification tubes and AN/PEQ-2 laser TPIALs are top 
unfunded priorities of the Commandant of Marine Corps in fiscal 
year 2000. Based on the enhanced operational capability that 
night vision devices provide to combat forces and the 
committee's belief that these devices will provide a pivotal 
``force multiplier'' in future Marine Corps expeditionary 
operations and warfare, the committee recommends $17.5 million, 
an increase of $3.5 million for generation III 25mm image 
intensification tubes and an increase of $5.0 million for AN/
PEQ-2 laser TPIALs.

                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $9,302.1 million for Aircraft 
Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 2000. The committee 
recommends authorization of $9,647.7 million for fiscal year 
2000.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for 
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless 
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and 
based on affordability considerations. 


                         Items of Special Interest


Bomber modernization

    The committee report on H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105-532) 
required the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a bomber 
modernization plan that identified upgrades required for the 
current bomber fleet, a funding profile for these upgrades, and 
a timeline for consideration of the acquisition of a follow-on 
bomber. The plan submitted by the Secretary would sustain the 
current bomber force structure, consisting of B-2, B-1, and B-
52 bombers, through 2037 and would delay any planning for 
procurement of a new bomber until 2013. The committee considers 
this planned force structure is unacceptable.
    Consistent with the March 1998 conclusions of the 
Congressionally-directed Long Range Air Power Panel, the 
committee continues to believe that a replacement bomber will 
be required much sooner than predicted in Air Force bomber 
roadmap. The committee notes that by 2037, on average, B-2 
bombers will have been in service over 40 years, the B-1 over 
50 years, and the B-52 nearly 80 years, with a fleet average of 
over 60 years. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary 
of the Air Force to provide to the House Committee on Armed 
Services and Senate Committee on Armed Services by February 15, 
2000, a conceptual study of a next generation bomber, including 
cost estimates, to be deployed by approximately 2015.

C-17

    The budget request contained $3,080.1 million to procure 15 
C-17 aircraft and $304.9 million for advance procurement of 15 
aircraft in fiscal year 2001. The budget request did not 
include advance procurement funds for a maintenance training 
system (MTS) for the Air National Guard.
    The C-17 MTS is designed to qualify personnel to maintain 
the C-17 aircraft. The committee understands that the Air 
National Guard unit that will receive C-17 aircraft in fiscal 
year 2003 requires an MTS for initial qualification of its 
maintenance personnel prior to the arrival of the aircraft.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $3,083.6 million, an 
increase of $3.5 million for advance procurement of an Air 
National Guard MTS.

C-17A aircraft modifications

    The budget request contained $95.6 million for C-17A 
aircraft modifications, of which $11.9 million was included for 
the electronic flight control system (EFCS) modification.
    The EFCS modification updates the C-17A's flight control 
computers with increased memory and allows for future system 
expansion. The committee supports the EFCS upgrade but notes 
unexplained equipment cost growth for this modification.
    Consequently, the committee recommends $93.5 million for C-
17 modifications, a decrease of $2.1 million for the EFCS 
modification.

C-130J

    The committee notes that the Marine Corps has a clear 
requirement for 51 KC-130J aircraft to replace existing KC-
130F/Rs, many of which are already almost 40 years old. In 
addition, the Air Force has reported a requirement for 150 C-
130J-30s to replace C-130Es delivered in the early 1960s. None, 
however, were included in the budget request, and the Air Force 
currently plans to delay procurement until fiscal year 2002. An 
aircraft production line cannot be simply turned off and on 
without major disruption to the total supplier network across 
the country and the loss of skilled employees it represents. 
Such a shutdown and restart of the C-130J production is 
estimated to cost $500.0 million.
    The committee encourages the Department of Defense to 
include the necessary funds in the President's fiscal year 2001 
budget request for the procurement of both Marine Corps KC-
130Js and Air Force C-130J-30s, in order to meet the 
requirement without the adverse disruption resulting from the 
shutdown and restart of the production line.

C-135 modifications

    The budget request contained $347.1 million for C-135 
modifications, of which $170.7 million was included for the 
compass, radar, and global positioning system modification 
known as PACER CRAG, but included no funds for reengining older 
model KC-135E tanker aircraft.
    The committee has long been a strong supporter of the KC-
135 reengining program and notes that 414 KC-135A/Q/E model 
tankers have been funded to date. The committee also notes its 
past disagreement with the Department's decision to cancel the 
KC-135E reengining modification and has added additional 
funding for such purpose in each of the last several years. 
Consistent with its past actions, the committee recommends an 
increase of $52.0 million for two KC-135E reengining kits.
    The committee also notes excessive cost growth in PACER 
CRAG installation equipment when compared to prior years. 
Consequently, the committee recommends a decrease of $2.1 
million for the PACER CRAG modification.
    In total, the committee recommends an increase of $49.9 
million for these C-135 modifications.

Defense airborne reconnaissance program (DARP)

    The budget request contained $138.4 million for various RC-
135 and U-2 aircraft modifications, but included no funds for 
RC-135 Rivet Joint (RJ) quick reaction capabilities (QRCs) or 
an upgraded U-2 common data link (CDL).
    The RC-135 RJ is a tactical reconnaissance aircraft that 
provides real-time intelligence to combat forces. The QRCs 
consist of new software and hardware processing modifications 
that allow the aircraft and its crews to exploit new adversary 
systems. Since the Air Force Chief of Staff included additional 
funding for these QRCs among his unfunded priorities for fiscal 
year 2000, the committee recommends $13.4 million for these 
modifications.
    The U-2 is a high altitude reconnaissance aircraft, and the 
CDL is its data link to ground stations. The committee 
understands that the U-2's current CDL, designed over 20 years 
ago, has limited jam resistance and is increasingly costly to 
operate and maintain. The committee also understands that an 
upgraded CDL improves jam resistance, is less costly to operate 
and maintain, provides enhanced throughput capacity, and is 
compatible with the Department's existing information 
architecture. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase 
of $5.0 million to upgrade the U-2's CDL.
    In total, the committee recommends $178.1 million for DARP, 
an increase of $39.7 million. Explanations for other increases 
are addressed in the classified annex to this report.

E-8C joint surveillance and target attack radar system (STARS)

    The budget request contained $280.3 million to procure one 
E-8C Joint STARS aircraft, but included no funds for advance 
procurement to continue its production.
    The Department's Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) 
recommended reducing the number of Joint STARS aircraft to be 
procured from 19 to 13 based on the assumption that the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) would select and purchase 
six Joint STARS to meet its requirements for Alliance Ground 
Surveillance (AGS) aircraft. Despite NATO's rejection of the 
Joint STARS as its AGS aircraft in 1998, the Department did not 
change its recommendation nor budget for more than 13 Joint 
STARS aircraft in its fiscal year 1999 budget request. 
Accordingly, the committee recommended $72.0 million in fiscal 
year 1999 for advance procurement of two aircraft, and the 
Congress appropriated $36.0 million for one aircraft.
    While the committee is encouraged that the Department has 
funded the 14th Joint STARS aircraft in its budget request, the 
committee remains concerned that, despite the Joint 
Requirements Oversight Council-validated requirement for 19 
aircraft, the Department once again intends to shut down the E-
8C production line after this aircraft is produced. These 
``low-density, high demand'' aircraft are among the most 
sought-after assets by the regional commanders-in-chief for a 
range of reconnaissance and surveillance operations.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $326.3 million, an 
increase of $46.0 million for advance procurement of one 
additional E-8C Joint STARS aircraft in fiscal year 2001.

F-15 modifications

    The budget request contained $263.5 million for F-15 
modifications, of which $17.6 million was included for 10 
modification kits that convert the F100 engine to the F100-220E 
configuration. However, no funds were included for conversion 
of the Air National Guard's (ANG) F-15A and F-15B aircraft 
engines to the F100-220E configuration.
    Conversion kits for the F100 engine, also known as ``E-
kits'', will provide increased thrust, greater reliability, 
reduced maintenance requirements, and better fuel efficiency. 
The committee understands that, without the E-kit modification, 
the ANG's F-15A/B fleet will be increasingly costly to operate 
and maintain, less safe, and have diminished availability to 
respond to contingency operations.
    Consequently, the committee recommends $313.5 million for 
F-15 modifications, an increase of $50.0 million for upgrading 
for the ANG's F-15A/B aircraft with E-kits.

F-16C

    The budget request contained $252.6 million for 10 F-16C 
aircraft, of which $5.0 million was included for engineering 
change orders (ECOs).
    The F-16C is the Air Force's primary multi-mission fighter 
aircraft. The committee notes that F-16Cs have been delivered 
to the Air Force since fiscal year 1992 and believes that ECOs 
to the aircraft should be minimal at this point in the 
production cycle.
    Consequently, the committee recommends $250.1 million, a 
decrease of $2.5 million.

F-16 improved avionics intermediate shop (IAIS)

    The budget request contained $30.0 million for F-16 post 
production support, of which $10.0 million was included for two 
IAIS systems.
    The F-16 IAIS is a mobile test station used to diagnose and 
repair F-16 avionics problems at deployed locations. Because 
the F-16 IAIS uses fewer people and requires less cargo space 
for transit than the existing avionics intermediate shop, F-16 
units have reported a savings of greater than $450 thousand per 
deployment. The committee understands that 55 F-16 IAISs are 
required, but notes that only 44 have been, or are planned to 
be, procured in the Future Years Defense Program.
    Consequently, the committee recommends $50.0 million, an 
increase of $20.0 million for four F-16 IAIS systems-two for 
active units, and one each for Air National Guard and Air Force 
Reserve units.

F-16 modifications

    The budget request contained $249.5 million for various F-
16 modifications, including $50.0 million to procure 32 
LITENING II precision attack targeting systems (PATS). However, 
the request included no funds for long range fuel tanks or for 
the Digital Terrain System (DTS) upgrade.
    The committee understands that Air National Guard (ANG) F-
16 units are currently restricted from participation in combat 
operations because of their limited capability to perform 
precision strikes. The committee further understands that, due 
to this situation, the ANG Chief has designated procurement of 
additional LITENING II PATS as his number one unfunded priority 
for fiscal year 2000. This system, which consists of a third-
generation forward-looking infrared and a laser spot tracker, 
will allow older ANG F-16s to participate in future Air 
Expeditionary Force deployments in support of theater 
commanders-in-chief precision strike taskings.
    The committee believes the integration of ANG F-16s into 
precision strike operations is essential to the Total Force 
concept and, therefore, recommends $80.0 million for LITENING 
II PATS, an increase of $30.0 million to procure 18 additional 
systems.
    The committee notes that the Congress provided $4.0 million 
in fiscal year 1999 for continued procurement of 600 gallon 
fuel tanks for the F-16. The committee believes that additional 
tanks are required to support testing with different aircraft 
configurations and, therefore, recommends an increase of $4.0 
million for this purpose.
    The DTS is designed to reduce controlled flight into 
terrain mishaps by providing F-16 pilots with a precise 
navigation and a ground collision avoidance capability. The 
committee has strongly supported the DTS upgrade in previous 
fiscal years. The committee is aware that the Air Force has a 
firm requirement for the DTS and is in the process of modifying 
the F-16's operational flight program to accommodate DTS 
integration. However, the committee understands that no funds 
are budgeted to continue this upgrade until fiscal year 2001.
    Consistent with its earlier recommendations and Air Force 
requirements, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 
million to accelerate fielding of the DTS upgrade.
    The committee supports all the modifications for which 
funds were requested but notes unexplained cost growth in the 
following projects: F110 digital engine control; global 
positioning system; mission computer kits; and engineering 
change orders. Consequently, the committee recommends a 
decrease of $7.1 million for these projects.
    In total, the committee recommends $296.4 million for F-16 
modifications, an increase of $46.9 million.

F-22

    The budget request contained $1,575.0 million for 6 F-22 
aircraft and $277.1 million for advance procurement of 10 
aircraft in fiscal year 2001. The budget request also contained 
$1,222.2 million in PE 0604239F for F-22 engineering and 
manufacturing development (EMD).
    The F-22, the Air Force's next-generation air superiority 
fighter aircraft, is currently approximately 80 percent 
complete in the EMD phase of acquisition and low rate initial 
production is planned to begin in fiscal year 2000. The 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (P.L. 
105-85) established a cost limitation for both the EMD and 
procurement phases of the program, which are $18.9 billion for 
EMD and $43.4 billion for procurement.
    Over the past year, the committee has learned that 
potential EMD costs could exceed the cost limitation by $667.0 
million. To retain EMD costs within the cost ceiling, the Air 
Force has identified proposed actions to offset this amount, 
which included the depletion of the contractor's management 
reserve, deferral of external combat stores certification until 
after the F-22 EMD program is complete and reductions to test 
and laboratory infrastructure.
    The committee also notes that the Department's fiscal year 
2000 request for six F-22s has increased by $312.7 million, or 
25 percent, compared to its forecast cost submitted with the 
fiscal year 1999 budget request. The committee understands that 
the Department based its fiscal year 1999 forecast on a cost 
model estimate but the fiscal year 2000 budget request reflects 
negotiated values and actual contractor costs. As a result of 
this increase, the committee also understands that costs for 
aircraft to be procured beyond fiscal year 2000 have been 
planned to cost less so that the Department can procure the 
planned number of aircraft within the cost limitation.
    While the committee continues to support the F-22 aircraft, 
it is disturbed by continuing EMD cost growth; the prospect 
that EMD actions being eliminated or deferred will result in 
higher future costs, increased program risk, or both; and by 
unforeseen increases in procurement costs. Since future budget 
requests for research and development are projected to decrease 
and for procurement are likely to rise only modestly, the 
committee is concerned that future F-22 EMD and procurement 
cost increases could impact other programs, may require a 
reduction to the number of F-22s procured, or eliminate some of 
the aircraft's intended capabilities to remain within cost 
limits. Thus, the committee questions whether the present F-22 
EMD and procurement programs can be completed as planned within 
projected budgets and limitations.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air 
Force to provide a report to the congressional defense 
committees by February 1, 2000, that certifies that F-22 EMD 
and production can remain within the cost limits and that 
testing of the aircraft will be performed in accordance with 
test plans that were in place when the cost limits were 
established. If the Secretary is unable to make such 
certification, he shall inform the committees of the reasons 
therefor and present a revised plan, including new cost 
estimates, for the acquisition of this aircraft.

Predator unmanned aerial vehicle

    The budget request contained $38.0 million for three 
Predator unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and one ground control 
station (GCS).
    The committee notes that the Predator has been flying 
support missions in Bosnia, and now Kosovo, for over three and 
one-half years, logging more than 11,000 total flight hours. 
Because of its importance to theater commanders' intelligence 
needs, a solid production base for this system must be 
continued, attrition reserve vehicles must be maintained, and 
improvements must be made to fully exploit the potential of 
this system. For example, the committee believes the laser 
designator upgrades now being integrated into the aircraft for 
immediate contingency needs should be put into long-term 
production.
    Also, Predator operations are expected to be expanded to 
other theaters and operational areas. However, the committee 
understands Predator is currently not deployable worldwide 
because of some host-nation communications frequency 
restrictions. The committee believes the Air Force needs to add 
the tactical common data link (TCDL) to the air vehicles and 
the GCS to overcome this operational limitation.
    Finally, the committee notes that when using satellite 
communications control of an aircraft, the GCS can only control 
a single air vehicle at a time. This precludes dual aircraft 
control for on-station relief that has been demonstrated with 
the line-of-sight data link. A dual-channel beyond-line-of-
sight satellite communications capability needs to be 
retrofitted into existing aircraft.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $58.0 million, an 
increase of $20.0 million to procure two additional attrition 
reserve UAVs and for production versions/kits of the laser 
designator, the dual-channel satellite communications suite and 
the TCDL.

T-38 modifications

    The budget request contained $94.5 million for T-38 
modifications, of which $85.7 million was included for the 
avionics upgrade program (AUP).
    The AUP updates the T-38 cockpit configuration to provide 
state-of-the-art avionics and improve instrument management 
training. The committee supports the AUP but notes an 
unexplained increase in engineering change orders.
    Consequently, the committee recommends $91.1 million, a 
decrease of $3.4 million.

Terrain awareness and warning system (TAWS)

    The budget request contained $35.7 million for procurement 
and installation of the TAWS upgrade on the C-135, KC-10, and 
C-20 aircraft, but included no funds for upgrade of the T-43 
aircraft.
    The TAWS upgrade projects an aircraft's position relative 
to the ground and improves pilot situational awareness by 
warning of potential ground impact, thus preventing controlled 
flight into terrain (CFIT). The committee notes that CFIT is 
the leading cause of airline fatalities worldwide and that the 
TAWS is required on commercial airliners.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $81.0 million, an 
increase of $18.2 million for the C-135, $6.0 million for the 
KC-10, $10.3 million for the T-43, and $10.8 million for the C-
20, to accelerate the TAWS upgrade and understands that this 
amount will complete its procurement and installation of this 
equipment on these aircraft.

                   Ammunition Procurement, Air Force


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $419.5 million for Ammunition 
Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 2000. The committee 
recommends authorization of $560.5 million for fiscal year 
2000.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for 
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless 
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and 
based on affordability considerations. 


                        Items of Special Interest


Air force ammunition

    The budget request contained $416.1 million for procurement 
of ammunition. The committee recommends $557.1 million, an 
increase of $141.0 million for the following types of 
ammunition, which are among the top unfunded priorities of the 
Chief of Staff of the Air Force for fiscal year 2000:

                        [In millions of dollars]

Rockets:
    2.75 inch rocket motors.......................................   5.0
Cartridges:
    .50 caliber ball, linked......................................   1.5
    .50 caliber ball/tracer, linked...............................   0.5
    20mm PGU-27/B.................................................  12.6
Bombs:
    Practice Bombs (BDU-50/56)....................................  23.2
    General Purpose Bombs.........................................  10.0
    MK-84 HE......................................................   7.5
    JDAM..........................................................  66.0
Flares
    MJU-23........................................................   6.8
    LUU-19........................................................   5.4
    LUU-2.........................................................   2.5

    Of the amount recommended for practice bombs, the committee 
expects $6.0 million to be designated for MK-84 (BDU-56) cast 
ductile iron practice bombs.

Laser guided bombs (LGB)

    The bombing campaign of Operation Allied Force clearly 
illustrates the importance of precision-guided munitions as a 
weapon-of-choice and the necessity to maintain an adequate 
production base of these weapons for surge requirements, 
replenishment, and war reserves.
    The committee is concerned that reliance on a single 
producer could result in unnecessary delays in replenishing and 
rebuilding the inventory of LGBs. The committee is aware that 
the Air Force previously qualified a second source for LGB 
production and believes that a second source should be 
reestablished.
    Consequently, the committee directs the Secretary of the 
Air Force to submit a report analyzing alternative production 
options to the Congressional defense committees by June 30, 
1999.

                     Missile Procurement, Air Force


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $2,359.6 million for Missile 
Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 2000. The committee 
recommends authorization of $2,303.7 million for fiscal year 
2000.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for 
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless 
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and 
based on affordability considerations. 


                        Items of Special Interest


AGM-65 modifications

    The budget request contained $2.8 million to convert 200 
AGM-65G missiles to the AGM-65K configuration, but included no 
funds to upgrade AGM-65B missiles to the AGM-65H configuration 
or for training missiles.
    The AGM-65 is a precision guided tactical missile employed 
on the F-16 and A-10 aircraft. The ``G'' configuration uses an 
infrared (IR) target seeker, while the ``K'' and ``H'' 
configurations use an updated electro-optical (EO) seeker. The 
``B'' configuration uses an obsolete EO target seeker.
    The committee understands that the Air Force planned to 
retain its AGM-65G IR-guided missiles and convert obsolete EO-
guided AGM-65B missiles to the updated AGM-65H configuration, 
but, due to funding constraints, chose to modify its inventory 
of 1200 AGM-65Gs to the AGM-65K configuration, which would 
eliminate IR-guided AGM-65s from its inventory.
    Since the committee believes that a mix of both IR- and EO-
guided AGM-65s are required for mission flexibility, it 
recommends $12.8 million, an increase of $10.0 million to 
convert AGM-65B missiles to the AGM-65H and AGM-65K 
configurations and to procure training missiles and associated 
test equipment for these variants.

Minuteman III modifications

    The budget request contained $146.5 million for the 
Minuteman III guidance replacement program (GRP).
    The committee notes that the Air Force has substantially 
delayed the planned procurement of GRP, which will replace 
older guidance packages in the Minuteman III intercontinental 
ballistic missile fleet. The committee understands that the 
delay in the program also will force a delay of the propulsion 
replacement program (PRP). The PRP will replace aging solid 
rocket motors, but installation of the new rocket motors 
depends on prior installation of GRP computers. The committee 
also understands that the condition of solid rocket fuel in 
some of these rocket motors will render them unreliable prior 
to GRP completion and that the delay of GRP and PRP will 
significantly lower the operational effectiveness of the 
Minuteman force in the middle of the next decade.
    To avoid these unacceptable operational consequences, the 
committee recommends $186.5 million, an increase of $40.0 
million to accelerate the procurement of GRP.

Spaceborne equipment

    The budget request contained $9.6 million for spaceborne 
communications security equipment.
    The committee notes that these funds were requested to 
support the global positioning system and the space based 
infrared system but understands that these requirements have 
already been met.
    Consequently, the committee recommends $4.6 million, a 
decrease of $5.0 million.

Titan

    The budget request contained $431.2 million for the Titan 
launch vehicle and launch operations.
    The committee notes a substantial increase in the request 
for payload integration compared to the amount appropriated in 
fiscal year 1999. The committee also notes that the expenditure 
rate for prior year funds is lagging behind DOD end-of-year 
standards.
    Consequently, the committee believes that the request 
exceeds requirements and recommends $411.2 million, a reduction 
of $20.0 million.

                      Other Procurement, Air Force


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $7,085.2 million for Other 
Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 2000. The committee 
recommends authorization of $7,077.8 million for fiscal year 
2000.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for 
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless 
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and 
based on affordability considerations. 


                          Items of Special Interest


60K a/c loader

    The budget request contained $81.2 million to procure 39 
60K aircraft loaders.
    The 60K loader replaces the Air Force's aging fleet of 
1960s-era 40K loaders and wide-body elevator loaders. They 
provide the critical high-reach capability required to load the 
KC-10 and other commercial wide-body aircraft that comprise the 
Civil Reserve Air Fleet. The committee understands that there 
are 55 60K loaders currently fielded at locations around the 
world, providing a critical link in the responsive projection 
of U.S. forces and in the delivery of materiel to support 
humanitarian operations.
    The committee notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff has 
included 60K loaders on his list of unfunded priorities for 
fiscal year 2000. In order to accelerate production and 
fielding of this key material handling equipment, the committee 
recommends $93.7 million, an increase of $12.5 million to 
procure an additional nine 60K loaders. The committee 
understands that this action will enable the maximum annual 
production rate of the 60 K loader to be attained.

Aircrew laser eye protection

    The budget request contained no funds to procure aircrew 
laser eye protection (LEP) equipment.
    The committee notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff 
recently directed that plans to procure and field LEP equipment 
be immediately accelerated. The committee has provided 
additional funds in prior years for the Air Force to complete 
development and evaluation of aircrew LEP technologies and 
understands that, as a result, two mature LEP technologies have 
emerged--FV-9 dye-based spectacles and visors and the clear 
laser eye protection for infrared (CLEPIR) dielectric 
spectacles. The FV-9 spectacles and visors provide protection 
in the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, and the 
CLEPIR spectacles provide protection in the invisible, near 
infrared portion of the spectrum.
    The committee strongly supports the Chief's direction to 
accelerate procurement and fielding of LEP spectacles and 
visors. Therefore, the committee recommends $6.6 million to 
expeditiously begin procurement of the FV-9 and CLEPIR 
equipment.

Automatic data processing equipment (ADPE)

    The budget request contained $71.2 million for ADPE but 
included no funds for the spare parts production and 
reprocurement system (SPARES).
    The committee notes the usefulness of this information 
system in supporting spare parts buys at the Ogden Air 
Logistics Center and believes it should be expanded to other 
installations Department-wide.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $81.2 million for ADPE, 
an increase of $10.0 million for this purpose.

Master crane

    The budget request contained no funds for the master crane.
    The master crane is an aircraft component hoisting system 
for use on all aircraft, both fixed-wing and rotary. It is 
currently only in limited use within the Air National Guard 
(ANG) but has been found to be safer to operate, faster to use, 
easier to deploy, and to require much less maintenance than 
other cranes in the ANG's inventory.
    The committee believes that the master crane is kind of 
equipment that is needed for today's rapid deployment forces. 
Therefore, the committee recommends $5.0 million to procure 
additional master cranes for the ANG.

Military satellite communications terminals

    The budget request contained $46.3 million for military 
satellite communications terminals.
    The committee understands that the request exceeds 
requirements because of a schedule delay in a military 
communications satellite program. Accordingly, the committee 
recommends $40.0 million, a decrease of $6.3 million.

National eagle system

    The budget request contained no funds to upgrade the 
national eagle system.
    The deployable national eagle system provides U.S. forces 
with time-sensitive, commercial satellite imagery that allows 
aircrews to have up-to-date access to imagery of an adversary's 
terrain. Such imagery can be immediately used in aircraft 
mission planning and rehearsal systems, contributing both to 
survivability and mission effectiveness. However, the committee 
understands that the national eagle system does not currently 
have an antenna or a data acquisition capability, as does the 
upgraded eagle vision system.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $5.0 million to 
procure an eagle vision antenna and data acquisition segment to 
upgrade the national eagle system.

Radio equipment

    The budget request contained $16.7 million for radio 
equipment, including $15.7 million for Scope Command.
    The Scope Command program provides for consolidating and 
upgrading the Department's network of high frequency (HF) 
ground stations around the world with commercial-off-the-shelf, 
state-of-the-art HF radio equipment. These ground stations 
provide the sole command and control resource for Air Mobility 
Command cargo and tanker aircraft.
    The committee has been a strong supporter of Scope Command 
and understands that, with minor modifications, the network is 
capable of performing HF e-mail gateway functions. Since HF 
radio signals use the ionosphere for propagation, incorporating 
an e-mail capability into this network will provide an 
inexpensive method for forward-deployed forces to communicate 
with friends and families in the CONUS.
    Consequently, the committee recommends $20.5 million for 
radio equipment, an increase of $3.8 million to incorporate an 
HF e-mail capability into the Scope Command network.

Supply asset tracking system (SATS)

    The budget request contained $1.1 million for SATS.
    SATS is one example of the Department's effort to achieve 
Total Asset Visibility--the ability to quickly and accurately 
identify and locate personnel, equipment, and supplies--through 
the use of commercial automated information technology (AIT). 
It incorporates radio frequency terminals and smart cards, 
enabling electronic status confirmation of supply assets from 
receipt to issue. The committee notes that the Congress has 
provided additional funds for SATS installation over the past 
two fiscal years and is supportive of the use of AIT to 
streamline business processes.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $11.1 million for SATS, 
an increase of $10.0 million to accelerate its installation at 
Air Force bases worldwide.

Tactical communications-electronics (CE) equipment

    The budget request contained $49.7 million for tactical CE 
equipment, of which $36.4 million is for theater-deployable 
communications (TDC) sets. TDC is a compact, ruggedized, high-
bandwidth communications system used by forward-deployed Air 
Expeditionary Force units. Its state-of-the-art technology is 
much more capable than the aging equipment it replaces, and it 
requires significantly reduced airlift support.
    In 1997, the Air Force conducted a command and control (C2) 
task force to establish an air and space C2 policy for the 21st 
century. One key finding of the task force was that the service 
should accelerate procurement of TDC sets and complete the 
buyout of this equipment by fiscal year 2001. The committee 
endorsed this finding and added $25.0 million ($18.0 million of 
which was appropriated) for this purpose in fiscal year 1998 
and $20.0 million (none of which was appropriated) in fiscal 
year 1999.
    The committee notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff has 
included TDC sets on his list of unfunded priorities for fiscal 
year 2000. Accordingly, the committee recommends $84.2 million 
for tactical communications-electronics equipment, an increase 
of $34.5 million to accelerate the production and fielding of 
the two key components of the TDC set, the lightweight mobile 
satellite terminal and the integrated communications access 
package.

Theater air control system (TACSI)

    The budget request contained $37.9 million for TACSI, but 
contained no funds for mobile radar approach controls (RAPCON) 
for the Air National Guard (ANG).
    The committee is aware that the ANG has a requirement for 
12 mobile RAPCONs, since, even though it is responsible for 
over 60 percent of the Department's wartime air traffic control 
(ATC) mission, it is using ATC systems originally fielded in 
the 1960s. The committee understands these systems are 
difficult to deploy, are becoming unsupportable due to lack of 
spare parts, and lack current-generation automation aids that 
reduce controller workload and fatigue. In view of this 
situation, funds were appropriated for fiscal year 1999 to 
procure the first replacement mobile RAPCON, an off-the-shelf, 
solid-state design system that corrects these deficiencies.
    The committee supports continued modernization of ANG ATC 
units and recommends $61.9 million for TACSI, an increase of 
$24.0 million to procure an additional three mobile RAPCONs.

                       Procurement, Defense-Wide


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $2,129.0 million for 
Procurement, Defense-Wide in fiscal year 2000. The committee 
recommends authorization of $2,107.8 million for fiscal year 
2000.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for 
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless 
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and 
based on affordability considerations. 


                         Items of Special Interest


Automated document conversion system (ADCS)

    The budget request contained no funds for the ADCS.
    The committee recognizes that the ADCS is the Department's 
single most productive program in the conversion of legacy 
engineering drawings. However, a significant inventory of these 
drawings remain to be converted if the Department is to achieve 
its goal to digitize them by fiscal year 2002.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $32.0 
million to continue procurement of ADCS hardware and software 
for this purpose.

Mentor protege

    The budget request contained $26.3 million for the Mentor 
Protege program. This program provides funds to major 
Department of Defense prime contractors for the purpose of 
developing the technical capabilities of Small Disadvantaged 
Businesses to perform as subcontractors.
    The committee notes that the legal authority for this pilot 
program expires at the end of fiscal year 1999. Therefore, the 
committee recommends no funds for the Mentor Protege program.

Nightstar binocular

    The budget request contained $23.4 million for special 
operations forces small arms and weapons, but included no funds 
for nightstar binoculars.
    The nightstar binocular is a compact, lightweight, hand-
held binocular that combines night vision and laser range-
finding capabilities that allows the operator to transmit 
range, azimuth, and elevation data to external systems such as 
the global positioning system for immediate coordination 
definition. The committee understands that the Department's 
initial operational test and evaluation of the nightstar 
binocular indicates that it provides increased capabilities 
compared to existing night vision devices.
    Consequently, the committee recommends $30.4 million, an 
increase of $7.0 million to initiate procurement of nightstar 
binoculars.

                  National Guard and Reserve Equipment


                                Overview

    The budget request did not contain any funds for National 
Guard and Reserve Equipment for fiscal year 2000. The committee 
recommends authorization of $60.0 million for fiscal year 2000. 



                       Items of Special Interest


National guard and reserve equipment

    The budget request did not contain any funds for National 
Guard and Reserve Equipment for fiscal year 2000. The committee 
recommends an increase of $60.0 million for this equipment.

                        [In millions of dollars]

Army Reserve:
    Miscellaneous.................................................  10.0
Navy Reserve:
    Miscellaneous.................................................  10.0
Marine Corps Reserve:
    Miscellaneous.................................................  10.0
Air Force Reserve:
    Miscellaneous.................................................  10.0
Army National Guard:
    Miscellaneous.................................................  10.0
Air National Guard:
    Miscellaneous.................................................  10.0

    The committee expects that priority consideration be given 
to the following items: fire fighting aircraft (with preference 
to U.S.-manufactured aircraft), cargo compartment expanded 
range fuel systems, medium tactical wreckers, night vision 
devices, ALR-56M radar warning receivers, and night targeting 
systems.

Reconnaissance aircraft augmentation

    Following the end of the Cold War, conventional thinking 
concluded that the relatively high operations tempo rates and 
the numbers of reconnaissance aircraft could be reduced 
significantly. Indeed, the operations tempo rates for these 
aircraft have increased significantly since the demise of the 
Soviet Union. In addition to their strategic reconnaissance and 
operations-other-than-war roles, reconnaissance aircraft have 
been increasingly called on to provide direct tactical 
intelligence to forces engaged in numerous regional conflicts 
or supporting peacekeeping operations.
    Unfortunately, fiscal realities make it unlikely that new 
reconnaissance aircraft will be procured in the near future. 
Further, the numbers of reconnaissance aircraft have been 
reduced over time due to accidents or to decisions such as the 
Navy's to terminate the ES-3 Shadow aircraft in fiscal year 
2000 and the Air Force's to terminate the Senior Scout platform 
in fiscal year 2002. Although unmanned aerial vehicles may 
mitigate some of these force size limitations, the committee 
believes there is a need to enhance the reconnaissance 
capabilities of manned systems that are already available and 
in service.
    The committee is aware of an initiative by the Air Force 
Chief of Staff (CSAF) to use the EC-130H Compass Call offensive 
information operations aircraft in a secondary reconnaissance 
role. The committee fully understands that Compass Call system 
operators are the same specialists that operate reconnaissance 
systems such as the Rivet Joint and Senior Scout. The committee 
also understands that the Compass Call mission equipment has 
some of the same technical characteristics of the Rivet Joint 
and Senior Scout. Consequently, the committee believes that by 
exercising the full extent of the Compass Call operators' 
skills and by employing the Compass Call equipment in a 
different manner, a reconnaissance capability can be realized 
with only minor investment.
    The committee further believes the CSAF initiative has two 
other important potential benefits. The first is linguist 
training. Currently, Compass Call linguists train primarily in 
language laboratories or in the Compass Call mission simulator, 
while their reconnaissance aircrew contemporaries train daily 
against their real-world mission targets. By using the Compass 
Call aircraft in a reconnaissance role, its operators would 
have the benefit of real-world operations, thereby having 
better training for their wartime offensive information 
operations role.
    Second, the Air Force decision to terminate Senior Scout 
leaves a mission gap for the Air National Guard's 169th 
Intelligence Squadron (IS). This squadron provides a unique 
linguistic talent pool that must be retained and kept 
operationally proficient. Assuming the Air Force decides to use 
Compass Call in the additional reconnaissance role, there 
appears to be a logical force management decision to move part 
of the Compass Call mission to the Air National Guard. The 
169th IS would be fully taskable for peacetime reconnaissance 
missions and would also be available for Air Combat Command war 
or contingency missions.
    The committee commends the CSAF initiative and requests the 
Secretary of the Air Force to provide an analysis of this 
initiative to the Congressional defense and intelligence 
committees concurrent with the submission of the fiscal year 
2001 budget request.

           Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense


                                Overview

    The budget request contained no funds for Chemical Agents 
and Munitions, Defense, for fiscal year 2000.
    The committee recommends authorization of $1,012.0 million 
for fiscal year 2000, including $230.0 million for research and 
development, $232.0 million for procurement, and $550.0 million 
for operations and maintenance, as noted in the following 
table. Unless otherwise specified, adjustments are without 
prejudice and based on affordability considerations. 


                        Item of Special Interest


Chemical agents and munitions destruction

    Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends 
transferring the budget request of $1,169.0 million for 
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army, to Chemical 
Agents and Munitions Destruction Defense.
    The committee notes the progress that has been made during 
the last fiscal year in the continuing effort to dispose of the 
U.S. stockpile of lethal chemical agents and munitions and of 
chemical warfare related materiel, while ensuring maximum 
protection of the public, personnel involved in the 
destruction, and the environment. Of the original stockpile of 
31,495 tons of chemical agent, 13.4 percent has been destroyed 
and 90 percent of the stockpile is under contract for 
destruction (as of February 28, 1999). Destruction facilities 
at Johnston Atoll and Tooele, Utah, are operational. Five 
facilities are in the design phase or under construction: 
Anniston, Alabama; Umatilla, Oregon; Pine Bluff, Arkansas; 
Aberdeen, Maryland; and Newport, Indiana. Facilities at Pueblo, 
Colorado, and Blue Grass, Kentucky, are on hold pending 
completion of the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA) 
program demonstration.
    The committee notes that the current estimate of the total 
cost of the chemical agents and munitions destruction program 
is $14.9 billion, continues to be concerned about the cost of 
the program, and believes that attention needs to be given to 
measures that could reduce this overall cost, including 
potential alternatives relating to the destruction of non-
stockpile related materiel and to the ultimate disposition of 
the destruction facilities themselves. Accordingly the 
committee recommends a provision (sec.141) that would address 
the cost issue and would require the Secretary of Defense to 
report to the Congressional defense committees on cost 
reduction measures he might recommend.
    The committee recommends $1,012.0 million for Chemical 
Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense, a decrease of $157.0 
million. The committee notes that even after the reduction, the 
amount authorized is still almost $250.0 million greater than 
the fiscal year 1999 appropriation for this account. The 
committee believes this reduction can be accommodated without a 
breach in U.S. compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention 
(CWC) Treaty and with no disincentive to the Russian effort to 
destroy its chemical munitions stockpile.
    The committee understands that the ability to complete 
destruction of the chemical munitions stored at Pueblo by the 
CWC date of April 29, 2007, requires the design and 
construction phase for the Pueblo facility to begin in June 
1999. To meet this requirement, the committee further believes 
that there must be close coordination between the Project 
Manager for Chemical Demilitarization and the Project Manager 
for ACWA in order to accommodate future implementation of ACWA 
technologies in the design of the baseline facility currently 
planned for construction at Pueblo. The committee recommends a 
provision (sec. 142) that would require the USD (A&T) and the 
Secretary of the Army to ensure coordination of the activities 
and plans of the two project managers and would also require 
the Secretary to take measures necessary to facilitate the 
integration of ACWA alternative technologies in the design of 
the baseline facility for Pueblo.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations


           Sections 101-109--Authorization of Appropriations

    These sections would authorize the recommended fiscal year 
2000 funding levels for all procurement accounts.

                       Subtitle B--Army Programs


     Section 111--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Army Programs

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
enter into multiyear procurement contracts for the Javelin 
missile system, the M2A3 Bradley fighting vehicle, the AH-64D 
Longbow Apache attack helicopter, and a combined M1A2 Abrams 
tank/Heavy Assault Bridge multiyear procurement contract in 
fiscal year 2000.
    Additionally, this section would require the Secretary of 
Defense to submit a report on the composition of multiyear 
procurements in the procurement portion of the Future Years 
Defense Program prior to the execution of any multiyear 
contract.

   Section 112--Extension of Pilot Program on Sales of Manufactured 
  Articles and Services of Certain Army Industrial Facilities Without 
              Regard to Availability from Domestic Sources

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
extend an existing pilot program through fiscal year 2001 that 
enables McAlester Army Ammunition Plant and Rock Island and 
Watervliet arsenals to continue to provide articles and 
services under this authority. This pilot program allows the 
sale of articles or services to an entity that will incorporate 
those articles or services into a weapon system to be procured 
by the Department of Defense or will use those articles or 
services to manufacture weapon systems that will ultimately be 
procured by the Department of Defense. This extension should 
allow sufficient time to further evaluate the viability of the 
program and the opportunity it provides for these facilities to 
generate significant additional work.

   Section 113--Revision to Conditions for Award of a Second-Source 
    Procurement Contract for the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles

    This section would clarify section 112 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-
261). It would enable the Secretary of the Army to award a 
second-source full-rate production contract for the Family of 
Medium Tactical Vehicles only after he certifies in writing 
that the total quantity of trucks required by the Army will be 
sufficient to enable the prime contractor to maintain a minimum 
production level of 150 trucks per month over any given 12 
month period.

                       Subtitle C--Navy Programs


          Section 121--F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Aircraft Program

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to 
enter into a multiyear procurement contract for the F/A-18E/F 
aircraft subject to the Secretary of Defense's certification 
that the results of the aircraft's operational test and 
evaluation meet both key performance parameters and 
requirements for operational effectiveness and suitability and 
that the multiyear procurement contract cost is at least 7.4 
percent less than procurement of the same number of aircraft 
through annually funded contracts.
    Additionally, this section would require the Secretary of 
Defense to submit a report on the composition of multiyear 
procurements in the procurement portion of the Future Years 
Defense Program prior to the execution of a multiyear contract 
for the F/A-18E/F.

           Subtitle D--Chemical Stockpile Destruction Program


   Section 141--Destruction of Existing Stockpile of Lethal Chemical 
                          Agents and Munitions

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct an assessment of the current chemical munitions 
stockpile destruction program with the purposes of reducing the 
overall cost of the program and ensuring completion of the 
destruction program by the date required under the Chemical 
Weapons Convention Treaty, while maintaining maximum protection 
of the environment, the general public, and the personnel 
involved in the actual destruction of the munitions. It would 
authorize the Secretary to take those actions to achieve the 
purposes of the assessment that could be accomplished under 
existing authorities and would direct the Secretary to 
recommend additional legislative authority that may be needed.
    The section would amend paragraph 1412(c)(2) of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1986 (Public 
Law 99-145) to provide that facilities constructed to carry out 
the chemical stockpile destruction program shall be disposed of 
in accordance with site-specific, mutual agreements between the 
Secretary of the Army and the governor of the state in which 
the facility is located. The committee notes the increasing 
practice in the stockpile destruction program, the chemical 
stockpile emergency preparedness program, and the Assembled 
Chemical Weapons Assessment, of meaningful involvement by state 
and local jurisdictions and others in the development of 
programmatic and policy decisions that are specific to their 
local stockpile storage sites and to the construction and 
operation of the stockpile destruction facilities at those 
sites. The committee believes that such authority should be 
extended to decisions regarding the ultimate disposition of the 
chemical munitions stockpile destruction facilities.
    The section would also amend subsection 1412(c) to allow 
non-stockpile chemical agents, munitions, or related materials 
specifically designated by the Secretary of Defense to be 
destroyed at stockpile facilities once the affected states have 
issued the appropriate permits.

  Section 142--Alternative Technologies for Destruction of Assembled 
                            Chemical Weapons

    This section would direct and establish conditions for the 
transfer of management oversight responsibility for the 
assembled chemical weapons assessment (ACWA) program from the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology to 
the Secretary of the Army.
    The ACWA program was established under section 8065 of the 
Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1998 
(Public Law 104-208) as the Department of Defense program for 
assessment of the feasibility of alternative technologies for 
the destruction of assembled chemical munitions. Such 
technologies could provide an alternative to the baseline 
program, which uses incineration of chemical agents and 
munitions as the means for destruction of the chemical 
munitions stockpile. In order to facilitate coordination of the 
ACWA program with the baseline program during ACWA's 
demonstration and pilot facility phase, the provision would 
require the Under Secretary and the Secretary to ensure 
coordination of the activities and plans of the program manager 
for the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment and the program 
manager for Chemical Demilitarization. Further, if the Under 
Secretary decides to proceed with pilot facility testing of 
technologies demonstrated under the ACWA program, the provision 
would transfer oversight and management of the ACWA program 
from the Under Secretary to the Secretary.

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters


  Section 151--Limitation on Expenditures for Satellite Communications

    This section would prohibit the Department from obligating 
funds to procure communications systems or lease communications 
services from commercial satellites, unless such systems or 
services have been proven through independent testing not to 
disrupt the reception of Global Positioning System (GPS) 
signals.
    The committee notes the increasing importance of GPS to 
military operations. In recognition of this fact, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-
261) mandated that all new Department of Defense aircraft, 
ships, armored vehicles, and indirect fire systems be equipped 
with GPS by 2005. The committee also notes that GPS is very 
important to civil and commercial activities as well.
    The committee is disturbed that commercial satellite 
communications systems that provide mobile subscriber services 
(MSS) are increasingly likely to interfere with GPS signals. 
Although MSS communications are important to U.S. military 
forces, the committee believes that the overarching 
significance of GPS to the military and as a world navigation 
standard for commercial and civil users mandates the protection 
of GPS frequencies.

         TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request contained $34,375.2 million for 
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E), 
representing a decrease of $3,067.8 million from the amount 
provided for fiscal year 1999.
    The committee recommends authorization of $35,835.7 
million, an increase of $1,460.5 million from the budget 
request.
    The committee expresses great concern with the reluctance 
on the part of Department of Defense officials to acknowledge 
the numerous modernization programs and science and technology 
efforts that have been adversely impacted by the decrease in 
overall research and development funding over the past several 
years. During the presentation of the fiscal year 1999 budget 
request, the Department forecasted RDT&E funding to decrease by 
14 percent over the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) and 
maintained this planned decrease was appropriately based on a 
ratio of two-to-one between procurement and RDT&E. The 
committee notes that the Department has not justified the 
decline in overall RDT&E on the basis of an assessment of 
procurement needs versus RDT&E needs, but rather on the 
subjective position that a two-to-one ratio seems ``about 
right'' and has worked in the past. While the Department 
continues to justify this planned decline, DOD officials 
routinely announce that high priority programs such as Army and 
Navy theater missile defense programs, tactical information 
systems, space based early warning systems, other satellite 
programs, and a host of others can no longer support critically 
needed deployment schedules primarily due to insufficient 
funding.
    The committee further notes that the Department's claim of 
increased modernization funding in the fiscal year 2000 budget 
request is composed of an increase of $4 billion in 
procurement, while RDT&E, the other half of modernization, is 
proposed to be reduced by over $3 billion. The committee is 
concerned that the Department's emphasis on addressing the 
backlog of military procurement is occurring at the direct 
expense of the nation's critical military technologies.
    The committee notes that the Department's ability to pursue 
application of leading edge technologies is also severely 
constrained by the fact that over 33 percent of the total RDT&E 
request is for modifications to mature and aging fielded 
systems, while the accounts that lead to development of new 
capabilities have been decreased by almost 25 percent. This 
trend appears to continue throughout the declining RDT&E FYDP. 
The committee believes that this trend, if continued, will 
seriously undermine our nation's technological advantage.
    The committee remains concerned that an alarmingly large 
number of high priority service programs are experiencing 
schedule delays and restructuring due primarily to service-wide 
shortages of RDT&E funds while a significant number of defense-
wide RDT&E efforts appear adequately funded and in some cases 
are experiencing growth. The committee also questions the 
Department's continued trend of investing large levels of 
funding in environmental and other non-defense initiatives 
while reducing funding necessary for efficient completion of 
high priority defense programs.
    The committee concludes that the Department's declining 
RDT&E strategy does not support the critical tenets of the 
Quadrennial Defense Review which stressed the need for a 
smaller, but more modern, more capable military force, and 
seriously threatens the ability of the United States to 
maintain the technological superiority critical to ensuring 
U.S. military dominance of tomorrow's battlefields.


      

                               Army RDT&E


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $4,426.2 million for Army 
RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of $4,708.2 
million, an increase of $282.0 million.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2000 Army 
RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes 
to the Army request are discussed following the table.


                       Items of Special Interest


Aircraft avionics

    The budget request contained $6.4 million in PE64201A for 
the Army Airborne Command and Control System (A2C2S).
    The A2C2S is a UH-60 deployable command post, which 
provides a secure and nonsecure, highly mobile data, voice, and 
imagery command and control (C2) capability in support of Corps 
through Brigade level commanders. The committee is aware that 
the A2C2S is one of the Army Chief of Staff's top unfunded 
priorities in fiscal year 2000 and that additional funding 
would enable the system to complete engineering and 
manufacturing development, initial operational test and 
evaluation, and be fielded to the first digital corps.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $21.7 million in 
PE64201A, an increase of $15.3 million for these purposes.

All source analysis system

    The budget request contained $49.7 million in PE 64321A, 
including $43.7 million for the Army's all source analysis 
system (ASAS), an increase of over 50 percent from the fiscal 
year 1999 estimate.
    The committee recognizes the importance of the ASAS 
capability. However, it is troubled by the development costs of 
this service intelligence support system, particularly when 
compared to the modest costs for the other services' 
intelligence systems.
    The committee recommends $45.0 million in PE 64321A, a 
decrease of $4.7 million.

Alternative vehicle propulsion initiative

    The budget request contained $39.7 million in PE 62601A for 
combat vehicle and automotive technology, but included no 
funding for the alternative vehicle propulsion program.
    The committee notes that one of the Army's most significant 
challenges is to develop lighter, more efficient propulsion 
systems for future vehicles. The committee believes that 
dramatic advances in vehicle propulsion require harnessing the 
combined capabilities of academia, the private sector, and 
government research facilities.
    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 
62601A for the ongoing alternative propulsion initiative and 
urges the Army to aggressively pursue greater private and 
public sector involvement in this effort.

Armament enhancement initiative

    The budget request contained $36.9 million in PE 63639A for 
the armament enhancement initiative, but included no funding 
for the tank extended range munition-kinetic energy (TERM-KE).
    The committee notes that the armament enhancement 
initiative is intended to develop improved tank ammunition to 
continue providing an overmatch capability for tanks. TERM-KE 
is intended to provide a higher lethality, extended range 
kinetic energy munition for the M1 tank main gun.
    The committee supports development of improved munitions 
and recommends $44.9 million, an increase of $8.0 million for 
TERM-KE.

Army aircrew coordination training program

    The budget request contained $3.0 million in PE 63007A for 
manpower, personnel and training, but included no funding for 
aircrew coordination training.
    The committee notes the recent increase in the Army 
aviation accident rate and believes that aviation safety must 
be enhanced. The committee is aware that the aircrew 
coordination training program holds promise in reducing 
aviation accident rates, and strongly urges the Army to 
accelerate this program and field an enhanced air crew training 
capability for Army aviation units as soon as possible.
    The committee recommends $5.0 million in PE 63007A, an 
increase of $2.0 million for aircrew coordination training.

Army technical test instrumentation and targets

    The budget request contained $30.5 million in PE 65602A for 
Army technical test instrumentation and targets, but included 
no funding for characterization and quantification of missile 
debris hazards to aircraft.
    The committee recommends $31.7 million in PE 65602A, an 
increase of $1.2 million for continuation of characterization 
and quantification of missile hazards to aircraft.

Comanche

    The budget request contained $427.0 million in PE 64223A 
for Comanche demonstration and validation.
    Comanche is the Army's highest priority modernization 
program and is often referred to as the ``quarterback of the 
digital battlefield.'' The committee notes that while the 
capabilities provided by the Comanche are described as vital to 
the success of the Army in the next century, the Army is still 
struggling to complete development flight testing of a totally 
new, state-of-the-art aircraft with a single test aircraft. 
Though the Army has received the second Comanche prototype, it 
is not scheduled to be flown in the flight test program until 
fiscal year 2001, due only to a shortage of funding.
    The committee is aware that additional funding is necessary 
to accelerate development of the mission electronics package 
and enable a more aggressive flight test program using at least 
two aircraft. The committee notes that additional funding for 
Comanche is the Army's number one unfunded modernization 
requirement and strongly supports the earliest possible 
fielding of this important new capability. The committee 
recommends $483.0 million in PE 64223A, an increase of $56.0 
million for Comanche program acceleration.

Combat vehicle improvement programs

    The budget request contained $29.5 million in PE 23735A for 
combat vehicle improvement programs.
    The committee notes that tracks for existing and future 
tracked vehicles are a life-cycle cost driver. The committee 
supports development of a lighter, higher performance track 
that offers the potential of life-cycle cost improvement.
    The committee recommends $31.5 million in PE 23735A, an 
increase of $2.0 million for improved vehicle track 
development.

Combined turbine diesel engine

    The budget request contained $90.9 million in PE 63005A for 
combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology, but 
contained no funding for the ongoing turbine diesel engine.
    The committee notes that turbine diesel engine development 
has been slowed by technical obstacles and funding delays. The 
committee also notes that the contractor has successfully 
developed an operating prototype.
    The committee recommends $92.9 million in PE 63005A, an 
increase of $2.0 million to complete development and testing of 
a prototype engine. The committee urges the Army to support any 
further funding required for follow-on evaluation.

Combustion driven eye-safe laser

    The budget request contained $30.6 million in PE 64710A for 
night vision systems, but included no funding for the 
combustion driven eye-safe laser.
    The committee notes increasing concern for laser hazards 
and supports development of eye-safe lasers. The committee also 
notes that emerging combustion driven selective emitter 
technology can be used to pump an eye-safe, portable, stealthy, 
low cost radar system that identifies friend and foe.
    The committee recommends $33.6 million in PE 64710A, an 
increase of $3.0 million for combustion driven eye-safe laser.

Concepts experimentation program

    The budget request contained $17.0 million in PE 65326A for 
the concept experimentation program.
    The committee notes that the Army mounted maneuver 
battlespace lab (MMBL) has formulated a strategic research plan 
to develop strategies and doctrine for the application of Force 
XXI technologies on the battlefield. The new strategies and 
doctrine are intended to give combat commanders the ability to 
dominate the future maneuver battlespace.
    The committee recommends $22.0 million in PE 65326A, an 
increase of $5.0 million for execution of the MMBL strategic 
research plan.

Defense healthcare information assurance program

    The budget request contained $9.4 million in PE 33140A for 
the Army information systems security program.
    The Congress provided $2.5 million in fiscal year 1998 to 
initiate a demonstration program for military healthcare 
information protection that would be consistent with national 
healthcare and information protection initiatives. An 
additional $4.0 million was provided in fiscal year 1999 to 
continue the program. The two-phased program will initially 
establish a prototype for protection of sensitive data integral 
to the military healthcare information system at a single 
service medical facility, then extend the prototype evaluation 
to other military services, regional medical centers, and 
civilian medical treatment facilities.
    The committee notes the progress that has been made to date 
in the prototype phase of the program and supports the plans 
for extending the program to additional sites, refinement of 
information protection technology, policy, procedures, and 
development of industry wide security criteria for healthcare 
systems. The committee understands that available funds are 
sufficient for completion of the demonstration program and test 
of the prototype, and that a decision could be made to begin 
fielding a defense healthcare information assurance system in 
fiscal year 2000.
    The committee recommends $15.4 million in PE 33140A, an 
increase of $6.0 million to support initiating deployment of 
the defense healthcare information assurance system. The 
additional funds may not be obligated until 30 days after the 
Secretary of the Army reports to the Congressional defense 
committees the results of the beta-test of the system and gives 
recommendations for continuation of the program.

Defense manufacturing technology program

    The budget request contained a total of $132.5 million for 
the manufacturing technology (ManTech) program, including $14.9 
million in PE 78045A, $59.1 million in PE 78011N, $51.8 million 
in PE 78011F, and $6.7 million in PE 78011S.
    The committee has reviewed the Department's ``Five-Year 
Plan (FY00-FY04) for the Manufacturing Technology Program.'' 
Although the committee supports the overall direction of the 
ManTech program, the committee notes that, for the second year 
in a row, the total program falls far short (approximately 
$60.0 million) of the Congressional funding guidelines for the 
program that are contained in the statement of managers 
accompanying the conference report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-
340).
    Section 213 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-736) amended section 2525 of 
title 10, United State Code, to establish annual goals for cost 
sharing in the DOD ManTech program and procedures for waiver of 
the cost sharing requirements in the program. The intent of the 
Congress in the amendment was to provide increased flexibility 
to the Secretary of Defense in the administration of the cost 
sharing requirement, rather than establishing fixed, rigid 
guidelines. To clarify the Congress' intent regarding the 
flexibility available to the Secretary in his administration of 
the cost sharing requirement, the committee recommends a 
provision (sec. 212), which would eliminate percentages goals 
for cost sharing in manufacturing technology projects.
    The committee notes a significant reduction in the 
manufacturing technology program managed by the Defense 
Logistics Agency. The committee also notes a significant 
reduction in the Army's manufacturing technology program, 
including the failure to continue increased funding for 
development of munitions manufacturing technology that could 
result in reduced production costs for ammunition in the 
future. In view of the fact that the Army is the single service 
manager for the defense ammunition program, the committee 
believes that insufficient priority is being given in the 
Army's ManTech program for this critical area. The committee is 
aware that the estimated cost of air burst munitions for the 
objective individual combat weapon (OICW) will probably limit 
their use in training and believes that increased emphasis 
should be given to a small arms ammunition ManTech initiative 
that is specifically focused on decreasing the overall cost of 
the OICW air burst munitions through warhead and fuse cost 
reductions.
    The committee recommends $34.9 million in PE 78045A for the 
Army's manufacturing technology program, an increase of $17.0 
million for munitions manufacturing technology (including the 
small arms ammunition initiative) and $3.0 million for rotary 
wing sustainment manufacturing technology, and $74.1 million in 
PE 78011N, an increase of $15.0 million for the Navy's ManTech 
program. Elsewhere in this report the committee recommends 
additional funding to accelerate new initiatives in the Defense 
Logistics Agency's ManTech program.

Environmental quality technology

    The budget request contained $12.8 million in PE 62720A for 
environmental quality technology, but included no funding for 
the Texas Regional Institute for Environmental Studies (TRIES).
    The committee notes that TRIES, working with the Army 
Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, has been 
developing a computer-based land management model to reduce 
costs and time for training area recovery.
    The committee supports well focused military environmental 
clean-up efforts and recommends $15.8 million in PE 62720A, an 
increase of $3.0 million to complete development of the TRIES 
computer-based land management model.

Full spectrum active protection

    The budget request contained $39.7 million in PE 62601A for 
combat vehicle and automotive technology.
    The committee is aware that the Army needs a capability to 
defend armored vehicles against attack by hit-to-kill anti-tank 
guided missiles, as well as kinetic energy and high explosive 
anti-tank projectiles.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million for 
development of full spectrum active protection within the tank 
and automotive technology effort.

Future combat vehicle

    The budget request contained $39.8 million in PE 62601A for 
armored systems modernization.
    The committee notes that the Army's armored system 
modernization strategy has become more an incidental by-product 
of the administrative process of the Army budget than a 
commitment to a vision. The consequences of this approach to 
modernization increases program instability and reinforces 
short term reactive planning rather than adherence to a 
strategy. Moreover, the committee believes that the 
consequences for not having a comprehensive, coherent, and 
enduring armored system modernization strategy are no longer 
acceptable.
    The committee is encouraged, however, by the Army's vision 
for the Army After Next. In particular, the committee fully 
supports the attributes and capabilities described by both the 
Army and the Quadrennial Defense Review as essential in future 
combat vehicles, and believes that the development efforts 
essential for their fielding should begin immediately. However, 
there is a serious mis-match between what the vision calls for 
and the Army's ability without full DOD support and 
participation, to execute the necessary experimentation and 
demonstration of future alternatives while attempting to 
sustain its current aging fleet of over 6,000 M-1 tanks.
    The committee understands that the current fleet demands an 
exponentially increasing sustainment budget that is depleting 
funds intended for incremental modernization of the fleet. Left 
unchecked, it would soon take the entire armored systems 
modernization budget to sustain an M1 fleet that will have 
further compounded its problems by evolving into at least four 
different configurations. The Army's current armored systems 
modernization budget has been decreased to such a low level 
that between the years of 2000 and 2030 the resulting tank 
fleet will be composed of only 17 percent modernized M1A2 SEP 
tanks, while the remaining 4,000 plus tanks will be in varying 
stages of deterioration and questionable deployability. The 
committee believes current armored systems cannot be evolved to 
meet the critical land warfare requirements identified by the 
QDR and as essential to the Army After Next. Thus, a commitment 
to decisive action must be made now to redress the armor system 
modernization dilemma. To delay is to limit the possibilities 
and make them unaffordable.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a legislative provision 
(Sec. 211) that would direct the Secretary of the Defense to 
establish a collaborative combat vehicle demonstration program 
between the Army and the Defense Advanced Research Projects 
Agency (DARPA). While the Army has committed $67.0 million of 
its fiscal year 2000 RDT&E science and technology request 
toward this critical requirement, related DARPA efforts are not 
focused to support any similar initiative. The committee 
further directs the Secretary to establish the necessary DOD-
level priority for this program to ensure that both the Army 
and DARPA complete this effort in an efficient and timely 
manner. While the committee understands that the Army fully 
intends to pursue this critical modernization initiative, DARPA 
participation is also required to enable rapid prototyping, 
special contract authorities, and pursuit of high risk, high 
gain technologies essential to the success of this program.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army 
and the Director of DARPA to establish and enter into a 
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to develop an appropriate 
competitive demonstration project that will consider and 
evaluate all promising combat vehicle technologies including 
lethality, propulsion, mobility, survivability, robotics, human 
engineering, and C4ISR technologies. The project will conduct 
competitive demonstrations of these technologies integrated 
into potential combat vehicle platforms with an objective of 
identifying the most promising candidates for a full 
development program to begin by fiscal year 2006. The Secretary 
and the Director shall provide a report to the Congressional 
defense committees with submission of the fiscal year 2001 
budget request that outlines the MOA, objective schedule, and 
required funding for the joint Army/DARPA project.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $12.0 
million for the future combat vehicle modernization program for 
fiscal year 2000. Additionally, the committee recommends that 
of the amounts authorized and appropriated for DARPA fiscal 
year 2000 funding, not less than $38.0 million in PE 63764E and 
$18.2 million in PE 62702E shall be for the Army/DARPA future 
combat vehicle program.

Geographic synthetic aperture radar

    The budget request contained $41.1 million in PE 62784A for 
military engineering technology, but included no funding for 
geographic synthetic aperture radar (SAR).
    The committee notes that an airborne geographic SAR is 
being developed to generate high-resolution, three dimensional 
maps of the earth. This dual band interferometric SAR will be 
able to map above, through, and below the vegetation canopy.
    The committee is aware that airborne foliage penetrating 
radar may offer potential target identification enhancement to 
the Army and recommends $56.1 million in PE 62784A, an increase 
of $15.0 million to evaluate dual band airborne interferometric 
SAR technology for possible Army applications.

Geo-positioning system--inertial measurement unit integration

    The budget request contained $23.0 million in PE 62120A for 
sensors and electronics survivability.
    The committee notes that uses for the geo-positioning 
system (GPS) and inertial measurement units (IMU) include 
personnel, weapon and non-weapon system platforms, and an 
increasing variety of smart weapons. The burgeoning 
applications for these types of systems, coupled with advances 
in electronics integration and the emergence of micro electro 
mechanical systems (MEMS) technology now make possible full 
integration of GPS and MEMS on a single chip that offers the 
possibility of dramatic reductions in the cost. Though the 
development cost of full GPS-IMU integration may be 
unattractive to an individual acquisition program, the 
recurring cost savings make such development an imperative for 
the Department of Defense as a whole.
    The committee strongly supports efforts to reduce the cost 
of smart weapons and directs the Secretary of the Army to 
establish a focused program to develop a fully integrated GPS-
IMU on a single chip capable of meeting the needs of service 
missile, artillery, and other appropriate applications. The 
committee is aware that there are disparate efforts in 
industry, government laboratories, and academia to reduce the 
size and cost of GPS and IMUs which may be leveraged.
    The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million for 
GPS-IMU chip level integration.

Heart rate variability technology

    The budget request contained $70.1 million in PE 62787A for 
medical technology.
    The committee notes that heart rate variability technology 
offers potential for enhancing on-site assessment of disease 
and trauma by enabling physiological measurement of the nervous 
system functioning and balance. Improvements in these areas 
could lead to improved treatment and victim survivability. The 
committee believes that this technology, designed for point-of-
injury assessment for emergency response personnel in civilian 
and military trauma environments, may also have significant 
applications for enhancing early detection and prevention of 
chemical and biological agent effects.
    The committee urges the Army Medical Command to pursue 
testing of this technology and to assess its potential for 
improved chem-bio detection and prevention, as well as other 
military emergency response applications, and recommends $74.1 
million, an increase of $ 4.0 million in PE 62787A.

High energy laser test facility

    The budget request contained $14.2 million in PE 65605A for 
the high energy laser system test facility (HELSTF).
    The committee notes that the Army has taken the initiative 
to develop and publish a Directed Energy Master Plan, laying 
out a road map for future high power directed energy technology 
exploitation. However, the committee is concerned that the 
Department of Defense does not have a central directed energies 
(DE) technology clearing house to identify, assess, and develop 
the full range and potentials of these promising technologies.
    The committee further notes that Space and Missile Defense 
Command (SMDC) has proposed that HELSTF be the premier joint 
service open-air laser test facility for all high power DOD 
laser programs, providing testing for laser lethality and 
system effectiveness as well as threat exploitation, directed 
energy bio-effects, and susceptibility testing. A high-power 
laser facility capable of testing lasers over a broad range of 
wavelengths is required to support all these critical 
parameters. The committee believes that leveraging past 
investments in HELSTF infrastructure and building on past Army 
research and development in high power lasers is a cost 
effective means of developing next generation high power lasers 
capable of operating with variable wavelengths and pulse 
formats.
    The committee supports the use of the HELSTF to focus 
development of high power free electron and other solid-state 
lasers as a complement to various chemical laser development 
programs, and recommends a provision (Sec. 241) that would 
direct the Secretary of Defense to designate the Commander, 
SMDC as the DOD executive agent for oversight of high-power 
solid state laser and directed energy technologies with 
potential weapons applications. The committee notes that the 
HELSTF is currently controlled by SMDC and directs that HELSTF 
be established as the DOD center of excellence for high-power, 
solid state laser and directed energy technologies. 
Additionally, the committee recommends the establishment of a 
relationship between Livermore National Laboratory, with its 
high power laser expertise, and appropriate industry 
participants to create a national center of excellence for high 
power solid-state laser development.
    The committee recommends $38.2 million for the HELSTF in PE 
65605A, an increase of $20.0 million for assessment and 
development of high energy solid state lasers and other 
directed energy technologies, and an increase of $4.0 million 
for evaluation of the Navy's free electron laser technology 
program.

High mobility artillery rocket system

    The budget request contained $36.5 million in PE 63778A for 
the multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) product improvement 
program (PIP), and included $6.0 million for the MLRS high 
mobility rocket system (HIMARS).
    The committee notes that the HIMARS is a C-130 
transportable, wheeled version of the MLRS launcher, capable of 
firing all rockets and missiles in the current and future MLRS 
family of missiles. The committee is aware that the Department 
of Defense recognizes the importance of the improved 
deployability provided by HIMARS and supports accelerated 
development of the program.
    The committee strongly encourages accelerated development 
and fielding of HIMARS and recommends $67.4 million in PE 
63778A, an increase of $30.9 million for HIMARS.

Joint service small arms program

    The budget request contained $4.9 million in PE 63607A for 
the joint service small arm program.
    The committee is aware that the present family of 
individual weapons as well as the objective individual combat 
weapon (OICW) for the future will have a 5.56mm capability. The 
committee is informed that accuracy of the 5.56mm round can be 
improved significantly as was the 7.62mm round with relatively 
little expense.
    The committee believes that, despite the emergence of 
``smart weapons,'' the importance of individual combat weapons 
will remain and that ammunition for these weapons should be as 
accurate as modern production technology will allow. The 
committee also notes that there is a new technology which 
reduces drag in the barrel that offers much higher projectile 
velocity from the same caliber small arms cartridges. The 
committee is also aware that features such as laser ranging and 
target tracking which are important for the OICW air-burst 
round could be included in the initial OICW with a small 
additional investment.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $9.9 million, an 
increase of $5.0 million in PE 63607A for OICW improvements, 
development of more accurate 5.56 ammunition, and assessment of 
new high-velocity small arms projectile technology.

Joint surveillance target attack radar system (Joint STARS)

    The budget request contained $11.5 million in PE 64770A for 
system improvements to the Joint STARS Common Ground Station 
(CGS).
    The committee notes the proven success of the Joint STARS 
system in both Operation Desert Storm and Operation Joint 
Endeavor in Bosnia and its current support to the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization's Operation Allied Force. A key 
feature of Joint STARS is the secure, encrypted, anti-jam 
Surveillance Control Data Link (SCDL), which links the Air 
Force's E-8 Joint STARS aircraft to the Army's ground support 
modules and CGSs, enabling real-time data transfer of command 
and control information between the aircraft and ground 
stations.
    The committee is aware that the ongoing SCDL System 
Improvement Program (SIP), which eliminates obsolete parts and 
updates older digital circuit boards with state-of-the-art, 
software-based array boards, will increase data transfer rates 
as well as reduce component size, weight, and power 
requirements by as much as 50 percent. Consistent with past 
committee actions and based on the benefits of the SIP, the 
committee recommends $19.5 million, an increase of $8.0 million 
in PE 64770A to complete this upgrade.

Kwajalein missile range modernization

    The budget request contained $140.3 million in PE 65301A 
for Kwajalein missile range (KMR) modernization.
    The committee is concerned that delays in KMR modernization 
will increase risk in key tests of the national missile defense 
(NMD) system. This modernization effort includes replacement of 
obsolete components, upgrade of hardware and software 
architectures, and provision for remote operation of range 
sensors and instrumentation. The committee believes that 
accelerating modernization of the range will not only reduce 
NMD development risks, but will substantially reduce annual KMR 
operations and maintenance costs.
    The committee recommends $148.3 million in PE 65301A, an 
increase of $8.0 million for KMR modernization.

Lightweight x-band radar

    The budget request contained $24.9 million in PE 12419A for 
the Aerostat Joint Project Office, but included no funds for 
lightweight x-band radar technology.
    The committee understands that the Ballistic Missile 
Defense Organization has examined the potential of lightweight 
x-band radar technology for application to the Army's Aerostat 
project and found it to be useful to the requirement for fire 
control radar.
    The committee recommends that the Army evaluate this 
technology from within existing funds and make a recommendation 
to the Congressional defense committees providing the results 
of the evaluation.

Medical materiel/medical biological defense equipment

    The budget request contained $9.70 million in PE 64807A for 
medical materiel/medical biological defense equipment, 
including $491,000 for the Life Support Trauma and Transport 
(LSTAT) system EMD program.
    The committee has learned that the EMD program is 
underfunded and that it could easily be completed in fiscal 
year 2000 if properly resourced. Furthermore, the committee 
understands that the Army does support the LSTAT program and 
plans to procure the system on a multiyear basis.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $13.2 million in PE 
64807A, an increase of $3.5 million to complete LSTAT EMD in 
fiscal year 2000.

MedTeams

    The budget request contained $16.4 million in PE 62716A for 
human factors engineering technology, but included no funding 
for continuation of the medical teams (MedTeams) program.
    The committee notes that the MedTeams effort provides 
development and testing of methods to provide improved 
coordination of emergency medical teams.
    The committee supports development of improved medical care 
and recommends $19.8 million in PE 62716A, an increase of $3.4 
million.

Night vision advanced technology

    The budget request contained $36.6 million in PE 63710A for 
night vision advanced technology.
    The committee notes that damage control capability is 
critical to military survivability. Sensor technology has been 
and is being developed for ground forces to improve night 
vision situational awareness. Damage control personnel also 
require night vision situational awareness. The committee 
supports adaptation of emerging sensor technology to develop 
helmet mounted sensors for firefighters and damage control 
personnel.
    The committee recommends $39.6 million in PE 63710A, an 
increase of $3.0 million for helmet mounted sensors for 
firefighters and damage control personnel.

Panoramic night vision goggle

    The budget request contained $20.1 million in PE 62709A for 
night vision technology.
    The committee notes that wide field of view night vision 
capability for aviation is increasingly critical as operations 
migrate from daylight to dark. Existing night vision equipment 
has a very narrow field of view, excessive weight, and very 
poor depth perception in inclement weather.
    The committee supports development of superior night vision 
equipment to improve safety and increase the capability of our 
forces. The committee recommends $30.1 million in PE 62709A, an 
increase of $10.0 million for the panoramic night vision 
goggle, including emerging technologies that may be generally 
applicable to night vision improvement.

Passive millimeter wave imaging

    The budget request contained $23.0 million in PE 62120A for 
sensors and electronics survivability, but contained no funding 
for passive millimeter wave imaging.
    The committee is aware that passive millimeter wave and 
associated devices may offer the ability to solve problems in 
the nap-of-the-earth wire and other obstacle collision 
avoidance for the Apache and other aircraft.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for 
passive millimeter wave imaging for obstacle/collision 
avoidance.

Patriot anti-cruise missile defense

    The budget request contained no funding in PE 23801A for 
the Patriot anti-cruise missile (PACM) seeker upgrade.
    In the statement of managers accompanying the conference 
report on H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105-736), the conferees directed 
the Secretary of the Army to complete a rigorous PACM test 
program and to evaluate the effectiveness of the PACM seeker 
against a full range of cruise missile threats. The committee 
notes that a preliminary evaluation has been completed prior to 
flight testing of the seeker, and that a more thorough 
evaluation will be possible only after the flight testing is 
completed. Without this more thorough evaluation, the committee 
is unable to reach a definitive conclusion on the ability of 
PACM to meet the cruise missile threat cost effectively.
    The committee understands that the Patriot advanced 
capability-3 (PAC-3) will have substantial capability against 
cruise missiles, in addition to providing effective ballistic 
missile defense. The committee also understands that the PACM 
seeker would be used to upgrade older PAC-1 missiles that have 
very limited capabilities to defend against ballistic missile 
attack. The committee notes that a thorough analysis of the 
cost trade-offs between acquisition of PACM and PAC-3 is also 
needed prior to consideration of PACM acquisition.
    The committee recommends no funding in PE 23801A for PACM. 
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to prepare a 
report, following completion of PACM flight testing, with a 
thorough assessment of PACM capabilities and the opportunity 
costs of additional PACM development and eventual PACM 
procurement. The report shall be submitted to the Congressional 
defense committees prior to any budget request for additional 
PACM funds.

Plasma energy pyrolysis system

    The budget request contained $12.8 million in PE 62720A for 
environmental quality technology, but included no funds for the 
plasma energy pyrolysis system (PEPS).
    A total of $15.9 million has been invested in this program 
to develop a transportable PEPS prototype which is now 
undergoing testing. The committee is aware that PEPS testing is 
intended to determine its ability to destroy, vitrify, and 
dispose of several hazardous waste streams. The Army intends to 
await completion of the PEPS evaluation program and analysis of 
the results to determine cost and performance of PEPS prior to 
proceeding further in acquisition.
    The committee supports development of safe, economical 
means to eliminate hazardous waste and encourages the Army to 
continue its efforts with PEPS.

Proximity fuzing for dual-purpose improved conventional munition 
        submunitions

    The budget request contained $39.9 million in PE 63004A for 
the Army's weapons and munitions advanced technology 
development program and $101.5 million in PE 63795N for the 
Navy's land attack technology development program.
    The committee notes the common use by the Army and the Navy 
of the M80 grenade submunition. This submunition is now 
dispensed by the dual-purpose improved conventional munition 
(DPICM) 120 mm mortar, the 5-inch gun, 155mm cannon 
projectiles, the multi-launch rocket system (MLRS) warhead, the 
extended range guided munition (ERGM), and the Best Buy 
projectile advanced technology demonstration. The committee 
also notes that Army and Navy studies and tests indicate that 
lethality gains of 10 percent to 200 percent are possible if a 
height of burst proximity fusing option were incorporated in 
the M80 submunition. The committee understands that the Army 
and the Navy are teaming to develop a proximity fuzing feature 
that could be added to the existing self-destruct fuze in the 
M80 grenade and greatly increase the armor penetration and 
anti-personnel lethality of the grenade. The committee believes 
that a joint program to develop a common proximity fuze for 
DPICM submunitions could capitalize on the efforts of both the 
Army and the Navy by deferring the development and testing of 
individual service prototypes and result in significantly 
reduced costs through the economy of scale that would be gained 
by the production of a single fuse and submunition for both 
services.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 
63004A and $2.5 million in PE 63795N to establish a joint Army/
Navy program to develop a proximity fuze for DPICM 
submunitions. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army 
and the Secretary of the Navy to report to the Congressional 
defense committees on the establishment of the joint program 
and the plan and funding for the proximity fuze development 
with the submission of the fiscal year 2001 budget request.

Security and intelligence activities

    The budget request contained no funding for security and 
intelligence activities in PE 35128A.
    The committee notes the government's increasing dependence 
on computer-based information systems and the growing world-
wide threat to these systems. It is also aware of the Army 
Intelligence Command's (INSCOM) state-of-the-art land 
information warfare activity (LIWA) and its developing 
capability to protect the worldwide computer infrastructure. 
The LIWA has recently demonstrated a significantly enhanced 
capability for responding to computer systems viruses and 
attacks by rapidly identifying and providing protection and 
corrective actions to all supported systems. The committee is 
also aware that the Department of Defense has recognized the 
potential of the LIWA to offer significant improvements in 
providing timely assessments of intelligence information to the 
warfighter.
    The committee strongly supports improved and strengthened 
information system protection and processing and recommends 
$10.0 million in PE 35128A for the INSCOM LIWA.

Self-destruct fuse

    The committee notes that there are a number of apparently 
duplicative efforts within service and defense-wide programs to 
pursue self-destruct fuzes for munitions. The Army has recently 
type-classified self-destruct fuses for some Army munitions, 
and yet it appears that there is no Department wide program 
development to the share the Army's completed development or to 
coordinate other service efforts.
    The committee directs that the Secretary of Defense conduct 
a study of unexploded ordnance problems and establish a 
defense-wide program to develop affordable, reliable self-
destruct fuses for munitions, and report the results of this 
study and the actions being by December 31, 1999.

Semi-automated imagery processor

    The budget request contained no funding in PE 63766A for 
tactical electronic surveillance systems.
    The committee notes that the semi-automated imagery 
processor (SAIP) is an advanced concept technology 
demonstration (ACTD) designed to provide automatic target 
cueing to support imagery analysts. Further, the tool provides 
a limited capability for automated target recognition. While 
the SAIP is not perfected, the committee notes the development 
effort and results to date. The committee remains concerned 
that current and future imagery collection systems are 
overwhelming the limited number of imagery analysts available 
to put ``eyes on target.'' Automated capabilities to reduce 
imagery analyst workloads are critically needed. The committee 
believes that the SAIP represents the best effort to date to 
provide such radar imagery automation. However, the Department 
has failed to provide sufficient funding to transition a needed 
ACTD capability to an operational application.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 
63766A to transition the SAIP effort from an ACTD to an 
operational capability. The committee notes that the SAIP is 
not a total solution and expects the Army to continue efforts 
to refine and improve the SAIP.

Small arms fire control system

    The budget request contained $54.9 million in PE 64802A for 
weapons and munitions, but included no funding for the small 
arms fire control system (SAFCS).
    SAFCS is a lightweight optical sight that corrects the 
aimpoint of small arms. The committee notes that the SAFCS 
offers potential for improved accuracy and probability of hit 
for small arms.
    The committee supports improvements in small arms accuracy 
and recommends $57.4 million in PE 64802A, an increase of $2.5 
million for engineering development and type classification for 
SAFCS.

Tactical voice control for maneuver control system

    The budget request contained $45.1 million in PE 23740A for 
the maneuver control system (MCS).
    The committee notes that tactical voice recognition systems 
have been proven to provide more accurate, faster and robust 
command and control than conventional input/output devices.
    The committee recommends $46.1 million for PE 23740A , an 
increase of $1.0 million for tactical voice control for MCS.

Trichloromelamine testing

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 
(Public Law 104-201) directed the Secretary of the Army to 
conduct toxicity studies of trichloromelamine (TCM) 
disinfectant to provide appropriate Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) registration for Army future procurement from TCM 
suppliers, thus ensuring competition and recommend additional 
funding for this purpose.
    The committee notes that the Army has failed to complete 
directed testing and, therefore, reiterates its earlier 
direction that the Army complete testing and EPA registration 
for TCM as rapidly as possible from within funding in PE 63002A 
for medical advanced technology.

University and industrial research centers

    The budget request contained $47.1 million in PE 61104A for 
university and industrial research centers, and included $5.9 
million for advanced displays.
    The committee notes that, despite the importance of 
advanced and interactive displays for the Army After Next, 
funding for the advanced and interactive displays consortium 
has been reduced over the past four years. The committee 
supports the development of innovative, cost-effective displays 
and recommends $48.5 million in PE 61104A, an increase of $1.4 
million for the advanced and interactive displays consortium.

                               Navy RDT&E


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $7,984.0 million for Navy 
RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of $8,358.5 
million, an increase of $374.5 million.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2000 Navy 
RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes 
to the Navy request are discussed following the table.


                       Items of Special Interest


Advanced amphibious assault vehicle

    The budget request contained $94.8 million in PE 63611M for 
the advanced amphibious assault vehicle (AAAV).
    The AAAV is a self-deploying, high water-speed, armored, 
amphibious assault vehicle capable of operating in all weather 
and in nuclear, chemical, and biological environments. The 
committee notes that the AAAV is the Marine Corps highest 
priority ground modernization requirement and that additional 
funding will permit incorporation of improvements identified 
during testing, reduce program technical risk, and position the 
program for acceleration of initial operational capability from 
fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2005.
    The committee recommends $121.2 million in PE 63611M, an 
increase of $26.4 million, for the AAAV.

Advanced anti-radiation guided missile

    The budget request contained $23.6 million in PE 25601N, 
including $10.8 million to continue development and 
demonstration of the advanced anti-radiation guided missile 
(AARGM).
    The committee notes that ARRGM is a Phase III small 
business innovative research (SBIR) program to develop and 
demonstrate a dual-mode guidance section on a high-speed anti-
radiation missile (HARM). Program objectives are to demonstrate 
an effective and affordable lethal suppression of enemy air 
defenses (SEAD) capability against mobile, relocatable, or 
fixed air defense threats in the presence of potential emitter 
shutdown or other anti-radiation missile countermeasures.
    The ARRGM technology demonstration program is an outgrowth 
of a Phase I and Phase II competitive SBIR program, which 
successfully demonstrated the feasibility of a dual-mode seeker 
to address radar ``shut-down'' anti-radiation missile 
countermeasures. The dual-mode technology being developed in 
the AARGM program has demonstrated very high potential to solve 
the problem of ``shut-down'' not only in the HARM, the primary 
SEAD weapon, but has also demonstrated the potential for 
integration with other missile airframes.
    The committee recommends $33.6 million in PE 25601N, an 
increase of $10.0 million to continue risk reduction, test, and 
other field activities to prepare for a potential fiscal year 
2001 Milestone II decision to enter engineering and 
manufacturing development.

Advanced waterjet propulsor demonstration program

    The budget request contained $75.6 million in PE 63792N for 
Navy advanced technology demonstrations, but included no funds 
for demonstration of an advanced waterjet propulsor for future 
naval applications.
    The committee notes that a number of propulsion 
technologies are being considered for use in the DD-21 land 
attack destroyer and other future naval ships, with the goal of 
increased operational performance and reduced acquisition and 
life-cycle costs.
    The committee notes the development under an extension of 
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's maritime 
technology program of an advanced waterjet propulsor which 
could meet operational performance, signature and cost 
reduction requirements for the DD-21 and other naval ships. The 
committee notes proposals for \1/4\-scale at-sea demonstration 
and cavitation tunnel testing of the waterjet propulsor to 
validate critical performance criteria and potential 
application of the propulsor to the DD-21 or other naval ships.
    The committee urges that the Secretary of the Navy assess 
the requirement for further development, demonstration, and 
evaluation of advanced waterjet propulsor technology and 
provide to the Congressional defense committees by December 1, 
1999, a report which includes the Secretary's recommendations 
regarding the demonstration, a program execution plan, and Navy 
funding for the program.

Affordable advanced acoustical arrays

    The budget request contained $115.8 million in PE 63561N 
for advanced submarine systems development, including $71.6 
million for advanced submarine combat systems development.
    The committee notes the Navy's continued development of 
advanced sonar arrays for surface, submarine, and distributed 
surveillance systems, including single and multi-line towed 
arrays, conformal-hull mounted arrays, and advanced arrays for 
use in the fixed-distributed and advanced-deployable systems. 
The committee strongly supports the development and 
demonstration of all-optical array and other key enabling 
technologies for advanced acoustical arrays that could 
significantly improve array performance and dramatically reduce 
the cost of future acoustical array systems.
    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 
63561N to accelerate the development and transition of all-
optical array and other key enabling technologies to advanced 
towed, hull-mounted, and distributed acoustical array systems.

Analysis of alternatives for follow-on support jammer

    The budget request contained $87.3 million in PE 64270N for 
engineering and manufacturing development of the EA-6B 
electronic countermeasures aircraft system. The budget request 
states that a requirement exists to begin planning and analysis 
of alternatives for a command and control warfare (C2W) 
replacement for the EA-6B aircraft, however, no funds were 
requested for this purpose.
    The committee notes the high demands that are being placed 
on the EA-6B aircraft as an electronic countermeasures weapons 
system, projections that there will not be enough EA-6B 
aircraft to meet mission requirements beyond 2015, and 
considerations to retire the EA-6B in 2015. The committee notes 
further that a mission needs statement for a C2W platform that 
would replace the EA-6B and achieve initial operational 
capability in 2012 is being reviewed by the Navy. The committee 
understands that a C2W follow-on platform would incorporate air 
vehicle enhancements that would reduce operational and 
maintenance costs, improve reliability, and significantly 
increase command, control, and operational effectiveness. The 
committee believes that the Navy should initiate an analysis of 
alternatives for a C2W follow-on platform which will determine 
the most cost-effective approach for replacing the EA-6B in the 
radar support jamming mission.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
63XXXN to initiate the analysis of alternatives for a C2W 
replacement for the EA-6B aircraft, and directs the 
establishment of a separate concept exploration/product 
definition and risk reduction program element for the program.

Aquifer vulnerability/contamination assessment

    The budget request contained $8.2 million in PE 65873M for 
Marine Corps program-wide support, but included no funding for 
acquifer vulnerability/contamination assessment.
    The committee recognizes the potential for groundwater 
contamination at military bases due to fuel spills, hazardous 
chemical handling, and waste disposal. The committee recommends 
$9.7 million in PE 65873M, an increase of $1.5 million to 
conduct an analysis and acquifer mapping of a candidate 
military site to establish contamination identification.

Aviation depot maintenance technology

    The budget request contained $70.8 million in PE 63721N for 
environmental protection.
    The committee notes that new environmentally friendly 
repair processes are being developed that offer significant 
productivity improvements and potential cost savings. To this 
end, the Congress provided $2.0 million in fiscal year 1999 for 
the development and demonstration of aviation depot maintenance 
technologies that will significantly reduce maintenance and 
repair costs and reduce or eliminate hazardous waste and 
pollution products.
    The committee recommends $73.8 million in PE 63721N, an 
increase of $3.0 million to complete the program for 
demonstration of advanced maintenance technologies for removal 
of coatings from large aircraft, cleaning and stripping of 
metal surfaces, and application of tungsten carbide coatings to 
aircraft landing gear and hydraulic components.

Beartrap nonlinear dynamics and environmental characterization

    The budget request contained $17.8 million in PE 63254N for 
anti-submarine warfare (ASW) system developments, including 
$5.3 million for Project Beartrap.
    The committee notes that the budget request for Beartrap 
supports hardware and software developments for advanced 
capability acoustic and non-acoustic sensors, as well as data 
collection and analysis for threat assessment and environmental 
characterization. The committee understands that basic research 
in nonlinear dynamic stochastic resonance (NDSR), supported by 
the Office of Naval Research, has advanced to the point that it 
offers explanations for many observed physical phenomena, and 
it offers the potential to develop significantly improved 
acoustic and non-acoustic AWS sensor systems. The committee 
believes that NDSR technology offers a significant opportunity 
to enhance the capabilities of Beartrap at a time when evolving 
ASW requirements indicate the critical need to integrate these 
latest relevant technologies. Specific areas include 
characterization of the ocean nonlinear dynamics environment, 
application of NDSR technology in advanced Beartrap sensors, 
and validation of NDSR ASW performance.
    The committee also notes that the Navy requires extensive 
environmental data to achieve effective performance from the 
extended echo ranging (EER) devices used in shallow littoral 
waters. These active acoustic devices are key to naval airborne 
ASW performance. The Beartrap program is well suited to collect 
this environmental data.
    The committee recommends $23.8 million in PE 63254N for ASW 
systems development, an increase of $6.0 million for Project 
Beartrap for the purposes outlined above.

C-2 eight-blade composite propeller system

    The budget request contained $53.3 million in PE 25633N for 
improvements in operational Navy aviation and aviation support 
systems.
    The committee is aware that the Navy is seeking a solution 
to operational limitations encountered with the propeller 
system used on E-2C and C-2A aircraft. The current propeller 
system incorporates technology developed in the 1950's and the 
1960's, is difficult and expensive to maintain, and is no 
longer in production. Following committee recommendations in 
its report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-132) for initiation of a 
development and demonstration of an eight-blade composite 
propeller for E-2C and C-2A aircraft, the Navy began a program 
for design, development, test, and production of the propeller 
system. The committee notes that the program includes flight 
and ground test of the new propeller system for the E-2 
aircraft, but includes only ground tests for the new propeller 
on the C-2 aircraft.
    The committee recommends $58.3 million in PE 25633N, an 
increase of $5.0 million to support flight testing the new 
propeller system on the C-2 aircraft sequentially with the E-2 
flight test program.

Claymore marine

    The budget request contained $75.6 million in PE 63792N for 
the Navy's advanced technology demonstration program, including 
$3.9 million for the Claymore Marine advanced technology 
demonstration.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.7 million in PE 
63792N for risk reduction and to maintain the schedule for the 
Claymore Marine advanced technology demonstration.

Cooperative engagement capability

    The budget request contained $114.9 million in PE 63658N to 
continue hardware and software engineering, integration, test 
and evaluation of the Navy's cooperative engagement capability 
(CEC).
    The statement of managers accompanying the conference 
report on H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105-736) directed the Secretary 
of the Navy to report to the Congressional defense committees 
at least quarterly on the interoperability problems between 
CEC, ship self-defense, and the Aegis combat direction system 
that were first encountered in 1997 during fleet operational 
test and evaluation of the systems and the Navy's plan for and 
progress in resolving these problems.
    The committee has reviewed the Secretary's first quarterly 
report and notes that the Navy has made significant progress in 
developing a plan that focuses on interoperability to support 
carrier battle group deployments in the near term, and on 
force-level systems engineering to coordinate requirements, 
capital investments, development, and installation of new 
system capabilities for the fleet in the far term. The Program 
Executive Office for Theater Surface Combatants has been 
created to provide a common management structure for all 
surface ship combat direction systems and interfacing systems, 
including systems integration and interoperability of CEC, 
Aegis, the advanced combat direction system, and related joint 
command and control systems. The committee also notes that the 
Navy has significantly increased land-based system engineering 
analysis and testing capabilities for combat systems and is 
establishing a shore-based, distributed engineering test 
capability that provides the ability to address battle group 
level combat system interoperability issues and to validate 
operational tactics, techniques and procedures prior to 
shipboard installation of the systems. The committee recognizes 
the potential provided by the Distributed Engineering Plant for 
reducing the cost of system, acquisition, testing, and training 
and encourages the Navy to continue to develop and support its 
shore-based, distributed engineering test capability. The 
committee notes further that the Navy has realigned and 
reprogrammed the funds necessary to address these issues.
    The committee understands that recent land-based and at-sea 
testing has demonstrated continuing progress in resolving 
combat systems interoperability issues. However, the committee 
believes that resolution of the interoperability issues will 
require a stable program plan and funding and a coordinated 
effort on the part of the Navy and the supporting system 
contractors.
    The committee recommends $114.9 million in PE 63658N to 
continue CEC development, systems integration, and test and 
evaluation.

Cruiser conversion

    The budget request contained $28.5 million in PE 64307N and 
$11.5 million in PE 64567N for cruiser conversion program 
design and engineering studies but did not include any 
procurement funds.
    Aegis class cruisers are the Navy's premier air defense and 
strike warfare platforms. The first ships of this class have 
now been in service over 15 years and some of their systems are 
approaching technical obsolescence. The committee understands 
that, in order to protect its investment in these highly 
capable ships, the Navy is planning to extensively upgrade the 
Aegis cruisers' combat systems and engineering equipment 
beginning in fiscal year 2002. These upgrades include new 
computer systems, cooperative engagement and theater ballistic 
missile defense capabilities, land attack and area air defense 
commander functions, and other hull and mechanical 
improvements.
    The committee supports upgrading these cruisers and 
recommends $37.5 million in PE 64307N and $17.5 million in PE 
64567N, a total increase of $15.0 million, including $9.0 
million in PE 64307N and $6.0 million in PE 64567N for 
engineering studies associated with expansion of the conversion 
program to include all Aegis cruisers.

Distributed surveillance system

    The budget request contained $14.9 million in PE 64784N for 
continued development of the distributed surveillance system.
    The Integrated Undersea Surveillance System (IUSS) program 
includes both fixed and relocatable acoustic sensor systems to 
detect and track diesel and nuclear powered submarines. The 
Fixed Distributed System (FDS) is a series of permanently 
installed acoustic arrays and the Advanced Deployable System 
(ADS), currently under development, will comprise sensors that 
can be rapidly deployed in littoral environments.
    The committee understands that the incorporation of fiber 
optic sensor technologies in acoustic arrays can greatly reduce 
maintenance requirements for these systems. Littoral anti-
submarine warfare (ASW) operations pose complex challenges in 
the evaluation and analysis of acoustic sensor data due to the 
high volume of traffic and diverse environmental conditions. 
The committee is concerned that the ADS program does not 
adequately address automation of detection and tracking 
functions, connectivity to the Global Command and Control 
System (GCCS) and web-based network centric warfare systems.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $33.9 million, an 
increase of $19.0 million in PE 64784N for the distributed 
surveillance system including $8.0 million for the continued 
application of remote-powered fiber optic sensor technologies 
for FDS acoustic arrays; and $11.0 million for the development 
of improved detection and tracking algorithms to provide 
increased automation for the ADS and an interface among it, the 
GCCS, and other network centric warfare systems.

DP-2 thrust vectoring system proof-of-concept demonstration

    The budget request contained $42.0 million in PE 63217N for 
development of air systems and weapons advanced technology. No 
funds were requested for continuation of the DP-2 thrust 
vectoring system proof-of-concept demonstration.
    DP-2 is a proof of concept program to demonstrate thrust 
vector control to achieve vertical takeoff and conventional 
takeoff capabilities in a one-half scale flight test vehicle. 
This technology offers the potential for a low cost, medium 
range aircraft of advanced composite construction.
    The committee recommends $47.0 million in PE 63217N, an 
increase of $5.0 million to complete the proof-of-concept 
flight test demonstration and provide the basis for a potential 
Department of the Navy decision to proceed with a full-scale 
aircraft development program.

E-2C radar modernization

    The budget request contained $16.1 million in PE 24152N for 
the E-2C maritime surveillance aircraft, including $12.1 
million for the E-2C radar modernization program.
    The committee notes that the radar modernization program is 
an advanced technology transition demonstration of a new E-2C 
radar system that will provide improved airborne surveillance 
capabilities for carrier battle groups engaged in littoral 
operations. However, funding for the radar modernization 
program was sharply reduced in this year's budget request. The 
committee understands that restoration of the funds would 
accelerate the development and integration of the new radar 
system and enable participation in the Navy's early operational 
assessment of the cooperative engagement capability (CEC) with 
the E-2C. The committee also understands that this would 
accelerate the E-2C CEC demonstration by one year, reduce risk, 
and provide the opportunity to forward-fit the capability into 
new production E-2C aircraft. The committee notes that in 
addition to demonstrating the potential for significant 
improvements in airborne surveillance support for littoral 
operations, the radar improvement program also addresses major 
obsolescence and reliability issues associated with the current 
E-2C radar system.
    The committee recommends $31.1 million in PE 24152N, 
including an increase of $15.0 million for the E-2C radar 
modernization program.

Electric drive propulsion for Navy ships

    The budget request contained $108.3 million in PE 63513N 
for shipboard system component development, including $25.7 
million for integrated power systems (IPS) development.
    The committee notes the Navy's increased interest in the 
development of electric drive propulsion technology and the 
potential use of electric drive propulsion in future surface 
combatants and submarines, including insertion of an electric 
drive propulsion system in the DD-21 land attack destroyer and 
in the New Attack Submarine (NSSN) programs. A common 
integrated electric drive system appears to offer significant 
advantages, however, implementation of such a system has been 
limited by the technology needed for reliable electric motors 
of the power (approximately 30,000 to 50,000 shaft horse power 
(shp)) required. The committee is aware that several 
alternative electric propulsion motor concepts have been 
proposed that are of varying degrees of technical maturity.
    The statement of managers accompanying the conference 
report on H.R. 4103 (H. Rept. 105-746) directed the Secretary 
of the Navy to provide a report to the Congress which evaluates 
the installation of a common integrated electric drive system 
for DD-21, a NSSN variant, and the next-generation CV(X) 
aircraft carrier with both a common integrated electric drive 
system and a conventional mechanical drive system. The 
Secretary's report, dated March 1, 1999, states that the Navy 
has concluded that the radial-gap PM motor possesses the power 
density, acoustic performance, and maturity of technology to be 
a viable propulsion motor common to the broadest ranges of 
ships and that the Navy is currently considering expanding its 
IPS development to a corporate Navy program that will include 
state-of-the-art permanent magnet motor technology.
    The committee recommends $108.3 million in PE 63513N, 
including $25.7 million for integrated power systems 
development. The committee will consider recommendations by the 
Secretary for further development and demonstration of electric 
drive propulsion technology for Navy ships which identify 
necessary funding and provide a program plan for the 
development.

Electro-optical framing technologies

    The budget request contained $5.0 million in PE 35206N for 
airborne reconnaissance systems, including $2.0 million for 
electro-optic (EO) framing technologies.
    The committee continues to support development of the 
revolutionary digital EO framing technologies with on-chip 
forward motion compensation (FMC). The committee notes the Navy 
F-14 Tactical Air Reconnaissance Podded System--Completely 
Digital (TARPS CD) demonstration system using this technology 
has recently been successfully employed at sea. Based on this 
success, the committee believes there is a need for additional 
TARPS CD risk-reduction pods and that the Navy should expand 
this effort. Further, the committee believes that the EO 
framing with on-chip FMC should be fully developed and improved 
to satisfy current and future applications on aircraft such as 
tactical unmanned aerial vehicles and other tactical fighter 
aircraft.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $10.0 million in PE 
35206N, an increase of $5.0 million for continued development 
of EO framing with on-chip FMC technologies. These efforts 
shall include development of the high quantum efficiency infra-
red framing chip, precision strike improvements, and step-
framing technologies.

Environmentally safe energetic materials

    The budget request contained $34.3 million in PE 63609N for 
development and demonstration of improvements in Navy 
conventional munitions. No funds were requested to continue the 
program for development of environmentally safe energetic 
materials.
    The Congress has supported the accelerated development and 
demonstration of energetic materials and processes for 
explosives, propellants and pyrotechnics for use in undersea, 
surface, and other weapons systems, which minimize or eliminate 
any adverse environmental impact normally associated with these 
materials in production and demilitarization. These new 
environmentally safe materials are expected to meet insensitive 
munitions and system performance requirements while lowering 
the total ownership costs of the weapons systems.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 
63609N to continue the development of environmentally safe 
energetic materials.

Extended range guided munition and projectile common guidance

    The budget request contained $101.5 million in PE 63795N 
for gun weapons system technology demonstration and validation, 
including $37.7 million for continued development of the EX-171 
extended range guided munition (ERGM).
    The committee notes that the ERGM projectile, the modified 
5-inch, 62 caliber gun, and a land attack missile comprise the 
Navy's near-term program for improving the Navy's surface fire 
support capability.
    The committee is aware that technical problems in 
development of the ERGM projectile have caused schedule delays 
and potential increases in program costs, and that the system 
contractor's decision to relocate the ERGM development program 
to a new site has only exacerbated these delays and increased 
costs. The committee believes that while the technology issues 
facing the ERGM program are low to medium risk, additional 
effort will be required to control potential cost growth and to 
minimize any further delay in fielding ERGM to the fleet.
    The committee notes that both the Navy and the Army are 
pursuing the development of projectile guidance and control 
that will use the global positioning system (GPS) and rugged 
inertial navigation systems (INS). The current guidance and 
control system for the Navy's ERGM uses mid-1990's technology 
that typically accounts for at least 50 percent of the total 
projectile cost. The committee is aware that the Navy and the 
Army have been modestly investing in the development of micro 
electro-mechanical sensor (MEMS) technologies that can 
significantly reduce the cost of navigation systems that use 
GPS/INS guidance. Use of MEMS to upgrade the baseline (non-
MEMS) guidance section would save at least 10 percent of the 
total cost of each ERGM. If the MEMS system were packaged to 
fit within the NATO standard fuze, the resulting guidance 
integrated fuze that could be used by the Army, Navy, Marines, 
and NATO allies in a variety of current and future projectiles 
would reduce the cost of the ERGM up to 40 percent. The 
potential production base for MEMS GPS/INS guidance and control 
and make low-cost, precision-guided munitions a reality for all 
services and NATO allies.
    The committee recommends that the Navy and the Army 
capitalize on the development of MEMS GPS/INS technology by 
incorporating the technology in the ERGM projectile, and 
establishing a joint program for the development of common 
guidance and control for cannon-fired projectiles. Such a 
program could leverage technologies developed by the Competent 
Munitions Advanced Technology Demonstration, Multifunction 
Fuze, and ERGM programs.
    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 
63795N for ERGM baseline development and to accelerate 
integration of MEMS-based GPS/INS into the ERGM, and an 
increase $4.0 million to initiate the joint Projectile Common 
Guidance program. The committee directs the Secretary of the 
Navy and the Secretary of the Army to report to the 
Congressional defense committees with the submission of the 
fiscal year 2001 budget request, the program plan, schedule, 
and funding for the joint Projectile Common Guidance program.

F/A-18C/D BOL chaff countermeasure

    The budget request contained $315.7 million in PE 24136N 
for F/A-18 aircraft operational systems development, including 
$169.1 million for the development of improvements to fielded 
F/A-18 aircraft. No funds were requested to continue the 
certification of BOL chaff countermeasures for the F/A-18C/D.
    The committee notes that the LAU-138A/A Guided Missile 
Launcher Set and its associated chaff countermeasures (RR184 
and RR189), commonly referred to as BOL chaff, have been 
qualified and deployed on the F-14 aircraft. The launcher 
significantly increases aircrew/aircraft survivability and 
mission effectiveness by dispensing increased quantities of 
countermeasures against radar homing and infra-red missiles 
that are dispensed from the rear of the aircraft launcher rail 
without displacing other aircraft weapons from the launcher 
rail. The committee further notes that Phase I integration 
testing of the LAU138A/A on the F/A-18C/D aircraft will be 
completed in fiscal year 1999. However, the committee 
understands that funding for completion of Phase 2 of the F/A-
18C/D qualification program, which would lead to a production 
decision is insufficiently funded.
    The committee recommends $318.2 million in PE 24136N, an 
increase of $2.5 million to complete Phase 2 testing and 
qualification of the LAU 138A/A BOL chaff countermeasure on the 
F/A-18C/D strike fighter.

Free electron laser

    The budget request contained $37.6 million in PE 62111N for 
applied research in surface/aerospace surveillance and weapons 
technology, and $14.2 million in PE 65605A for the high energy 
laser system test facility (HELSTF).
    The committee understands that the Department of Energy is 
considering a technology program for development and 
demonstration of a free electron laser that operates in the 
infrared spectrum and desires to evaluate the technology for 
potential ship self-defense applications. A program has been 
proposed for upgrade of the free electron laser demonstration 
facility for applied research in the potential use of tunable 
free electron lasers as countermeasures against anti-ship and 
anti-aircraft missile infrared seekers.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
62111N to initiate the demonstration facility upgrade program, 
and an increase of $4.0 million in PE 65605A for evaluation of 
this technology by the DOD HELSTF to determine suitability to 
address Navy requirements. The committee directs the Secretary 
of the Navy to report to the Congressional defense committees 
with the fiscal year 2001 budget request, a Navy supported 
program plan and DOD funding required to complete the project. 
The committee further directs the Commander, U.S. Army Space 
and Missile Defense Command, as DOD executive agent for high 
power solid-state laser technology, to provide a report 
containing the results of the HELSTF evaluation of the proposed 
free electron laser technology program prior to a Navy request 
for funding for the demonstration facility upgrade program.

Hybrid fiberoptic/wireless communications system technology

    The budget request contained $68.8 million in PE 62232N for 
applied research in command, control, and communications 
technology.
    The Congress provided $1.0 million in fiscal year 1999 for 
development and demonstration of the technology for hybrid 
fiberoptic/wireless communications systems. The committee 
understands that the application of this technology to 
shipboard communications systems would combine the 
characteristic flexibility and mobility of wireless base 
stations with the security of point-to-point fiberoptic 
communications to achieve increased mobility and security while 
reducing the effects of frequency interference.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 
62232N to continue the development of hybrid fiberoptic/
wireless communication system technology.

Hyper-spectral analysis

    The budget request contained $12.1 million in PE 65867N, 
including $10.5 million for the Navy Force Tactical 
Exploitation of National Capabilities (TENCAP), $10.1 million 
in PE 27247F for Air Force TENCAP, and $7.8 million in PE 
63232D8 for automatic target recognition.
    The committee understands that hyperspectral sensor systems 
could provide the capability to detect and identify targets 
that are not discernible with conventional sensors by 
exploiting the spectral signature of both the target and the 
environment. The committee also understands that the Navy and 
the Department of Defense now believe that recent design and 
component technology innovations have reached a level of 
maturity where hyperspectral technology can be used to provide 
enhanced capabilities to existing and planned airborne 
reconnaissance sensors. The committee notes hyperspectral 
technology has been successfully tested on a limited scale 
onboard Navy intelligence collection aircraft. The technology 
provides real-time, automated, hyper-spectral, wide-area search 
functionality. By searching for spectral anomalies, it provides 
users with automated target nominations without prior detailed 
information. This could dramatically cut imagery analyst 
workloads, while greatly improving real-time targeting and 
threat warning. The committee believes such a capability is 
needed to exploit the vast amount of imagery data that the 
intelligence community is able to provide.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $10.8 million in PE 
63232D8, an increase of $3.0 million for advanced development 
of hyperspectral technology for automatic target recognition, 
and $16.1 million in PE 65867N and $14.1 million in PE 27247F, 
an increase of $4.0 million respectively for the services to 
procure and test hyper-spectral sensors and exploitation tools.

Improved software production management

    The budget request contained no funding for improved 
software development and production management. The committee 
notes that the Office of the Secretary of Defense recently 
acknowledged that Department of Defense software expenditures 
had risen to $42 billion annually by 1994, and that 40 to 50 
percent of this amount was attributed to software rework and 
correction of problems.
    The committee also notes that industry has demonstrated the 
ability to significantly reduce required rework by more than a 
factor of four by implementing an initiative known as best 
software practices. It further notes that even a far more 
conservative percentage of cost avoidance would result in 
annual savings of billions of dollars that could be invested 
elsewhere by the Department of Defense.
    Another serious problem addressed by this industry 
initiative is an increasing shortage of qualified programmers. 
Industry has determined that the number of highly qualified 
software programmers is declining and that acheiving 
significant reductions in software re-work enables more 
efficient use of best qualified software programmers, enabling 
the focus on new development efforts.
    The implementation of best software practices by industry 
has proven that more efficient software development offers a 
dramatic potential for acquisition cost savings, and the 
committee believes that this potential must be pursued by the 
Department for defense programs. The Tri-Service Software 
Program Managers Network has been established to identify best 
industry practices for software development and management and 
to convey these best to the services. The committee is 
concerned that although the savings possible through use of 
industry best practices have been documented and an associated 
implementation plan developed by the Tri-Service Software 
Program Managers Network, the Department has failed to 
implement this plan. While a significant number of industry 
segments are aggressively pursuing best software practices to 
cut their costs, the annual $42.0 billion cost to the 
Department of Defense is so large that even a fraction of 
possible savings, if realized, would have a dramatic impact on 
force modernization.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to mandate 
the use of identified best practices for software development 
and management for all acquisition programs and recommends $4.5 
million in PE 63XXXN for the Tri Service Software Program 
Managers Network.

Intercooled recuperated gas turbine engine

    The budget request contained $17.7 million in PE 63573N to 
continue development and full scale system testing of the 
intercooled recuperated (ICR) gas turbine engine.
    The committee supports the development of the ICR gas 
turbine as the next-generation marine propulsion gas turbine 
and potential power plant for surface combatants and other 
ships based on the significantly reduced life cycle fuel costs 
and improved capabilities that have been demonstrated during 
the development program. The engine is being developed in 
accordance with cooperative agreements between the United 
States and the United Kingdom and the United States and France.
    The committee notes that in 1998 the Navy significantly 
restructured the ICR program in accordance with program 
guidance contained in the statement of managers accompanying 
the conference report on H.R. 4103 (H. Rept. 105-746). The ICR 
Essential Program has been structured to meet development 
milestones for the United Kingdom and France's common new 
generation frigate and to provide industry with a qualified 
marine gas turbine for consideration as the prime mover for the 
DD-21 next-generation surface combatant. Under the program the 
Navy will complete sufficient development testing to 
characterize technical attributes and risks, complete the 
second 500 hour development test, and identify a pre-production 
engine configuration that will then undergo qualification 
testing by the United Kingdom and France. During the 
qualification test phase of the program, U.S. Navy 
participation will include technical review, witnessing tests, 
and accepting test results.
    The committee recommends the budget request in PE 63573N. 
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report to 
the Congressional defense committees with the fiscal year 2001 
budget request those measures necessary to ensure completion of 
the ICR Essential Program.

Joint experimentation program

    The budget request contained $41.8 million in PE 63727N for 
the Joint Warfighting Experimentation program.
    The program funds the field experiments and supporting 
simulation to evaluate potential systems and concepts and their 
contribution toward achieving the objective of enhanced 
effectiveness and dominance of U.S. armed forces in future 
military operations. The committee notes that the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff's ``Joint Vision 2010'' and 
supporting conceptual doctrine statements by the military 
services stress the critical role that technology will play in 
achieving new levels of effectiveness across the range of 
future military operations. The committee also notes that the 
program will initially focus on experiments relative to the 
contribution of advanced information technology to joint 
warfighting capabilities. The committee supports a coordinated 
joint program that will explore and experiment with new 
operational concepts, doctrine, organizations, training, and 
system technologies to understand the new capabilities needed 
to achieve the next century's military requirements.
    The committee recommends $49.8 million in PE 63727N, an 
increase of $8.0 million for Joint Warfighting Experimentation 
program.

Joint non-lethal weapons programs

    The budget request included $23.3 million in PE 63851M for 
non-lethal weapons.
    The committee understands that the XM 303 Under-Barrel 
Tactical Payload System (UBTPS) is being examined for use in 
internal security and rear area security activities by the 
military services, Special Operations Command, and the National 
Guard.
    Accordingly, the committee considers the continued 
development and evaluation of the UBTPS in fiscal year 2000 to 
be a matter of Congressional interest. Further, the committee 
expects the military services, Special Operations Command, and 
the National Guard to consider the XM 303 UBTPS for the purpose 
of determining their requirements for non-lethal systems.

Joint tactical combat training system

    The budget request contained $26.3 million in PE 24571N for 
Consolidated Training Systems Development, including $8.0 
million for continued development of the Joint Tactical Combat 
Training System (JTCTS).
    The JTCTS is a Navy-led, joint Air Force/Navy program for 
the development of fixed, transportable, and mobile range 
instrumentation for shore-based tactical air crew training and 
for deployable, at-sea naval expeditionary force training. The 
committee report on H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105-532) directed the 
Secretary of the Navy, in coordination with the Secretary of 
the Air Force, to conduct an assessment of the feasibility and 
desirability of a transition strategy from the existing Navy 
large area tracking ranges (LATR) and the Air Force's AN/ASQ-34 
Kadena Interim Training System (KITS) to the objective JTCTS 
capability. The committee expressed the belief that such a 
strategy should include potential improvements in the legacy 
systems, requirements for interoperability with the JTCTS, and 
ultimate replacement of the legacy systems by JTCTS. The 
statement of managers accompanying the conference report on 
H.R. 4103 (H. Rept. 105-746) directed the Department of Defense 
to conduct a technical evaluation to compare the capabilities, 
performance, and costs of an integrated LATR/KITS system to 
JTCTS.
    The committee notes that the report of the Navy's JTCTS 
transition strategy assessment, dated February 1999, concluded 
that programmatic, technical, and operational use factors 
indicate a marginal return on investment for improvements to 
existing legacy systems. The assessment concludes that neither 
of the legacy systems (LATR or KITS) possesses the capabilities 
needed to meet the key operational requirements for JTCTS. The 
committee also notes that the Department intends to complete 
the technical evaluation required by the statement of managers 
accompanying the conference report on H.R. 4103 (H. Rept. 105-
746) by August 1999.
    The committee recommends the budget request for continued 
development of JTCTS.

Lightweight 155MM howitzer

    The budget request contained $42.7 million in PE 63635M for 
Marine Corps ground combat supporting arms systems and included 
$23.2 million for the XM 777 lightweight 155mm towed howitzer.
    The XM 777 howitzer was developed as the replacement for 
the aging and operationally deficient M198 towed howitzer for 
the Marine Corps and the Army. The XM 777 will retain the range 
of the M198 while reducing the weight from 16,000 pounds to 
9,000 pounds. The weight reduction significantly improves 
transportability by sea, air, and land platforms while 
providing increased rate of fire.
    The committee supports this urgently needed replacement and 
recommends $46.9 million in PE 63635M, an increase of $4.2 
million for the XM 777.

Littoral warfare fast patrol craft

    The budget request contained $75.6 million in PE 63792N for 
the Navy's advanced technology demonstration program.
    The committee notes that the Office of Naval Research is 
evaluating initial results of concept evaluation of a littoral 
warfare fast patrol craft including preliminary design of the 
ship and fire support weapons module, development of a 
communications module, and at-sea demonstration of the concept. 
The committee believes that the concept could provide an 
enhanced in-shore surveillance, communications, and fire 
support capability in support of Navy and Marine littoral 
operations, and that the Navy should continue the evaluation 
and determine the validity of an operational requirement for 
such a capability. The committee directs the Secretary of the 
Navy to report to the Congressional defense committees with the 
fiscal year 2001 budget request, the program plan, schedule, 
and funding for the concept development and evaluation program.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
63792N to continue the concept development and evaluation 
program for the littoral warfare fast patrol craft.

Location of global positioning systems jammers

    The budget request contained $163.1 million in PE 64270N 
for development of electronic warfare systems. No funds were 
requested to continue development and demonstration of a state-
of-the art precision surveillance and targeting system for 
location of global positioning systems jammers (LOCO GPSI).
    The Congress provided $3.5 million in fiscal year 1997 and 
$2.8 million in fiscal year 1998 to develop and demonstrate a 
prototype system for locating and targeting global positioning 
system jammers. The committee understands that the laboratory, 
field, and initial flight tests of the LOCO GPSI prototype have 
demonstrated the ability of the prototype to target such 
jammers.
    The committee recommends $169.1 million in PE 64270N, an 
increase of $6.0 million to continue the development and 
evaluation of the LOCO GPSI system. The committee directs the 
Secretary of the Navy to assess the operational requirement for 
an electronic countermeasures system for precision targeting 
global positioning system jammers and the program plan for 
development of such systems, and to report the results of the 
assessment to the Congressional defense committees with the 
submission of the fiscal year 2001 budget request.

Marine Corps H-1 helicopter upgrade

    The budget request contained $157.7 million in PE 64245N to 
continue engineering and manufacturing development for upgrade 
of the Marine Corps fleet of light/attack helicopters.
    Under the upgrade, the existing fleet of 201 AH-1W attack 
and 104 UH-1N utility helicopters will be remanufactured into 
180 AH-1Z and 100 UH-1Y helicopters. The program was initiated 
in 1995 to provide increased performance, reliability, 
maintainability, and commonality at an ``affordable'' cost, 
reduce maintenance and spare parts cost and overhead, and 
extend the life of the existing Marine light/attack helicopter 
fleet until an advanced rotor craft common to all services 
would become available around 2020. Known as ``4BN/4BW,'' the 
program replaces the current two-bladed rotor system in both 
helicopters with a new, identical, four-bladed, all composite 
rotor system, a common engine and power train, and a fully 
integrated state-of-the-art cockpit.
    The committee notes that the Commandant of the Marine Corps 
has included an increase of $26.6 million for this program as 
his number one unfunded priority for aviation research and 
development in fiscal year 2000. Consequently, the committee 
recommends $184.3 million in PE 64245N, an increase of $26.6 
million. The committee is concerned, however, by the continuing 
cost growth for a weapons system the Marine Corps regards as 
critical to its future warfighting capability and expects the 
Secretary of the Navy to review the program, establish a 
revised program baseline, and take measures necessary to manage 
the program within the revised baseline.

Marine mammal research

    The budget request contained $361.1 million in PE 61153N 
for the Navy's defense research sciences program.
    Of the funds provided in PE 61153N, the committee 
recommends $500,000 for continuation of the Navy's cooperative 
marine mammal research program.

Multi-function self-aligned gate technology

    The budget request contained $69.7 million in PE 35204N for 
tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and $9.4 million in 
35207F for manned reconnaissance systems. No funding was 
provided in either program element for the multi-function self-
aligned gate (MSAG) active aperture antenna (AAA) technology.
    The Congress has supported this AAA technology for several 
years, and the committee is pleased with the successful MSAG 
antenna demonstration completed in August 1998. During this 
unprecedented demonstration, the MSAG provided wide-band, 
duplex communications links simultaneously to a ground vehicle, 
an aircraft, and a satellite surrogate.
    The committee believes that a single, electronically-
steered antenna array that can provide multiple wide-band 
communications links would be a cost-effective solution to 
numerous Department of Defense communications requirements. 
However, the committee is concerned to note that the Department 
has failed to provide even minimal funding for this technology.
    The committee understands that the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications and 
Intelligence) is considering initiation of an advanced concept 
technology demonstration of the MSAG technology and that the 
Air Force is supportive of testing this antenna technology on 
reconnaissance aircraft.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 
million in PE 35204N for operational evaluation of the MSAG AAA 
on the tactical control station and the Predator UAV. The 
committee also recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
35207F for evaluation of the MSAG AAA onboard the RC-135 Rivet 
Joint aircraft.

Multipurpose processor

    The budget request contained $40.0 million in PE 64503N for 
the submarine sonar improvement program, including $22.5 
million to continue development of the Acoustic Rapid 
Commercial-Off-the-Shelf Insertion (A-RCI) program.
    The committee notes the significant improvement in sonar 
system capabilities that has resulted from the application of 
multipurpose processor (MPP) acoustics signal processing 
technology to Navy submarine sonar systems. The committee has 
strongly supported the Navy's selection of the MPP as the 
cornerstone for sonar upgrades for existing submarines in the 
A-RCI program. The committee has also supported the development 
of advanced MPP signal processing capabilities in the A-RCI 
program, in the Navy science and technology base, and in the 
integration of those capabilities in submarine, airborne, 
surface sonar, and undersea surveillance systems.
    The committee recommends the budget request for the 
submarine sonar improvement program and continued funding 
support for the development of advanced MPP acoustics signal 
processing technologies as an integral part of the Navy's sonar 
improvement research and development program.

National oceanographic partnership program

    The budget request contained $60.3 million in PE 62435N for 
applied research in oceanographic and atmospheric technology, 
including $10.0 million for Department of the Navy support to 
the National Oceanographic Partnership Program.
    Sec. 282 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201) established the National 
Oceanographic Partnership Program to promote U.S. national 
goals of assuring national security, advancing economic 
development, protecting quality of life, and strengthening 
science education and communication through improved knowledge 
of the ocean and to coordinate and strengthen oceanographic 
efforts in support of those goals.
    The committee has reviewed the National Ocean Research 
Leadership Council's fiscal year 1999 report to the Congress on 
the National Oceanographic Partnership Program and notes the 
steadily increasing activity in pursuit of the program goals 
and increased funding for the program from the participating 
federal agencies. The committee notes that the Ocean Research 
Advisory Panel believes the program has fostered a culture of 
partnership among participating government agencies, academia, 
and industry which has resulted in unique new approaches to 
ocean research. The committee also notes the panel's finding 
that one of the most pressing concerns in oceanography is the 
need for integrated ocean observation systems.
    The committee understands that the Department of the Navy 
is declassifying and will make available for use by the public 
and by private institutions and agencies previously classified 
acoustical data from the Navy's underwater Sound Surveillance 
System (SOSUS) and data on ocean temperature and salinity 
levels under the Arctic ice cap. The statement of managers 
accompanying the conference report on H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105-
736) requested that the Chairman of the National Oceanographic 
Research Council conduct an assessment of the value of data 
from the Navy's underwater Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS) in 
public and private ocean research. The committee understands 
that the council will consider support for a SOSUS pilot 
project to determine the feasibility of providing routine 
access to declassified SOSUS data.
    The committee recommends $60.3 million in PE 62435N, 
including $10.0 million for the National Oceanographic 
Partnership Program.

Navy aviation survivability

    The budget request contained $7.3 million in PE 63216N for 
aviation survivability.
    The committee understands that the Department of Defense 
has conducted an extremely successful Foreign Comparative Test 
(FCT) of the K-36D Russian ejector seat and that this seat 
demonstrated crew survivable ejection capability which 
surpassed that of current U.S. ejection seats. The committee 
notes that the Air Force has continued evaluation of the K-36D 
and has developed a new version, the K-36/3.5A in order to meet 
U.S. requirements and yet provide equivalent capabilities in a 
lighter weight version.
    While the Air Force is actively pursuing enhanced crew 
safety capability offered by the K-36/3.5A, the committee is 
concerned that the Navy has not seriously considered this 
opportunity to afford Navy and Marine Corps aviators the same 
increased safe ejection capability. The Navy has proposed to 
enter into a multi-year procurement F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet 
aircraft that do not offer the same level of crew safety as the 
K-36/3.5A. Additionally, the Marine Corps is engaged in re-
manufacture of its fleet of AV-8B Harrier jets to correct 
serious safety and sustainability problems.
    The committee believes that both of these Navy aircraft 
represent the backbone of Navy aviation force projection 
capability and should be required to seriously evaluate the 
enhanced crew safety offered by the K-36/3.5A ejection seat. 
The committee recommends that the Secretary of the Navy provide 
a report to the Congressional defense committees with the 
submission of the fiscal year 2001 budget request including the 
details of that evaluation.

Navy land attack missile program

    The budget request contained $101.5 million in PE 63795N 
for systems integration and testing, including $21.8 million 
for the Navy's land attack missile program.
    The committee notes the operational requirement for a land 
attack missile system in the Navy's near-term and far-term fire 
support systems. The committee continues to support the 
development, risk reduction, and analytical activities leading 
to a defense acquisition milestone decision for a missile 
system program that will satisfy the operational requirements 
for a Navy land attack missile system
    The statement of managers accompanying the conference 
report on H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105-736) directed the Secretary 
of Defense to ensure the conduct of an analysis of alternatives 
(AOA) to support the acquisition of a Navy land attack missile, 
and further directed that the Navy should not proceed to a 
Milestone I decision until the AOA and other requirements 
appropriate to a major acquisition milestone decision have been 
satisfied. The committee notes that the analyses and studies to 
satisfy this guidance are currently underway. The March 1999 
letter report from the Director of Defense Operational Test and 
Evaluation, which was submitted in response to the direction 
contained in the Appropriations committee report on H.R. 4103 
(H. Rept. 105-591), states that the results of the studies will 
be examined as part of a 1999 Defense Acquisition Board review 
of the land attack missile program and that the Department of 
Defense intends to conduct operational testing to verify the 
issues on any land attack missile option that is pursued. The 
committee expects that these actions should result in the 
selection from among the competing alternatives of the most 
cost- and operationally effective near-term solution to the 
operational requirement.
    The committee also notes that the far-term naval surface 
fire support program will require an advanced land attack 
missile system for the DD-21 land attack destroyer when that 
ship joins the fleet in 2009, and that the Navy has yet to 
establish a development program for such a missile. The 
committee believes that a competitive development program 
should be established beginning in fiscal year 2001to ensure 
the availability of an advanced land attack missile for the 
first DD-21.
    The committee recommends $21.8 million in PE 63795N to 
continue development and systems integration for the Navy's 
near-term land attack missile. The committee directs the 
Secretary of the Navy to report to the Congressional defense 
committees the program plan and funding requirements for 
development of an advanced land attack missile system for the 
DD-21 and other naval combatants with the submission of the 
fiscal year 2001 budget request.

Navy theater missile defense and fleet defense radar upgrades

    The budget request contained $329.8 million in PE 63868C 
for the Navy theater wide (NTW) theater ballistic missile 
defense (TMD) system and $5.7 million in PE63755N for ship self 
defense.
    The committee notes the benefits of leveraging the large 
investment in the Aegis weapon system as the technical basis 
for the development of an effective sea-based theater missile 
defense system. The committee understands, however, that the 
current SPY-1 radar does not meet TMD mission requirements and 
that significant radar upgrades are required to reach the 
objective capabilities for the NTW system. At the same time, 
the committee recognizes that radar upgrades required by the 
TMD mission need to be thoroughly integrated with continuing 
radar improvements required for fleet defense to meet aircraft 
and cruise missile threats, development of the cooperative 
engagement capability (CEC), and continued development of next 
generation Navy destroyers and cruisers.
    The committee is aware that the Navy has two radar 
alternatives under consideration to meet its immediate TMD 
requirements, an adjunct X-band radar and a S/C band SPY-1 
upgrade. The committee also understands that the Navy is 
conducting a competitive development of a multi-function radar/
volume search radar (MFR/VSR) suite for the DD-21 and CVN-77 
programs. The committee is concerned that the Navy is 
simultaneously conducting three different surface ship radar 
development programs and that two major competitors are 
participating in all three efforts. All three of these radar 
programs support similar area search and tracking requirements 
for current and future surface ships, and the committee 
believes that all three alternatives should be carefully 
evaluated to determine the most cost effective and technically 
feasible approach for supporting NTW and fleet defense radar 
requirements.
    The committee notes that the Navy has unique expertise in 
developing radar and command and control capabilities required 
for fleet defense, and that these requirements overlap those 
derived from the TMD mission. However, the committee believes 
that the Navy needs to lay out a clearly defined roadmap of 
radar requirements and technology approaches to enable 
identification of the best approach for various programs.
    The committee also notes that the Ballistic Missile Defense 
Organization shares TMD development costs for a number of 
programs, including the Space Based Laser, Navy Area Defense, 
and Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Configuration 3 (PAC-3) 
programs, while retaining program oversight over the executing 
service. The committee believes that this is a sound management 
and funding structure for NTW as well.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $55.7 million in PE 
63755N, an increase of $50.0 million for continued development 
of an adjunct X-band radar, a SPY-1 upgrade, and the MFR/VSR 
suite to meet fleet defense and TMD requirements. The committee 
further directs that the Secretary of the Navy provide the 
Congressional defense committees a comprehensive TMD and fleet 
defense radar roadmap with submission of the fiscal year 2000 
budget request.

NSSN advanced submarine systems technology development and insertion

    The budget request contained $241.5 million in PE 64558N 
for continued engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) 
of the VIRGINIA Class New Attack Submarine (NSSN) and $115.8 
million in PE 63561N for advanced submarine systems 
development.
    The committee continues to strongly support the development 
of advanced submarine technologies for the NSSN, and is pleased 
with the manner in which the Navy has adopted and is executing 
a strategy for increasing the capabilities of the NSSN 
submarine. Incremental insertion of advanced technologies in 
the follow-on ships of the class will lead to the production of 
a more capable, less expensive nuclear attack submarine.
    The committee has reviewed the February 1999 report from 
the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology) on 
the updated technology insertion plan and notes that the 
program has been extended through the first seven ships of the 
class. The committee notes that, overall, the budget request 
contains approximately $292.0 million in EMD and Ship 
Construction, Navy funding to support the VIRGINIA Class 
technology insertion program. The committee also notes 
shortfalls in the advanced submarine technology program that 
have been identified by the Chief of Naval Operations.
    The committee recommends the following increases for the 
NSSN advanced submarine systems technology development and 
insertion program that have been recommended by the Navy to 
accelerate and enhance critical warfighting capabilities in the 
VIRGINIA Class NSSN: $6.5 million in PE 63561N, $18.5 million 
in PE 64558N, and $5.0 million in Ship Construction, Navy.

Optical correlation technology for automatic target recognition

    The budget request contained $7.8 million in PE 63232D8Z 
for the development and demonstration of automatic target 
recognition technology and $34.3 million in PE 63609N for the 
Navy's conventional munitions program.
    The committee report on H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105-532) 
directed the Undersecretary of Defense (Acquisition and 
Technology) to provide to the Congressional defense committees 
the Department's overall plan and program for the development 
and demonstration of optical correlator technology for 
automatic target recognition. The committee has reviewed the 
plan and notes that the Director, Defense Research and 
Engineering supports the development and demonstration of the 
technology as a priority of the ATR technology assessment 
program. The committee also notes that additional funding 
support to the program has resulted in key technology advances 
and increased the potential for near term transition of the 
technology and its applications to weapon systems.
    The committee recommends an increase of $8.7 million in PE 
63609N to continue the program for development and 
demonstration of a miniature, rugged optical correlator for 
automatic target recognition and improved aim point selection 
for the Navy's Standard Missile.

Optically fed and controlled phased array antenna

    The budget request contained $68.8 million in PE 62232N for 
applied research in communications, command and control, 
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, including $22.2 
million for radar technology.
    The committee notes the potential for the development of 
monolithic circuits that combine photonic, optic, and microwave 
technologies in highly integrated, multi-level photonic 
modules. The use of such modules could provide increased 
bandwidth, advanced beamforming capabilities, and improved 
performance in advanced military radar and communication 
systems that are lower in cost, smaller in size and weight, and 
require less power than those systems that employ current 
phased-array radar technology.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 
62232N for applied research in the development and application 
of multi-level photonic module technology to optically fed and 
controlled phased array radar and communications systems.

Optically multiplexed wideband radar beamformer

    The budget request contained $68.8 million in PE 62232N for 
applied research in communications, command, control, 
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance technology, 
including $22.2 million for radar technology.
    The committee understands that high instantaneous bandwidth 
is needed in shipboard radar surveillance systems to achieve 
the necessary resolution for theater ballistic missile defense, 
ship self-defense, and non-cooperative target identification. 
The committee notes that the use of optical wavelength-division 
multiplexing (WDM) technology, now being developed in the 
commercial sector, may provide the capability for wideband 
beamforming that could result in the demonstration of a 
wideband electronically-steered active radar antenna with high 
instantaneous bandwidth and the resolution necessary for 
theater ballistic missile defense and non-cooperative target 
identification. Use of optical WDM technology to reduce 
hardware complexity would permit reductions in system cost and 
achieve performance levels that are needed for ship self 
defense in a littoral environment.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
62232N to initiate a cooperative program for research, 
development, and demonstration of a prototype optically 
multiplexed, wideband, radar beam-forming array using optical 
WDM technology.

P-3 maritime patrol aircraft combat systems research and development

    The budget request contained $3.0 million in PE 64221N for 
engineering and manufacturing development in support of the P-3 
maritime patrol aircraft.
    The program provides upgrades to P-3C aircraft systems to 
enhance surface and subsurface tracking, classification, and 
attack capabilities, specific emitter identification, and 
improved radar tracking, and develops the software necessary to 
integrate advanced sensors into embedded P-3C Update III 
computer systems.
    The committee notes that major theater combatant commanders 
continue to give high priority to the use of P-3C aircraft for 
reconnaissance and surveillance missions in both maritime and 
littoral operations. The Navy's recently-published Integrated 
Submarine Warfare Roadmap, which responded to direction 
contained in the statement of managers accompanying the 
conference report on H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105-736), cites 
improvements in P-3 system capabilities as either essential or 
critical to near-term anti-submarine warfare operational 
capabilities. The committee also notes that there is, as yet, 
no program for development of a new multi-mission maritime 
aircraft. The committee strongly believes that increased 
priority must be given to the maintenance of a robust, 
continuing research and development program to support 
sustainment of existing P-3C aircraft anti-submarine warfare 
and anti-surface warfare capabilities and introduction of new 
capabilities.
    The committee recommends the budget request, and strongly 
recommends that the Secretary of the Navy carefully review the 
fiscal year 2001 budget request for the P-3 maritime patrol 
aircraft program to ensure that it is in accordance with the 
program priorities established in the Integrated Submarine 
Warfare Roadmap.

Parametric airborne dipping sonar

    The budget request contained $58.0 million in PE 63747N for 
undersea warfare advanced technology development and $118.7 
million in PE 64216N for the multi-mission helicopter upgrade 
program. No funds were requested for the parametric airborne 
dipping sonar (PADS).
    The committee notes that the Block II Upgrade to the LAMPS 
Mark III Weapons System will make significant improvements in 
both the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and anti-surface warfare 
mission areas. The Airborne Low Frequency Sonar (ALFS) will 
provide the principle improvement in the LAMPS Mark III ASW 
mission capability.
    The committee also notes that, in addition to the ALFS 
program, the Navy's advanced technology demonstration of a 
prototype PADS has indicated the significant potential of 
parametric sonar technology against both mine-like and 
submarine targets in littoral waters. The results of the Navy's 
recent at-sea test of PADS indicate that the essential goals of 
the PADS demonstration have been met and suggest its potential 
for mine detection. However, the PADS ASW performance has not 
yet been demonstrated against a submarine target. The Secretary 
of the Navy's evaluation report, dated January 1999, states 
that the PADS technology merits further pursuit and that the 
Navy intends to continue demonstrations of parametric sonar 
technology using increases provided by the Congress. The 
committee believes that demonstrations of the PADS prototype 
technology against a submarine target must be completed before 
any decision is made to continue with a development program for 
PADS.
    The committee recommends the budget request in PE 63747N 
and PE 64216N and awaits recommendations from the Secretary of 
the Navy to continue further demonstrations and development of 
PADS.

Phased array weather radar

    The budget request contained $37.6 million in PE 62111N for 
applied research in surface/aerospace surveillance and weapons 
technology.
    The committee notes ongoing Navy tests of the capability of 
the AN/SPY-1 phased array radar for the measurement of detailed 
local atmospheric conditions over water and in clear air. The 
committee is aware of proposals that have been made for the use 
of the SPY-1 radar at the National Oceanographic and 
Atmospheric Agency's (NOAA) National Severe Storms Laboratory 
to evaluate the radar's capability for the collection of 
weather data and to test the technology for upgrading the WSR-
88D weather radar with phased array radar capabilities. The 
committee believes that such an evaluation could result in 
advanced radar capabilities for severe weather warning, and 
could also result in enhanced capabilities for the SPY-1 radar 
for over-land surveillance and missile engagement guidance and 
control during littoral operations.
    The committee encourages the Navy, NOAA, and the National 
Science Foundation (NSF) to enter into a cooperative agreement 
for loan of a SPY-1 radar to the National Severe Storms 
Laboratory and evaluation of the potential use of the radar 
system for weather prediction, observation, and warning.
    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 
62111N, to be used as matching funds to support a joint Navy-
NOAA-NSF evaluation of the SPY-1 radar's capability for the 
collection of weather data and the technology for upgrading 
weather radar with phased array radar capabilities.

Power electronic building blocks and power node control centers

    The budget request contained $41.5 million in PE 63508N for 
surface ship and submarine hull, mechanical, and electrical 
advanced technology, including $18.0 million for development of 
advanced shipboard electrical systems.
    The committee notes that the budget request supports the 
continued development and demonstration of power electronic 
building block technology, however, no funds were requested to 
continue the development of power node control centers. The 
committee continues to believe that power node control centers 
offer potential for significant improvements in efficiency and 
effectiveness for advanced electrical distribution system fault 
detection, switching, reconfiguration, and control of shipboard 
electrical power systems.
    The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE 
63508N to continue the program for development and 
demonstration of power node control centers.

Project ``M''

    The budget request contained $41.5 million in PE 63508N for 
submarine and surface ship handling, machinery, and engineering 
systems, including $2.4 million to complete the development, 
demonstration, and transition of advanced vibration control and 
quieting technology for naval machinery support structures.
    The committee has closely followed the progress of Project 
M, a mounting system for active control of noise and vibration 
cancellation on ship machinery support systems, from its 
inception as a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 
advanced submarine technology program to the transition and 
continued development of the technology by the Navy. The 
results of the program have shown that the active machinery 
raft may provide unprecedented quieting for submarines and 
other ships. The committee notes the Navy's plan to conduct in-
water tests of the Project M technology installed in a large 
scale test vehicle at the Navy's underwater acoustic test range 
and believes that these tests must be completed in order to 
fully characterize the overall performance of the technology.
    The statement of managers which accompanied the conference 
report on H.R. 3616 (H.Rept 105-736) requested that the 
Secretary of the Navy assess the potential of the application 
of the Project M technology in surface ships. The Secretary's 
assessment, dated April 1999, concluded that, although Project 
M offered potential benefits in low frequency vibration 
control, the impact on surface ship design make it unlikely 
that such technologies would be used in existing or future 
surface combatants. Consequently, the Secretary stated that a 
full-scale prototype development and demonstration of Project M 
technology should not be pursued. However, the assessment also 
stated that these conclusions should not confine or limit 
continued science and technology investments in active control 
vibration reduction technologies for other applications.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 
million in PE 63508N for completion of the in-water evaluation 
of Project M quieting technology in the \1/4\-scale submarine 
vehicle and transition of the technology to the Naval Sea 
Systems Command.

S-3B surveillance system upgrade program

    The budget request contained $2.1 million in PE 64217N for 
the weapon system improvement program for the S-3B maritime 
patrol aircraft.
    The committee notes that the objective of the S-3B 
surveillance system upgrade program is the integration of off-
the-shelf radar, electro-optic and infrared sensors, electronic 
support measures, and tactical data links to demonstrate an 
enhanced stand-off surveillance capability in support of Navy 
battle group operations that could be achieved with low risk 
and at relatively low cost. For fiscal year 1997, Congress 
added funds to demonstrate the APS-137V(V)5 synthetic aperture 
radar on the S-3B in phase I of the program. The committee 
notes Navy proposals for phase II of the program which would 
demonstrate an integrated surveillance system mission package 
on the S-3B aircraft. The committee believes that the phase II 
program is a logical follow-on to phase I system demonstrations 
to be conducted later this year.
    The committee recommends $9.1 million in PE 64217N, an 
increase of $7.0 million for the S-3B surveillance system 
upgrade program.

Ship survivability and personnel protection

    The budget request contained $108.3 million in PE 63513N, 
including $6.6 million for development and demonstration of 
survivability and protection technologies.
    The committee notes that requirements for increased mission 
capabilities and reduced manning in future naval ships will 
place a premium on protection of ships personnel and the 
ability to monitor personnel status under all conditions. The 
committee has followed closely the Navy's efforts to develop 
and introduce to the fleet a computer-based, total ship damage 
control information management system that would enable rapid, 
coordinated response to wartime and peacetime casualties, 
reduce crew manpower requirements, and improve manpower 
utilization. The committee notes that the Navy is evaluating a 
personal status monitor that could provide the capability for 
detecting man overboard incidents. The committee continues to 
support the evaluation of commercial off-the-shelf, non-
developmental items (COTS NDI) that could improve operational 
safety and combat survivability and have a high potential for 
contributing to safety of flight, fire fighting, damage 
control, emergency preparedness ashore, and survival at sea.
    The committee recommends $112.3 million in PE 63513N, an 
increase of $4.0 million for development, demonstration, and 
evaluation of ship survivability and protection technologies.

Silicon carbide semiconductor substrates

    The budget request contained $78.0 million in PE 62234N for 
applied research in materials, electronics, and computer 
technology.
    The committee is aware that silicon carbide is a wide band-
gap semiconductor material with unique physical and electrical 
properties that will make possible the fabrication of the next-
generation of microelectronic devices. These devices will be 
capable of operation in radiation environments and at high 
temperatures, high voltages, high power levels, and high 
frequencies in the microwave regime. These capabilities will 
enable a wide range of applications in military and commercial 
systems, such as high voltage/high power systems, advanced 
radar, nuclear instruments, satellite communications, and 
advanced sensors. The committee supports the progress that has 
been made in the development of silicon carbide materials and 
encourages partnerships with industry for early 
commercialization of the technology.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
62234N for the continued development of silicon carbide 
semiconductor materials and to advance high electrical power 
control and other applications for next generation military 
platforms.

Smart propulsor product model

    The budget request included $5.3 million in PE 63563N for 
development and validation of design tools and methods for ship 
concept studies.
    The Congress provided an increase of $3.0 million in fiscal 
year 1999 for the smart propulsor product model (SPPM), a joint 
Navy/industry effort to develop software design and analysis 
tools that bring together design, manufacturing, cost and 
capabilities modeling for ship propulsion devices. The 
committee notes that successful completion of the development 
program for the SPPM should enable the Navy to consider 
innovative propulsion concepts for future ships while 
considering life-cycle cost, manufacturing techniques, and 
their overall impact on ship system performance and cost.
    The committee recommends $8.3 million in PE 63563N, an 
increase of $3.0 million to continue development of the SPPM.

SSGN conversion from Trident-class SSBN submarines

    The budget request contained no funds for conversion of 
Trident-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) to a 
conventional cruise missile (SSGN) configuration.
    The committee believes that sustaining a robust nuclear 
deterrent ought to be of the highest priority for future use of 
Trident class SSBN's. The committee notes Section 1032 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for 1998 (Public Law 105-85, 
111 Stat. 1948), as amended, limits the expenditure of funds 
for the retirement of any of the 18 Trident SSBNs and other 
strategic nuclear systems unless START II enters into the force 
and the Secretary of Defense exercises a waiver to implement 
START II.
    The committee further notes that the statement of managers 
accompanying the conference report on H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105-
736) directed the Secretary of Defense to report to the 
Congressional defense committees by March 1, 1999 on an 
analysis of Trident SSBN conversion to the SSGN configuration. 
This analysis is intended to address a range of conversion 
issues, including costs and schedule, major problem areas 
requiring additional analysis, implications for arms control 
treaty compliance, and possible benefits. The committee notes 
that the Secretary's report has not been received.
    If the decision is made to retire SSBN submarines as a 
result of arms control agreements, the committee believes that 
the Department of Defense should consider the one time, near 
term opportunity Trident SSBN conversion to SSGN presents to 
the United States military. As a result, upon such a decision 
and the release of the Secretary of Defense's report, the 
committee directs the Navy to consider submitting a 
reprogramming request to the Congressional defense committees 
to reprogram funds required to support concept validation and 
cost and operational effectiveness analysis leading to a 
defense acquisition milestone decision on conversion of the 
Trident SSBN to SSGN conversion. The reprogramming 
authorization to initiate concept evaluation and validation for 
the SSGN conversion should not alter the nation's policy of 
remaining at START I force levels until START II enters into 
force, nor shall it detract in any way from the overall U.S. 
deterrent posture or policy.
    The committee re-emphasizes the importance it places on the 
requested report and directs the Secretary to provide it to the 
Congressional defense committees at the earliest possible date.

Superconducting waveform generator

    The budget request contained $78.0 million in PE 62234N for 
applied research in materials, electronics, and computer 
technology, including $9.8 million for radio frequency solid 
state device and control components.
    The committee notes that the Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency and the Office of Naval Research demonstrated 
notable performance gains through the use of cryogenic 
electronics and high temperature superconductivity technology 
in analog and digital electronic components. The Congress 
provided $1.0 million in fiscal year 1999 to continue the 
development of super conducting waveform generator and analog-
to-digital converter technology that could lead to the 
demonstration of an advanced ``cryo-radar'' with increased 
performance and clutter rejection and reduced size, power, and 
weight. The committee has since learned that the program cannot 
be executed at the funding level provided.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 
62234N to continue the program for development of 
superconducting waveform generator and analog-to-digital 
converter technology, and to fulfill the intent expressed by 
the conferees in the statement of managers accompanying the 
conference report on H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105-736).

SWATH ship mine counter-measures demonstrator

    The budget request contained $75.6 million in PE 63792N for 
Navy advanced technology demonstrations. No funds were 
requested for demonstration of a high-speed mine counter-
measures (MCM) ship.
    The committee notes that the Navy's existing force of 
dedicated mine warfare ships are proven and capable of 
sustained mine hunting and clearance operations, but their slow 
speed and limited operational radius limits the effectiveness 
of their deployment with Navy surface combatant forces. The 
committee also notes that Navy studies indicate continued 
requirements for a dedicated MCM force for the foreseeable 
future.
    The committee is aware of proposals that have been made for 
evaluation of advanced, high-speed hull designs as MCM ships. 
These proposals include the adaptation of existing Navy small 
water area, twin hull (SWATH) craft, equipped with air and 
surface MCM systems, as a system demonstrator for evaluation in 
fleet battle experiments of the effectiveness of such craft in 
MCM operations.
    The committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to assess the 
requirement for a high-speed MCM ship demonstration program and 
provide to the Congressional defense committees by October 1, 
1999, a report which includes the Secretary's recommendations 
regarding the demonstration, a program execution plan, and Navy 
funding for the program.

Tactical control system

    The budget request contained $69.7 million in PE 35204N for 
tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), and included $24.6 
million for the tactical control system (TCS). No funding was 
provided for the operation of the UAV systems integration 
laboratory (SIL) or to continue its development of the multiple 
UAV simulation environment (MUSE).
    The committee continues to be supportive of the TCS and 
notes that TCS software is the key to interoperability for 
future medium-altitude and tactical UAVs and their payloads. 
Further, the committee is supportive of the TCS objective to 
interface with high-altitude UAVs.
    The committee notes that the Naval Surface Warfare Center 
program office continues to develop most of the TCS software 
and expend most of the TCS developmental funding in-house. The 
committee believes that the TCS program could be more 
efficiently managed if the TCS developments, including software 
engineering and maintenance, were to be outsourced in whole to 
the prime system integration contractor. Further, the committee 
believes such outsourcing would allow for a smaller and more 
efficient government program office. The committee believes 
that holding a prime contractor responsible for total system 
performance has demonstrated success with many other programs.
    Finally, the committee notes that the U.S. Atlantic Command 
(USACOM) has been without a TCS capability for its UAV testing, 
and that additional funding is required to provide such a 
capability.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 
million for procuring a TCS ground station for USACOM. Further, 
the committee directs a reallocation of $4.5 million within PE 
35204N specifically to realize the program office efficiencies 
discussed above and to move software development and 
maintenance responsibility to the prime contractor. This 
funding is to be reapplied within the TCS program to fund the 
SIL MUSE efforts.

Tactical Tomahawk

    The budget request contained $147.2 million in PE 24229N 
for Tomahawk and Theater Mission Planning Center operational 
systems development, including $145.3 million for the Tactical 
Tomahawk program.
    The committee has supported the Navy's initiation of the 
Tactical Tomahawk program. However, the committee report on 
H.R. 3116 (H. Rept. 105-532) expressed particular concern about 
the Navy's ability to establish a competitive environment for 
future Tactical Tomahawk procurement and directed the Secretary 
of the Navy to report to the Congressional defense committees 
the Navy's plan for ensuring competitiveness in the production 
phase of the program.
    The Secretary's letter report, dated September 25, 1998, 
noted the Navy's decision to continue with the current Tomahawk 
manufacturer for both the Tactical Tomahawk development 
contract and the full rate production program that would 
commence in fiscal year 2003. The report also asserted that the 
cost to the Navy associated with acquisition of a comprehensive 
technical data package for the missile and facilitating a 
second source would be prohibitive and that the delay in 
bringing on a second source would not support the required 
schedule for the delivery of missiles to the fleet.
    The committee notes that the justification and approval 
(J&A) on which the sole-source decision for the Tactical 
Tomahawk program was based stated that the engineering and 
manufacturing development (EMD) contract would require the 
contractor to develop and maintain a complete technical data 
package to support EMD and future missile production. The 
committee also notes that since the approval of the J&A and 
award of the EMD contract for Tactical Tomahawk, the Navy has 
determined that it does not have the ability to provide a 
technical data package to firms that would wish to compete in 
related warhead programs because the ``EMD contract does not 
include a requirement for a technical data package.''
    The committee believes that the Navy's decision not to 
acquire a technical data package for the Tactical Tomahawk 
denies the ability to establish a second production source for 
the missile, should that be required in the future, and the 
ability of the Navy to compete any future procurement of the 
missile. In view of the operational expenditures of the 
Tomahawk missile as a weapon of choice in current operations 
and the imminent need to replace those expenditures, the 
committee considers such a policy short-sighted.
    The committee also notes that the estimated cost of the 
Tactical Tomahawk program dictate that any procurement decision 
should be made only after a formal defense acquisition program 
milestone decision review at an appropriate time in the 
development program. The committee believes that such a 
milestone decision review should consider measures for 
establishing competitiveness in the production phase of the 
program.
    The committee recommends the budget request of $147.2 
million for continuation of the Tomahawk development program. 
The committee directs the Undersecretary of Defense 
(Acquisition and Technology) to review the Tactical Tomahawk 
program and the decision not to acquire a technical data 
package for the missile. The Secretary shall report to the 
Congressional defense committees by December 31, 1999, on 
measures that will be taken to insure competition in future 
Tactical Tomahawk procurement and related programs.

Trajectory correctable munitions development

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 
(Public Law 105-261) provided $5.0 million in PE 63635M for the 
joint Army-Marine Corps Trajectory Correctable Munitions (TCM) 
development.
    The committee notes that the various agreements required 
for a joint international program have been agreed to by all 
parties and are to be signed in the near future. The committee 
continues to support TCM development and directs the Secretary 
of Defense to release the previously authorized funding to the 
Marine Corps promptly after the agreements are signed.

Ultra-high thermal conductivity fibers

    The budget request contained $78.0 million in PE 62234N for 
applied research in materials, electronics, and computer 
technology.
    The committee notes that over the last four years the Navy 
has engaged in a program to advance the use of ultra-high 
thermal conductivity fibers in high-performance, high-density 
electronic modules. Success in this area could permit the 
expanded use of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) electronic 
components in military aircraft and avionics (where the high 
thermal output of such components has constrained their use), 
and in substantial savings in system procurement costs.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 
62234N to continue the development of applications for ultra-
high thermal conductivity fibers technology.

Undersea warfare advanced technology

    The budget request contained $34.1 million in PE 62633N for 
applied research in undersea warfare weapons technology.
    The committee recommends $36.1 million, an increase of $2.0 
million to continue the development and application of 
microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) technology to Navy 
undersea weapons systems.

Unmanned aerial vehicles

    The committee notes that the Congress directed the 
establishment of the office of Director for Expeditionary 
Warfare (N85) within the Chief of Naval Operations as a 
provision of Public Law 102-484, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993. This action was taken 
to address Congressional concerns about the adequacy of Navy 
resources dedicated to expeditionary warfare areas such as 
amphibious lift, mine warfare, and naval surface fire support. 
The Navy subsequently established responsibility for 
requirements generation and resource sponsorship for unmanned 
aerial vehicles (UAVs), and assigned the new responsibilities 
to the expeditionary warfare directorate based on the vital 
role these systems play in reconnaissance and targeting support 
to expeditionary operations.
    The committee understands that the Navy is considering 
transferring responsibility for naval UAVs from N85 to the 
office of the Director of Air Warfare (N88). The committee is 
concerned that the migration of responsibility for naval UAVs 
may lead to decreased emphasis on the vital role these systems 
perform in expeditionary operations. The committee urges the 
Navy to consult the Congressional defense committees on any 
planned transfer of responsibility for naval UAVs and provide 
sufficient rationale prior to executing such a transfer.

Upgrading fleet systems

    The budget request contained $46.7 million in PE 63582N for 
combat systems integration demonstration and validation.
    The committee understands that the recently created Systems 
Engineer of the Navy (NAVSEA 007) provides a focal point for 
interoperability and configuration control with the authority 
to direct overall upgrade of obsolete equipment across Navy 
systems. The office has developed a methodology for reducing 
the logistics costs associated with maintaining legacy 
equipment: identifying and analyzing legacy systems in the 
fleet, then replacing aging and obsolete equipment with state-
of-the-art, commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) equipment. Results 
of the program should significantly reduce ownership costs to 
the Navy and realize cost reductions estimated to be in the 
hundreds of millions of dollars. The committee supports the 
initiative and encourages its implementation by the Navy as 
soon as possible.
    The committee recommends $49.7 million in PE 63582N, an 
increase of $3.0 million to support implementation of the COTS 
insertion initiative for upgrading fleet systems.

Vacuum electronics

    The budget request contained $78.0 million in PE 62234N for 
applied research in advanced materials, electronics, and 
computer technology, including $10.0 million for vacuum 
electronics technology.
    The committee supports continuation of a robust vacuum 
electronics research and development program and expects the 
Navy as the Department of Defense (DOD) executive agent for the 
program to insure a coordinated vacuum electronics research and 
development program among the military services and defense 
agencies, and with other federal agencies, that will meet DOD 
requirements for advanced vacuum electronics technology.
    The committee recommends $10.0 million in PE 62234N for 
applied research in vacuum electronics technology. The 
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to assess the 
Department's requirements for advanced vacuum electronics 
technology and to report the results of that assessment and the 
long-term funding plan for the Department's vacuum electronics 
technology program to the Congressional defense committees with 
the submission of the fiscal year 2001 budget request.

Vectored thrust ducted propeller compound helicopter demonstration

    The budget request contained $75.6 million in PE 63792N, 
including $5.0 million to begin an advanced technology 
demonstration of the Vectored Thrust Ducted Propeller (VTDP) 
Compound Helicopter, and $48.8 million in PE 64212N, including 
$34.9 million for development and evaluation of the CH-60S 
Fleet Combat Support helicopter.
    The committee notes that the request for CH-60S helicopter 
development includes completion of a three-phase demonstration 
of its suitability for airborne mine countermeasures (MCM) 
towing missions. The Navy has placed a high priority on the 
development of an organic airborne mine countermeasures 
capability and the demonstration of a variant of the CH-60 
helicopter for the towed airborne MCM mission that will begin 
in fiscal year 1999. As a back-up technology, the Navy plans an 
advanced technology demonstration of the VTDP helicopter to 
demonstrate and assess the helicopter's towed airborne MCM 
capability, other multi-mission capabilities, and life cycle 
cost effectiveness. The committee also notes that the Navy 
plans to address the requirements, content, schedule, and cost 
of the plan for the VTDP advanced technology demonstration.
    The committee recommends the budget requests for PE 63792N 
and PE 64212N and further recommends that the Navy complete the 
assessment of requirements, schedule, and cost of conducting an 
ATD for VDTP and provide the assessment and recommendations to 
the Congressional defense committees in conjunction with 
submission of the budget request for fiscal year 2001.

Virtual test bed for advanced electrical ship systems

    The budget request contained $41.5 million in PE 63508N for 
development of surface ship and submarine hull, mechanical, and 
electrical advanced technology.
    The committee has supported the development of technologies 
that will lead to lower cost designs for future naval ships. 
The Congress provided funds in fiscal year 1999 to accelerate 
the development and use of virtual prototyping and a virtual 
test bed to demonstrate and evaluate advanced shipboard 
electrical power system concepts. The test bed provides the 
capability to dynamically test hull, mechanical, and electrical 
system designs in an interactive, distributed simulation. The 
committee believes that the test bed can be further developed 
through the integration of actual hardware and advanced 
electrical control device simulations to provide a distributed 
hardware-in-the-loop simulation that will permit realistic 
evaluations of ship hull, mechanical, and electrical systems 
performance.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
63508N to continue the development and application of the 
virtual test bed.

                            Air Force RDT&E


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $13,077.8 million for Air 
Force RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of 
$13,212.7 million, an increase of $134.8 million.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2000 Air 
Force RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major 
changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the 
table and in the classified annex to this report.


                       Items Of Special Interest


Airborne laser

    The budget request contained $308.6 million in PE 63319F 
for the airborne laser (ABL) program.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 
(Public Law 105-261) required an independent assessment of the 
ABL program, including the need for any additional testing, the 
adequacy of criteria for entry into engineering and 
manufacturing development, and the adequacy of ABL operational 
concepts.
    The committee notes that the independent assessment team 
(IAT) stated that ``the nation is on the threshold of being 
able to acquire a long-sought military HEL [high energy laser] 
capability'' and that such a capability would ``represent a 
truly revolutionary weapon in the nation's arsenal.'' While 
acknowledging that technical uncertainties remain, the IAT also 
stated that ``subsystem development and analyses have matured 
to the point where the remaining questions relate to system 
issues which can only be answered by a complete HEL flying 
system, gathering data and demonstrating effectiveness in an 
operational environment.''
    The committee notes that the ABL program has been 
restructured to accommodate a $25.0 million congressional 
reduction. The restructured program will increase efforts to 
characterize atmospheric turbulence that could degrade ABL 
performance, demonstrate the effectiveness of ABL's atmospheric 
compensation, and examine both the lethality of the laser and 
potential countermeasures. The committee notes that the program 
has consistently met its budget, technical, and schedule 
milestones, and that the initiatives in the program 
restructuring address all relevant congressional concerns. The 
committee further notes that the ABL program offers the 
potential for significant contributions to advancing laser 
technology generally, including a better understanding of laser 
lethality, laser optics, acquisition, aiming, pointing, 
tracking, and command and control.
    The committee recommends $308.6 million, the amount 
requested for the airborne laser.

Aircrew laser eye protection

    The budget request contained $14.8 million in PE 63231F for 
crew systems and personnel protection technology, including 
$1.3 million for aircrew laser eye protection.
    The committee has consistently supported the Department of 
Defense's efforts to enhance aircraft crew member protection 
systems. The committee is aware of the ongoing efforts to 
develop both laser eye protection technologies and an overall 
laser threat analysis system. The committee urges continued 
development of these initiatives and encourages them to be 
viewed as a high priority.
    The committee recommends $19.3 million in PE 63231F, an 
increase of $4.5 million to be used for the development of 
helmet-mounted sensory and laser protection technologies as 
well as the laser threat analysis system.

Air Force/National Reconnaissance Office partnership

    The budget request contained $2.9 million in PE 63856F for 
the Air Force/National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) partnership 
program.
    The Air Force/NRO partnership program funds studies and 
analyses of opportunities to better integrate the activities of 
the two organizations. The committee believes that the 
leadership structure of the two organizations is appropriate to 
foster such integration, and that each organization should be 
highly motivated to leverage the investments of the other as a 
means of conserving scarce resources. The committee believes 
that the activities funded in this program should be part of 
the regular order of business for both the NRO and the Air 
Force.
    The committee recommends no funding in PE 63856F.

Air Force science and technology funding

    The budget request contained $209.5 million for Air Force 
6.1 basic research and $507.6 million for 6.2 applied research 
for a total Air Force science and technology (S&T) request of 
$717.1 million.
    The committee notes with concern that the Air Force S&T 
budget request reflects a disturbing decline in basic and 
applied research investments from the fiscal year 1999 
appropriated level of $802.0 million. This reduced amount is 
also less than either the Army or Navy S&T request and gives 
rise to serious concern for the health of future Air Force 
modernization capabilities. The committee is extremely 
disappointed that the service with the vision to first employ 
such leading edge technologies as stealth, precision guided 
weapons, and space-based information systems could sacrifice 
the very tools that delivered these powerful leap-ahead 
technologies and prioritize instead a series of near-term 
upgrades to existing legacy systems. While the committee 
recognizes the importance of sustaining the existing capability 
inherent in todays weapon systems, it views sacrificing the 
research essential to open the door to future modernization 
without full acknowledgment at the highest levels of leadership 
as irresponsible and unacceptable.
    The committee notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff has 
identified a collection of non-space related S&T programs 
totaling $94.0 and included them among the Air Force unfunded 
priorities. While the committee understands the extreme 
pressures experienced by the services as they attempt to 
preserve their most critical modernization programs, the 
importance of these omitted S&T programs is difficult to 
understand. The committee disagrees with the lower priority 
placed on these programs and believes that several fielded 
systems development programs offering only incremental 
improvements to existing equipment, while necessary, should 
still be considered lower in importance to critically needed 
S&T investments.
    Therefore, the committee recommends the following program 
decreases explained in detail elsewhere in this report: $12.1 
million in PE 11113F, a decrease of $15.0 million for B-52 
squadrons; and $65.1 million in PE 63434F, a decrease of $15.0 
million for the national polar-orbiting operational 
environmental surveillance system. While the committee has 
expressed great concern over the serious decline in overall 
RDT&E funding and does not consider RDT&E program decreases 
lightly, it does believe that these programs are far lower 
priorities than the S&T program reductions proposed by the Air 
Force.
    In conjunction with the above decreases, the committee 
recommends restoration of the following critical non-space S&T 
programs:

Automatic target recognition

    The budget request contained $65.0 million in PE 62204F for 
aerospace sensors, but included no funding for automatic target 
recognition (ATR).
    The committee notes the importance of accurate target 
recognition capability and the high sensitivity to collateral 
damage displayed during recent regional conflicts. Technologies 
such as ATR should be thoroughly evaluated for potential 
improvements to all applicable weapon systems.
    The committee recommends $68.6 million in PE 62204F, an 
increase of $3.6 million for continued evaluation of ATR 
technology.

Crew technology

    The budget request contained $51.5 million in PE 62202F for 
human effectiveness applied research, but included no funding 
for crew technology.
    The committee believes that the Air Force should place high 
priority on research devoted to crew safety, altitude 
protection, and the ability to effectively operate aircraft 
during long periods of sustained operations, and that this area 
of research should be viewed as a fundamental tenet for the Air 
Force.
    The committee recommends $62.3 million in PE 62202F, an 
increase of $10.8 million for continuation of crew technology 
research.

Friction stir welding

    The budget request contained $63.3 million in PE 62102F for 
materials research, but included no funding for the 
continuation of friction stir welding.
    The committee notes that the Air Force has been evaluating 
a unique materials technology known as friction stir welding. 
This program has demonstrated a materials joining approach that 
does not require consumables and exhibits the capability to 
join dissimilar materials. The committee believes this 
technology holds significant potential for a number of 
aerospace applications and recommends $66.3 million, an 
increase of $3.0 million in PE 62102F for continued evaluation 
of friction stir welding.

Hyperspectral imaging

    The budget request contained $115.3 million in PE 62601F 
for Phillips laboratory exploratory development, but included 
no funds for hyperspectral imaging technology.
    The committee recommends increases in funding for 
hyperspectral imaging technology for Navy and Defense-wide 
programs described elsewhere in this report and notes that 
hyperspectral imaging and sensing technology is one of the many 
science and technology efforts that were listed as unfunded 
priorities by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. This 
technology offers significant improvements to airborne and 
other reconnaissance sensors and targeting data collection 
systems by providing enhanced wide-area search and targeting 
and threat warning capability.
    The committee recommends an increase of $7.3 million in PE 
62601F for hyperspectral imaging technology.

Tactical missile propulsion

    The budget request contained $115.3 million in PE 62601F 
for Phillips laboratory exploratory development, but included 
no funds for tactical missile propulsion or Integrated High 
Payoff Rocket Propulsion Technology (IHPRPT).
    The committee notes that continued research in this 
technology offers significant improvements and enhanced safety 
of operations for air-to-air and air-to-ground tactical missile 
programs, as well as improved propulsion technologies for 
orbital transfer, space maneuvering, and satellite propulsion 
technology offered by the IHPRPT program.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.3 million in PE 
62601F to continue research in tactical missile propulsion and 
IHPRPT.

Ballistic missile technology

    The budget request contained no funding in PE 63311F for 
ballistic missile technology (BMT).
    The committee understands that the BMT program is 
developing and demonstrating technologies that will permit a 
conventionally armed ballistic missile to successfully attack 
hardened and deeply buried targets that are now immune from 
attack by everything except nuclear weapons. The committee 
notes this effort should continue in light of the importance of 
this potential target set, which includes command and control 
bunkers and chemical weapons storage sites. The committee 
believes that the next logical step in this effort is a missile 
technology demonstration of a new penetrating hard target fuse 
and simulated high explosive against a hardened and deeply 
buried tunnel. The committee also notes that the program will 
demonstrate progress in several enabling technologies, 
including global positioning system (GPS) guidance and 
navigation and radiation hardened circuit technology and 
fabrication techniques.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $8.0 million in PE 
63311F for continued technology development and demonstration.

B-2 upgrades

    The budget request contained $201.8 million in PE 64240F 
for B-2 engineering and manufacturing development and $106.9 
million in post production support.
    The committee notes that the Long Range Air Power 
Commission concluded last year that, in order to reach the full 
potential of the bomber force, additional investments should be 
fully supported. Commission members testified that upgrades to 
the B-2 identified by the Air Force would enhance low 
observable maintainability, further improve the B-2's 
stealthiness, and significantly increase situational awareness 
for its aircrews. The committee is concerned that the budget 
request does not support an integrated low-observable 
maintainability/upgrade effort or other modernization 
initiatives recommended last year by the commission and the 
committee. The committee believes that continued enhancement of 
B-2 capabilities is critical in light of their limited number 
and the leverage they provide on the battlefield.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $353.8 million in PE 
64204F, an increase of $152.0 million for the integration of 
Link 16 on the B-2, a new mission display system, and a stealth 
enhancement initiative. Link 16 will provide the B-2 with a new 
data link terminal, antennas, and aircrew interfaces that will 
increase responsiveness, enhance survivability, and enable real 
time targeting. The committee notes that the Chief of Staff of 
the Air Force identified B-2 Link 16 as a high unfunded 
priority for fiscal year 2000. The mission display system would 
increase aircrew situational awareness by more effectively 
displaying threat and targeting information provided through 
Link 16. The stealth enhancement program would reduce the 
aircraft's radar cross section.
    The committee also recommends $141.9 million for post 
production support, an increase of $35.0 million to procure an 
inflight planner capable of real time flight planning and 
generating the most survivable route to target.
    Of the amount authorized for the B-2, the committee directs 
that $2.0 million shall be available for a conceptual study of 
a next generation bomber described elsewhere in this report.

B-52 squadrons

    The budget request contained $32.1 million in PE 11113F for 
B-52 bomber fleet support.
    The committee notes that the B-52 fleet support program has 
increased by $29.6 million from last year's projected level for 
fiscal year 2000 in order to accelerate an avionics mid-life 
upgrade initiative which will replace aging computers and 
inertial navigational systems (INS) with non-developmental 
items. This initiative, while justified, was previously planned 
to start in fiscal year 2003 and the scheduled completion dates 
for both the new computer and the INS are well beyond the 
current five year defense program. The committee does not 
support the proposed three years of acceleration for the B-52 
avionics mid-life upgrade program at the expense of other 
higher priorities.
    The committee recommends $17.1 million in PE 11113F, a 
decrease of $15.0 million for B-52 fleet support.

Combat training ranges

    The budget request contained $6.2 million in PE 64735F and 
$17.5 million in procurement for combat training range 
upgrades. The budget request also contained $339.6 million for 
miscellaneous production charges.
    The committee notes that aircrews at the Nellis and Tyndall 
combat training ranges are unable to train with their primary 
air-to-air weapon, the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile 
(AMRAAM), because information regarding its simulated 
performance must be encrypted for classification reasons before 
being transmitted to ground instrumentation sites. The 
committee understands that the requirement for an encryption 
device, the Advanced Data Oriented Security Module (ADOSM), has 
existed for some time but that ADOSM units were not available 
to be integrated into the Nellis Air Combat Training System 
(NACTS) or the Tyndall Range Expansion (TRE) upgrades.
    Since ADOSM is now qualified and in production, the 
committee believes it should be incorporated into both the 
NACTS and TRE in order to take full advantage of AMRAAM in 
exercises conducted at these ranges. Accordingly, the committee 
recommends $12.2 million in PE 64735F, an increase of $6.0 
million; $19.5 million in combat training ranges, an increase 
of $2.0 million; and $340.6 million in miscellaneous production 
charges, an increase of $2.0 million for this purpose. The 
committee expects these additional funds to be expeditiously 
obligated in order to achieve ADOSM operational capability at 
the earliest possible date.

Commercial standardized cockpit and crew seats

    The budget request contained $6.1 million in PE 64706F for 
life support systems, but included no funds for commercial 
standardized cockpit and crew seats.
    Commercial standardized cockpit and crew seats are designed 
to protect crew members and passengers during aircraft crash 
loads up to 16 times the force of gravity. However, older 
military transport aircraft, such as the C-130, C-135, C-141, 
and C-5, were designed with crew and passenger seats that can 
withstand crash loads up to nine times the force of gravity.
    The committee understands that a commercial standardized 
cockpit and crew seat has been developed for the RC-135, but it 
requires safety and functionality improvements for its 
application to other military transport aircraft.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $10.1 million, an 
increase of $4.0 million to develop safety and functionality 
improvements to the RC-135 commercial standardized cockpit and 
crew seat for its application as a common seat for other 
military transport aircraft.

Common imagery processor

    The budget request included $4.9 million in PE 35208F for 
the common imagery processor (CIP).
    The committee understands that the CIP has been 
manufactured with a known design input/output limitation that 
precludes it from processing real-time imagery from current and 
future digital cameras. The committee is concerned that the 
Department of Defense pursued a common government solution to 
digital imagery processing without ensuring a capability to 
process the high data rates from current and future digital 
cameras. Further, the committee is aware that the Naval 
Research Laboratory (NRL) has integrated commercial imagery 
processing technologies into a system that can process these 
high data-rates in real-time. These commercial solutions are 
not only less expensive, but provide a viable upgrade path for 
future requirements.
    The committee notes the partnering relationships now being 
fostered between the government contractor and the NRL to 
provide a CIP that is more commercially-based and capable of 
processing modern digital imagery. The committee strongly 
supports this relationship, and it expects the Air Force and 
Navy to work more closely together to ensure that modern 
digital camera systems can be fully exploited in real-time by 
the CIP.
    The committee recommends the budget request.

Evolved expendable launch vehicle

    The budget request contained $324.8 million in PE 64853F 
for the evolved expendable launch vehicle.
    The committee notes unjustified growth in funding for the 
system program office and recommends $322.8 million, a decrease 
of $2.0 million.

Global combat support system

    The budget request contained $19.4 million in PE 33141F for 
the Global Combat Support System--Air Force (GCSS-AF).
    The committee notes that the GCSS-AF program will 
modernize, and integrate Air Force and other Department of 
Defense legacy combat support information systems into a system 
that will be compliant with the Defense Information 
Infrastructure common operating environment. The centerpiece of 
the GCSS-AF program will be a shared data environment that will 
ensure the availability of critical decision making information 
required by Air Force operational commanders. GCSS-AF will 
emphasize commercial off-the-shelf products and reusable 
software to reduce program development costs.
    The committee recommends $22.4 million in PE 33141F, an 
increase of $3.0 million to accelerate the development of GCSS-
AF.

Global Hawk high altitude endurance unmanned aerial vehicle

    The budget request contained $70.8 million in PE 35205F for 
endurance unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), including funding for 
Global Hawk and DarkStar air vehicles.
    Since the budget request was developed, the Air Force has 
terminated the DarkStar aircraft, leaving Global Hawk as the 
only endurance UAV program. While some residual funding may 
result, termination costs for DarkStar are yet to be 
determined. However, the committee understands the Air Force 
plans to use any residual funds for Global Hawk testing and 
evaluation.
    Recently, a Global Hawk test air vehicle crashed, 
destroying with it the only integrated reconnaissance sensor 
package. The committee notes the importance of resuming the 
user evaluation and testing of Global Hawk, and of sustaining 
the industrial base until completion of the user evaluation.
    The committee recommends $95.8 million in PE 35205F, an 
increase of $25.0 million for Global Hawk.

Integrated satellite communications control

    The budget request contained $361.3 million in PE 64479F 
for Milstar satellite communications, including $12.1 million 
for development of the Automated Communications Management 
System (ACMS).
    The committee is concerned that military satellite 
communication (SATCOM) resources continue to be allocated 
inefficiently among forward-deployed units. The committee 
understands that utilization of a web-based technology which 
incorporates the ACMS has the potential to significantly lower 
communications costs and promote the efficient utilization of 
SATCOM assets. Consequently, the committee believes that 
continued development of ACMS software is key to this approach 
by enabling the use of common standards that will allow 
efficient use of legacy hardware systems.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $364.3 million in PE 
64479F, an increase of $3.0 million to accelerate ACMS 
development.

Joint airborne SIGINT program

    The budget request contained $124.6 million in PE 35206F, 
including $81.6 million for joint signals intelligence (SIGINT) 
avionics family (JSAF).
    The committee notes that JSAF funding provides resources 
for developing both high and low wave length components of the 
future airborne SIGINT collection system, which is expected to 
become operational in FY 2007.
    The committee recommends $131.6 million in PE 35206F 
including $88.6 million for JSAF, an increase of $7.0 million.

Joint air-to-surface standoff missile

    The budget request contained $166.4 million in PE 27325F 
and $2.0 million in PE 64312N for continued development of the 
joint air-to-surface standoff missile (JASSM).
    The committee understands that the JASSM program plan 
reflects funding for integration of the missile only on the 
``threshold'' aircraft (B-52H and F-16) through the end of the 
Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) and that neither the Air 
Force nor the Navy has programmed funding for integration of 
JASSM on the ``objective'' aircraft (B-2, B-1B, F-16, F-15E, F-
117, and F/A-18E/F). Initial operational capability for JASSM 
is scheduled for fiscal year 2003. In view of the services' 
recent operational experience that has placed a priority on the 
use of precision-guided weapons systems, the committee believes 
that additional priority should be given to integrating JASSM 
on the objective aircraft.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force and 
the Secretary of the Navy to report jointly to the 
Congressional defense committees with the submission of the 
fiscal year 2001 budget request regarding the plan and program 
for the integration of JASSM on the objective aircraft systems 
of each service.

Joint strike fighter

    The budget request contained $241.2 million in PE 63800N 
and $235.4 million in PE 63800F for Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) 
development and $160.2 million in PE 27268F for the aircraft 
engine component improvement program (CIP).
    The committee continues its strong support for the 
development of an alternate engine to ensure sustainment of 
critical industrial base capabilities, control of engine cost 
growth, and reduction of risk to the reliability and 
maintainability of the planned fleet of 3,000 JSF aircraft. The 
committee is concerned that while the Department now states a 
commitment to development of an alternative engine for JSF, the 
planned funding levels outlined to support that commitment do 
not enable cost-efficient and timely completion of the effort.
    Meanwhile, the Department is also conducting other jet 
engine development efforts in PE 27268F as part of the aircraft 
engine CIP. The committee notes that requested funding for this 
level of effort program has increased by $66.6 million, over 40 
percent, from the level projected for fiscal year 2000 just 
last year. The justification for the requested increase is to 
reduce backlog of proposed engineering tasks for currently 
fielded engines. While supportive of the CIP, the committee 
does not consider the proposed increase to this program to be 
of higher priority than development of a new state-of-the-art 
alternative engine for JSF. The committee notes that full 
development of a flight qualified jet engine also provides 
opportunities to migrate proven new technologies to existing 
engines.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $130.2 million in PE 
27268F, a decrease of $30.0 million, and $265.4 million in PE 
63800F, an increase of $30.0 million, and directs that this 
increase in JSF funding be used only for acceleration of 
alternate engine development.

Kinetic energy anti-satellite

    The budget request contained $9.8 million in PE 63438F for 
space control, but included no funding for the kinetic energy 
anti-satellite (KE ASAT) system.
    The committee believes space control will be increasingly 
important to U.S. national security as the threats posed to 
U.S. military forces from foreign space assets grow and 
satellite surveillance and targeting technology spread. The 
committee is encouraged that the Department of Defense is 
making progress in both developing a coherent space control 
policy and recognizing the importance of space control 
capabilities. The committee is concerned, however, that the 
failure to resource KE ASAT will limit the range of options 
open to the Department to deploy effective space control 
systems in the near term. The committee notes that KE ASAT has 
been in development for 10 years, and that additional 
investment could provide the ability to deploy an effective 
ASAT capability in a short period of time.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $19.8 million in PE 
63438F, an increase of $10.0 million for further development of 
KE ASAT integrated command and control system and ground based 
hardware-in-the-loop tests.

Microsatellite technology

    The committee notes significant progress in preparation for 
the XSS-10 flight test of microsatellite technologies. However, 
the committee is concerned that this demonstration may be 
delayed because the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA) is withdrawing from an agreement to 
launch the XSS-10 on a space shuttle flight in fiscal year 
2000. The committee understands that NASA is now offering a 
shuttle flight for XSS-10 in late fiscal year 2001. The 
committee believes that such a delay in the flight test will 
disrupt the program, defer the development of microsatellite 
technology that will benefit both military and civil space 
programs, and threaten to waste both NASA and Air Force 
investments in this effort. The committee strongly urges NASA 
to uphold its commitment to make a shuttle flight available for 
the XSS-10 in fiscal year 2000.

Military spaceplane

    The budget request contained $76.2 million in PE 63401F for 
advanced spacecraft technology, but included no funding for the 
military spaceplane.
    The committee notes: (1) that U.S. military forces are 
increasingly reliant on space-based capabilities, (2) that the 
U.S. Space Command and the Air Force have identified 
requirements that are best met by a military spaceplane and its 
associated family of vehicles, and (3) that Air Force Space 
Command has drafted a ``requirements to acquisition'' strategy 
for a spaceplane. The committee believes that a family of 
reusable space vehicles for orbital insertion, space maneuver, 
and payload delivery to meet military unique requirements would 
substantially enhance military access to space and the ability 
to conduct rapid global military operations.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
63401F to continue development of military unique spaceplane 
technologies and concepts of operations.

Miniature satellite threat reporting system

    The budget request contained $76.2 million in PE 63401F for 
advanced spacecraft technology, but included no funding for the 
miniature satellite threat reporting system (MSTRS).
    The MSTRS will allow detection of interference, intrusion, 
jamming, and unauthorized use of satellite communications 
uplink receivers and determine the source location of the 
disruptive transmissions. The committee believes that this 
technology is important in light of increasing military and 
commercial reliance on satellite communications and the 
vulnerability of these satellites. The committee notes that 
$5.0 million was appropriated for MSTRS in fiscal year 1999, 
but understands that the Secretary of Defense continues to 
withhold this funding.
    The committee directs the Secretary to release the fiscal 
year 1999 funds, and recommends an increase of $2.0 million in 
PE 63401F to continue preparation of MSTRS for orbital testing.

Miniaturized munitions capability

    The budget request contained $8.9 million in PE 64602F for 
Air Force Armament Development, but included no specific 
funding for Miniaturized Munitions Capability (MMC).
    The committee is aware that the Air Force is currently 
conducting an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) to determine which 
emerging technologies can be harnessed to yield the best MMC 
weapon and notes that the Navy has recently joined the 
development effort. At least two emerging MMC technologies 
offer considerable promise for addressing future fixed and 
mobile targeting capability. The Small Smart Bombs (SSB) 
program, utilizes a small diameter, GPS/INS-guided munition to 
attack fixed targets with increased accuracy, enhanced 
effectiveness, and reduced collateral damage. The Low Cost 
Autonomous Attack System (LOCAAS) provides an alternative 
approach by combining a laser radar seeker, shoot down warhead, 
onboard guidance and navigation system, and miniature turbojet, 
all packaged as an autonomous flying munition for use against 
relocatable targets.
    The current AoA effort, which prioritizes MMC capability 
for all types of strike aircraft, is anticipated to lead to a 
program start in fiscal year 2002 and an initial operating 
capability (IOC) in fiscal year 2007. The committee is 
concerned that such a schedule does not adequately satisfy 
potential warfighting requirements and urges a concerted effort 
to accelerate this concept.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $46.9 million in PE 
64602F, an increase of $38.0 million, to accelerate development 
of the MMC with particular attention given to the Small Smart 
Bomb and Low Cost Autonomous Attack System initiatives. 
Furthermore, the committee directs both the Secretary of the 
Air Force and the Secretary of the Navy to conduct a 
comprehensive joint study regarding the potential acceleration 
of MMC IOC, and to report the results of the study to the 
Congressional defense committees with the submission of the 
fiscal year 2001 budget request. The report shall include total 
estimated costs including integration and test funding 
requirements associated with acceleration, an assessment of the 
technical feasibility of such acceleration, and an assessment 
of the anticipated warfighting applicability of such 
technology.

National polar-orbiting operational environmental surveillance system

    The budget request contained $80.1 million in PE 63434F for 
the national polar-orbiting operational environmental 
surveillance system (NPOESS).
    The NPOESS program is developing the next generation 
weather satellite to meet the meteorological needs of both the 
military and civil communities. The committee supports the 
structure of the NPOESS program, with cost and program 
management authority shared between the Air Force, the Commerce 
Department, and the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration. The committee notes, however, that the current 
generation of weather satellites, developed in the Defense 
Meteorological Satellite program (DMSP), will continue to be 
launched through fiscal year 2005, and the first launch of 
NPOESS is not scheduled until fiscal year 2008.
    The committee recommends $65.1 million in PE 63434F, a 
decrease of $15.0 million to bring the pace of development in 
more appropriate alignment with the fiscal year 2008 first 
launch date.

Precision location and identification (PLAID) technology

    The budget request contained $90.3 million in PE 64270F for 
electronic warfare development, but included no funding for the 
PLAID technology program.
    The PLAID technology program will enhance aircrew 
situational awareness by providing precise, on-board location 
and specific identification of threat radars. The improved 
situational awareness resulting from this technology will allow 
combat pilots to effectively avoid radar-guided surface-to-air 
missiles. While the PLAID technology may be applied to improve 
the radar warning receivers of most present day fighter 
aircraft and has been identified as critical technology for the 
joint strike fighter, its present development is focused on the 
ALR-69 radar warning receiver.
    To continue PLAID technology development, the committee 
recommends $104.0 million in PE 64270F, an increase of $13.7 
million for the ALR-69 radar warning receiver.

Satellite control network

    The budget request contained $61.9 million in PE 35110F for 
the satellite control network.
    The satellite control network is a global system of control 
centers, remote tracking stations, and communications required 
to control satellites in orbit. The committee understands that 
telemetry and commanding data rates need to be improved and 
supports the modernization of the current inefficient and 
manpower-intensive system. The committee believes that 
commercially available technologies offer the Air Force 
opportunities to leverage its own research and development 
effort and to explore outsourcing alternatives.
    The committee recommends the requested amount for PE 35110F 
and directs that, of the funds authorized, $2.5 million shall 
be available for the examination and testing of commercial 
technologies that have the potential to meet Air Force 
satellite control requirements.

Simulation based forecasting decision support system (SBFDSS)

    The budget request contained $22.4 million in PE 78611F for 
support systems development.
    The committee is concerned with Air Force equipment 
maintenance backlog levels as well as the service's processing 
and accounting capabilities for addressing this problem. The 
committee notes a particular service inability to accurately 
forecast serviceable spare engines over a relatively short 
period of time (e.g., 6 to 12 months), and recognizes the need 
to implement a system of spare parts support for depot-level 
engine repair in conjunction with manpower, shop flow time, and 
equipment availability requirements. The committee understands 
that without the proper accounting for these constraints, 
forecasts of serviceable spare engines will remain insufficient 
and therefore urges the Air Force to take appropriate measures.
    The committee recommends $25.4 million in PE 78611F, an 
increase of $3.0 million to provide for the existing standard 
maintenance information system initiatives and to pursue the 
development and implementation of the Simulation Based 
Forecasting Decision Support System (SBFDSS).

Space-based infrared system-high

    The budget request contained $328.7 million in PE 64441F 
for the space-based infrared system-high (SBIRS High).
    The committee notes that the budget request for SBIRS High 
reflects a reduction of $235.5 million dollars when compared to 
the projections in the fiscal year 1999 budget request. The Air 
Force also delayed the first launch of SBIRS High from fiscal 
year 2002 to fiscal year 2004, and justified this delay in part 
because deployment of a National Missile Defense (NMD), which 
SBIRS High will support, was shifted from fiscal year 2003 to 
fiscal year 2005. Also referenced was the fact that the Defense 
Satellite Program (DSP) satellites, which SBIRS High will 
replace, are lasting longer than planned. This delay will 
increase SBIRS High program costs by $500 million to $1 billion 
in the outyears.
    Further, although the NMD deployment date now proposed by 
the Administration is two years later than last year, the 
committee understands that the deployment date could be 
accelerated if the NMD test program proceeds well. SBIRS High 
will also support theater missile defenses, particularly in 
meeting the growing threat posed by longer range missiles, 
against which the United States has only very limited defensive 
capabilities. Finally, with first launch in fiscal year 2004, 
the full constellation of SBIRS High would not be available to 
support a 2005 NMD deployment. The committee strongly supports 
the SBIRS High mission and concludes that the restructuring and 
delay of this program is unjustified.
    The committee further notes that the Secretary of the Air 
Force concedes that the requested funding for SBIRS High falls 
short by $92.0 million of supporting the planned first launch 
in fiscal year 2004, and that the Adminstration has not come 
forward with an amended budget request to correct this 
deficiency.
    The committee also strongly objects to the manner in which 
the Air Force implemented a work slowdown in anticipation of 
approval of its proposed fiscal year 2000 program reduction. 
The committee was not informed of this decision until after the 
contractor had been ordered to restructure the program spending 
rates to accommodate the proposed schedule change. This 
procedure precluded any realistic opportunity for congressional 
review of the Air Force decision and preempted congressional 
oversight prerogatives. The committee recognizes that restoring 
SBIRS High to a first launch date of fiscal year 2002 is now 
impossible, and to restore the date to fiscal year 2003 would 
require approximately $400 million in additional funding in 
fiscal year 2000. The committee strongly objects to these 
management failures by the Air Force and the Department of 
Defense, especially concerning a high priority program such as 
SBIRS High.
    The committee believes that, because of the delay in the 
program and the substantial cost growth that results, the 
Department will have the opportunity to examine competitive 
alternatives that may be available to achieve comparable or 
superior capabilities at comparable or lower costs. Therefore, 
of the funds authorized for SBIRS High, the committee directs 
that $10.0 million may be used only for airborne and space 
experiments of a sensor technology described in the classified 
annex.
    To sustain the SBIRS High program in the most effective 
manner and assure that it is accorded a high priority in the 
future, the committee recommends $328.7 million for SBIRS High. 
The committee believes that this increase will maintain the 
currently planned SBIRS High schedule. The committee recommends 
that the SBIRS High funding be allocated as follows: $168.7 
million in a new SBIRS High program element in the Ballistic 
Missile Defense Organization, 64XXXC, and $160.0 million in PE 
64441F. The committee believes that an alternate management and 
funding structure in which BMDO provides management oversight, 
the Air Force serves as executive agent, and BMDO and the Air 
Force share funding responsibility, would provide the most 
thorough assessments of SBIRS High importance in the future.

Space-based infrared system-low

    The budget request contained $151.4 million in PE 63441F 
and $77.7 million in PE 64442F for the space based infrared 
system-low (SBIRS Low).
    The committee notes that the Air Force substantially 
restructured the SBIRS Low program, terminating two planned 
demonstration projects and delaying the first launch of SBIRS 
Low from 2004 to 2006. The Air Force argues that the 
cancellations were justified because much had been learned from 
the effort to develop the demonstrators, that proof of 
principle had already been established in earlier experiments, 
and that schedule delays and cost growth in the demonstration 
projects had increased program risk and cost.
    The committee believes that deployment of SBIRS Low is 
critical to meeting the growing long range ballistic missile 
threats, and that the delay is very damaging to the U.S. effort 
to field capable systems in response to these threats in a 
timely manner. The committee is also informed that the Navy 
Theater Wide (NTW) missile defense system will rely on SBIRS 
Low for discrimination and external cueing. The SBIRS Low delay 
could seriously degrade the capabilities of the currently 
planned interim NTW system known as Block I and could slow 
progress toward the NTW objective system.
    The committee strongly objects to the manner in which the 
Air Force carried out the SBIRS Low program restructuring. The 
Air Force informed the Congressional defense committees the day 
prior to notifying the contractors of the cancellation of the 
demonstration projects, effectively precluding review of an 
important decision in a program of high congressional interest. 
Further, the committee believes that the Ballistic Missile 
Defense Organization (BMDO) was not adequately consulted 
concerning the decision. To ensure that SBIRS Low is accorded 
the high priority the committee believes is warranted by wider 
military requirements and to ensure that other service and DOD 
equities in the program are protected, the committee recommends 
$110.0 million in a new BMDO program element, 63XXXC, $41.4 
million in PE 63441F, and $77.7 million in PE 64442F for SBIRS 
Low. The committee believes that an arrangement, in which BMDO 
provides management oversight, the Air Force serves as 
executive agent, and BMDO and the Air Force share funding 
responsibility, provides the best chance of success in the 
future.

Space launch and spacelift ranges

    The budget request contained $43.2 million in PE 35182F for 
research and development for the spacelift range system, $83.4 
million for spacelift range procurement, and $223.0 million for 
operations and maintenance of the eastern and western launch 
ranges.
    The committee believes that reliable access to space is 
both vital to U.S. national security and, increasingly, the 
economic well being of the nation. Thus, the committee is 
concerned that the nation's space launch infrastructure appears 
to be in deep disarray. The committee believes that a series of 
space launch failures, the lack of efficient operation and 
modernization of the spacelift ranges by the Air Force, and 
setbacks in the development of the next generation of U.S. 
launch vehicles could jeopardize this access.
    The committee notes that the launch industry has suffered 
six catastrophic launch failures since August 1998, including 
three consecutive failures of the Titan IV launch vehicle and 
failure of the first two launches of the Delta III launch 
vehicle. These have resulted in the loss of commercial and 
important national security payloads worth in excess of $2.0 
billion.
    The committee understands that to support future launch 
requirements, the Air Force is funding the development of two 
variants of the evolved expendable launch vehicle (EELV), with 
the intent of purchasing commercial launch services from two 
launch vendors starting in 2003. However, the Delta III is a 
technical stepping stone to one of the EELV variants. The other 
is based on Russian engine technologies. To date, the 
contractor has been unable to acquire the necessary licenses to 
allow for co-production of the engine in the United States and 
Russia. The long delay in the licensing process has left the 
ability of the contractor to meet launch schedule requirements 
in serious doubt.
    The committee believes that the spacelift ranges at Cape 
Canaveral, Florida, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California 
are in equal disarray. The committee notes that commercial 
space launches now far outnumber military launches and that 
commercial launch demand is expected to continue to grow. The 
Air Force has done an inadequate job of modernizing the ranges, 
funding for operations and modernization has been insufficient, 
and range equipment is aging. As a result, the ranges are 
unable to meet commercial demands for greater range 
efficiencies. At the same time, the rationale for continued Air 
Force funding for the operation, management, and modernization 
of the ranges is unclear in light of the fact that by 2003, 
when the Air Force expects to contract with commercial vendors 
for launch services, the only major operational users of the 
ranges will be commercial launch vendors. The committee notes 
that continued Air Force funding and management of the ranges 
would constitute a substantial subsidy to the commercial launch 
industry, while extending control by an organization that has 
managed and funded range operations and modernization 
inadequately to meet commercial and national security needs.
    The committee is aware that the Secretary of the Air Force 
has directed a broad area review of space launch to analyze the 
causes of recent launch failures, recommend changes in 
practices, procedures and operations that might prevent such 
failures, and assure continued access to space for the 
Department of Defense. The committee is also aware of ongoing 
efforts to determine appropriate steps pertaining to range 
modernization and operations. The committee believes that these 
analyses must result in alternative funding, management, 
operations, and modernization arrangements that will result in 
a more efficient and effective launch infrastructure.
    Consistent with this perspective, the committee recommends 
$46.2 million in PE 35182F, an increase of $3.0 million for 
feasibility studies, planning, and design of a universal space 
port at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.
    The committee also directs the Department to include a 
separate budget line for initial spares for spacelift range 
procurement in its fiscal year 2001 budget request, consistent 
with the discussion elsewhere in this report regarding the Air 
Force's proposed implementation of the Reengineered Supply 
Support Process.

Spacetrack

    The budget request contained $54.8 million in PE 35910F for 
space tracking capabilities.
    The committee notes that the budget request for this 
program is nearly double the amount forecasted in the fiscal 
year 1999 budget plan. The committee recognizes the importance 
of further development of the ground-based electro-optical deep 
space surveillance (GEODSS) system now planned in fiscal year 
2000. However, the committee notes that other planned projects 
can be more moderately paced without impacting the 
effectiveness of the spacetrack effort.
    The committee recommends $42.5 million in PE 35910F, a 
decrease of $12.3 million.

Synthetic theater operations research model

    The budget request contained $19.3 million in PE 27601F for 
modeling and simulation, including $2.5 million for the 
synthetic theater operations research model (STORM).
    The committee notes that the STORM model is the only Air 
Force campaign analysis program directed for use by the defense 
modeling and simulation office common technical framework. The 
program is currently underfunded, resulting in limitations to 
planned utilization by Air Force and other service units during 
joint exercises.
    The committee recommends $21.8 million in PE 27601F, an 
increase of $2.5 million, including $5.0 million for STORM 
simulation efforts.

                         Defense Agencies RDT&E


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $ 8,887.2 million for Defense 
Agencies RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of 
$9,556.3 million, an increase of $669.1 million.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2000 
Defense Agencies RDT&E program are identified in the table 
below. Major changes to the Defense Agencies request are 
discussed following the table.


                       Items of Special Interest


Advanced concept technology demonstrations

    The budget request contained $118.0 million in PE 63750D8Z 
for advanced concept technology demonstrations (ACTD).
    The committee notes that while the budget request proposes 
to once again reduce the overall Department of Defense research 
and development budget, funding for ACTDs is proposed to 
increase by almost $30.0 million.
    To maintain fiscal year 1999 funding, the committee 
recommends $88.6 million in PE 63750D8Z for ACTDs, a decrease 
of $29.4 million, to hold ACTDs to fiscal year 1999 levels.

Advanced moving target indicator radar

    The committee has received the results of a Congressionally 
mandated study on moving target indicator (MTI) radar 
developments. This study indicates that MTI radar technology, 
supported by Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and 
commercial investments, is rapidly and decisively eclipsing 
that of U.S. government-funded efforts such as the U-2's 
advanced synthetic aperture radar system improvement program. 
These advances promise to provide vastly improved, multi-mode 
radars at greatly reduced costs. The committee believes this 
new-generation MTI technology should be pursued as quickly as 
possible.
    The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to pursue 
modular, scaleable MTI/SAR radars that have the ability to 
identify and image moving targets. This technology should be 
included in the Joint Surveillance, Targeting and 
Reconnaissance System radar technology improvement program with 
application for platforms such as the U-2 and Global Hawk.

Aeronautical test facilities

    In 1995, the President's National Science and Technology 
Council issued a report, ``Goals for a National Partnership in 
Aeronautics Research and Technology,'' which indicated that, 
``newer European wind tunnels focused on aircraft development 
testing are generally superior to comparable U.S. facilities in 
overall capability'' and that, as a consequence, there has been 
increasing utilization of European facilities for U.S. 
commercial and military aircraft development. In early 1998, 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and 
the Department of Defense (DOD) established a National Wind 
Tunnel Alliance and an Air Breathing Propulsion Test Facilities 
Alliance (under the auspices of the Aeronautics and 
Astronautics Coordinating Board (AACB)), to identify, study, 
and implement measures to strengthen the national 
infrastructure of aerodynamic and air breathing propulsion test 
facilities that support NASA and DOD missions and the domestic 
aeronautics industry.
    The committee believes that the United States needs to 
retain world leadership in aeronautics. To do so means that the 
United States must optimize the utilization and care of its 
existing aerospace ground test resources among the Department, 
NASA, and industry in such a way that properly balances the 
support of the nation's research and development programs with 
an efficient and effective aeronautical test facility 
infrastructure. The committee believes that sufficient 
resources must be collectively invested to support existing 
capabilities, productivity enhancements, and a robust test 
technology program.
    The committee notes that a draft interagency agreement 
between the Department and NASA is under consideration which 
would establish a National Aeronautical Test Alliance and an 
integrated national strategy for management of U.S. 
aeronautical test facilities. The committee believes that the 
Department and NASA should establish such a mechanism for the 
strategic management of government-owned aerodynamic, 
aerothermodynamic, and aeropropulsion facilities in the United 
States that would consider military, civilian, and commercial 
aerospace interests in making decisions and recommendations 
affecting such facilities. The committee also believes that 
this mechanism could be used to manage from a national 
perspective the investment of test infrastructure and 
technology funding for core national facilities and associated 
computational capabilities, including the maintenance and 
modernization of key commercial aeronautical test facilities. 
The committee believes further that it is desirable that 
industrial organizations participate with federal agencies in 
considering such investments.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 
coordination with the Director, NASA, to report to the 
Congressional defense committees with the submission of the 
fiscal year 2001 budget request the status of the interagency 
agreement for establishing a National Aeronautical Test 
Alliance and plans for its implementation. The committee 
recommends that among the first priorities for the Alliance 
should be the development of a report which, building upon the 
1997 DOD Core Aeronautical Test Facilities assessment, outlines 
national requirements for aeronautical testing capabilities. 
The committee expects that from such a report would come 
funding recommendations for support and modernization of U.S. 
aeronautical test facilities in the fiscal year 2002 budget 
requests for the Department and for NASA.

Airborne common sensor

    The budget request contained $109.5 million for tactical 
cryptologic activities in PE 35885G, including $14.7 million 
for the Army's aerial common sensor (ACS).
    The committee notes that it has received insufficient 
information on the specific plan, concept of operation, and 
programmatics for the ACS. Further, the Army has not yet 
decided on the aircraft it will use for ACS. Since this 
decision will directly affect the costs of procurement, sensors 
and their integration, and operations and maintenance, the 
committee cannot determine the overall value of the program.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $106.8 million in PE 
35885G, a decrease of $2.7 million for ACS. However, the 
committee directs that no funds provided for ACS are to be 
obligated or expended until 30 days after the Congressional 
defense and intelligence committees have been provided a report 
that includes the following:
    (1) The specific aircraft selected for the ACS;
    (2) The specific ACS concept of operations and program 
plan. The program plan must include the projected funding over 
the five year defense plan and expected total cost;
    (3) Identification of the generic sensor suites and 
development/acquisition plan to provide these sensors; and
    (4) Certification from the Director, National Security 
Agency, that ACS conforms to the requirements of the 2010 
Unified Cryptologic Architecture.

Ballistic missile defense

    The budget request contained $3.3 billion for the Ballistic 
Missile Defense Organization (BMDO).
    The committee notes that the Future Years Defense Program 
(FYDP) includes substantial funding increases over what was 
planned last year for BMDO. However, the committee also notes 
that the military has no effective defenses to current and 
rapidly emerging missile threats. The committee believes that 
ballistic missile defense (BMD) is a critical mission area 
which continues to suffer from inadequate funds. The committee 
urges the Department of Defense to allocate more funds for 
ballistic missile defense in subsequent budget submissions to 
ensure that critically needed missile defense development and 
acquisition programs can be completed as expeditiously as 
possible.
    To address this shortfall in the near term, the Congress 
appropriated an additional $1.0 billion in H.R. 4328, the 
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations 
Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-277), for BMD research 
and development. The committee notes that the President has 
sought to divert $230.0 million of these funds to implement the 
Wye River Middle East peace accord. While the committee 
recognizes the importance of this accord, it opposes such a 
diversion and continues to support the use of the funds for BMD 
research and development.
    The committee recommends $3.7 billion for BMDO, an increase 
of $417.2 million.
            Advanced technology development
    The budget request contained $173.7 million in PE 63173C 
for ballistic missile defense advanced technology development.
    The committee notes that funding for advanced ballistic 
missile technology has been in steady decline since fiscal year 
1992. A robust advanced technology effort is important to meet 
future threats both by providing the technical basis for next 
generation systems as well as technologies to improve the 
capabilities of systems now under development. The committee 
notes that the technology development budget requested is far 
short of the goal of 10 to 12 percent of the Ballistic Missile 
Defense Organization (BMDO) budget set by BMDO director.
    The committee understands that BMDO has identified funding 
shortfalls in exoatmospheric interceptor technology (EIT) 
development. The EIT effort is focused on integration of active 
and passive sensors to provide greater interceptor accuracy and 
reliability, optics, propulsion, advanced focal plane arrays, 
and other risk mitigation activities, and is key to greater 
capability in the national missile defense system, the Navy 
theater wide system, and the theater high altitude area defense 
(THAAD) system. The committee further notes that BMDO has 
identified near term technology infusion programs that show the 
promise of reducing the cost of TMD systems now under 
development.
    To improve the technology base for current and future BMD 
systems, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million 
in PE 63173C for EIT and near term technology infusion 
development efforts.
            Applied research
    The budget request contained $65.3 million in PE 62173C for 
ballistic missile defense applied research.
    The committee remains concerned that funding for innovative 
ballistic missile technology projects is insufficient to 
support Ballistic Missile Defense Organization's (BMDO) future 
needs. Funding for innovative science and technology (IS&T, 
project 1651) has declined from $52.8 million appropriated in 
fiscal year 1998 to $7.9 million requested in fiscal year 2000. 
The committee understands that BMDO has identified a number of 
high priority technologies for which no funding was available 
because of the constrained IS&T budget. These include high 
performance, lightweight, affordable optical correlators; high 
data rate signal processing using conventional and neural 
networks; novel focal plane array technologies; coherent laser 
radar miniaturization; and miniature interceptors with 
innovative guidance and control enhancements. The committee 
believes that future BMD technologies must be more adequately 
funded if BMD systems are to meet future threats.
    The committee also understands that BMDO has identified 
wideband gap electronic materials for high speed and high 
temperature device operation as a high priority that is 
insufficiently funded. The committee notes that significant 
progress has been made in the development of these materials 
and believes that additional research offers the opportunity 
for further progress.
    The committee also believes that innovative science and 
technology is an area in which cooperation with the national 
security laboratories of the Department of Energy may be 
fruitful for both BMDO and the Department of Energy. The 
committee encourages the Secretaries of Defense and Energy to 
pursue opportunities for such cooperation and the merits of a 
jointly funded innovative science and technology program.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $95.3 million in PE 
62173C for innovative science and technology efforts, project 
1651, an increase of $20.0 million. The committee also 
recommends an increase of $10.0 million to be available for the 
continuation of wide-band gap materials research.
    The committee recommends a total of $95.3 million in PE 
62173C, an increase of $30.0 million.
            Atmospheric interceptor technology
    The budget request contained $173.7 million in PE 63173C 
for ballistic missile defense technologies. Of this amount, 
$21.1 million was requested in project 1281 for the atmospheric 
interceptor technology (AIT) program.
    The AIT program develops advanced interceptor technologies 
to support the theater high-altitude area defense, Navy theater 
wide, and Patriot advanced capability-3 configuration 3 (PAC-3) 
missile defense systems. The committee understands that 
additional funding would support a more robust technology 
effort that could include a continued design of a composite 
shroud, ground testing of a full scale divert and attitude 
control system, ground testing of an advanced low cost two-
color infrared seeker, and completion of the development of a 
master frequency generator (MFG) for PAC-3. The committee 
believes that the MFG will contribute significantly to the 
effort to control PAC-3 missile costs.
    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 
63173C for project 1281 to complete the development and 
integration of the MFG and other AIT projects that show promise 
of improving the performance of theater missile defense 
systems.
            Ballistic missile defense test targets
    The committee recognizes the rapidly emerging threat posed 
by the proliferation of more sophisticated ballistic missile 
systems and their associated technologies. The committee also 
recognizes the need to flight test ballistic missile defense 
systems against affordable, threat-representative targets. 
Therefore, the committee directs that the development and 
procurement of ballistic missile targets be managed by the 
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), Department of 
Defense's Reliance Lead for ballistic missile targets. As such, 
the committee notes that BMDO shall be responsible for 
centrally managing and budgeting the full spectrum of ballistic 
missile targets, from low-fidelity targets used in training to 
high fidelity, threat-representative targets used to verify 
system performance during operational test and evaluation.
            International cooperative programs
    The budget request contained $36.7 million in PE 63875C for 
international cooperative ballistic missile defense programs.
    The committee notes with concern that no funding for the 
Russian American Observational Satellites (RAMOS) program was 
requested. RAMOS is a joint Russian-American project to observe 
various phenomena from multiple platforms with technologies 
relevant to early warning and ballistic missile defense 
applications.
    The committee believes that joint missile defense projects 
are essential to provide Russia with a better understanding of 
U.S. ballistic missile defense efforts. In light of legislation 
passed by the House and Senate mandating the deployment of a 
national missile defense, the committee believes that 
cooperative missile defense programs with Russia would be an 
important confidence building measure that could enhance early 
warning and shared mutual protection benefits for both sides.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $61.7 million in PE 
63875C, an increase of $25.0 million for RAMOS.
            Low cost launch technology
    The budget request contained no funding in PE 63401F or PE 
63173C for low cost launch technology.
    The committee is aware of a number of technologies and 
concepts that offer the potential to reduce launch costs 
dramatically. One of these, Scorpius, utilizes simplified 
launch processes and technologies to achieve streamlined, low 
cost launch. The committee believes that continued research in 
this area is important to the long term viability of the U.S. 
launch industry. The committee is also aware that the Ballistic 
Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) needs a liquid fueled 
target vehicle to mimic the characteristics of liquid fueled 
threat missiles during theater ballistic missile defense 
testing.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 
million in PE 63401F and an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
63173C for low cost launch technologies, including Scorpius. 
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the 
suitability of such launch vehicles to meet BMDO requirements 
for a liquid surrogate target.
            Medium extended air defense system
    The budget request contained $48.6 million in PE 63869C for 
the medium extended air defense system (MEADS).
    The committee notes the restructuring of the MEADS program 
to leverage technology developments in other programs, 
including PAC-3 and THAAD. This restructuring addresses two of 
the committee's concerns related to the MEADS program as it was 
configured in the past. First, it includes a three year 
commitment by the Department to include funding for the MEADS 
program. The committee has been critical of the Department's 
failure to identify outyear funds for MEADS, and believes that 
such a commitment is a necessary first step toward a serious 
program. Second, the approach adopted by the Department holds 
the promise of reducing the overall cost of the MEADS program 
by leveraging current technology investments. The General 
Accounting Office, in its recent review of the program, 
indicated a probable total program cost of $12 to 14 billion, a 
figure not supportable by the already constrained Ballistic 
Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) budget.
    The committee understands that the MEADS program, as now 
planned, envisions the development of prototype hardware to be 
tested in fiscal year 2003, using the PAC-3 missile, and 
modifications of THAAD battle management software and the PAC-3 
launcher. According to program officials, the development of a 
360 degree, mobile radar remains a significant technical 
challenge. The committee notes that several U.S. weapon systems 
are currently developing electronically steered radars. The 
committee encourages the Department to explore means of 
adapting such radars for use with MEADS, or alternatively, to 
examine a system architecture that would rely on a set of 
netted missile defense sensors rather than a system specific 
radar.
    The committee recommends the budget request.
            National missile defense
    The budget request contained $836.6 million in PE 63871C 
for national missile defense (NMD).
    The committee is encouraged that the Department of Defense 
has added outyear funding to the NMD program to support 
deployment. However, the committee is concerned that the 
Administration refuses to commit to such a deployment and notes 
that both the House of Representatives and Senate have passed 
legislation establishing NMD deployment as national policy. The 
committee believes that such a commitment is important to 
provide the ability to effectively focus the funds identified 
in the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) for completion of 
development and deployment of an effective NMD capability.
    The committee understands that the NMD program still 
entails schedule risk and is aware that past target vehicle 
failures have caused a number of significant delays in the NMD 
and other ballistic missile defense programs. The committee 
notes that the NMD program is supported by only one target 
launch facility and believes that operation of a second launch 
facility and contemporaneous preparation of two target launch 
vehicles is a reasonable and appropriate approach to avoiding 
costly delays that result from target vehicle failures. The 
committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in PE 63871C 
for this purpose.
    The committee notes that the NMD lead system integrator 
(LSI) is contractually obligated to conduct a competitive bid 
process for the radars that will support an NMD system capable 
of defeating a larger, more sophisticated ballistic missile 
attack than the initially deployed system. The committee 
understands that the LSI is reviewing the radar industrial base 
and cost and schedule implications to determine whether such a 
competition is necessary. The committee believes that 
competition frequently can provide the military better 
technology at lower cost and that the Ballistic Missile Defense 
Organization (BMDO) must assure that the LSI follows 
appropriate competitive procedures prior to the award of the 
NMD radar contract.
    Consistent with a request from BMDO, the committee also 
approves a transfer of $15.7 million in 63871C to military 
construction for the purpose of supporting early NMD 
deployment.
    The committee recommends $835.9 million in PE 63871C for 
continued NMD development.
            Navy area defense
    The budget request included $268.4 million in PE 64867C for 
the Navy area defense theater missile defense system and $55.0 
million for Navy area defense procurement.
    The committee understands that the combined technical 
complexities of upgrading the Aegis weapon system (AWS) 
computers, integrating multiple platforms through the 
cooperative engagement capability (CEC), and developing the 
Standard Missile-2 Block IVA (SM-2 IVA) have led to schedule 
delays and cost increases in the Navy area defense program. The 
Navy now indicates that the first unit equipped has been 
delayed from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2003, and that an 
additional $537.0 million over five years will be needed to 
keep the program on this delayed schedule.
    The committee recognizes that the Navy area defense program 
is the Navy's primary capability to defend against rapidly 
evolving theater ballistic missile threats and that further 
delay to the program will increase risks for deployed U.S. 
military personnel. At the same time, the committee is 
concerned about the dramatic program cost increases the program 
is experiencing. The Navy and the Ballistic Missile Defense 
Organization (BMDO) maintain that authorization of low rate 
initial production is needed in fiscal year 2000 to assure that 
TMD-configured Aegis destroyers can be equipped with an early 
Navy area defense capability. However, the committee believes 
that the revised schedule provides inadequate initial 
operational test and evaluation of the SM-2 IVA prior to low 
rate initial production. The committee also understands that 
deferring authority for low rate initial production to fiscal 
year 2001 will delay Navy area defense deployment by only one 
to three months. The committee believes that the program as now 
laid out is not executable, based on both the technical 
complications and the annual increases that the Navy and BMDO 
agree must be provided to keep the program on the fiscal year 
2003 schedule.
    Therefore, the committee recommends no funding in Navy area 
defense procurement, a decrease of $55.0 million, and $323.4 
million in PE 64867C for Navy area defense development, an 
increase of $55.0 million. The committee believes that this 
reapportionment will provide the best opportunity for the Navy 
and BMDO to overcome Navy area defense development challenges 
and allow a more appropriate alignment of low rate initial 
production, continued development activities, and initial 
operational test and evaluation. The committee expects the 
Department of Defense to come forward in its fiscal year 2001 
budget request with a more affordable funding profile for the 
Navy area defense program.
            Patriot advanced capability-3 (PAC-3)
    The budget request contained $300.9 million for PAC-3 
procurement and $29.1 million in PE 64865C for PAC-3 
engineering and manufacturing development (EMD).
    The committee believes that progress in the PAC-3, while 
slow to evolve, has been substantial over the past year. This 
progress culminated in a successful ballistic missile intercept 
test of the PAC-3 system in March 1999.
    However, the committee is concerned about the substantial 
growth in the unit procurement cost of the PAC-3 missile and 
understands that much of the cost growth is attributable to the 
transfer of procurement funds to offset a cost overrun in the 
EMD phase of the program and the major reduction in the number 
of missiles to be procured from 1,200 to 560. The committee 
believes that the PAC-3 capability will be of major importance 
and that the number now planned for procurement is insufficient 
to meet identified requirements. The committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to provide details of plans to the 
Congressional defense committees by February 1, 2000, to reduce 
the cost of the PAC-3 missile.
    The committee is also concerned that the PAC-3 funding 
profile identified by the Department of Defense is inadequate 
to sustain continued procurement at a rate that will keep pace 
with the rapidly evolving short- and medium-range ballistic 
missile threat. The committee believes that the demonstrated 
technical success and importance of the program provide more 
than adequate justification to increase annual procurement 
funding to correct shortfalls caused by program cost growth.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $300.9 million for PAC-
3 procurement, the requested amount, and $77.6 million in PE 
64865C for PAC-3 engineering and manufacturing development, an 
increase of $48.5 million.
            Space-based laser
    The budget request contained $75.0 million in PE 63173C and 
$63.8 million in PE 63876F for the space based laser (SBL).
    The committee understands that the SBL program has been 
restructured, merging competing contractors into a national 
team working toward an in-flight experiment in 2012. The 
committee believes that this restructuring responds to concerns 
expressed in the committee report on H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105-
532) that the SBL program, as then planned with a launch of a 
readiness demonstrator in 2005, was not executable at 
sustainable funding levels and would unnecessarily restrict 
technical options. The committee believes that the 
restructuring will mitigate technical risk, allow for the 
development and incorporation of advanced technologies, is 
executable at sustainable funding levels, and provides a 
potentially effective management structure.
    However, the committee is concerned that the program as 
currently structured does not provide sufficient emphasis on 
the development and fabrication of laser optics. The committee 
understands that the current program schedule is driven to a 
substantial degree by the development of segmented and/or 
deployable mirrors. The committee believes that the schedule 
risk can be mitigated by redirecting program funds to 
development of prototype actively controlled lightweight optics 
and through a management structure which provides appropriate 
emphasis on the optical payload element.
    The committee notes that the SBL restructuring has resulted 
in a modest delay in the initiation of program activities. 
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $15.0 million 
in PE 63173C without prejudice, and the budget request in PE 
63876F for SBL.
            Technical operations
    The budget request contained $190.7 million in PE 63874C 
for ballistic missile defense (BMD) technical operations.
    The committee understands that the Ballistic Missile 
Defense Organization is leveraging commercial internet 
technologies to improve the utilization of data that is now 
dispersed among several data centers. The committee believes 
that upgrading these centers and establishing a seamless, wide 
bandwidth information infrastructure between the centers would 
allow access by the entire BMD community, resulting in 
significant efficiencies. The committee believes that such a 
network would allow distributed BMD modeling and simulation, 
including hardware-in-the-loop simulations, and would enhance 
flexibility to meet evolving threats more rapidly.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $200.7 million in PE 
63874C, an increase of $10.0 million for development of a wide 
bandwidth information infrastructure to link current data 
centers as well as specific applications to take full advantage 
of such an infrastructure.
            Theater high altitude area defense
    The budget request contained $577.5 million in PE 64861C 
for the theater high altitude area defense (THAAD) system.
    The committee notes with concern that the THAAD system 
failed its sixth consecutive attempt to intercept a ballistic 
missile target. The committee is encouraged that the last test 
demonstrated success in missile flight, divert and attitude 
control system function, seeker function, and end game 
maneuver, and supports continuation of that THAAD testing 
through the next four intercept tests.
    The committee understands that the cost-sharing arrangement 
negotiated between the THAAD contractor and the Ballistic 
Missile Defense Organization last year requires the contractor 
to reimburse the government $15.0 million as a consequence of 
the failure of flight test nine. The committee is also aware 
that the recent test failure indicates a continuing need to 
dedicate budget resources in programs that demonstrate success. 
The committee recommends that PE 64861C be decreased $15.0 
million and that another $90.0 million, the estimated cost for 
three ballistic missile intercept tests, be transferred to the 
upper tier program, PE 64218C described elsewhere in this 
report.
    The committee recommends $472.5 million in PE 64861C, a 
decrease of $105.0 million, and $90.0 million in PE 64218C for 
Upper Tier intercept testing.
             Upper tier
    The budget request contained no funding in PE 64218C for a 
new upper tier program.
    The committee notes that the Department intends to provide 
funds to this program element starting in fiscal year 2002, 
after evaluating the performance of the Navy Theater Wide 
System (NTW) and the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) 
system in December 2000. The system that achieves greater 
success in its intercept test program will be funded to achieve 
a first unit equipped in fiscal year 2007.
    The committee supports the premise that success should be 
rewarded and that upper tier ballistic missile defense should 
be deployed as soon as possible. Nevertheless, the committee 
has serious concerns about the approach adopted by the 
Department. First, it is symptomatic of the serious fiscal 
constraints imposed on the Ballistic Missile Defense 
Organization (BMDO) as it attempts to develop and field systems 
to address virtually the only mission area in which the growth 
of the threat is outstripping the military's ability to defend 
against it. Second, BMDO has always described NTW and THAAD as 
distinct elements in a coherent theater missile defense 
architecture. The upper tier strategy adopted by the Department 
fails to address how accelerating one system while delaying the 
other will meet the requirements that this coherent 
architecture is intended to meet. Third, reducing funding to 
the program with the more serious technical challenges will not 
address in a timely manner those technical challenges. Fourth, 
the approach adopted by the Department would compare, as though 
equal, a limited capability interim NTW that does not meet 
operational requirements with an objective THAAD design. The 
appropriate programmatic outcome of such a comparison has not 
been adequately clarified to the committee.
    To address these concerns, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the Congressional 
defense committees by January 15, 2000, that describes: 1) the 
Department's plan to accommodate success in both NTW and THAAD, 
2) how the Department intends to meet the requirements 
identified in its TMD architecture if it delays one of its 
upper tier systems, and 3) coordinated timelines associated 
with THAAD and NTW in the Department's upper tier program.
    While the committee remains concerned with the Department's 
upper tier ``neckdown'' strategy, the new upper tier program 
does offer the potential to reinforce robust upper tier 
intercept testing for the upper tier system most capable of 
executing additional funds. Consequently the committee 
recommends a provision (sec. 231) that authorizes the new 
program element in fiscal year 2000 and transfers $90.0 million 
in funding, the estimated cost for three ballistic missile 
intercept tests. The committee directs the Secretary to use 
this funding to support the upper tier program that 
demonstrates greater success in intercept tests. The committee 
expects that this funding would be available to the THAAD 
program if it achieves success in tests throughout the reminder 
of fiscal year 1999.

Biological warfare defense program

    The budget request contained $145.9 million in PE 62383E 
for the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency's (DARPA) 
applied research program in biological warfare defense. The 
request represents an increase of $68.6 million from the 
original budget estimate for fiscal year 2000 that was 
contained in the fiscal year 1999 budget request and includes 
$12.0 million to continue the development and demonstration of 
consequence management planning and support systems.
    The goal of the DARPA biological warfare defense program is 
to thwart the use of biological warfare agents (including 
bacterial, viral, and bio-engineered organisms and toxins) by 
both military and terrorist opponents through the development 
of technologies that are applicable to broad classes of 
pathogens and toxins (rather than the agent specific approaches 
that are currently in use). The committee is impressed by the 
progress that has been made through the program by research in 
medical countermeasures, advanced diagnostics, sensors for 
detection of biological and chemical warfare agents, and 
technologies for decontamination, and neutralization for air 
and water. However, notwithstanding the emphasis by the 
President and the Congress on responding to threats of the use 
of weapons of mass destruction, the committee is concerned 
about the large increase in funding for the DARPA program over 
such a short period of time. The committee notes the comments 
regarding ``coordination and integration of the DARPA program 
under program management and oversight'' of the Department's 
chemical and biological defense program in the ``Department of 
Defense Nuclear/Biological/Chemical (NBC) Defense Annual Report 
to Congress, March 1999.'' The committee expects that such 
coordination and integration will be maintained on a continuing 
basis and that increased emphasis will also be placed on 
coordination of the DARPA program with corresponding biological 
research programs of the National Institutes of Health and the 
Centers for Disease Control. The committee expects the 
Secretary of Defense to address these issues in the next annual 
NBC defense report to the Congress.
    The committee understands that DARPA is presently 
prototyping its consequence management projects with users and 
intended to complete the project in fiscal year 2001. The 
committee notes, however, that the budget request continues to 
fund the program at approximately $10.0 million annually. The 
project also appears to duplicate ongoing work in consequence 
management planning and support at the Defense Threat Reduction 
Agency. The committee does not believe that the consequence 
management project meets the high risk, high payoff, 
breakthrough concepts and technologies criteria normally 
associated with DARPA programs, and directs the transfer of the 
program to the DOD chemical and biological defense program 
following completion of the prototype phase.
    The committee recommends $133.9 million in PE 62383E for 
the DARPA biological warfare defense program, a decrease of 
$12.0 million for the DARPA consequence management project.

Chemical-biological defense program

    The budget request contained $716.9 million for the 
chemical-biological defense program, including $339.5 million 
in research, development, test, and evaluation, and $337.4 
million in procurement. The budget request also included $145.8 
million for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 
(DARPA) biological warfare (BW defense program (PE 62383E).
    The committee notes that for the fiscal year 2000 to 2005 
program period, the Department of Defense (DOD) has added 
$380.0 million to the program for research and development of 
biological warfare defense and vaccines, to complement earlier 
increases to the program that totaled almost $1 billion for the 
fiscal year 1999 to 2003 program. The committee is aware of the 
progress that has been made in consolidating, coordinating, and 
integrating the chemical-biological (CB) defense requirements 
of all the military services into a single DOD CB defense 
program. Through the Joint Service Agreement on NBC Defense, 
the Department has established a viable management structure 
that should ensure that the operational needs of the military 
services and the major warfighting commanders are fully 
integrated and coordinated, and that duplication of effort is 
eliminated from the program.
    The committee notes the establishment of the NBC Defense 
Board within the Office of the Secretary of Defense to provide 
oversight of the program and fiscal and programming guidance. 
The committee believes that the membership of the board should 
be expanded to include the Secretary of the Army (the DOD 
executive agent for the program) and a senior member of the 
Joint Staff to represent the views of the major warfighting 
commanders.
    The committee believes that significant progress has been 
made in the NBC defense capability of U.S. forces, but 
recognizes that continuing emphasis will be required in 
development and acquisitions programs, logistics, and training 
and readiness to realize the goals of the program.
    The committee makes the following specific recommendations 
with respect to the program:
            Chemical and biological point detectors
    The Congress added $2.0 million in fiscal year 1998 and 
$7.0 million in fiscal year 1999 for basic and applied research 
in chemical and biological point detector technology. The 
committee notes the progress that has been made in the 
development of thin film sensors for chemical agents and of 
acoustic and fluorescence-based biological sensors. The 
committee also notes the promise that these technologies show 
for the development of small, light-weight, chemical and 
biological point detectors, and that these technologies should 
be competitive with other advanced chemical and biological 
agent detection technologies now in basic and applied research. 
The committee also notes the potential for using ion mass trap 
spectrometry in integrated multi-sensor detectors to improve 
detection rates and reduce false alarms. The committee believes 
that these technologies should compete for funding within the 
appropriate program elements of the Department's chemical-
biological defense program.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE 
61384BP and an increase of $5.5 million in PE 62384BP to 
accelerate basic and applied research in advanced technologies 
for chemical and biological point detectors.
            Optical computing device materials for chemical sensors
    The budget request contained $31.4 million in PE 61384BP 
for basic research in medical and non-medical chemical-
biological defense.
    The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 
61384BP for basic research in organic and inorganic optical 
computing device materials for use in standoff sensors for 
detection and identification of chemical agents.
            Safeguard
    The budget request contained $64.8 million in PE 62384BP 
for applied research in non-medical and medical chemical-
biological defense.
    The committee notes the progress that has been made in the 
Safeguard technology development and demonstration project for 
the use of stand-off optical spectroscopy for the detection of 
chemical agents and other chemical vapor effluents and is aware 
of its potential use on the battlefield and for 
counterproliferation surveillance. The committee understands 
that the establishment of an operational requirements document 
is being considered and that the Safeguard technology is to be 
further demonstrated and evaluated in an advanced warfighting 
experiment during fiscal year 2000. The committee also 
understands that a funded development program in fiscal year 
2001 is being considered.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 
million in PE 62384BP to continue the Safeguard technology 
development and demonstration program.

            Small unit biological detector and chemical-biological 
                    individual sampler
    Section 1701 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-160) requires that the budget 
of the Department of Defense reflect a coordinated and 
integrated chemical-biological defense program for the military 
departments, that shall not be included in the budget accounts 
of the military departments, but shall be set forth as a 
separate account in the Department's budget. In the statement 
of managers which accompanied the conference report on H.R. 
1119 (H. Rept. 105-132), the conferees directed the Assistant 
to the Secretary of Defense (Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological 
Defense Programs) to ensure that all research, development, and 
acquisition for the Department's Chemical Biological Quick 
Reaction Force (CBQRF) and its components (which at that time 
was understood to include the Marine Corps' Chemical Biological 
Incident Response Force (CBIRF)) are fully integrated and 
coordinated with the Department's chemical-biological defense 
program. The committee notes recommendations for increased 
funding in PE 65873M, Marine Corps Program Wide Support, to 
continue development of a small unit biological detector and of 
a chemical-biological individual sampler for the CBIRF. The 
committee also notes that applied research, advanced 
development, and demonstration of several advanced chemical and 
biological detector technologies are being conducted in PE 
62384BP, PE 63384BP and PE 63884BP.
    The committee recommends no separate funding for either the 
small unit biological detector or the chemical-biological 
individual sampler and directs that these two projects compete 
for funding within the appropriate program elements of the 
Department's chemical-biological defense program.
            Complex systems design
    The budget request contained $10.9 million in PE 63704D8Z 
for special technical support, but included no funding for 
complex systems design.
    The Department of Defense currently employs a number of 
computer based synthesis and analysis tools which advance all 
phases of the life cycle of complex defense systems. From 
concept design, through development and production, and 
throughout life cycle ownership of a complex system, these 
tools have dramatically improved the efficiency and reduced the 
costs of each discrete phase.
    However, since each tool employs its own unique data 
representation and data storage mechanism, there exists, with 
few exceptions, no substantial interoperability between tools 
at the semantic level for interchange of similar data 
structures. This inability to collaborate results in a 
development process that remains largely manual, with no means 
for even semi-automated configuration management of the total 
project design.
    The committee recommends $15.9 million for PE 63704D8Z, an 
increase of $5.0 million to pursue the development of a complex 
systems design program that would allow for an integrated 
digital environment for complex systems design. The committee 
directs that all applicable competitive procedures be used in 
the award of contracts and other agreements under this program.

Cryofracture disposal of anti-personnel landmines

    The budget request contained $11.2 million in PE 63104D8Z 
for explosives demilitarization technology, but included no 
funding for cryofracture disposal of personnel landmines.
    The committee notes the growing issue of explosive 
demilitarization and supports use of innovative technology to 
solve this problem.
    The committee recommends $13.2 million in PE 63104D8Z, an 
increase of $2.0 million for cryofracture landmine disposal.

CV-22 Osprey

    The budget request contained $106.7 million in PE 116404BB 
for special operations tactical systems development.
    The CV-22 Osprey will provide critical capability for long-
range special operations, contingency operations and special 
warfare. The committee notes that a pre-planned product 
improvement (P3I) will add additional capability and refinement 
to the CV-22 that will give special forces significant 
advantage in areas critical to mission performance.
    The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million in PE 
116404BB for the CV-22 Osprey P3I.

Domestic preparedness for response to terrorism involving weapons of 
        mass destruction

    The committee has repeatedly emphasized the need for a more 
coordinated program for domestic emergency preparedness for 
response to terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction 
(WMD). The Research and Development subcommittee's hearing in 
March 1999, which focused on research and development support 
to WMD domestic emergency preparedness, provided an 
understanding of the plan and programs of the Department of 
Defense and other federal agencies that support the domestic 
emergency preparedness program and how they are coordinated 
among the federal agencies and with State and local agencies.
    The committee notes, as discussed elsewhere in this report, 
that the Attorney General's ``Five-Year Interagency 
Counterterrorism and Technology Crime Plan'' serves as a 
baseline strategy for coordination of national policy and 
operational capabilities to combat terrorism in the United 
States and against American interests overseas. Among the goals 
addressed in the plan are identification of critical 
technologies for targeted research and development investments 
and development of strategies to improve state and local 
capabilities for responding to terrorist acts, including WMD- 
and cyber-terrorism. The committee understands that the Weapons 
of Mass Destruction Preparedness (WMDP) research and 
development interagency working subgroup, chaired by the 
President's Office of Science and Technology Policy, is 
developing a strategic research and development plan that will 
clarify and coordinate agency responsibilities, identify gaps 
and overlaps in the WMDP research and development program, and 
guide the preparation and review of agency WMDP budget requests 
for fiscal year 2001. The committee expects that fiscal year 
2001 budget requests will include the first coordinated WMDP 
research and development program that complies with the 
Attorney General's strategic plan.
    The committee recognizes that coordination and management 
of the WMD domestic emergency preparedness program is an 
evolving process, and supports these initial steps toward 
developing a more integrated program. The committee emphasizes 
that the domestic emergency preparedness program will require 
continuing emphasis at the highest levels of government in 
order to realize the goal of increasing the effectiveness of 
Federal, State, and local agencies to respond to the threat of 
WMD terrorist incidents. The committee expects that a summary 
of actions taken to increase the overall effectiveness of the 
program will be included in the domestic emergency preparedness 
annex to the President's annual report on counterterrorism and 
antiterrorism expenditures that is submitted to the Congress in 
accordance with section 1051 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) and 
section 1403 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261).

Facial recognition technology

    The budget request contained $52.2 million for the counter 
terror technical support (CTTS) program in PE 63122D8Z.
    The CTTS is an interagency program for development and 
demonstration of surveillance, physical security, and 
infrastructure protection technology.
    The committee continues to support development of advanced 
technology for protection of critical infrastructure and other 
uses, and recommends $55.2 million in PE 63122D8Z, an increase 
of $3.0 million for continued development of biometric access 
control technology.

Flat panel displays

    The budget request contained $31.3 million in PE 62708E for 
the development and demonstration of high definition display 
technology.
    The committee understands that major components of the flat 
panel display initiative include: development of projection, 
head mounted and direct view displays, development of equipment 
and components required for manufacture of advanced display 
technologies, and prototyping of display systems.
    In 1994, the President and the Department of Defense 
announced a five-year National Flat Panel Display Initiative 
(NFPDI) to establish a viable domestic industrial capability 
for the manufacture of high definition displays for use by the 
military services and to provide the Department with assured 
access to affordable flat panel display technology for defense 
applications. The committee notes the progress that has been 
made in the development of a domestic industrial capability for 
commercial and military applications of flat panel displays and 
believes that the program has been successful in meeting the 
objectives of the initiative.
    The committee recommends $40.0 million in PE 62708E, an 
increase of $8.7 million for the high definition display 
technology program.

Forging lead time technology

    The budget request contained $6.7 million in PE 78011S for 
the Defense Logistics Agency manufacturing technology research 
and development program.
    Metal forgings are frequently identified as lead time 
drivers for many weapons systems. Traditional forging processes 
are characterized by trial and error, and can be very expensive 
when small quantities of spare parts are needed. In fiscal year 
2001, the Department of Defense plans to initiate a Forging 
Lead Time Technology program to develop ways to make small 
quantities of forgings for spare parts for land, sea, and air 
weapon systems, quickly and economically.
    The committee recommends an increase of $750,000 in PE 
78011S to initiate the Forging Lead Time Technology program in 
fiscal year 2000.

Ground-based common sensor/prophet

    The budget request contained $109.5 million in PE 35885G, 
including $12.8 million for the ground-based common sensor 
(GBCS)/Prophet tactical signals intelligence (SIGINT) system.
    The committee notes that the Army terminated the GBCS 
program in November 1999 for lack of performance, and that the 
service wants to move to the new, less complicated Prophet 
program. The committee is concerned that the GBCS effort, begun 
over seven years ago, was unsuccessful because of a lack of 
achievable requirements and an overly sophisticated technical 
approach.
    The committee has received limited formal explanation of 
the evolving Prophet concept. However, the Army's approach to 
Prophet is more simplistic than GBCS, but appears to be 
inadequate to properly collect and process modern battlefield 
SIGINT necessary to provide useful tactical intelligence. 
Furthermore, the committee questions the need for a ground-
based tactical SIGINT collection capability to supplement the 
Army's airborne efforts.
    The committee directs that no authorized or appropriated 
funds be obligated or expended until the Secretary of the Army 
provides the Congressional defense and intelligence committees 
a detailed concept of operations for Prophet together with a 
detailed program definition and technical approach for this 
ground-based, tactical SIGINT collection system.
    The committee recommends the budget request for the ground 
based common sensor (GBCS)/Prophet tactical signals 
intelligence (SIGINT) system.

Information systems technology, superiority, and security

    The budget request contained $1,003.9 million for 
information technology research, development, test, and 
evaluation. The request also included $279.0 million for 
research and development in support of the Department of 
Defense (DOD) information systems security program.
    The committee report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-132) and 
the statement of managers accompanying the conference report on 
H.R. 1119 (H. Rept 105-340) directed the Secretary of Defense 
to submit to the Congress a report on the status of the 
Department of Defense's information security program and 
additional actions that should be taken to assure the increased 
security and integrity of the defense information 
infrastructure. The substance of the Secretary's report was 
addressed by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the Department of 
Defense's Senior Civilian for C4I, and the Joint Staff and 
military services' chief information officers in a committee 
hearing in February 1999. The committee received testimony on 
implementation of the Department's information technology and 
systems architecture, progress in joint information systems 
interoperability, and measures being taken to protect critical 
defense information infrastructure. Among the significant 
issues cited by the witnesses were:
          (1) The need for resources that would enable the 
        Department to respond rapidly and flexibly to the 
        dynamic pace of information technology and put emerging 
        and demonstrated information technology into the field 
        quickly;
          (2) The need for a flexible and continuous funding 
        mechanism to improve capabilities in critical 
        information systems and technologies identified by the 
        major theater commanders;
          (3) Unfunded requirements for critical information 
        technology development and system upgrades through the 
        end of the Future Years Defense Program;
          (4) Acquisition and retention of uniformed and 
        civilian information technology professionals in the 
        Department;
          (5) Requirements for advanced C4I modeling and 
        simulation;
          (6) The need to incentivize private industry to 
        achieve higher levels of information assurance in the 
        private sector;
          (7) Accelerated implementation of public key 
        infrastructure in the Department; and
          (8) The increased cost and potential degradation in 
        current and future military operational capabilities 
        that result from reallocation of DOD-assigned radio 
        frequency spectrum in accordance with Title VI of the 
        Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Public Law 
        103-66).
    The committee believes that the Department has established 
an effective information assurance strategy and taken a number 
of actions that should improve information assurance for 
defense information systems. The committee recognizes that a 
significant and continuing commitment will be required 
throughout the Department to insure the success of the strategy 
and the security of the defense information infrastructure.
    The committee makes the following specific recommendations 
with respect to the program:
            Global networked information enterprise security
    The budget request contained $232.7 million in PE 33140G 
for the Information Systems Security Program.
    The committee notes the creation of the Department of 
Defense's Global Networked Information Enterprise (GNIE) which 
will result in the establishment of a wide-spread, secure, 
available information systems network to support U.S. 
information superiority objectives.
    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 
33140G to support the development of advanced security measures 
for elements of the GNIE.
            Information assurance
    The committee believes that the Department needs to 
continue its efforts to protect the defense information 
infrastructure from information attacks and to detect and react 
to information attacks against the defense information 
infrastructure through the wide-spread deployment of intrusion 
detection capabilities. Continued development of attack 
sensing/correlation tools should be pursued in order to keep 
national command authorities apprised of ongoing attacks that 
could affect national security. The Department should also 
accelerate the development of improved capabilities to assure 
the security and integrity of the defense information 
infrastructure.
    The committee recommends an increase of $35.0 million in PE 
33140G for the development of enhanced information assurance 
tools for protection of the defense information infrastructure 
and for real-time detection, collection, and analysis of attack 
sensing and warning data.
            Information assurance for national critical infrastructures
    The committee believes that protection of the nation's 
critical infrastructure against strategic information warfare 
(IW) attacks will require new tools and technology for 
information assurance. The protection of the large-scale 
telecommunications networks that comprise a critical segment of 
the U.S. information infrastructure will require highly complex 
and sophisticated, integrated information assurance solutions 
that are highly automated and operate in near-real-time. The 
ability to assess the vulnerability of the domestic electric 
power grid infrastructure to information attack will require 
the development of integrated models that possess real-time 
functionality and can be used to develop strategies and 
procedures to detect and respond to terrorist attacks on the 
national electric power grid.
    Because the defense information infrastructure is closely 
linked and dependent upon the domestic information 
infrastructure, the committee believes that government, 
industry, and academia should form partnerships to 
cooperatively develop information assurance solutions to 
protect the nation's critical information systems 
infrastructure. The committee further believes that such 
partnerships should be guided by a shared concern for the need 
for strategic information assurance and strong incentives for 
industry participation.
            Report on information superiority
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to 
the Congressional defense and intelligence committees with the 
submission of the fiscal year 2001 budget request, a 
comprehensive report on the Department's information 
superiority program. The report shall include, but not be 
limited to, an assessment of the interoperability, reliability, 
and security of DOD national and tactical information systems. 
The report shall identify the critical information superiority 
challenges confronting the Department, outline DOD strategy for 
maintaining military information superiority, and identify 
critical shortfalls, requirements, and related issues, to 
include any proposed legislation necessary to address perceived 
problems. The committee requests that measures taken to address 
the issues raised in its February 1999 hearing be addressed in 
the report.

Joint theater air and missile defense organization

    The budget request contained $17.1 million in PE 65126J for 
the joint theater air and missile defense organization 
(JTAMDO).
    The committee is aware that various organizations within 
the Department use different models and simulation 
architectures to assess the capabilities and effectiveness of 
specific air and missile defense systems. The independently 
derived assumptions and operational parameters built in to 
these models and simulations make the comparison of their 
analyses problematic, resulting in an unsatisfactory basis for 
major decisions involving funding priority or key milestones.
    The committee understands that JTAMDO is the organization 
within the Department of Defense chartered to plan, coordinate, 
and oversee joint integrated theater air and missile defense 
requirements, joint operational concepts, and operational 
architectures. Consequently, the committee believes that JTAMDO 
is in the best position to determine which of the currently 
used models has the best fidelity, and that JTAMDO must have 
the authority to rationalize the use of models and simulations 
such that the results are accurate and comparable for all 
systems.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to designate 
the director of JTAMDO as the DOD executive agent for 
management of joint models and simulations for air and missile 
defense programs. The committee directs the director of JTAMDO 
to establish a uniform and consistent set of models and 
simulation architectures which JTAMDO, the services, and the 
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) shall use to 
assess the effectiveness of all air and missile defense 
programs.
    The committee is also concerned that the BMDO may be 
duplicating some of the functions of JTAMDO in its theater air 
and missile defense project (project 3155, PE 63873). The 
committee supports JTAMDO's role in establishing architectures 
and requirements and BMDO's role as the acquisition agency for 
missile defense.
    The committee recommends $20.1 million in PE 65126J, an 
increase of $3.0 million to assist JTAMDO in establishing the 
use of uniform models and simulations.

Logistics sustainment technology

    The budget request contained $17.3 million in PE 63712S for 
generic logistic research and development technology 
demonstrations and $6.7 million in PE 78011S for the Defense 
Logistics Agency manufacturing technology research and 
development program.
    The committee notes that an increasing portion of our 
defense budget is being used to support and manage large 
inventories of older weapons systems. The committee believes 
that costs associated with logistics and maintenance must be 
reduced in order to free resources to develop and procure 
modern systems. Leveraging the best practices of commercial 
industry in logistics and maintenance planning and management 
could permit the Department of Defense to reduce these costs in 
weapons and supporting systems.
    Among the many aging weapon systems, aircraft are being 
kept in the inventory much longer than originally anticipated, 
and aircraft parts that were never planned for replacement 
often must be procured after the technical data, manufacturing 
processes, and the supplier base that originally provided these 
items are no longer available. This results in significantly 
increased costs and unacceptably long logistics response times.
    The committee notes that a partnership among the Department 
of Defense, the manufacturing industries, and academia is 
developing a new strategy to address this problem. The strategy 
encompasses the design associated with reengineering such parts 
and manufacturing techniques that can produce very low 
quantities of the parts in a cost effective manner. Past models 
have shown that lead-times can be reduced from 273 days to 97 
days for complex parts, new suppliers can be added to the 
production base, and costs can be significantly reduced. In 
fiscal year 2001, the Department of Defense plans to begin a 
program for the development of aging aircraft sustainment 
technology to address these issues.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
78011S to initiate the Aging Aircraft Sustainment Technology 
program in fiscal year 2000. The committee also recommends an 
increase of $3.0 million in PE 63712S to establish a 
competitive sustainment demonstration aimed at dramatic 
reductions in sustainment costs and improved logistics 
efficiency.

Medical free electron laser

    The budget request contained $9.7 million in PE 62227D8Z 
for the medical free electron laser program (MFEL).
    The committee is aware that the MFEL, which continues to be 
managed under rigorous peer review, has demonstrated 
significant advances enabling new treatments for burns, eye 
surgery, and bone cutting and also shows promise in the area of 
brain tumor surgery.
    The committee supports the MFEL and recommends $15.0 
million in PE 62227D8Z, an increase of $5.3 million for MFEL.

National technology alliance

    The budget request contained $88.4 million in PE 35102BQ 
for Defense Imagery Analysis Program, and included for $8.1 
million for National Imagery Mapping Agency (NIMA) technology 
investment.
    The committee is aware that the NIMA National Technology 
Alliance (NTA) program continues to demonstrate its value 
within the intelligence community while it has expanded to 
address the needs of the Department of Defense. NTA innovation 
in a variety of technologies, with applications that cross 
department, service and agency boundaries are reducing costs, 
increasing performance, and saving limited funds.
    The committee continues to support the NTA's efforts to 
provide solutions based on advances in technology for both the 
Department of Defense and the intelligence community. The 
committee recommends $93.4 million in PE 35102BQ, an increase 
of $5.0 million for the NTA.

Pilot program for revitalizing the laboratories and test and evaluation 
        centers of the Department of Defense

    The committee notes that section 246 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-
261) authorized the Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot 
program for revitalizing laboratories and test and evaluation 
centers of the Department of Defense. The focus of this pilot 
program is to prove the effectiveness of cooperative 
relationships with universities and other private sector 
entities for the performance of research and development 
functions.
    Under this provision, the Secretary has designated the 
Aberdeen Test Center as the Army's test and evaluation center 
to participate as a pilot center because of its critical ties 
to the research, development, test, and evaluation community.
    The committee also notes that the Arnold Engineering and 
Development Center was selected as the Air Force candidate 
based on proactive and highly successful efforts to maximize 
use of its facilities by other government and commercial 
customers, thereby reducing annual operating costs to the Air 
Force. The Naval Air Warfare Center has also demonstrated 
efforts to expand relationships and cooperative ventures with 
industry and other government agencies and will provide 
excellent examples of maximizing efficiencies to other Navy 
activities.
    The committee strongly supports these pilot program 
initiatives and encourages the services to document and report 
the activities of these pilot centers.

Special operations forces reconnaissance

    The budget request contained $1.4 million in PE 116405BB 
for Special Operations Command (SOCOM) intelligence research 
and development. No funds were requested for the special 
operations tactical video system (SOTVS) digital underwater 
camera.
    The committee notes that a commercial camera system for the 
joint SOTVS digital still-camera requirement is not available 
and that the commercial market has no intention of providing an 
off-the-shelf solution.
    Further, a digital imagery capability would provide near-
real-time information support to special operations forces and 
would not require a wet-film processing requirement as do the 
current film-based cameras. The committee believes this is a 
capability that needs to be provided to the SOF forces as 
quickly as possible, and that a government-funded digital 
camera is the only potential near-term solution to this 
reconnaissance requirement. The committee understands that $4.1 
million is required to complete development of a camera that 
meets all joint requirements.
    The committee recommends $3.5 million in PE116405BB, an 
increase of $2.1 million for the SOTVS digital underwater 
camera.

Special operations forces small boat improvements

    The budget request contained $106.7 million in PE 116404BB 
for special operations tactical systems improvements.
    Special operations forces (SOF) personnel delivery craft 
are currently powered by gasoline engines coupled to stern 
drives and are transported to deployment on Navy ships. Early 
in the next century, the Navy will no longer allow gasoline 
onboard ships, requiring the gasoline engines on SOF craft to 
be replaced by engines that burn mid-distillate or diesel fuel.
    The committee notes that a new commercially available 
propulsion technology has been developed that offers improved 
performance, simplifies the drive train, and has been used 
commercially with a diesel engine. The committee supports 
evaluation of this innovative propulsion system and diesel 
engines aboard SOF craft and notes that suitable SOF craft are 
available for conducting such propulsion tests.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 
116404BB for small craft propulsion systems testing.

Special operations tactical systems development

    The budget request contained $106.7 million for special 
operations tactical systems development in PE 116404BB, 
including $18.3 million for underwater systems.
    The committee is aware that the advanced seal delivery 
systems (ASDS) will provide a significant new capability for 
special operations forces. The committee notes that the ASDS 
program has experienced unexpected cost increases and schedule 
delays that have forced program restructuring and that ASDS is 
now expected to begin testing and sea trials in the latter part 
of fiscal year 1999. The committee is aware that the Special 
Operations Command has fully acknowledged the importance of 
ASDS and committed to internally reprogram funds in order to 
support the revised schedule. However, this reprogramming has 
necessitated the reduction of funds from other important 
special operations programs.
    The committee supports fielding the ASDS as promptly as 
possible, with a minimum of reprogramming, and recommends an 
increase of $8.0 million in PE 116404BB for ASDS.

Strategic environmental research program

    The budget request contained $53.5 million in PE 63716D8Z 
for the strategic environmental research program (SERP).
    The committee notes that the Department of Defense has 
taken steps to reduce the use of hazardous chemicals. The 
committee supports these efforts and directs the Secretary of 
Defense to evaluate the use of ethyl lactate, a nontoxic 
biodegradable solvent as an alternative to toxic solvents for 
appropriate purposes as part of the SERP.
    The committee recommends $53.5 million in PE 63716D8Z for 
SERP.

Thermionics

    The budget request contained $203.5 million in PE 62715BR 
for development of the technologies relevant to nuclear and 
other advanced weapons systems, but included no funds to 
continue the development of thermionic power conversion 
technology.
    The committee notes the requirement for nuclear space power 
systems that will support long lifetimes for space satellites, 
deep space missions, and future manned exploration. The 
objective of the advanced thermionics program is to advance the 
state of thermionic power conversion, develop high performance 
and highly reliable thermionic converters, and demonstrate 
their feasibility in thermionic power systems. The committee 
believes that increased emphasis in the program should be 
placed on the development of components and materials used in 
thermionic converters, thermionic physics research, and 
development of coatings to increase surface emissivity.
    The committee recommends $206.5 million in PE 62715BR, an 
increase of $3.0 million to continue the development of 
thermionic power conversion technology.

University research initiatives

    The budget request contained $216.7 million in PE 61103D8Z 
for university research initiatives (URI), including $10.0 
million for the defense experimental program to stimulate 
competitive research (DEPSCoR).
    The committee supports continuation of the DEPSCoR program 
to strengthen the infrastructure, enhance research, train and 
motivate scientists and researchers, and to assist the DEPSCoR 
states in becoming more competitive for research funding and 
training grants.
    The committee also notes the importance of advanced high-
yield software development and the rapid pace of software 
development required to support advancing computer technology.
    The committee recommends $218.3 million in PE 61103D8Z, an 
increase of $1.5 million to continue work by the Department of 
Defense to develop methods for training and developing high 
yield software to increase the efficiency of military software 
programmers. The committee directs that, of the funds 
authorized in PE 61103D8Z, a total of $25.0 million shall be 
for DEPSCoR.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations


              Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations

    This section would authorize Research, Development, Testing 
and Evaluation (RDT&E) funding for fiscal year 2000.

           Section 202--Amount for Basic and Applied Research

    This section would specify the amount authorized for fiscal 
year 2000 for technology base programs.

    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations


Section 211--Collaborative Program To Evaluate And Demonstrate Advanced 
          Technologies For Advanced Capability Combat Vehicles

    This provision would direct the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a cooperative program between the Army and the 
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to develop future 
combat vehicle concepts for the Army.

       Section 212--Revisions in Manufacturing Technology Program

    This section would amend section 2525 of title 10, United 
States Code, to include as one of the purposes of the defense 
manufacturing technology program the development of advanced 
manufacturing technologies and processes that address broad 
defense-related manufacturing inefficiencies and requirements. 
The committee believes that this focus and the focus on the 
promotion of dual-use manufacturing processes should result in 
a more effective defense manufacturing technology program. The 
provision would also remove the requirement that requires the 
Secretary of Defense to establish percentage goals for cost 
sharing in the manufacturing technology program. With these 
recommendations, the committee emphasizes the flexibility that 
is inherent in the program and available to the Secretary of 
Defense in establishing program cost-sharing guidelines and 
cost-sharing waivers for individual manufacturing technology 
projects.

                 Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense


Section 231--Additional Program Elements for Ballistic Missile Defense 
                                Programs

    This provision would establish three new program elements 
within the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization for the upper 
tier, space based infrared system (SBIRS) high, and SBIRS Low.

                       Subtitle D--Other Matters


  Section 241--Designation of the Secretary of the Army as Executive 
                Agent for High Energy Laser Technologies

    This provision would direct the Secretary of Defense to 
designate the Secretary of the Army as the Department of 
Defense executive agent for oversight of research, development, 
test and evaluation of specified high energy laser technologies 
and mandate that functions as executive agent be carried out 
through the Army Space and Missile Defense Command at the high 
energy laser test facility at White Sands Missile Range, New 
Mexico.

                  TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee's actions throughout the bill reflect a 
comprehensive legislative and budgetary approach designed to 
address the systemic decline in the readiness of U.S. armed 
forces. The combination of an increasing pace of operations--
driven largely by the expansive and open-ended nature of 
peacekeeping, peace-making, peace enforcement and other 
humanitarian missions--declining defense budgets and shrinking 
U.S. forces have created a military that is doing too much with 
too little and is suffering the inevitable consequences.
    The fiscal year 2000 budget request for operation and 
maintenance represents an increase in spending of more than $7 
billion over spending levels projected last year for fiscal 
year 2000. Despite the fact that this increase is not all 
readiness related, it is nonetheless a welcome recognition on 
the part of the Administration that the military services 
confront serious readiness shortfalls. It should be noted that 
in addition to substantial non-readiness related funding 
contained in the operation and maintenance title, more than 
$1.2 billion is also included for commissary operations and 
Pentagon renovation funding. The committee questions why the 
department continues to include funding for these programs in 
these accounts despite Congressional direction to fund them 
elsewhere in the budget.
    Despite increased operation and maintenance spending, the 
budget request falls well short of addressing many of the 
military services' unfunded readiness requirements. Within 
weeks of the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request being 
submitted to Congress, the service chiefs informed the 
committee that the defense budget was at least $3.3 billion 
short of meeting minimal readiness requirements. Further, 
approximately 50 percent of the shortfalls over the next six 
years, identified by the service chiefs, are readiness related. 
Compounding the problem, the shortfalls identified by the 
service chiefs earlier this year did not take into account the 
billions of dollars of direct and indirect readiness shortfalls 
being created by the high pace and costs of U.S. operations in 
the Balkan region.
    The committee remains deeply concerned with the continued 
under-funding of key readiness accounts and believes that 
shortages in the field are getting worse. For example, the Air 
Force unfunded priority list identifies a spare parts shortfall 
of approximately $200.0 million next fiscal year-a shortfall 
that follows on the heels of Congress adding a total of $194.0 
million for Air Force spare parts in the fiscal year 1999 
defense authorization bill and last fall's supplemental defense 
appropriations bill. Despite the addition by Congress of 
approximately $151.0 million in fiscal year 1999 to arrest the 
backlog of depot maintenance and repair, the budget request 
proposes an overall reduction in funding for depot maintenance 
and repair, the chiefs' unfunded priorities list identifies a 
shortfall of $340 million and the depot maintenance backlog is 
more than $1 billion. After the addition by Congress of $300.0 
million to the real property maintenance and repair accounts in 
fiscal year 1999 and the proposal in the budget request for an 
increase of $245.0 million, the chiefs' unfunded priorities 
list still identifies a real property and repair shortfall of 
over $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2000. Despite similar 
Congressional and Administration increases for base operations 
funding over the past year, the services unfunded priority 
requirements list nonetheless identifies a base operations 
shortfall of over $450.0 million in fiscal year 2000.
    This year, the committee once again conducted a number of 
readiness-related field hearings in the United States and 
overseas in an effort to obtain a more accurate and detailed 
assessment of readiness problems. In years past, the 
overwhelming impression left on the committee was of an 
overextended force having to accomplish more in an environment 
of declining human and budgetary resources.
    In addition to the common complaints about lack of spare 
parts, aging equipment, decaying infrastructure and growing 
equipment and facilities' backlogs, senior military leaders and 
even junior front-line supervisors also repeatedly informed the 
committee of the difficulties of conducting quality training 
and operational deployments with significant personnel 
shortages. For example, the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise 
began a six-month tour with the U.S. Sixth Fleet 464 people 
short of its authorized billets. Army officers related the 
difficulties of training at the National Training Center with 
units that were significantly undermanned. Air Force 
maintenance personnel told of the difficulties in maintaining 
equipment without the proper line or supervisory personnel.
    In view of the wide range of variables that impact on 
military readiness, and because the committee continues to 
doubt the Department's ability to create and consistently 
implement more meaningful readiness reporting criteria, in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1999 (Public 
Law 105-261) Congress required that the Secretary of Defense 
provide a plan to establish a more comprehensive and extensive 
readiness reporting system. The committee is disappointed that 
the Department has not yet complied with this requirement. As 
discussed elsewhere in this report, the committee has 
nonetheless continued to take constructive action to reform and 
improve the Department's readiness reporting systems.
    One area of particular focus for the committee over the 
past several years has been the disturbing decline in quality 
training at the services' combat training centers. Each of the 
services informed the committee that units were arriving at 
these premier training facilities less prepared, with fewer 
personnel, and lower equipment readiness than in the past. Army 
commanders indicated that personnel turbulence and manpower 
shortfalls in their units was forcing them to arrive at the 
training centers without the personnel necessary to conduct 
proper training. Air Force officers stated that training 
scenarios at their ``Red Flag'' exercises were being simplified 
because pilots were not well enough trained to operate in the 
more complicated training situations that had formerly been the 
norm. Aggressor pilots and instructors also expressed their 
belief that pilots were not as ready when they arrived for 
training exercises as they had been just a few years ago. The 
committee believes that training at the major combat training 
centers should be considered premier events in a 
servicemembers' training evolution.
    Finally, the committee continues to believe that DOD must 
take more aggressive steps to reduce costs in non-readiness 
related accounts. At a time when readiness shortfalls are 
growing almost exponentially, the committee does not believe 
that funding for administrative and support activities, such as 
headquarters management, should be increasing. Consistent with 
past practice, the committee has identified spending that does 
not directly support readiness and has reprioritized it into 
areas that do such as combat training, depot maintenance, 
aircraft spares, base operations, and real property 
maintenance. In making decisions on how best to apply resources 
to address readiness problems, the committee relied heavily on 
lessons learned during extensive oversight hearings and on the 
unfunded priorities identified by the service chiefs.


                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                        Budget Request Increases


                 Critical Readiness Accounts Increases

    Although the committee has significantly increased funding 
above the President's budget request in key readiness accounts 
by more than $7 billion during the past four years, readiness 
continues to decline across the forces. The costs of doing more 
with less continue to grow. Once again, the committee 
recommends significant funding increases above the President's 
budget in an effort to address the most critical unfunded 
readiness requirements.
    The committee's recommendations have focused on problems 
highlighted throughout the extensive hearings and have been 
guided by the shortfalls identified by the service chiefs.

Aircraft spare parts

    Prolonged contingency air operations in Southwest Asia and 
the Balkans have added significant unprogrammed flying hours to 
an already aging fleet of combat aircraft and have nearly 
depleted on-hand stocks of aircraft spare parts. The service 
chiefs identified shortfalls in spare parts funding as one of 
their highest unfunded priorities. Based on the recommendations 
of the service chiefs, the committee recommends an increase of 
$271.2 million, the amount contained in the unfunded priority 
lists, for aircraft spare parts as follows:

                        [In millions of dollars]

Navy..............................................................  50.0
Air Force......................................................... 195.2
Air National Guard................................................  26.0

Depot maintenance

    Operational tempo is at an all time high and aging military 
equipment is wearing out. As a consequence, the end of the 
designed service life for significant elements of the services' 
combat equipment is rapidly approaching and the maintenance of 
the equipment is becoming more difficult, time consuming and 
expensive. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of 
$339.5 million for depot maintenance as follows:

                        [In millions of dollars]

Army..............................................................  87.0
Navy (Air)........................................................  50.0
Navy (Sea)........................................................  25.0
Marine Corps......................................................  20.0
Air Force.........................................................  87.0
Army National Guard...............................................  41.0
Air National Guard................................................  29.5

Training accounts

    As part of its focus on the adequacy of military training, 
the committee conducted specific hearings on how effectively 
the major training centers were preparing military units for 
combat. The committee found that insufficient funding has been 
a contributing factor in the decline in the quality of training 
at these important training facilities. Shortages of equipment, 
parts, decaying infrastructure, and personnel shortages were 
identified as serious problems and the training equipment and 
base facilities at many of the combat training centers is in 
urgent need of both repair and upgrade. Due to increasing 
restrictions on the availability of local station training 
ranges, the committee reiterates its belief that the military 
service training centers are national assets that must be 
upgraded and better maintained.
    Based on information gathered in committee hearings and 
other training shortfalls identified by the military services, 
the committee recommends an increase of $112.1 million to 
improve training center operations, equipment, and facilities 
as follows:

                        [in millions of dollars]

Army:
    National Training Center Prepositioned Equipment Maintenance..  28.0
    Joint Readiness Training Center Prepositioned Equipment 
      Maintenance.................................................   2.0
    FORSCOM Deployments to National Training Center...............   4.0
    CMTC Mission Support..........................................   4.0
    Korea Training Area...........................................   4.1
Navy:
    Naval Air Strike Air Warfare Center Facility Improvements.....   2.0
Marine Corps:
    Air/Ground Combat Center......................................  25.7
Air Force:
    Air Warfare Center Range Support..............................   6.1
    Air Warfare Center Fiber Link.................................   4.6
    Utah Test and Training Range Support..........................  11.7
    AETC Mission Essential Equipment..............................  14.0
    AETC Range Improvements.......................................   5.9

Real property maintenance and base operations support

    The state of the infrastructure at nearly all military 
facilities has continued to degrade to the point that the 
current backlog for repair is $9.6 billion and immediate 
investment must be made to at least keep the problem from 
getting worse. The committee observes that current funding 
levels for real property maintenance represent less than one 
percent of the plant value of our military installations. At 
such low funding levels, replacement of facilities will take 
more than 100 years.
    The committee also notes that shortfalls in base operations 
accounts--accounts that are regularly used by commanders to 
address shortfalls in operations and training accounts during 
the fiscal year--are at or near the top of the service chiefs 
unfunded priority lists.
    To address the backlog of facility maintenance and 
shortfalls in base operations funding, the committee recommends 
an increase of $1,648.5 million, identified in the unfunded 
priority lists for real property maintenance and base 
operations support, as follows:

                        [In millions of dollars]

Army.............................................................. 517.0
Navy.............................................................. 395.5
Marine Corps......................................................  86.0
Air Force......................................................... 529.0
Army National Guard...............................................  72.0
Navy Reserve......................................................  43.2
Marine Corps Reserve..............................................   1.0
Air National Guard................................................   4.8

Miscellaneous unfunded requirements

    The committee also recommends the following $758.4 million 
in increased funding for unfunded readiness-related 
requirements identified by the service chiefs.

                        [In millions of dollars]

Army:
    DMOSQ/Leader Development......................................  35.0
    Information Operations........................................  18.0
    Institutional Training........................................  70.0
    Training Area Environmental Management........................  32.0
Navy:
    Ashore Force Protection.......................................  12.0
    Paperless Acquisition.........................................   4.7
    Marine Aviation Related Logistics.............................  35.0
    Marine Aviation Related Engineering...........................  12.0
Marine Corps:
    Maintenance of Aging Equipment................................  37.2
    Corrosion Control Coating.....................................  13.8
    Initial Issue.................................................  20.0
Air Force:
    Real Property Support.........................................  49.0
    Civil Air Patrol..............................................   7.5
    NBC High Leverage Programs....................................  18.8
    C-130J Logistics..............................................   6.1
    Sustaining Engineering........................................  95.4
    ICBM Prime Contract...........................................  16.3
    AC21SR Center Programs........................................  32.7
    AEF/Joint Experimentation (JFEX)..............................  35.6
    Mobility CLS Contract.........................................  72.4
Army Reserve:
    Army Reserve OPSTEMPO.........................................  77.0
Army National Guard:
    Army National Guard OPSTEMPO..................................  23.0
Marine Corps Reserve:
    Maintenance of Aging Equipment................................   1.5
    Corrosion Control Coating.....................................   1.5
    Initial Issue.................................................  10.0
Air National Guard:
    F-16 Flight Training Hours....................................  21.9

Mobility enhancement funding

    The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million to 
improve the deployment and mobility of military forces and 
supplies through investment in en-route infrastructure. These 
funds are provided to the United States Transportation Command 
Mobility Enhancement Fund (MEF). The committee is aware that 
the MEF was established to address strategic mobility 
shortcomings that revealed themselves during Operation Desert 
Shield/Desert Storm. The committee believes that this 
additional funding will improve the ability of the military 
services to respond to future contingencies.

                    Modern Field Kitchen Burner Unit

    The committee is aware that the burner unit (M2) that 
provides all heat used in the Army's field kitchens was 
originally fielded in 1959. Between 1980 and 1997, 90 accidents 
resulting in 65 injuries and 2 fatalities involving this unit 
were reported. M2 units, which are gasoline-powered, cannot be 
operated closer than 50 feet from each other and must be 
installed while lit in deployed field kitchens. The committee 
is also aware that the Army began replacing these burners at 
the beginning of fiscal year 1999 with a modern burner unit 
(MBU) that is more fuel efficient, reliable, can be ignited 
after installation in deployed field kitchens, and will greatly 
improve safety. It is estimated that the MBU will save over 
$100,000 per 800,000 hours of use and has been operated for 
over 300 hours without a failure. The committee commends the 
Army for taking action to replace the unsafe, unreliable, and 
costly M2 burner units; however, the committee is concerned 
that funding for MBU replacements was not included in the 
budget request. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase 
of $8.0 million for the Army to continue this replacement 
program.

                       Army Cold Weather Clothing

    The committee is aware that the Army and the Army National 
Guard is in need of additional funding for the Extended Cold 
Weather Clothing System (ECWCS), which is designed to provide 
protection during cold and wet weather. The committee further 
understands that the Army is equipping only 60 percent of its 
forces with ECWCS and the Army National Guard is equipping only 
20 percent of its forces. The committee believes that ECWCS is 
a significant contributor to the combat readiness of the 
individual soldier and would significantly improve their 
quality of life. Therefore, the committee recommends an 
increase of funding for ECWCS as follows:

                        [in millions of dollars]

Army..............................................................  19.0
Army Reserve......................................................  14.0

                       Budget Request Reductions


                  Administration and Support Accounts

    The committee notes that at the same time the budget 
request contains significantly underfunded readiness accounts, 
it also proposes spending increases in a number of 
administrative and support accounts with little or no direct 
impact on military readiness. For example, as expressed in more 
detail elsewhere in this report, the committee observes that 
the Department of Defense continues to not fully comply with 
section 911 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) which requires an annual 
five percent reduction in all headquarters and headquarters 
support activities. In addition, the committee once again 
questions the necessity of funding certain programs in the 
support accounts when they are more appropriately funded 
elsewhere in the budget. For example, the Defense Finance and 
Accounting Service, a working capital fund agency, request 
contains nearly $11.9 million for executive and professional 
training. As it expressed last year, the committee believes 
that funding for the training of working capital funded 
employees should be charged against the appropriate working 
capital fund and managed accordingly.
    The committee disagrees with the budget request's 
priorities in a number of administration and support accounts 
and, therefore, recommends the following decreases:

                        [in millions of dollars]

Army Administration...............................................  55.0
Navy Administration...............................................  35.0
Air Force Administration..........................................  20.0
Defense Agencies.................................................. 110.0

                    Advisory and Assistance Services

    Consistent with the direction elsewhere in this report on 
Advisory and Assistance Services, the committee recommends the 
following decreases:

                        [in millions of dollars]

Army..............................................................  10.0
Navy..............................................................  10.0
Air Force.........................................................  10.0
Defense Agencies..................................................  10.0

              Civilian Personnel Overstatement Reductions

    The committee understands that in order to determine 
civilian personnel requirements for the budget request, the 
Department of Defense relied on the actual fiscal year 1998 
personnel levels and the estimated personnel levels the 
Department would have on hand at the end of fiscal year 1999, 
to forecast civilian personnel levels for fiscal year 2000. 
Because the Department was unable to accurately estimate the 
fiscal year 1999 end strength prior to the submission of the 
budget request, the General Accounting Office (GAO) has 
determined that the Department will employ fewer civilian 
personnel at the beginning of fiscal year 2000 than it assumed 
and budgeted for in the request.
    Therefore, to bring the request in line with GAO's 
estimated civilian endstrength levels for fiscal year 2000, the 
committee recommends decreases in funding as follows:

                        [in millions of dollars]

Army..............................................................   5.0
Navy..............................................................  20.0

                Joint Chiefs of Staff Training Exercises

    Based on testimony, both at home and abroad, the committee 
remains concerned that requirements for Joint Chiefs of Staff 
(JCS) training exercises were being levied against units that 
were already overextended with operational deployments, home 
station training exercises and training exercises at the 
services' major combat training centers. The committee 
questions whether the benefit of all of these JCS exercises is 
worth the price paid by units already suffering the effects of 
high operational tempo. Therefore, the committee recommends a 
20 percent decrease in the military services' participation in 
JCS exercises as follows:

                        [in millions of dollars]

Army..............................................................  10.0
Navy..............................................................   2.0
Marine Corps......................................................   2.4
Air Force.........................................................  10.0
Special Operations Command........................................   2.5
Joint Chief's of Staff............................................  70.0

                    Other Items of Special Interest


                      Commercial Activity Studies

    The committee endorses the Department of Defense goal of 
reforming its business practices, and believes there are 
numerous opportunities to improve the economy and efficiency of 
the Department's business practices. However, the committee is 
concerned with the assumptions and estimates of outyear savings 
that the Department has reported, and indeed, included in its 
budget requests. Specifically, the committee believes that the 
Department has over estimated the savings that will be realized 
through the A-76 commercial activity competitive process. Many 
of these proposed competitions would represent the first time 
that a particular business area has been subjected to the A-76 
process and, therefore, automatically assuming the realization 
of potential savings poses significant budget risk in a 
constrained resource environment. The committee is aware that 
there are numerous and difficult obstacles that must be 
overcome in order to achieve anticipated savings. For instance, 
studies are often delayed; studies can take 18 months to 2 
years to complete; and the costs associated with civilian 
transition or military conversion have not always been included 
in the proposed savings. In fact, a December 1998 U.S. Army 
Audit Agency report found that the delay in initiating studies 
may reduce the Army's estimated gross savings by $219 million 
or 14 percent. The committee notes that the budget request 
contains several increases resulting from attempted 
privatization efforts, where the anticipated savings failed to 
materialize.
    In order to better understand the Department's intentions 
in this area, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
provide a report, no later than February 1, 2000, to the House 
Committee on Armed Services on the current and proposed 
commercial activity studies of each of the military services 
and defense agencies. The report shall include:
          (1) the savings identified and budgeted for each 
        fiscal year 1997 through 2003;
          (2) the savings actually achieved in each fiscal year 
        1997 through 1999;
          (3) the funds requested in fiscal year 2000 and 2001 
        for savings not achieved;
          (4) an evaluation whether the anticipated and 
        budgeted savings can be achieved through the A-76 
        commercial process; and
          (5) whether other methods of business reform or 
        reengineering will be necessary in order to achieve 
        anticipated and budgeted savings.

                        Defense Fuel Surcharges

    The committee is aware that the Defense Energy Support 
Center (DESC) applies an annual surcharge to the price of fuel 
that is provided to the Department of Defense to be used in 
establishing the fiscal year stabilized fuel price used for the 
formulation of budget requests. The DESC requires the surcharge 
in order to cover its annual operational costs. The General 
Accounting Office has estimated that from fiscal year 1995 
through 1999, the budgeted surcharge has exceeded the actual 
applied surcharge by an average of $1.49 per barrel. Based on 
budgeted fuel usage for fiscal year 2000, and the five year 
average surcharge that has actually been applied, the budget 
request for fuel may be overstated by as much as $108.8 
million. The committee is aware of the volatility of fuel 
prices; however, the committee finds the long standing practice 
of over-budgeting for the surcharge is inappropriate. The 
committee urges the Secretary of Defense to take corrective 
steps to ensure that the application of DESC surcharges is more 
clearly aligned with reality.

                         Information Technology

    Information technology has moved from a specialized support 
function to becoming the central nervous system of Department 
of Defense. The need for common defense-wide information 
technology and seamless interoperability is evident. The 
committee believes, however, that barriers to joint programs 
and interoperability cannot be overcome without the unwavering 
commitment from the most senior Department officials.
    The committee has seen evidence of such leadership. For 
example, the committee notes the personal involvement of the 
Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense which, 
coupled with the additional funding provided by Congress to 
aggressively attack the Year 2000 problem, produced an 
immediate and substantial improvement in Year 2000 
preparedness. The committee also notes the progress made by the 
department to reduce or eliminate unnecessary or duplicative 
legacy systems and urges the department to increase its efforts 
to eliminate the remaining unneeded legacy systems. Despite 
these positive efforts, the committee remains unconvinced that 
the Department has made the necessary improvements in managing 
its $26 billion Command, Control, Communications, and Computers 
(C4) program. This is particularly disturbing, given the 
increasing role of information technology in the battlefield of 
today and tomorrow.
    The committee believes that the recent top level commitment 
in this area should be applied to the management of information 
technology requirements of the entire Department. The committee 
urges the Secretary of Defense to continue to work to overcome 
efforts by the military services to develop unique information 
technology systems, instead of single, joint system integrating 
all logistics, medical, transportation, finance, and personnel 
systems.

                          Environmental Issues


      Alternative Technologies for Asbestos Treatment and Disposal

    The committee is concerned about the cost of temporary 
storage of asbestos and asbestos-contaminated materials at 
Aberdeen Proving Ground and other defense facilities. The 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report 
to the House Committee on Armed Services and the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services, no later than June 1, 2000, on 
alternative technologies for asbestos treatment and disposal, 
including non-thermal methods, that will provide 
environmentally sound and cost effective treatment and disposal 
options.

 Environmental Contamination in Watershed Surrounding the Former Naval 
          Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant at McGregor, Texas

    The committee understands that the Department of the Navy 
is studying potential environmental contamination in and around 
the perimeter of the former Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve 
Plant at McGregor, Texas. The committee encourages the 
Secretary of the Navy to focus this study on the possible 
presence of perchlorate in the watershed surrounding this 
facility. The committee is concerned that perchlorate 
contamination could affect the quality and safety of drinking 
water in the area.

                 Navy Environmental Leadership Program

    The committee continues to support the Chief of Naval 
Operation's Navy Environmental Leadership Program (NELP), with 
two designated sites one on the east coast and one on the west 
coast of the United States. The primary mission of each site is 
to identify and demonstrate new technologies that improve the 
environmental compliance, cleanup, conservation, and pollution 
prevention efforts within the Navy. The committee recommends an 
increase of $5.0 million for the Navy Environmental Leadership 
Program. The committee believes these additional funds are 
needed to aid the east coast site in developing technologies to 
separate aqueous fire-fighting foam and other contaminants in 
oily water and wastewater, reduce waste generated by the de-
painting/painting process, and reduce emissions from fire-
fighting training facilities.

                 Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Issues


                                Overview

    The committee is concerned that ever tightening pressures 
on the operations and maintenance budgets of the military 
services are causing the Department of Defense to stray from 
well established principles of support for Morale, Welfare, and 
Recreation (MWR) programs. These principles include a variety 
of on-base MWR programs, access to recognizable American 
products, a real commissary benefit, robust appropriated fund 
support to MWR programs, and a substantial exchange store 
savings, especially for deployed forces. The committee 
addresses many of these issues and other concerns below and 
throughout this report.

 Appropriated Fund Support of Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Programs

    The committee notes that the military services have not 
demonstrated a serious commitment to fund Morale, Welfare, and 
Recreation (MWR) programs. Although the committee has seen 
incremental improvements in the percentage of appropriated fund 
support provided to category A, mission sustaining programs, 
these important programs are supported at the 90 percent level 
by only one service, with another service as low as 70 percent. 
The committee is truly dismayed by the funding provided to 
category B, community support programs. Not one service has 
achieved the Department of Defense goal of 65 percent 
appropriated fund support for any of the past four years. 
Another metric often used is the amount of appropriated fund 
support provided per individual service member. Here too, the 
services vary. In this era of joint operations, each service 
provides support to service members of all the uniformed 
services. The committee believes that individual service 
members deserve to find an adequate quality of life 
infrastructure wherever they may be assigned. In view of the 
continued lack of commitment from all services and the 
disparate level of funding among the services, the committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to establish a plan for the 
military services to achieve DOD funding goals and parity by 
individual service member and report to the Senate Committee on 
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by 
December 1, 1999, when all services will achieve those 
objectives.

                Combined Stores at Closed Installations

    The committee notes that the Department of Defense 
continues to request additional base realignment and closure 
(BRAC) authority, yet the Department has done little to 
ameliorate the impact of lost commissary and exchange stores on 
retirees residing near closed bases. Section 336 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public 
Law 104-106) authorized the Secretary of Defense to open 10 
combined exchange and commissary stores near closed bases. To 
date, only three such stores are operating, even though 
military retirees around the country have effectively been 
denied access to commissaries and exchanges through BRAC 
action. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
review the process and criteria used for establishing combined 
stores, considering such matters as cost to the Defense 
Commissary Agency, the viability of combined stores, and the 
views of the military services, retirees, and local 
communities, and report his findings and recommendations to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and House Committee on Armed 
Services by January 1, 2000.

                       Commissary Surcharge Fund

    The committee is aware that the Defense Commissary Agency's 
(DECA) surcharge fund has been depleted in recent years. The 
committee gives special attention to the health of this fund 
because it is created with patron dollars and because it pays 
for new commissary construction. With an infrastructure of 
nearly 300 commissary stores around the world, DECA needs a 
construction program of at least 10 new stores annually to 
replace its inventory in a 30 year period. Unfortunately, the 
Department projects building just 10 stores over the next 3 
years. Some of the depletion of the surcharge fund is due to 
DECA's own actions, such as last year's failed procurement of a 
new computer system. The surcharge shortfall is a complex issue 
and is also related to the significant decline of DECA's active 
and reserve patron base and the addition of other charges to 
DECA construction, like site demolition costs. The committee 
believes that action will be needed in the near future to 
address this problem and directs the Secretary of Defense to 
study the issue and provide recommended solutions to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services by December 1, 1999.

           Military Exchange Privileges for Disabled Veterans

    The committee believes that exchanges, commissaries, and 
morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR) programs are inextricably 
linked elements of essential installation support. As a general 
rule, military patrons who have access to exchanges have 
substantially equal access to commissaries and MWR programs. 
Despite that view, the committee believes that there may be 
room for a limited exception to recognize veterans who were 
disabled in service to their country. In that regard, the 
committee urges the Secretary of Defense to assess the 
implications of opening military exchanges to veterans who have 
been rated by the Department of Veterans Affairs as at least 30 
percent disabled. The committee expects that this assessment 
would address such issues as the ability of these veterans to 
gain access to military installations, impact on exchange costs 
and revenue, and local community views. The Secretary of 
Defense, after consultation with the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs, will report the results of this assessment to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and House Committee on Armed 
Services by January 1, 2000.

                 Nonappropriated Fund Retirement Plans

    The committee has learned that the Department of Defense 
(DOD) is reviewing options concerning the several retirement 
plans that exist for DOD nonappropriated fund employees. The 
committee understands that DOD generated this review in order 
to apply sound fiscal principles to all of the retirement plans 
and realizes that the Secretary of Defense understands the 
sensitivity of any changes to long established, fiscally 
solvent, pension plans. Since these plans represent the only 
income for thousands of currently retired nonappropriated fund 
employees, the committee believes that any change should be 
approached with great caution. For that reason, the committee 
directs that the Secretary of Defense not implement any changes 
to these retirement plans without consulting with the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and House Committee on Armed 
Services.

  Restrictions on Patron Access to Overseas Commissaries and Exchange 
                                 Stores

    The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 
has yet to issue regulations implementing section 365 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public 
Law 105-261) dealing with ration control overseas. The 
committee included this provision because the Department had 
not exercised oversight in this area, resulting in authorized 
patrons being denied reasonable access to American goods and 
services around the world. The committee directs the Secretary 
of Defense to publish the implementing instructions by July 1, 
1999, and that the first annual report required by section 365 
be provided to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services by December 1, 1999.

           Sale of Value Brand Products in Commissary Stores

    The committee notes that the Defense Commissary Agency 
(DECA) is testing customer acceptance of product lines known as 
value brands. The committee reminds the Secretary of Defense 
that the commissary benefit is intended to provide 
recognizable, brand name products to military patrons stationed 
around the world. Consequently, the committee expects that any 
products tested adhere strictly to the rigorous definition of 
brand name products provided by section 373 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-
85). Since shelf space is limited in commissary stores, the 
committee believes that patron selection of brand name products 
would diminish if this test were expanded to place significant 
quantities of value brand products into all stores. 
Furthermore, the committee has concerns about the validity of 
the test procedures. In view of these questions, the committee 
directs that the Secretary of Defense not implement the results 
of this test before consulting with the Senate Committee on 
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services.

                    Vendor Representatives Overseas

    The committee has learned about apparent inconsistencies in 
the logistical support provided to certain vendor 
representatives overseas. The committee believes that vendor 
representatives to the commissaries and exchanges perform 
services critical to the mission of providing quality American 
made goods to military families stationed overseas. The 
committee is concerned that United States Forces, Japan (USFJ) 
has changed a long standing interpretation of treaty 
requirements and has directed the withdrawal of logistical 
support for vendor representatives in Japan. Further, the 
committee understands that USFJ has determined that other 
contractor representatives should retain support. The committee 
urges the Secretary of Defense to look into the matter and 
restore support for vendor representatives in Japan.

                              Other Issues


                  Abrams Integrated Management Program

    The budget request contains $72.6 million for the Abrams 
Integrated Management XXI Program (AIM XXI), an innovative 
partnership between the manufacturer of the Abrams tank (M-1) 
and the Department of the Army's maintenance depot to rebuild 
the early versions of these tanks (M1A1) to a ``like new'' 
configuration. The committee is pleased with the Army's 
commitment to this vital program given that 4,300 M1A1 tanks 
are expected to remain in the Army for the next 40 years. The 
committee agrees with the Army's position, stated in its 1999 
Armored Systems Modernization Report, that the AIM XXI program 
is the foundation of a comprehensive recapitalization plan for 
the Abrams tank, and believes this program will address 
readiness, operation and support cost reductions, and 
ultimately, modernization of the M1A1 fleet.
    The committee urges the Secretary of the Army to continue 
to fully fund this important combat vehicle modernization 
program at a minimum of 90 tanks per year.

                       Apache Helicopter Support

    The committee is concerned that the Department of the Army 
is proceeding with a Prime Vendor Support (PVS) concept for the 
Apache helicopter before completing a full and comprehensive 
evaluation of its impact on the Army's logistics operations. 
Section 346 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261) requires that, prior to 
entering into any prime vendor contract for the depot-level 
maintenance of a weapons system, the Secretary of Defense 
provide a notification to the Congress containing, among other 
things, an analysis of the costs and benefits of the proposed 
contract. The committee continues to question whether this 
concept is a cost-effective solution for improving logistics 
support for the Apache helicopter.
    The General Accounting Office (GAO) conducted a 
comprehensive review and assessment of the Army's PVS concept 
for the Apache helicopter and found significant cost and policy 
uncertainties with this proposal. Preliminary findings from GAO 
reveal that the Army's June 1998 cost estimate to provide PVS 
for the Apache could cost approximately $430.9 million more 
than the best-case government estimate. The committee is aware 
that the Army is further evaluating the financial impact of the 
PVC concept, but the Cost and Economic Analysis Center and the 
Army Audit Agency has also raised questions regarding the cost 
implications of PVS for the Apache which could be significantly 
higher than the government's estimate. In addition, the 
committee is concerned that the Army has not included in its 
cost analysis the impact PVS would have on the Defense 
Logistics Agency Working Capital Fund or the impact it would 
have on the Army Working Capital Fund. The committee is also 
aware that the Army is considering including in the PVS concept 
enhanced services that may not be needed to meet flying-hour 
mission requirements. The committee questions the addition of 
non-required enhanced services in cost comparison calculations.
    The committee is also concerned with operational issues 
associated with the possible use of a PVS concept for the 
Apache helicopter. These concerns include: whether Army 
personnel in the field would be required to operate under two 
separate logistics and support systems; whether this concept 
would be acceptable during contingency operations; whether this 
concept would be compatible with other Army financial and 
supply systems; and what would be the impact to other weapons 
systems that remain in the Working Capital Fund.
    Based on questions of cost uncertainties and operational 
issues, the committee believes it would be premature to move 
forward with the PVS Apache initiative until all of these 
issues are fully evaluated and resolved.

                    Army Battery Management Program

    The committee is aware of the success of the Department of 
the Army's battery management program which utilizes pulse 
technology to extend the life and reduce the cost of batteries. 
In particular, the committee recognizes the efforts of the Army 
Forces Command which is expected to produce annual savings of 
$15.0 million utilizing this new technology, and the Army III 
Corps battery management program which has produced over $6.9 
million in savings in a two year study program. The committee 
is pleased with the Army's utilization of pulse technology as a 
means to improve readiness. The committee urges the Secretary 
of Defense to examine the expansion of pulse technology for 
battery management programs throughout all of the military 
services.

                 Army Maintenance and Personnel Systems

    The committee continues to be concerned that the Department 
of the Army lacks a total depot maintenance program for all of 
its industrial operations, including a rational staffing 
process. The committee is aware that the Army attempted to 
develop a total depot maintenance strategic plan in its 
National Maintenance Program (NMP). It is the committee's 
understanding that implementation of the NMP has been delayed 
because of internal confusion over the definition of depot 
maintenance.
    The Army's failure to implement effectively a total depot 
maintenance program negatively impacts readiness and hinders 
the service's overall performance in numerous arenas. First, 
lack of a total maintenance program precludes the development 
of the appropriate mix of equipment maintenance at public 
facilities. This causes an unstable workload and staffing 
system for the industrial base. In addition, without a total 
depot maintenance program, the Army cannot control the 
proliferation of depot activities throughout the service.
    The committee urges the Secretary of the Army to resolve 
the issues that impede the National Maintenance Program, and to 
address the proliferation of depot level maintenance and 
repair. The committee expects the Secretary of the Army to 
continue to issue progress reports on these issues.
    In addition, the committee is also concerned with problems 
the Department of the Army has with the industrial staffing 
requirements determination process. The committee believes that 
the Army Workload and Performance System (AWPS) has improved 
the determination process and will facilitate the development 
of a stabilized workload system and minimize the turbulence in 
the civilian workforce. The committee expects the Secretary of 
the Army to consider the General Accounting Office's 
recommendations to improve the development of AWPS. The 
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to implement AWPS 
as soon as feasible and believes the Secretary should designate 
AWPS as the standard functional management system for all 
industrial operations and fund the program to accomplish this 
mission, including the Department of the Army Decision Support 
System, by March 1, 2001.

                Automatic Document Conversion Technology

    The committee believes that there is potential for 
significant savings from automatic document conversion software 
for use in weapons systems engineering drawing digitization, 
and that the Department of Defense should increase its efforts 
to digitize all weapons engineering drawings. Therefore, the 
committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million for 
engineering drawings and document storage and retrieval to be 
directly managed by the Defense Logistics Agency. The committee 
strongly urges the Department to include funding for document 
conversion technology in future budget requests.

    Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence--Public-Private 
                              Partnerships

    The committee is concerned that nearly two years after the 
enactment of Section 2474 of Title 10, United States Code, 
establishing Department of Defense Centers of Industrial and 
Technical Excellence and promoting public-private partnerships, 
the Secretary of Defense has failed to implement any policy 
guidance in this critical area. The committee believes that 
promoting public-private partnerships at the Centers of 
Industrial and Technical Excellence will improve readiness, 
reduce costs and help preserve critical core capabilities 
within the Department. While the Department of Defense 
continues to provide testimonial support for public-private 
partnerships and competitions, the lack of implementing 
guidelines and clear support from the Office of the Secretary 
of Defense has left each of the military departments to enact a 
patchwork of very different and often contradictory policies. 
The committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to 
provide a written policy not later than January 1, 2000 
implementing the provisions of section 2474 and provide a 
report, not later than July 1, 2000, to the House Committee on 
Armed Services and the Senate Committee on Armed Services 
detailing the status of all activities conducted pursuant to 
such policy, including any proposed pilot projects as 
authorized in section 2474(a)(3).

                     Civilian Marksmanship Program

    The committee is concerned over findings by the General 
Accounting Office (GAO) concerning the management of the 
Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms 
Safety. The Corporation was established by title XVI of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public 
Law 104-106), which also provided for the transition of the 
Civilian Marksmanship Program from the Army to the Corporation. 
The committee notes that the GAO found that the Corporation's 
policies were insufficient to ensure that firearms were not 
sold to felons. Further, the GAO found that the Army has not 
issued regulations governing logistical support to the 
Corporation for the reimbursement of the Army's support of the 
Corporation. The committee understands that the Corporation 
revised its background check procedures as a result of GAO's 
review, and has arranged for periodic independent audits of its 
procedures. While the committee urges the Secretary of the Army 
to issue regulations governing support procedures as required 
by law, the committee is concerned that the Army will not be 
reimbursed for all incremental direct costs. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to review the 
Army's expenses in support of the Corporation to determine if 
legislative authority exists for reimbursement of costs such as 
the lease of real property and storage of ammunition and 
supplies, and to recommend to the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services any 
legislation necessary to ensure the Army receives reimbursement 
for other direct costs.

           Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities

    The Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities 
(CTMA) program was created by the Department of Defense (DOD) 
in 1998 and was designed to bring the most modern and advanced 
manufacturing capabilities used from commercial industry in DOD 
maintenance depots and related maintenance activities. CTMA 
programs allow depot activities to participate in manufacturing 
technology demonstration projects in collaboration with more 
than 220 of the leading U.S. manufacturers, under the auspices 
of the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences. The CTMA 
program is in direct support of section 361 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-
85), which called on the military departments to reengineer 
industrial processes and adopt best-business practices at their 
depot-level activities.
    The committee is aware that each CTMA project is designed 
to deploy the latest technology in a particular area of the 
depot, train depot personnel in its use, and then measure the 
improvements in cost, time, and efficiency generated by the new 
technology. Current DOD funding for the CTMA program provides 
for the operational costs associated with each depot's 
participation. For every DOD dollar spent, it is matched on a 
2-for-1 basis by the industry partner companies. Past DOD 
funding has allowed all of the military services' depot 
activities to carry out their missions better, cheaper, and 
faster.
    The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 
has not requested funding for the CTMA program in the budget 
request despite the Department's statements that the CTMA is 
useful in developing commercial technologies in the depots and 
that full funding for this program is a desirable goal. 
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $12.0 
million for the Defense Logistics Agency specifically for the 
continuation of the CTMA program. The committee believes that 
the continuation of this successful program would directly 
contribute to increased readiness.

          Communicator Automated Emergency Notification System

    The Committee is pleased that various components of the 
Department of Defense have begun to implement the Communicator 
Automated Emergency Notification System in order to improve 
current mobilization and emergency response notification 
systems. This state of the art technology is replacing the 
current antiquated ``phone-tree'' notification procedures and 
will provide for an instantaneous and real-time massive 
mobilization notification response in the event of war or any 
other national emergency. The committee believes that the 
Communicator Automated Emergency Notification System could be a 
cornerstone for an effective U.S. mobilization notification or 
emergency management notification situation, and encourages the 
Secretary of Defense to examine its utility for use throughout 
the Department.

                Corrosion Prevention and Control Program

    Recent studies conducted by the Department of Defense (DOD) 
reveal that corrosion prevention costs the Department roughly 
$10 billion per year. As an example, the Army's Tank and 
Automotive Command found that corrosion damage annually costs 
$850 per truck. The committee is concerned that the cost of 
damage caused by corrosion to the Department's vehicle fleet 
needs to be significantly reduced by establishing an effective 
corrosion and prevention control program. Without such a 
program, the military services will continue to shoulder an 
unneeded economic burden which will adversely affect readiness 
and equipment availability and reliability.
    The committee is aware of new technologies in the 
prevention of corrosion which can significantly reduce high 
corrosion costs and improve readiness. The committee urges the 
Department to establish specific corrosion control vehicle 
service centers that could professionally apply and test all 
new corrosion control technologies currently available and 
provide solutions to the military departments as soon as 
possible. As funding for replacement vehicles continues to be 
scarce, the committee believes that all efforts must be taken 
to extend the service life of existing vehicles.

                Department of Defense Dependent Schools

    The committee firmly believes that high quality dependent 
schools are an important element of military family quality of 
life. Indeed, the Defense Dependents' Education Act of 1978 
(Public Law 95-561) requires that Department of Defense 
Dependent Schools (DODDS) provide ``an education of high 
quality,'' and the committee recommends funding of over $1.3 
billion for these schools in fiscal year 2000. Additionally, 
the committee strongly supports impact aid payments to school 
districts in the United States which teach large numbers of 
military children, and the committee regularly supplements 
these payments from Department of Defense funding. The 
committee, however, was dismayed to hear testimony this year 
from several sources critical of DODDS education. In view of 
that testimony, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to conduct a review and assessment of the quality of the 
primary and secondary schooling provided by the DODDS program. 
The following factors, as well as other relevant issues, should 
be included in the review and assessment: student-teacher 
ratio; adequacy of size and quality of teaching staff; student 
performance as measured by standardized tests and other 
indicators; after school and extra-curricular activities; 
availability of advanced placement programs; vocational 
training opportunities; and parent satisfaction. The Secretary 
should provide this report to the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 
2000.

         Excess Military Property for Law Enforcement Agencies

    The committee is aware that not all excess military 
property is available for transfer to law enforcement agencies 
under the program established in section 2576a of title 10, 
United States Code. Specifically, materials that have been 
requested by law enforcement agencies which are intended to 
enhance the training and safety of law enforcement officers 
have been denied because they were considered construction 
materials. The committee notes that section 2576a requires the 
Secretary of Defense to determine if materials under this 
program are suitable for use by the agencies in law enforcement 
activities. However, the committee believes that the Department 
should consider materials that would improve training and 
safety for transfer under this program. The committee urges the 
Secretary of Defense to modify its policy regarding the types 
of equipment and materials made available in so far as they 
meet reasonable guidelines set forth in section 2576a. Further, 
the committee urges the Department to make every effort to 
satisfy requests for materials intended to improve the training 
and safety programs of law enforcement agencies directly 
related to the support of law enforcement activities.

                    Home Schooled Children Overseas

    The committee believes that military families who decide to 
home school their children should be supported by Department of 
Defense Overseas Schools (DODDS) to the extent possible. While 
the committee agrees that a commander's responsibility to 
manage an overseas community and a family's obligation to 
observe host nation laws render home schooling overseas more 
challenging than when conducted in the United States, the 
committee supports responsible school choice for military 
families. The committee is aware that the Department of Defense 
Education Activity (DODEA) claims that it fully supports home 
schooling. DODEA's published material and the actual experience 
of some parents belie that claim, however. The committee 
believes that DODEA should take a more proactive approach in 
establishing a clear policy and providing parents information 
about available DODEA support for home schooling overseas, 
rather than merely directing parents to the overseas commander. 
To that end, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
develop clear policy on support for home schooling overseas. 
That policy, which would officially implement what DODEA 
representatives state is actual practice, should specify that 
home schooled students may be supported with library services, 
music, sports, single classes, and other programs without 
having to actually enroll in DODDS. The committee directs the 
Secretary to provide the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 
the House Committee on Armed Services with the new policy 
directive by October 1, 1999.

                 Information Systems Security Education

    The increasing dependence by the Department of Defense on 
computers and computer communications has also increased the 
vulnerability of attacks on these information systems. This 
threat to a national critical infrastructure mandates the 
fostering and ongoing support of well educated professionals 
that are able to protect our critical information system. The 
President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection 
completed a two-year study that concluded, in part, that a 
significant portion of the nation's infrastructure protection 
is tied to the development of information security 
professionals.
    The committee is aware that, although there are several 
post-graduate level educational programs currently available 
for advanced training in this area, there are no doctorate 
level programs currently available. The committee believes that 
the development of a doctoral program in information security 
is required to provide a flow of individuals with the knowledge 
and credentials to support the expanding needs of the 
Department. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to 
review requirements for doctorate level information systems 
security professionals within the Department and, if 
appropriate, consider sponsoring the establishment of doctorate 
level education programs in educational institutions capable of 
providing this level of training.

                     Joint Warfare Analysis Center

    The committee is aware that the Joint Warfare Analysis 
Center (JWAC), a subordinate to the Commander in Chief, 
Atlantic Command, is currently underfunded in the budget 
request due to a significant increase in its currently assigned 
workload. The JWAC, which assess effects of targeting, and 
provides planning support to the Joint Staff and all Unified 
Commanders, has nearly doubled its workload due to new, 
conventional warfare taskings, not envisioned in the original 
charter for special access programs. The committee is concerned 
that the present employees assigned to JWAC may be on the verge 
of early burnout primarily because of a shortage of highly 
skilled technical employees. Increases in manpower have been 
caused by the military services growing involvement in 
contingency operations.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 
million for the JWAC and urges the Secretary of Defense to 
adequately fund this important activity in the future. The 
committee expects the Secretary of the Navy, who is the 
executive agent for resources for this activity, to allocate 
these additional funds in the appropriate accounts within the 
JWAC.

                    Military Affiliate Radio System

    The committee reiterates its prior support for the Military 
Affiliate Radio System (MARS) and the civilian amateur radio 
operators who provide the Department of Defense (DOD) with an 
auxiliary means of communications in the event of a local, 
national, or international emergency. However, the committee is 
concerned that the benefits of this volunteer communications 
service are not fully appreciated or utilized by the 
Department.
    In its December 31, 1996 report to the committee on the 
MARS program, the Secretary of Defense emphasized, ``there is 
no requirement for a change in the MARS mission.'' Although its 
main mission is to provide emergency communications support, 
MARS has been a valuable system for relaying morale and welfare 
messages between U.S. service personnel stationed abroad and 
their families in the United States. This system has operated 
at virtually no cost to the Department. As the number, scope, 
and pace of contingency operations in which the United States 
participates--including peacekeeping operations--continues to 
grow, the committee encourages the Department to support, where 
feasible, the deployment of a MARS capability to contingency 
theaters in order to provide an auxiliary communications means 
for the use of service personnel. In light of reports that DOD 
communications networks in Europe are being augmented and 
improved in connection with the U.S. and NATO military campaign 
against Yugoslavia, the committee believes that MARS can play 
an important role in support of the military and humanitarian 
operations being conducted in support of this mission.
    The committee is aware of other existing communications 
arrangements--including the Defense Switching Network, Mobile 
Subscriber Equipment, commercial carriers, and e-mail--which 
have been made available to U.S. troops for morale traffic 
purposes during limited periods of time. However, the committee 
notes that these alternate systems may not always be available 
and may result in out-of-pocket costs to the users. The 
committee also encourages the Department to make greater 
efforts to inform U.S. military personnel of the availability 
of the MARS service.

                           Tugboat Operations

    The committee is aware of the Department of the Navy's 
initiative to outsource its tugboat capability. The Committee 
is also aware that private contractors who perform the tugboat 
mission in peacetime must agree that if they are unwilling to 
perform this mission during times of emergency, they must 
relinquish command and control of their tugboats to the 
Department of Defense to permit the Department to respond to 
the emergency situation. The Committee directs the Secretary of 
the Navy to provide to the House Committee on Armed Services, 
by February 1, 2000, an assessment of the Department of the 
Navy's current capability and plan to provide fully trained and 
qualified military personnel to operate contractor vessels if 
required.

                         Urban Warfare Training

    The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 
and the military services are not placing sufficient emphasis 
on urban warfare training, and believes that recent military 
operations and deployments to Somalia and Bosnia underscore the 
need to increase training in urban environments. Over the 
years, battles across the world have moved from open fields and 
jungles to city streets and urban areas. As this trend 
continues, the need for a comprehensive training plan and 
dedicated operations funding to implement urban training 
becomes more important. The committee believes that U.S. 
military forces must be prepared to fight all challenges in the 
future. Meeting that goal requires dedicated planning and 
operational funding for urban warfare training.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to provide a report to the House Committee on Armed Services by 
January 31, 2000, on the current and proposed efforts to 
provide urban warfare training for military personnel. 
Specifically, the report shall include:
          (1) Current and proposed plans to provide urban 
        warfare training in each of the military services;
          (2) Current capabilities available to train personnel 
        to fight in urban environments; and
          (3) Proposed operations funding required to conduct 
        urban warfare training and the priority given to this 
        training within the DOD Five Year Budget plan.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations


             Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding

    This section would authorize $1,056.4 million in operations 
and maintenance funding for the Armed Forces and other 
activities and agencies of the Department of Defense.

                   Section 302--Working Capital Funds

    This section would authorize $525.0 million for Working 
Capital Funds of the Department of Defense.

               Section 303--Armed Forces Retirement Home

    This section would authorize $68.295 million from the Armed 
Forces Retirement Trust Fund for the operation of the Armed 
Forces Retirement Home, including the U.S. Soldiers' and 
Airmen's Home and the Naval Home.

 Section 304--Transfer From National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
transfer not more than $150.0 million from the amounts received 
from sales in the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund 
to the operation and maintenance accounts of the military 
services.

   Section 305--Transfer to Defense Working Capital Funds to Support 
                       Defense Commissary Agency

    This section would transfer funding for the Defense 
Commissary Agency (DECA) from the military services' operations 
and maintenance accounts into the Defense Working Capital Fund. 
The committee reminds the Secretary of Defense that section 361 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 
(Public Law 105-261) requires that DECA be funded through the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense and not through the military 
services. The budget request proposed to return the funding of 
DECA to the military services, without supporting rationale or 
request for legislative relief. The committee notes that 
intense competition for operations and maintenance funding 
throughout the military services could jeopardize the 
commissary benefit if the funding were left in the military 
service accounts and insists that the Secretary of Defense fund 
DECA through Defense wide accounts as required by law.

    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations


    Section 311--Reimbursement of Navy Exchange Service Command for 
                          Relocation Expenses

    This section would authorize $8.7 million for reimbursement 
to the Navy Exchange Service Command (NEXCOM) for costs 
incurred in connection with the relocation of NEXCOM 
headquarters to Virginia Beach, Virginia, and for the lease of 
headquarters space.

                  Subtitle C--Environmental Provisions


       Section 321--Remediation of Asbestos and Lead Based Paint

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to use 
Army Corps of Engineers indefinite delivery, indefinite 
quantity (IDIQ) contracts for the remediation of asbestos 
material and lead based paint. The committee is concerned that 
the Department of Defense's current process of asbestos and 
lead paint abatement is wasting scarce readiness funds. The 
Department is not utilizing existing and competitively awarded 
Army Corps of Engineers IDIQ contracts to cover such work. 
Instead, the Department regularly issues contract change orders 
to cover unanticipated remediation problems, paying 
significantly higher rates.

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


 Section 331--Expansion of Annual Report on Contracting for Commercial 
                     and Industrial Type Functions

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
provide Congress with a report on the number of work-year 
equivalents performed by private sector employees who provide 
services under contract to the Department of Defense, as well 
as the total dollar value of these services. The section would 
also require the Department to categorize the information to be 
included in the report by federal supply class or service code, 
the appropriation from which the contracts for the services 
were funded, and the major organizational element of the 
military department acquiring the services.

Section 332--Congressional Notification of A-76 Cost Comparison Waivers

    This section would require the Department of Defense or any 
of the military services to notify Congress when the procedure 
set forth in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-
76 for commercial activities is waived. The committee is aware 
that the Department and the military services may grant waivers 
to the procedures of OMB Circular A-76 for commercial 
activities. Although current law does not require that an A-76 
study be performed, the committee believes that the Congress 
should be notified when the Department or the military services 
waive this procedure.

 Section 333--Improved Evaluation of Local Economic Effect of Changing 
            Defense Functions to Private Sector Performance

    This section would change the requirement for the 
Department of Defense to provide the Congress with an analysis 
of the impact of converting a government-performed function to 
a contractor-performed function if more than 50 DOD employees 
would be involved, rather than the current requirement of 75 
employees. As the Department analyzes whether to convert a 
government performed function to a contractor performed 
function, the committee believes that it is important to 
understand the effect the change will have on the local economy 
and community.

  Section 334--Annual Report on Expenditures for Performance of Depot-
  Level Maintenance and Repair Workloads by Public and Private Sectors

    This section would amend section 2466(e)(1) of title 10, 
United States Code, to expand the amount of information 
currently provided to Congress detailing the amount of depot-
level maintenance and repair work that is accomplished in the 
public and the private sector.

 Section 335--Applicability of Competition Requirement in Contracting 
  Out Workloads Performed by Depot-Level Activities of Department of 
                                Defense

    This section would amend section 2469(b) of title 10, 
United States Code, in order to clarify that the cost of labor 
and materials is to be used when determining the value of 
workload that would require a competition if it were to be 
moved from a public depot.

 Section 336--Treatment of Public Sector Winning Bidders for Contracts 
    for Performance of Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair Workloads 
          Formerly Performed at Certain Military Installations

    This section would amend section 2469(a) of title 10, 
United States Code, to reduce reporting requirements and 
management at Department of Defense industrial facilities which 
are performing work awarded under a public-private competition.

  Section 337--Process for Modernization of Computer Systems at Army 
                            Computer Centers

    This section would require the Secretary of the Army to 
provide the Department of Defense civilian employees at the 
Logistics Systems Support Center, St. Louis, Missouri, and the 
Industrial Logistics Systems Center in Chambersburg, 
Pennsylvania, with the opportunity to establish a most 
efficient organization for the purpose of establishing a 
partnership with a private sector entity selected to develop 
and implement new computer systems at these locations. The 
purpose of this most efficient organization would be to ensure 
that the current computer systems remain operational to meet 
the needs of the Army until replacement computer systems are 
fully operational and successfully evaluated.

  Section 338--Evaluation of Total System Performance Responsibility 
                                Program

    This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force 
to provide a report to Congress that would identify all Air 
Force programs that are currently managed or presently planned 
to be managed under the Total System Performance Responsibility 
Program (TSPR). The TSPR program is an emerging Air Force 
acquisition and support strategy designed to place increased 
responsibility, accountability, and authority for the 
performance of a specific weapons system or equipment item in 
the hands of a single manager. In addition, the report would 
include a determination whether or not the TSPR program would 
support core maintenance capabilities.
    The committee is concerned that the Air Force has chosen an 
ill-defined and unclear policy to support important weapons 
systems. While the TSPR program intends to streamline and 
comprehensively integrate the sustainment responsibility for 
weapons systems, the committee is concerned that this 
sustainment concept has not sufficiently taken into account the 
long-term implications for privatizing the sustainment support 
for major weapons systems or the implication on the readiness 
and war fighting capabilities of the Air Force.

 Section 339--Identification of Core Logistics Capability Requirements 
              for Maintenance and Repair of C-17 Aircraft

    This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force 
to submit a report, not later than February 1, 2000, to 
Congress that would identify the core logistics capability 
requirements for depot-level maintenance and repair for the C-
17 aircraft. The section would preclude the Secretary of the 
Air Force from extending the contract for the C-17 aircraft 
Flexible Sustainment Program until 60 days after the report is 
received by Congress. In addition, the provision would require 
the General Accounting Office to review the report once it is 
submitted and report to Congress with an evaluation of the 
report and other related issues.
    The committee continues to believe that maintaining an in-
house depot maintenance capability is critical for mission 
essential systems and for other maintenance where it is shown 
to be more cost effective. Section 351 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261) 
required the Secretary of Defense to submit a plan detailing 
the core logistics capabilities of the C-17 aircraft. The 
committee believes that the report submitted by the Department 
did not adequately respond to the requirements of section 351. 
The Department of the Air Force has stated that the core 
requirements for the C-17 aircraft will not be considered until 
2002, 8 years after the C-17, a key mission essential unique 
aircraft, achieves initial operational capability. The 
committee notes that section 2464 of title 10, United States 
Code, requires that the core logistics capabilities for mission 
essential weapons systems are to be established not later than 
four years after a weapons systems achieving initial 
operational capability.

                Subtitle E--Defense Dependents Education


   Section 341--Assistance to Local Education Agencies That Benefit 
  Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense 
                           Civilian Employees

    This section would authorize $35.0 million for educational 
assistance to local education agencies where the standard for 
the minimum level of education within the state could not be 
maintained because of the large number of military connected 
students. This section would also modify the procedures used to 
distribute funds to local education agencies in order to speed 
a process much delayed by legal and policy impediments. The 
operation of current policy, which is intended to ensure less 
prosperous local education agencies receive their fair share of 
these funds, actually causes these districts to receive less 
funding than intended. The committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to review the policy by which funds are distributed to 
local education agencies and make adjustments necessary to 
ensure that funds are distributed equitably and expeditiously. 
The committee's commitment to military children has provided 
much needed boosts to the education of military children around 
the country. Even so, the committee notes that the Department 
of Education impact aid program provides supplementary funds to 
eligible school districts nationwide, and believes that the 
Department of Education bears the principal responsibility for 
providing support for the education needs of the nation's 
children.

   Section 342--Continuation of Enrollment at Department of Defense 
          Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

    This section would permit a student who is enrolled in his 
or her junior year at a Department of Defense domestic 
secondary school to complete the student's senior year at that 
same school even if the student would be otherwise ineligible 
to attend the school because of a change in the status of the 
student's sponsor. With few exceptions, students whose sponsors 
move away from the installation or complete their military or 
civilian service cannot remain in a Department of Defense 
domestic school for completion of their senior year. This 
provision would provide the Secretary of Defense the authority 
to make exceptions for the completion of high school. The 
committee notes that the Secretary would retain the authority 
to disenroll these students for good cause, and would expect 
that students completing their high school career separated 
from their parents under this provision would remain 
productive, disciplined members of their respective senior 
classes.

Section 343--Technical Amendments to Defense Dependents' Education Act 
                                of 1978

    This section would make a number of technical and clerical 
amendments to the Defense Dependents' Education Act of 1978 
(title XIV of Public Law 95-561).

                 Subtitle F--Military Readiness Issues


   Section 351--Independent Study of Department of Defense Secondary 
                     Inventory and Parts Shortages

    Since 1990, the General Accounting Office (GAO) has 
identified the Department of Defense's (DOD) management of 
secondary inventories as a high-risk area because levels of 
inventory are too high and management systems and procedures 
are ineffective. GAO has also reported that: approximately 60 
percent of the Department's inventory exceeds current 
requirements the accuracy of inventory requirements is 
questionable; the Department lacks adequate visibility over 
operating materials and supplies; and the Department has been 
slow in adopting best management practices in this area. In 
response to GAO reports, the Department has asserted that much 
of its current inventory is needed to support operations or 
that it is economically prudent to retain in stock.
    In testimony before the committee, the military departments 
testified that due to a lack of funding, in part, significant 
spare part shortages exist and continue to have a negative 
impact on readiness. The committee is concerned that the cost 
to store large quantities of old and inactive secondary supply 
items limits funding that could be used to purchase parts that 
would improve readiness by reducing maintenance times and 
increasing mission capable rates. The committee believes that 
an analysis of the Department's secondary inventory and parts 
shortages should be conducted to identify the actual causes and 
the extent of parts shortages, as well as to determine the 
impact on current readiness.
    Therefore, this section would require the Secretary of 
Defense to provide for an independent analysis of current 
secondary inventory levels, including wholesale and retail 
inventories. This analysis should determine how much of DOD 
inventory, retained for economic, contingency, and potential 
reutilization over the past five years, has actually been used, 
and how much should be classified as excess to the Department's 
needs. The analysis would also include recommendations that the 
Department should consider for the disposal or other 
disposition of excess inventory. This section would also 
require the Secretary of Defense to review the results of the 
independent analysis and provide to the Congress an assessment 
of the analysis. In addition, the Secretary of Defense would be 
required to provide to the Congress a plan that would address:
          (1) The elimination of excess inventory;
          (2) The issues of inactive inventory;
          (3) Chronic part shortages; and
          (4) Recommendations for improvement to the 
        department-wide inventory management system.

 Section 352--Independent Study of Adequacy of Department Restructured 
    Sustainment and Reengineered Logistics Product Support Practices

    Based on extensive testimony received and from visits to 
the field, the committee is aware of severe and chronic spare 
parts shortages in all services. For instance, the Air Force 
has testified that fighter squadrons are deploying with less 
than 50 percent of the deployment parts needed to sustain 
themselves. Repair parts stocks are at extremely low levels 
throughout the military services. The committee understands 
that the ability of U.S. forces to successfully conduct a 
large, focused air campaign and other relatively small 
contingency type operations, actually masks the difficulty of 
sustaining a force capable of fighting two major regional 
contingencies. The committee has heard from the military 
services that they are increasingly resorting to 
cannibalization of equipment for repair parts to sustain 
ongoing operations, which increases costs in terms of equipment 
and manpower. Based on testimony by the service chief's 
concerning their current and future unfunded requirements, and 
the current high pace of military contingency operations, the 
committee is concerned that national emergency sustainment 
stocks may not currently exist, and there may not be sufficient 
funding in the future years defense budget projections for 
sufficient stocks to be purchased.
    The committee understands that the Defense Logistics Agency 
(DLA) currently has funding authority sufficient to meet only 
85 percent of expected yearly requisitions. This equates to 
nearly 300,000 requisitions each year being refused or placed 
on ``back order'' until funding is provided. During a time of 
national emergency, it is expected that parts will be made 
available when it comes time to mobilize. Based in part by the 
current high use of parts due to contingency operations in the 
Balkans, particularly aviation parts, the committee has little 
confidence that there will be sufficient stocks of parts and 
supplies to support the necessary mobilization for one major 
theater war much less the two required by the National Military 
Strategy.
    Department of Defense agencies and the service components 
are all working hard to use better business practices to 
sustain logistical support to operational units. The committee 
commends these efforts to cut costs and become more efficient 
but has concerns that these practices are driven by funding 
constraints without adequate consideration of the operational 
units' needs during war.
    Therefore, this section would require the Secretary of 
Defense to provide for an independent study of the Department's 
current efforts to restructure sustainment of required 
inventory and the impact these efforts will have on the 
logistics community's ability to provide adequate logistical 
support during the conduct of two major theater wars.

 Section 353--Independent Study of Military Readiness Reporting System

    This section would provide for an independent study of 
requirements for a comprehensive readiness reporting system for 
the Department of Defense. The Secretary of Defense was 
directed to establish such a system by section 117 of title 10, 
United States Code, as added by section 373 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-
261). The committee is concerned by the Department of Defense's 
delays in implementing provisions of the law, and believes that 
there is a need for an independent study to provide a benchmark 
against which to measure the Department of Defense's efforts at 
reform of the readiness reporting system.
    As indicators of declining readiness increase, the urgency 
for an improved readiness reporting system, capable of 
measuring the complex variety of factors that influence unit 
readiness, also has increased. In fact, even had the Department 
of Defense implemented the provisions of the law in a timely 
way, the committee believes an independent assessment of the 
requirements for such a readiness reporting system is 
warranted. The committee has been discouraged to learn that 
bureaucratic intransigence, opposition to reform, and the 
persistence of outmoded practices are placing the prospects for 
improving the readiness reporting system in doubt.

  Section 354--Review of Real Property Maintenance and its Effect on 
                               Readiness

    Based on testimony received by the committee, reports from 
the field, and other information provided, the committee is 
concerned that the backlog of real property maintenance has 
continued to grow with no apparent overall strategic plan for 
its elimination in the foreseeable future. The committee is 
encouraged that the Administration and the military service 
chiefs finally admit that there is a problem and recognize the 
need to stop the growth in the maintenance backlog. However, 
the additional funding included in the budget request would 
only stop the backlog from increasing but would not reduce the 
real property maintenance backlog.
    This section would require the Department of Defense to 
assess what the impact of the continued lack of adequate 
funding for real property maintenance in all of the military 
services is having on readiness. The assessment should 
determine the funding required, by service, to eliminate the 
real property maintenance backlog, and to improve facilities to 
acceptable standards for optimum utilization to support 
readiness and quality of life requirements.

    Section 355--Establishment of Logistics Standards for Sustained 
                          Military Operations

    This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to 
establish standards for spare parts and other logistics needs 
of deployable units of the armed forces in order to allow these 
units to sustain themselves adequately in performing their 
assigned missions. This section would further direct the 
Secretary of Defense to consider these standards when 
establishing the Department of Defense's budget, with the 
expectation that these standards will be considered as the 
minimum requirement for spare parts. Finally, the Secretary of 
Defense would be directed to include an analysis of the 
logistics and sustainment requirements of the armed forces in 
his annual report to the Congress.
    The committee believes these measures are essential to 
improving the sustainment capabilities needed to execute the 
missions assigned to the armed forces under the National 
Military Strategy. Through its hearings and oversight 
activities, the committee learned that many units lack the 
spare parts and other logistics equipment required to conduct 
sustained operations, including the combat missions assigned to 
these units by the theater commanders-in-chiefs in their war 
plans. In some cases, units currently expected to sustain 
themselves in a combat environment, under austere conditions, 
are reporting an inability to fully perform their assigned 
missions beyond a week to 10 days rather than the expected 30 
days.
    Absent a realistic reevaluation of the support standards 
required of units--matched by a sufficient level of funding for 
spare parts and similar needs--in the current strategic 
environment, the inability to adequately sustain deploying 
units in contingency and combat operations may prove to be a 
serious shortcoming for U.S. armed forces. The committee 
believes the Secretary of Defense must move rapidly to 
establish sustainment standards, provide sufficient funding to 
eliminate sustainment shortfalls, and quantify and highlight 
these standards in the annual report to the Congress.

                       Subtitle G--Other Matters


   Section 361--Discretionary Authority to Install Telecommunication 
          Equipment for Persons Performing Voluntary Services

    This section would provide the service secretaries with the 
authority to install telephone lines and necessary 
telecommunication equipment in the private residences of unit 
volunteer coordinators and pay usage fees. Currently, no such 
authority exists in law. Although the committee expects that 
service secretaries would exercise this authority sparingly and 
would apply appropriate control measures on the use of this 
equipment, the committee recognizes that selected volunteers 
have become critical links to maintaining communication between 
families and deployed units and vessels.

 Section 362--Contracting Authority for Defense Working Capital Funded 
                         Industrial Facilities

    This section would amend section 2208(j) of title 10, 
United States Code, to clarify the requirements for working 
capital funded industrial facilities to manufacture articles 
and sell these articles to persons outside the Department of 
Defense.

    Section 363--Clarification of Condition on Sale of Articles and 
  Services of Industrial Facilities to Persons Outside Department of 
                                Defense

    This section would amend section 2553(g) of title 10, 
United States Code, to define the term ``not available'' with 
respect to goods or services sold by Department of Defense 
industrial facilities.

   Section 364--Special Authority of Disbursing Officials Regarding 
               Automated Teller Machines on Naval Vessels

    This section would amend section 3342 of title 31, United 
States Code, relating to disbursing officials check cashing 
authority to allow the Department of Defense to provide 
operating funds to automated teller machines (ATM) on naval 
vessels, and to accept for safekeeping deposits made through 
these ATMs to shipboard accounts. The provision supports the 
Department of the Navy's ``ATM-On-Line'' and ``ATMs-At-Sea'' 
programs which will result in a significant quality of life 
enhancement for service members serving on navel vessels.
    The committee believes that the Secretary of the Navy 
should evaluate the most efficient means to maintain and update 
the automated teller machines (ATM) necessary for the ATM-at-
Sea program. This includes considering whether the banking 
industry, which benefits from this program, should pay a 
portion of the funds needed to maintain and update the needed 
ATMs on the Naval vessels.

 Section 365--Preservation of Historic Buildings and Grounds at United 
        States Soldiers' and Airmen's Home, District of Columbia

    This section would permit the Chairman of the Retirement 
Home Board and the Director of the United States Soldiers' and 
Airmen's Home to apply and accept a direct grant from the 
Secretary of the Interior under section 101(e)(3) of the 
National Historic Preservation Act (16 United States Code 
470a(e)(3)) for the purpose of maintaining, repairing, and 
preserving the historic buildings and grounds of the United 
States Soldiers' and Airmen's Home included on the National 
Register of Historic Places. The committee is aware that four 
buildings located on six acres at the Soldiers' and Airmen's 
Retirement Home in Washington, D.C. are included on the 
National Register of Historic places. Currently, amounts in the 
Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund, which consists 
primarily of deductions from the pay of members of the armed 
forces, are insufficient to maintain, repair, and preserve 
these historic buildings and grounds.

Section 366--Clarification of Land Conveyance Authority, United States 
                      Soldiers' and Airmen's Home

    This section would clarify section 1053 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-
201), concerning the authorization for the United States 
Soldiers' and Airman's Home, located in the District of 
Columbia, to sell approximately 49 acres of excess land. The 
section would establish the specific manner, terms and 
conditions for the conveyance of this land by sale or lease 
within 12 months of enactment of the provision. The section 
would also preclude the conveyance of this excess property 
through any public/private partnership, and would give the 
Catholic University of America, located adjacent to the excess 
land in the District of Columbia, the right to match any bona 
fide offer received for the sale or lease of the property.

Section 367--Treatment of Alaska, Hawaii, and Guam in Defense Household 
                         Goods Moving Programs

    This section would exclude the states of Alaska and Hawaii, 
and the territory of Guam from being included as points of 
origin in any test or demonstration program of the Department 
of Defense (DOD) regarding the moving of household goods of 
members of the armed forces. The provision would also establish 
Hawaii and Guam as international destinations for the purpose 
of household goods shipments by the DOD.

                      MILITARY PERSONNEL OVERVIEW

    In mid-1998, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and 
the Joint Chiefs concluded that the Armed Forces were fighting, 
and losing, two-front war to recruit and retain sufficient 
people. That war continues today, and much of what is provided 
for in the military personnel titles of this bill is directed 
at reversing the losing fight.
    On the retention front, all the services for several years 
have incurred unsustainable losses among pockets of highly 
qualified, experienced personnel. More recently, the most 
severe retention problems are in the Navy and the Air Force 
where officers, non-commissioned officers and enlisted persons 
across the force are leaving at rates that threaten the future 
viability of each service. In the Army and Marine Corps, 
although retention problems remain localized--principally among 
pilots--they are, nonetheless, of concern. Adding to the 
debilitating effects of the unanticipated losses of experienced 
personnel, the Army, Navy and Air Force also are encountering 
sharp increases above historical levels in the attrition of new 
personnel who fail to complete their first term of enlistment. 
As threatening as are the downward retention rates and 
increased attrition, military leaders within each of the 
services are even more concerned about their inability to 
develop responses to effectively reverse the trends. For 
example, no matter what the Air Force has tried, unacceptable 
pilot retention rates continue.
    On the recruiting front, three of the services, beginning 
with the Army, then the Navy, and finally the Air Force, have 
failed, or expect to fail, to meet production goals for new 
recruits. Not only do these recruiting shortfalls exist among 
most of the active components, but they also are appearing 
among the reserve components--most notably in the Army and 
Naval Reserves. In addition, some sources of officer 
commissions, specifically Army and Air Force Senior Reserve 
Officer Training (ROTC) programs, are failing to produce the 
required numbers of new officers. Furthermore, despite 
compelling testimony from mid-grade enlisted leaders that the 
low quality of new recruits has already reached a level that 
threatens the readiness of the force, the civilian leadership 
within the services refuse to commit adequate resources to 
recruiting. Rather, the Army and the Navy moved to reduce their 
quality standards by enlisting fewer high school graduates; and 
some services continue to surface new strategies for reducing 
recruit quality. These trends alarm the committee.
    As a result of continuing recruiting shortfalls and reduced 
retention, senior military leaders find themselves compelled to 
deploy forces to crises and contingencies at manning levels 
well below the 100 percent or better standard that heretofore 
had been their goal. With reduced manning levels among deployed 
forces, senior leaders are reluctantly accepting higher 
operational risks, reduced readiness, and increased stress on 
both deployed and non-deployed forces.
    Reflecting the December 1998 commitment of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff and the Secretary of Defense to address the retention 
and recruiting problems in the services, the Budget request 
proposed a range of pay and retirement reforms, as well as new 
bonus and special pays authority, and increased funding for 
recruiting. The committee commends the Secretary and the Joint 
Chiefs for their forceful, public resolve to advocate for these 
reforms and initiatives. The Committee is convinced that 
without the unanimous support of these initiatives by the Joint 
Chiefs and the Secretary, they would not have been included in 
the budget request, nor politically supported by the Congress.
    Using the pay and retirement reforms of the budget request 
as a starting point, the committee undertook an in-depth 
assessment of the underlying causes of the services' retention 
and recruiting problems in an effort to determine the adequacy 
of the Department's budget proposals.
    With regard to retention the committee found numerous and 
complex factors that determined why people and their families 
either remain in the military or return to civilian life. 
Clearly, as emphasized by the proposed Department of Defense's 
pay and retirement reforms, dissatisfaction with military basic 
pay and retirement was found to be a factor influencing 
retention. However, the committee also found that the 
Department's proposals addressed only a narrow range of the 
actual pay and compensation concerns of service members. Based 
on what men and women, officer and enlisted, told the 
committee, further reforms were needed to help relieve the 
financial stress experienced by most enlisted personnel with 
families. Some flexibility and choice in retirement options was 
desired, including the option to participate in a thrift 
savings plan. They also sought improvements in their ability to 
afford adequate housing and to reduce out-of-pocket housing 
costs. Finally, service members' testimony made clear to the 
committee that enhanced bonus and special pays were a critical 
factor for many military personnel, not only as recognition of 
their training and skills, but also as a way to reduce the 
attractiveness of salary and bonus offers being made to them by 
civilian employers.
    Notwithstanding the testimony the committee heard about the 
need for pay, compensation and retirement reform that was 
broader, more diverse, and more focused than that contained in 
the budget request, the committee also understood from that 
testimony that if the services were going to solve their 
retention problems, then a broad range of reforms outside those 
of military pay and compensation and retirement would also be 
required. For example, the committee repeatedly heard about the 
damaging impact on retention caused by unrelieved high 
operations tempo and the tension and disruptions to families 
resulting from the unpredictability of no-notice, last minute 
deployments. Equally damaging to retention was the corrosive 
effect on a highly professional military due to their 
inability, and the inability of their leaders to obtain the 
required resource to train and maintain themselves, their 
equipment and their units at a level of readiness they know is 
required to be successful in war. Such frustration, the result, 
in part, of significantly underfunded operations and 
maintenance accounts, will not be relieved by any amount of 
increased spending in the military personnel accounts.
    With regard to the recruiting proposals contained in the 
budget request, the committee's assessment found an increased 
level of effort being made by each service to achieve 
recruiting goals. In general, the committee is pleased with the 
effort. However, given the current and growing 
interdependability of the active and reserve components, the 
committee is concerned that the budget request did nothing to 
address the recruiting shortfalls in some of the reserve 
components. The budget request neither did anything to correct 
the officer production shortfalls in the Senior Reserve Officer 
Training Program nor did it provide new ways to address manning 
shortfalls that exist in all the services.
    Based on its in-depth assessment, the committee recommends 
a broad range of initiatives to address the retention and 
recruiting issues that are confronting the military services. 
These initiatives, which build upon and expand those proposed 
in the budget request, are reported in detail in the military 
personnel titles below. In summary, however, the committee 
recommendations contained in the military personnel titles:
          (1) Directly and aggressively address many of the 
        causes of recruiting and retention shortfalls, but 
        balance the cost of addressing those problems against 
        the reality that pay and retirement reform are only a 
        part of what is required to improve recruiting and 
        retention. Resources, in a constrained defense budget, 
        must remain available this year and in subsequent years 
        to address readiness and modernization, which also are 
        keys to fixing recruiting and retention.
          (2) Provide a 4.8 percent basic military pay raise, 
        compared to the 4.4 per cent raise in the budget 
        request; halt the growing pay gap for all by mandating 
        that future basic pay raises are based on the full 
        employment cost index (ECI), not ECI minus .5 percent; 
        and provide targeted pay raises above 4.8 percent for 
        mid-grade officers and non-commissioned officers, as 
        part of a reform of the pay tables to ensure pay 
        increases are tied more to promotion than to years of 
        service.
          (3) Reform the military retirement system by 
        providing service members the option of choosing either 
        the pre-1986 retirement, or remain in the post-1986 
        retirement system and receive a $30,000 payment at 15 
        years of service.
          (4) Extend current pay and bonus authorities, create 
        new bonus authorities, and expand recruiting and 
        retention bonus and special pay authorities to address 
        poor retention and shortages in specific skills. These 
        skills include aviators, Navy surface warfare officers, 
        Navy special warfare officers, Navy nuclear trained 
        officers, reserve components critical skills, Air Force 
        air battle managers, career enlisted flyers, linguists, 
        divers, first-team members with families, and judge 
        advocates.
          (5) Reduce service member out-of-pocket housing costs 
        by 3 per cent, and accelerate by three years the full 
        implementation of new Basic Allowance for Housing 
        rates, by adding $442.5 million to the services' 
        military personnel accounts.
          (6) Direct the Secretary of Defense to begin paying 
        the Women, Infants and children (WIC) program benefits 
        overseas.
          (7) Maintain active end strength floors; provide 
        $91.5 million to fully fund the Army National Guard and 
        Army Reserve military technicians requested in the 
        budget; and increase by 800 the full time manning in 
        the Army National Guard,
          (8) Provide creative new ways to address the 
        services' manning shortfalls by expanding the number of 
        military retirees who can voluntarily return to active 
        duty; authorizing the Air Force to test the use of 
        voluntarily recalled retirees in critical staff 
        positions, thereby returning aviators to flying duties; 
        and delegating to the Secretary of Defense authority to 
        waive, on a case-by-case basis, the requirement that 
        military retirees forfeit a portion of their retired 
        pay when re-employed in the Department of Defense.
          (9) Eliminate the services' recruiting resource 
        shortfalls by adding nearly $200 million to the budget 
        request for both active and reserve component needs, 
        and encourage state and local officials to provide 
        military recruiters the same access to high school 
        students that is provided to other prospective 
        employers.
          (10) Address the officer recruiting shortfall by 
        adding nearly $24.0 million to the Army Senior Reserve 
        Officer Training Corps (ROTC) funding, and increasing 
        the monthly subsistence allowance paid to Senior ROTC 
        cadets of all services from $150 to $200.
          (12) Modify the framework for training and 
        integrating reservists into the active force by 
        providing adequate per diem to military technicians 
        supporting contingency operations, authorizing recalled 
        reservists to continue to hold civil offices for a full 
        active duty tour, authorizing unit funding of housing 
        during training tours, adding new options for active 
        duty medical care for reservists, and authorizing 
        reservists priority transportation when transportation 
        options are limited.
          (13) Attend to key retiree and veterans issues by 
        guaranteeing veterans' burial benefits, providing 
        retirement flags for reservists and all the uniformed 
        services, restoring equity to widows entitlements, and 
        directing that the Secretary of Defense pay severely 
        disabled military retirees a monthly stipend to offset 
        reductions in military retired pay.
          (14) Continue the reform of Department of Defense 
        pharmacy system.
    The committee believes that these and other initiatives it 
is recommending will help to address the severe retention and 
recruiting challenges facing the military services. The 
committee also believes, however, that the severe retention and 
recruiting problems of the military services will not be solved 
by a one year's effort. Rather, several years effort, at least, 
will be needed to restore the manpower readiness of the armed 
services. Therefore, the committee strongly urges the senior 
military and civilian leadership of the Department of Defense 
to continue to advocate for the additional resources to sustain 
and win the two-front war of retention and recruiting. To that 
end, the committee pledges its support.

              TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

                       Subtitle A--Active Forces

              Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces

    This section would authorize the following end strengths 
for active duty personnel of the armed forces as of September 
30, 2000.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      FY 1999                         FY 2000
                     Service                      authorized and      FY 2000        committee    Change from FY
                                                       floor          request     recommendation   2000 request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army............................................         480,000         480,000         480,000               0
Navy............................................         372,696         371,781         372,037             256
USMC............................................         172,200         172,148         172,518             370
USAF............................................         370,882         360,877         360,877               0
DOD.............................................       1,395,778       1,384,806       1,385,432             626
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on a critical unfunded requirement identified by the 
Chief of Naval Operations, the committee recommends an increase 
of $5.0 million and 256 personnel over the requested end 
strength for the Navy. This additional funding and strength 
would preclude anticipated undermanning in naval underway 
replenishment ships. The committee also recommends an increase 
of 370 over the requested end strength of the United States 
Marine Corps to meet an unfunded need identified by the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps for additional guards at U.S. 
embassies. To support the increased manpower, the committee 
recommends an additional $6.6 million for the Marine Corps 
personnel account, and an additional $4.1 million for the 
Marine Corps operations and maintenance account.

     Section 402--Revision in Permanent End Strength Minimum Levels

    The committee believes that it remains necessary to retain 
end strength floors, not only because of a long-standing 
concern, reinforced by widespread testimony of witnesses 
appearing before the committee that forces are inadequate to 
support the national military strategy, but also because of the 
propensity of the services to accelerate manpower reductions to 
achieve savings, regardless of the actual manning requirements 
of the operational forces. This section, therefore, would amend 
section 691 of title 10, United States Code, to establish end 
strength floors for the active forces at the end strengths 
contained in the budget request.
    In addition, the committee is disturbed to learn that the 
Army and Air Force are projected to end fiscal year 1999 with 
nearly 11,500 personnel less than required by the floor 
established by the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261). In the case of the Air 
Force, the shortfall will significantly exceed the statutory 
flexibility. These shortfalls are illustrated below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                FY 1999                  Projected
                                                ---------------------------------------  actual FY   Change from
                    Service                                    Authorized   Floor with    1999 end     FY 1999
                                                 DOD request   and floor       flex       strength      floor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army...........................................      480,000      480,000      477,600      478,050       -1,950
Navy...........................................      372,696      372,696      370,883      372,700           +4
USMC...........................................      172,200      172,200      171,339      172,200            0
USAF...........................................      370,882      370,882      369,028      361,331       -9,551
DOD............................................    1,395,778    1,395,778    1,388,850    1,384,281      -11,497
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These projected shortfalls are surprising since the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public 
Law 105-261) and the Department of Defense Appropriations Act 
for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-262) provided the full 
funding requested by the Department of Defense to sustain 
active end strength at the requested levels. While continuing 
recruiting challenges contribute in part to the projected 
shortfalls, the committee believes that the fundamental cause 
of the projected fiscal year 1999 end strength shortfall is an 
inadequate commitment by the Army and the Air Force to sustain 
required manpower levels with adequate resources.
    The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to ensure that 
future budget requests comply with the requirements of section 
691 of title 10, United States Code, and provide the full 
funding required to sustain the active end strengths at the 
required levels. The committee estimates that because the 
active manpower will end fiscal year 1999 below statutory 
levels, there will be $152.9 million in fiscal year 2000 end 
strength underexecution savings that the committee has 
reallocated to support a range of high priority initiatives 
that were not included in the budget request.

  Section 403--Appointments to Certain Senior Joint Officer Positions

    Section 525(b)(5) of title 10, United States Code, provides 
a temporary exemption for general and flag officers who are 
serving in certain senior joint officer positions from being 
counted against the statutory limits on the numbers of three- 
and four-star general and flag officers. This section would 
make permanent the exemption which expires September 30, 2000. 
The section would also prohibit the use of the exemption from 
increasing the total numbers of general officers on active 
duty, and from increasing the numbers of four-star general 
officers by mandating that the exemptions be used to fill joint 
three-star positions that, without the exemption, would 
otherwise not be filled. Finally, the section would make 
permanent the requirement that each service secretary nominate 
a candidate to the Secretary of Defense to fill vacancies in 
four-star joint officer command positions. The current 
requirement expires on September 30, 2000.

                       Subtitle B--Reserve Forces


            Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve

    This section would authorize the following end strengths 
for the selected reserve personnel, including the end strength 
for reserves on active duty in support of the reserves, as of 
September 30, 2000:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      FY 2000
                     Service                          FY 1999         FY 2000        committee    Change from FY
                                                    authorized        request     recommendation   2000 request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard.............................         357,223         350,000         350,000               0
Army Reserve....................................         208,003         205,000         205,000               0
Naval Reserve...................................          90,843          90,288          90,288               0
Marine Corps Reserve............................          40,018          39,624          39,624               0
Air National Guard..............................         106,992         106,678         106,678               0
Air Force Reserve...............................          74,243          73,708          73,708               0
Coast Guard Reserve.............................           8,000           8,000           8,000               0
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................         885,322         873,298         873,298               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    This section would authorize the following end strengths 
for reserves on active duty in support of the reserves as of 
September 30, 2000:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      FY 2000
                     Service                          FY 1999         FY 2000        committee    Change from FY
                                                    authorized        request     recommendation   2000 request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard.............................          21,986          21,807          22,563            +756
Army Reserve....................................          12,807          12,804          12,804               0
Naval Reserve...................................          15,590          15,010          15,010               0
Marine Corps Reserve............................           2,362           2,272           2,272               0
Air National Guard..............................          10,931          11,091          11,025             -66
Air Force Reserve...............................             992           1,078           1,078               0
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................          64,668          64,062          64,752            +690
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The committee recommends an increase of 800 active guard 
and reserve personnel (AGRs) in the Army National Guard to 
recognize a validated shortfall in Army National Guard AGRs. 
The increase reflects the committee's belief that such full 
time personnel make a direct contribution to the readiness of 
the selected reserve. Furthermore, the increase enhances the 
ability of the national guard to assist, supplement, and in 
many cases substitute for, the active components in meeting 
peacetime contingency requirements. To provide for the AGR 
increase, the committee recommends an increase of $26.0 million 
in the national guard military personnel accounts.
    The committee notes that the budget request neither sought 
to increase the limit on the number of AGRs who can serve in 
assignments related to the weapons of mass destruction program 
(a limit imposed by section 511 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, Public Law 105-261), 
nor did the budget request provide the justification for such 
an increase that is required by section 511. For that reason, 
the committee's recommendation on AGR end strength does not 
recognize the 110 additional AGRs (44 in the Army National 
Guard and 66 in the Air National Guard) included in the budget 
request to support new requirements connected with the weapons 
of mass destruction program. The committee looks `forward to 
receiving the Department of Defense's subsequent request to 
justify the increase.

   Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual Status)

    This section would authorize the following end strength 
floors for military technicians (dual status) as of September 
30, 2000:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      FY 2000
                                                      FY 1999         FY 2000        committee    Change from FY
                     Service                        authorized        request     recommendation   2000 request
                                                      (floor)                         (floor)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard.............................          23,125          21,361          23,125          +1,764
Army Reserve....................................           5,395           5,179           6,474          +1,295
Air National Guard..............................          22,408          22,247          22,247               0
Air Force Reserve...............................           9,761           9,785           9,785               0
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................          60,689          58,572          61,631          +3,059
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The committee's recommendation for higher end strengths 
than contained in the budget request reflects the requirements 
of section 10216 of title 10, United States Code, that provides 
that military technician (dual status) end strength 
authorizations shall only be reduced in connection with 
military force structure reductions, and a recognition that in 
the Army Reserve all technician positions must be filled by 
military technicians (dual status).
    The committee is disturbed to learn that, for the second 
year in a row, the Secretary of the Army, contrary to law, 
sought reductions in military technicians (dual status) that 
were not justified by force structure reductions. Moreover, the 
Secretary of the Army appears to have ignored the committee's 
admonishment, contained in the committee report on H.R. 3616 
(H. Rpt. 105-532), that he ensure that future budget requests 
complied with the law when proposing reductions in military 
technicians (dual status). Such disregard for Congressional 
guidance is incomprehensible. Therefore, the committee directs 
the Secretary of the Army to report to the committee, by 
December 30, 1999, the reasons why the Army failed to comply 
with the law regarding military technician (dual status) end 
strength reductions, and to report the measures he has taken to 
prevent a reoccurrence of such a violation. In addition, the 
committee urges the Secretary of the Army to fully cooperate 
with the study by the Secretary of Defense that would be 
required by section 526 of this bill. The purpose of that study 
is to reform the Army's methodology and process for costing 
civilian personnel and technician requirements to ensure those 
requirements are fully resourced. Finally, in an effort to 
restore some of the military technician (dual status) funding 
and end strength shortfalls in the Army National Guard and the 
Army Reserve, the committee recommends an increase of $56.5 
million to Army National Guard operations and maintenance 
accounts, and $35.0 million to Army Reserve operations and 
maintenance accounts.

   Section 414--Increase in Number of Army and Air Force Members in 
  Certain Grades Authorized to Serve on Active Duty in Support of the 
                                Reserves

    This section would authorize increases in the grades of 
reserve members authorized to serve on active duty or on full-
time national guard duty for the administration of the reserves 
or the national guard. The provision would authorize 33 
additional lieutenant colonels, 52 additional majors, 8 
additional E-9s, and 32 additional E-8s in the Air Force. The 
provision would also authorize 33 additional colonels, 71 
additional lieutenant colonels, and 22 additional E-9s in the 
Army. The committee believes these increases are necessary to 
support the additional missions now being performed by the 
reserve components.

         Section 415--Selected Reserve End Strength Flexibility

    This section would permit the Secretary of Defense to vary 
by not more than two percent the selected reserve end strength 
authorized in a fiscal year for any of the reserve components.

              Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations


  Section 421--Authorization of Appropriations for Military Personnel

    This section would authorize $72,115.8 million to be 
appropriated for military personnel.
    This authorization of appropriations reflects both 
reductions and increases to the President's budget request.

                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Military
                                                 personnel       O&M
                                                  accounts     Accounts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             RECOMMENDED INCREASES
Active End Strength:
    Navy AOE-1 End Strength Buyback...........          5.0  ...........
    USMC Increased Security Guard Battalion             6.6          4.1
     Detachments End Strength.................
Reserve Component End Strength
    Army National Guard Military Technician     ...........         56.5
     Underfunding.............................
    Army National Guard 800 Additional AGR's..         26.0  ...........
    Army Reserve Military Technician            ...........         35.0
     Underfunding.............................
Compensation:
    4.8% Military Basic Pay Raise.............        156.0  ...........
    Overseas Military WIC program.............          2.0  ...........
    Accelerate Phase-in of New BAH Rates......        225.0  ...........
    Buy-down Out-of-Pocket Housing Costs (3%).        217.5  ...........
    Adjust General and Flag Officer Pay Cap...          1.0  ...........
    Judge Advocate General Career Continuation         10.0  ...........
     Pay......................................
    Concurrent Receipt........................         45.0  ...........
Army Recruiting:
    Enlistment Bonus..........................         15.0  ...........
    Selective Reenlistment Bonus..............         21.4  ...........
    Advertising...............................  ...........         16.4
    Recruiter Support.........................  ...........         15.5
Army National Guard Recruiting:
    Advertising...............................  ...........         18.0
    Recruiter Support.........................  ...........         13.0
Army Reserve Recruiting:
    Non-Prior Service Enlistment Bonus........          2.2  ...........
    Prior Service Enlistment Bonus............          1.0  ...........
    Montgomery GI Bill--Selected Reserve                6.7  ...........
     Kicker...................................
    Student Loan Repayment Program............          1.5  ...........
    Health Professions Loan Repayment.........         15.9  ...........
    Retention & Transition Division Retention.          1.9          2.6
    Recruiter Support.........................  ...........          2.0
    Advertising...............................  ...........         26.7
Naval Reserve Recruiting
    Enlistment/Reenlistment Bonuses...........          6.2  ...........
    Montgomery GI Bill Kicker.................          1.5  ...........
    Selected Reenlistment Bonus for Full-time           0.7  ...........
     Support..................................
    Armed Forces Health Professions                     3.9  ...........
     Scholarship..............................
    Additional Recruiters.....................          5.2  ...........
    Advertising...............................  ...........          1.0
    Recruiter Support.........................  ...........          4.0
USMC Recruiting:
    Advertising...............................  ...........          8.1
    Recruiting Operations and Support.........  ...........          1.0
Air National Guard Recruiting:
    Advertising...............................  ...........          4.1
Air Force Reserve Recruiting:
    Advertising...............................  ...........          1.5
    Recruiter Support.........................  ...........          1.0
Senior ROTC: Increase Monthly Stipend ($150-
 $200) (Reserve Personnel Accounts):
    Army......................................          5.9
    Navy......................................          2.2
    Air Force.................................          3.3
Army Senior ROTC:
    Marketing & Advertising...................  ...........          5.5
    Scholarships..............................  ...........         15.0
    Operations and Training...................          1.4          1.8
Junior ROTC:
    Army......................................          1.4          2.0
    USMC......................................  ...........          2.0
    Air Force.................................  ...........         19.0
Defense Health Program:
    Waive CHAMPUS Deductibles for Dependents    ...........          4.0
     of Mobilized Reservists..................
    Start-up Cost for Trauma Center...........  ...........          4.0
    Navy Medical Equipment & Property           ...........          5.0
     Maintenance..............................
    Automated Clinical Practice Guidelines....  ...........          5.0
    Army Maintenance & Repair.................  ...........          1.0
Other:
    International Student Program for Senior    ...........          2.0
     Military Colleges........................
    Retirement Flags for Reservists...........  ...........          5.0
    USMC Voluntary Education Tuition            ...........          3.0
     Assistance...............................
                                               -------------------------
        Total Increase........................        791.4        284.8
                                               =========================
            RECOMMENDED REDUCTIONS

Retirement Reform.............................        392.0  ...........
Active 1999 End Strength Underexecution:
    Army......................................         31.9  ...........
    Navy......................................          9.0  ...........
    Air Force.................................        112.0  ...........
USMC Reprogramming............................         16.0  ...........
Innovative Readiness Training.................  ...........         15.0
                                               -------------------------
      Total Reduction.........................        560.9         15.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                   TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

 Backlog in Requests for Replacement of Military Awards and Decorations

    The committee is aware of delays in fulfilling requests 
from veterans for replacement awards and decorations within 
each of the armed services. For example, the Army estimates the 
backlog for requests from veterans to be 98,000 going back over 
2 years. The committee believes that our veterans deserve more 
timely responses to their requests.
    The committee understands that the armed services are 
hopeful that new agreements authorizing the National Personnel 
Records Center (NPRC) to verify entitlement of veterans to 
awards and decorations will expedite the process and eliminate 
backlogs. The committee desires to accelerate the recovery 
process and allocate the resources necessary to provide timely 
service to veterans.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense, in coordination with the secretaries of the military 
departments, to study the process by which veterans are 
provided replacement awards and decorations and determine what 
resources and procedures are required to provide veterans more 
timely responses. The Secretary shall submit a report with the 
findings and recommendations resulting from this study to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services by March 31, 2000.

                  Commissioning of Ms. Ella E. Gibson

    The committee notes that when the First Wisconsin Heavy 
Artillery Regiment selected Ms. Ella E. Gibson to be their 
chaplain in 1864, the Army denied the request. Notwithstanding 
that disapproval, Ms. Gibson faithfully performed her duties as 
chaplain for the unit without pay. Although the Congress 
enacted private relief legislation in 1869 that provided her 
full pay and emoluments of a chaplain, she was never 
commissioned as an officer. The committee does not understand 
why Ms. Gibson was denied a commission that she appears to have 
earned.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the 
Army to review the request for Ms. Ella Gibson to be 
commissioned and determine if the request was properly 
disapproved and whether that disapproval would be sustained 
today. The Secretary shall submit a report with the findings 
and recommendations resulting from this review to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services by March 31, 2000. The report should include the 
Secretary's judgment as to whether he possesses the authority 
and justification to commission Ms. Gibson a captain, and any 
recommendations concerning the need for legislation to 
authorize a commission for Ms. Gibson.

 Electronic Transmission of Certificates of Release or Discharge from 
                              Active Duty

    The committee is aware that Certificates of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) are not transmitted by 
direct electronic means from the armed services to the Defense 
Manpower Data Center (DMDC) or the Department of Veterans 
Affairs. Although procedures governing the preparation of the 
DD Form 214 authorize computer generation and electronic 
transfer of the DD Form 214, the armed services do not employ 
electronic transfer.
    The committee believes that manual preparation and 
transmission of DD Forms 214 increases errors, wastes 
resources, and contributes to delays in the transmission of 
information vital to the welfare of veterans.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 
coordination with the secretaries of the military departments, 
to study the electronic transfer of DD Forms 214 and determine 
the reasons why electronic transfer is presently not being 
implemented. The Secretary shall submit a report with the 
findings and recommendations resulting from this study to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services by March 31, 2000.

                          Enlisted Promotions

    The committee is concerned that the inability of enlisted 
members to be promoted in a timely manner has become a 
disincentive for service members to remain in the military for 
a career. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense, in coordination with the secretaries of the military 
departments, to study enlisted promotion rates within the 
services. The study should include analysis of historical data, 
future projections, service promotion goals, and factors that 
influence promotion rates. The Secretary shall submit a report 
with the findings and recommendations resulting from this study 
to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2000. The committee is 
particularly interested in recommendations for legislation to 
improve the timeliness of promotions.

            Junior Reserve Officer Training Program (JROTC)

    The committee understands from testimony provided by 
Department of Defense witnesses that 40 percent of the 
graduates of the JROTC program eventually join the military 
services. Although the committee understands that the JROTC 
program is not a military recruitment program and has no desire 
to turn it into one, the committee strongly believes that 
additional funding provided to the program will serve well the 
long term manpower interests of the Department of Defense. For 
that reason, the committee recommends an increase of $24.4 
million for the JROTC program. The details of the recommended 
increase are contained in the report language for section 421 
of this bill.

                   Merchant Marine Academy Midshipmen

    The committee is aware that the Navy has begun to issue 
reserve identification cards to midshipmen at the Merchant 
Marine Academy. The committee believes that it is appropriate 
and beneficial for midshipmen to serve as members of the Naval 
Reserve while attending the Merchant Marine Academy. The 
committee hopes that the initial issue of reserve 
identification cards to midshipmen will be expedited and that 
future midshipmen will be issued reserve identification cards 
routinely when entering the Merchant Marine Academy.

                               Recruiting

    The committee continues to be concerned that the services 
are not able to attract sufficient high quality recruits to 
maintain the quality force so critical to readiness. The 
committee recognizes that the services face a difficult 
recruiting environment. The lowest unemployment rate since the 
creation of the all volunteer force, higher college enrollments 
and reduced awareness of the advantages of military service 
have all contributed to a decline in the inclination for 
America's youth to choose the military as their first employer. 
As a result, the services must work very hard to remain 
competitive.
    During the last two years, the committee has added over 
$300.0 million to recruiting operations, advertising and 
incentives. The committee asked the services to identify 
recruiting requirements not funded in the fiscal year 2000 
budget request. To the committee's surprise despite long-
standing, well-known, and continuing recruiting challenges that 
the committee believes should have been better anticipated, the 
services' recruiting programs are underfunded in fiscal year 
2000 by $198.0 million. The size of this shortfall suggests 
that either the estimating process used by the services is 
highly inaccurate, or the services are only marginally funding, 
perhaps even underfunding, their recruiting efforts. In any 
case, the committee urges the services to take corrective 
action to ensure recruiting resources presented in the budget 
more closely match requirements. With regard to the fiscal year 
2000 shortfall, the committee recommends increases, detailed in 
the report language to accompany section 421 of this bill, to 
eliminate the shortfall.
    During the last two years, the services have reduced 
recruit quality standards. The Army and the Navy have reduced 
their respective goals for accession of high school diploma 
graduates. The Air Force and Marine Corps have experienced a 
steady erosion in the quality of recruits.
    The committee believes that further reductions to recruit 
quality standards present a very costly and dangerous risk to 
military readiness. Accordingly, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the secretaries of 
the military departments, to study the minimum quality 
standards established by the Department of Defense for new 
recruits and determine if those standards remain valid. The 
Secretary shall submit a report with the findings and 
recommendations resulting from this study to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services by March 31, 2000. If the Secretary determines that a 
reduction in recruit quality standards is appropriate, the 
report should include a discussion of the implications of such 
a reduction for personnel training costs, retention, and force 
readiness.
    The committee is concerned that the growth in funding 
allocated to recruiting advertising over the past three years 
has resulted in increased advertising competition between the 
services and a wasteful escalation in advertising costs. The 
committee is also concerned that the effectiveness of 
advertising programs has not been evaluated to confirm that 
advertising resources are employed in the most efficient manner 
possible. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense, in coordination with the secretaries of the military 
departments, to study the competitive nature of recruiting 
advertising and determine if advertising funds have been 
increased due to competition between the services. In this 
regard, the Secretary should examine the need to centrally 
manage recruiting advertising spending by the services to avoid 
wasteful competition. The Secretary should also review all 
advertising programs and confirm that each program is an 
efficient use of resources within the context of the total 
advertising budget in each service. The Secretary shall submit 
a report with the findings and recommendations resulting from 
this study to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2000.

            Senior Reserve Officers Training Program (SROTC)

    The committee is concerned that the SROTC programs of two 
services are projected to fall short of their officer 
production quotas. The Army will miss its goal by 513 officers, 
or 14 percent, and the Air Force will miss its goal by 95 
officers, or 4 percent. Such shortfalls are symptomatic of 
broad recruiting difficulties that exist across the military 
services. Within the SROTC program, the shortfalls appear to be 
related to two major issues: an inadequate subsistence 
allowance provided to students enrolled in the SROTC program, 
and insufficient resources for the Army program, especially 
with regard to scholarship funding. To help reverse the 
shortfalls, the committee recommends an increase from $150 to 
$200 in the monthly SROTC subsistence allowance, and 
recommends, as detailed in the report language for section 421 
of this bill, an increase of $23.7 million for the Army SROTC 
program.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                  Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy


     Section 501--Recommendations for Promotion by Selection Boards

    This section would authorize at least one below the 
promotion zone promotion for warrant officer competitive 
categories where the entitlement to a below the promotion 
opportunity is calculated as less than one. The section would 
align warrant officer procedures with the procedures already in 
place for officers.

  Section 502--Technical Amendments Relating to Joint Duty Assignments

    Section 619a of title 10, United States Code, requires that 
an officer serve a full tour of duty in a joint duty assignment 
as a prerequisite to promotion to brigadier general or rear 
admiral (lower half). Section 619a also provided authority to 
the Secretary of Defense until January 1, 1999, to waive this 
requirement for some officers under certain conditions, and 
waived the requirement, until January 1, 1997, for nuclear 
propulsion officers. This section would amend section 619a to 
reflect the expired status of this waiver authority, but would 
retain the requirement that officers who received waivers 
before January 1, 1997 and January 1, 1999 must complete a full 
tour of duty in a joint duty assignment as a prerequisite for 
appointment to lieutenant general or vice admiral.

           Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Reserve Components


  Section 511--Continuation on Reserve Active Status List to Complete 
                          Disciplinary Action

    This section would authorize the service secretaries to 
retain a reserve officer in an active status until completion 
of a court-martial action.

  Section 512--Authority to Order Reserve Component Members to Active 
                 Duty to Complete a Medical Evaluation

    This section would authorize the secretaries of the 
military departments, with the concurrence of the Secretary of 
Defense, to order a reserve member to active duty to receive 
medical care, to be medically evaluated for disability or other 
purpose, or to complete a required Department of Defense health 
care study. The section would require the member to consent to 
the recall.

        Section 513--Eligibility for Consideration for Promotion

    This section would authorize reserve officers serving in an 
educational delay status due to government sponsored attendance 
at institutions of higher education to be made ineligible for 
promotion during the period of educational delay. The section 
would also authorize promotion nonselections to be expunged 
when nonselection occurred while the officer served in an 
educational delay status after October 1, 1996.

  Section 514--Retention until Completion of 20 Years of Service for 
 Reserve Component Majors and Lieutenant Commanders Who Twice Fail of 
                        Selection for Promotion

    This section would authorize reserve officers with more 
than 20 years of service to remain in an active status for 6 
months after being notified of their second nonselection for 
promotion.

         Section 515--Computation of Years of Service Exclusion

    This section would exclude time served in a college student 
commissioning status from the computation of years of service 
for reserve officers. The section would align the procedures 
used to compute years of service for reserve officers with the 
procedures used to compute years of service for active duty 
officers.

Section 516--Authority to Retain Reserve Component Chaplains until Age 
                                   67

    This section would authorize reserve chaplains in the Army 
and the Air Force to be retained 7 additional years to age 67 
to address manning shortages in certain religious 
denominations.

Section 517--Expansion and Codification of Authority for Space-Required 
                          Travel for Reserves

    This section would authorize reserve members to travel in a 
space required status on military aircraft between the member's 
home and place of reserve duty when there is no road or 
railroad transportation between those locations.

   Section 518--Financial Assistance Program for Specially Selected 
                  Members of the Marine Corps Reserve

    This section would reform the financial inducements used in 
the Platoon Leaders Class (PLC) program, the principal source 
for United States Marine Corps officers. As currently operated, 
a college graduate who completes the PLC program and is 
commissioned as a second lieutenant gets longevity credit, for 
purposes of calculating military basic pay, for the years spent 
in the PLC program. The new Marine lieutenant also incurs an 8 
year service commitment, with at least 42 months of that time 
served on active duty. This section would abolish the longevity 
credit for lieutenants commissioned after the date of 
enactment. Instead, the Secretary of the Navy would be 
authorized to provide $5,200 per academic year for a maximum of 
three years to a college student enrolled in the PLC program 
who continues to meet certain prerequisites while in college, 
and who agrees to be commissioned with an eight-year service 
commitment, five of which must be served on active duty.

    Section 519--Options to Improve Recruiting for the Army Reserve

    The committee is concerned that the Army Recruiting 
Command, which provides new enlistees for both the Army and 
Army Reserve, will miss its Army Reserve fiscal year 1999 
recruiting objectives by as much as 9,500 soldiers. Such a 
shortfall, if it occurs, would mark the second consecutive year 
that the Army Recruiting Command has failed to produce the 
required number of Army Reserve recruits. Reversing such trends 
is critical to the health of the Army Reserve. Consequently, 
the committee believes that an in-depth review of the Army's 
system of recruiting for the Army Reserve is required. This 
section would direct the Secretary of the Army to conduct such 
a review, to include examining, as a possible course of 
corrective action, whether the responsibility for Army Reserve 
recruiting should be placed under the control of the Chief, 
Army Reserve.

                    Subtitle C--Military Technicians


     Section 521--Revision to Military Technician (Dual Status) Law

    This section would clarify section 10216 of title 10, 
United States Code, pertaining to military technicians (dual 
status), and extend the time from 6 months to up to 12 months 
that a person may remain employed as a technician in the Army 
and Air Force Reserve following loss of status as a military 
technician (dual status).

          Section 522--Civil Service Retirement of Technicians

    Beginning with the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106), and continuing through 
the National Defense Authorization Act for 1997 (Public Law 
104-201), and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85), the Congress has given repeated 
direction to the secretaries of the military departments to 
transform the technician workforce. Among other objectives, the 
Congress directed the military services to make maximum use of 
military technicians (dual status) and to reduce the numbers of 
non-dual status technicians.
    To that latter end, this section would require the 
retirement of retirement-eligible Army or Air Force Reserve 
military technicians (dual status) upon loss of dual status. 
The section would also establish procedures for the continued 
employment of certain non-retirement eligible technicians in 
the Army or Air Force Reserve who had been hired on or before 
February 10, 1996, as well as for the re-employment and 
separation of non dual-status technicians hired subsequently.
    The section also would make a non-dual status technician in 
the Army or Air Force Reserve ineligible for a voluntary 
personnel action involving a military technician (dual status) 
position. The section would define ``voluntary personnel 
action'' as one involving the hiring, entry, appointment, 
reassignment, or transfer into a military technician (dual 
status) position other than the one occupied by the non-dual 
status technician; or promotion in grade in a current position, 
if the non-dual status technician occupies a position which the 
Secretary of the Army or Air Force, as appropriate, has 
designated as requiring a military technician (dual status). 
The section would take effect one year after the date of 
enactment of this bill.
    The section would create a new early retirement criteria 
for any technician hired after February 10, 1996 who becomes a 
non-dual status technician. The new criteria would make a 
military technician (dual status) eligible for immediate 
retirement after completing 25 years of service, or after 
becoming 50 years of age and completing 20 years of service. 
The committee believes that such revised retirement criteria 
will help to ensure the sustainment of the youthful, vigorous 
technician force that will be required in the 21st Century.
    The section would also permit Army and Air Force Reserve 
technicians who qualify for the Civil Service Retirement System 
(CSRS) to be provided a disability retirement--something that, 
heretofore, only national guard technicians under CSRS were 
qualified for.

      Section 523--Revision to Non-Dual Status Technicians Statute

    The committee recognizes that the national guard, as well 
as the Army and Air Force Reserves, require a limited number of 
non-dual status technicians to operate effectively. Therefore, 
this section would limit the total number of non-dual status 
technicians in the national guard to no more than 1,950 on and 
after October 1, 2001, and the total in the Army and Air Force 
Reserves to no more than 175, on or after October 1, 2007. If 
at any time after the effective dates the numerical limits are 
exceeded, the section would require that the Secretary of 
Defense take action to require the appropriate secretaries of 
the military services to immediately reduce the excess.

    Section 524--Revision to Authorities Relating to National Guard 
                              Technicians

    This section would amend section 709 of title 32, United 
States Code, to authorize the Secretary of the Army and the 
Secretary of the Air Force to employ non-dual status 
technicians in the national guard.

                      Section 525--Effective Date

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 
(Public Law 105-85) required the Secretary of Defense to 
provide to the Congress by May 1998, a plan for the elimination 
of all non-dual status technicians by September 30, 2007. For 
reasons that the committee is unable to understand, the 
Secretary of Defense has failed to provide the required plan. 
This section would delay the non-dual status technician 
employment authority provided to the Department in sections 523 
and 524 in this bill until 180 days after the Secretary of 
Defense meets the fiscal year 1998 requirement or provides an 
alternative plan for non-dual status technicians.

  Section 526--Secretary of Defense Review of Army Technician Costing 
                                Process

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
review, and if necessary direct revisions to, the procedures 
and processes employed by the Army to develop budget estimates 
of the required annual authorizations and appropriations for 
civilian personnel, and especially Army National Guard and Army 
Reserve military technicians (dual status).

 Section 527--Fiscal Year 2000 Limitation on Number of Non-Dual Status 
                              Technicians

    This section would establish numerical limits on the number 
of non-dual status technicians who may be employed in the 
Department of Defense as of September 30, 2000.

                     Subtitle D--Service Academies


  Section 531--Waiver of Reimbursement of Expenses for Instruction at 
          Service Academies of Persons from Foreign Countries

    Current law permits the Secretary of Defense to waive the 
full cost of attendance for international students admitted to 
the service academies, for up to 5 students at a time at each 
academy, and to waive up to 35 percent of the cost of 
attendance for all other international students. This section 
would increase the Secretary's authority by allowing the full 
cost waivers for up to 20 students at a time at each academy, 
and by permitting the waiver of up to 50 percent of the cost of 
attendance for all other international students.

    Section 532--Compliance by United States Military Academy with 
               Statutory Limit on Size of Corps of Cadets

    Section 511 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1992 (Public Law 102-190) limits to 4,000 the 
authorized strength of cadets at the United States Military 
Academy, as well as the other service academies, for class 
years beginning after 1994. The number of cadets at the United 
States Military Academy has exceeded the authorized number 
since September 30, 1997. This section would require the 
Secretary of the Army to bring the academy into compliance with 
the law by the day prior to the graduation date of the first, 
or senior class, in June 2002. The section would also provide 
authority for the Secretary of the Army in 1999, 2000 and 2001 
to vary the cadet end strengths from the statutory limit. The 
section would also repeal section 511, add the strength 
limitations of that section to title 10, United States Code, 
and require that compliance with the cadet and midshipmen 
strength limitations will be measured annually as of the day 
before graduation for each of the service academies.

 Section 533--Dean of Academic Board, United States Military Academy, 
        and Dean of the Faculty, United States Air Force Academy

    This section would authorize the Dean of the Academic 
Board, United States Military Academy, and Dean of the Faculty, 
United States Air Force Academy to hold the rank of brigadier 
general. The section would also require that these two general 
officers be counted against and not increase either the 
statutory limits on the total number of general officers.

  Section 534--Exclusion from Certain General and Flag Officer Grade 
 Strength Limitations for the Superintendents of the Service Academies

    This section would exempt officers while serving as the 
superintendents of the service academies, when serving in the 
grades of lieutenant general or vice admiral, from counting 
against the limits imposed by section 525(b) of title 10, 
United States Code. That section limits the number of generals 
and admirals serving above the grade of major general or rear 
admiral in each service to no more than 15 percent of the total 
number of generals and admirals for that service.

                   Subtitle E--Education and Training


  Section 541--Establishment of a Department of Defense International 
            Student Program at the Senior Military Colleges

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in 
furtherance of the objectives of the Department of Defense's 
existing international student and military-to-military 
programs' objectives, to establish and fund a program to 
facilitate the enrollment and instruction of international 
students at the Senior Military Colleges (SMC). The Secretary 
of Defense would also be authorized to underwrite, in whole or 
in part, the cost of the international students' attendance at 
the SMCs.

 Section 542--Authority for Army War College to Award Degree of Master 
                          of Strategic Studies

    This section would authorize the commandant of the United 
States Army War College, under regulations prescribed by the 
Secretary of the Army, to confer the degree of master of 
strategic studies upon graduates of the college who meet the 
requirements for the degree.

   Section 543--Authority for Air University to Award Graduate-Level 
                                Degrees

    This section would authorize the commander of the Air War 
College to confer the degree of master of strategic studies 
upon graduates of the Air War College, and to confer the degree 
of master of airpower art and science upon graduates of the Air 
Command and Staff College.

 Section 544--Correction of Reserve Credit for Participation in Health 
       Professional Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program

    Section 2126(b) of title 10, United States Code, authorizes 
the Secretary of Defense to award reserve retirement credit to 
a person for time spent in an educational program under the 
Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP). This provision 
would amend that section by requiring a person to complete 
satisfactory service in the selected reserve in order to gain 
the retirement credit. In addition, the provision would repeal 
the authority of the Secretary to award years of service credit 
for the purposes of calculating military basic pay to a person 
for time spent in the HPSP.

 Section 545--Permanent Expansion of ROTC Program to Include Graduate 
                                Students

    This section would make permanent the authority of the 
service secretaries to provide financial assistance to graduate 
students who participate in a senior Reserve Officer Training 
Corps (ROTC) program. The current authority, which enabled the 
service secretaries to test the desirability and effectiveness 
of an ROTC scholarship program for graduate students, expires 
September 30, 1999.

Section 546--Increase in Monthly Subsistence Allowance for Senior ROTC 
                 Cadets Selected for Advanced Training

    This section would increase the monthly subsistence 
allowance of senior ROTC cadets from $150 per month to $200 per 
month.

    Section 547--Contingent Funding Increase for Junior ROTC Program

    This section would require that any funds appropriated 
annually for the National Guard Youth Challenge Program in 
excess of $62.5 million would be provided to the Junior Reserve 
Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program.

Section 548--Change from Annual to Biennial Reporting under the Reserve 
                      Component Montgomery GI Bill

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report on the reserve component Montgomery GI Bill on 
a biennial basis in lieu of the current requirement to submit 
the report on an annual basis.

   Section 549--Recodification and Consolidation of Statutes Denying 
  Federal Grants and Contracts by Certain Departments and Agencies to 
  Institutions of Higher Education that Prohibit Senior ROTC Units or 
                     Military Recruiting on Campus

    This section would consolidate and recodify three 
provisions of law related to colleges and universities that 
prohibit senior Reserve Officers Training Corps units or 
military recruiting on campus.

                   Subtitle F--Decorations and Awards


     Section 551--Waiver of Time Limitations for Award of Certain 
                     Decorations to Certain Persons

    This section would waive the statutory time limitations for 
the award of military decorations to individuals who have been 
recommended for award of the decorations by the secretaries of 
the military departments.

 Section 552--Sense of Congress Concerning Presidential Unit Citation 
                  for Crew of the U.S.S. Indianapolis

    The committee believes that the courageous and skilled 
performance of the crew of the USS Indianapolis throughout 
World War II prior to the tragic sinking of the cruiser on July 
30, 1945 is deserving of the award of the Presidential Unit 
Citation. From her participation in the earliest offensive 
actions in the Pacific in World War II, to her pivotal role in 
delivering the weapon that brought the war to an end, the USS 
Indianapolis and her crew left an indelible imprint on our 
nation's struggle to eventual victory.
    Accordingly, this section would express the sense of 
Congress that the President should award a Presidential Unit 
Citation to the crew of the USS Indianapolis.

                       Subtitle G--Other Matters


 Section 561--Revision in Authority to Order Retired Members to Active 
                                  Duty

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 
(Public Law 104-201) severely curtailed both the numbers of 
military retirees that the Secretary of Defense might recall to 
active duty, as well as the period of time recalled retirees 
might serve. Having considered the current significant manning 
shortfalls in all the armed forces, the committee believes that 
an expansion of the Secretary's authority to employ additional 
recalled retirees is necessary. Therefore, this section would 
permit the Secretary to recall up to 150 retired officers to 
active duty, and permit a recalled officer to serve up to 36 
months. The committee believes that judicious use of this 
expanded authority could provide each of the military services 
with critical manpower resources to help address personnel 
shortfalls.

    Section 562--Temporary Authority for Recall of Retired Aviators

    The committee is concerned that recent pilot shortages have 
caused vacancies in staff positions requiring aviation 
expertise. Accordingly, this section would authorize the 
secretaries of the military departments, in coordination with 
the Secretary of Defense, to conduct a pilot program to recall 
to active duty officers with aviation expertise to serve in 
aviation staff billets. The section would authorize a maximum 
of 500 officers throughout the Department of Defense to be 
recalled to active duty during the period October 1, 1999 
through September 30, 2002. The section would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the results of the 
pilot program to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services not later than March 31, 
2002. The section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
include in the report his recommendation concerning extension 
of the authority.

 Section 563--Service Review Agencies Covered by Professional Staffing 
                              Requirement

    This section would clarify that the requirement for legal 
and medical professional staff specified in section 1555 of 
title 10, United States Code, apply to the Navy Council of 
Personnel Boards and the Board for Correction of Naval Records 
as if the staff of those organizations were combined.

  Section 564--Conforming Amendment to Authorize Reserve Officers and 
Retired Regular Officers to Hold a Civil Office while Serving on Active 
                    Duty for Not More than 270 Days

    This section would increase the number of days that reserve 
members and retired regular officers may serve on active duty 
and continue to hold a civil office from not more than 180 to 
not more than 270 days. The section would align the limit on 
the number of days that can be served on active duty while 
continuing to hold a civil office to the number of days that 
the President may call a reserve member to active duty under 
section 12304 of title 10, United States Code.

    Section 565--Revision to Requirement for Honor Guard Details at 
                          Funerals of Veterans

    Section 567 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261) required the Secretary of 
Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs, to convene a conference to determine means of 
improving and increasing the availability of military burial 
honors for veterans, and to report the findings and 
recommendations resulting from the conference to the Congress. 
The section also required the secretaries of the military 
departments to provide, upon request, honor guard details for 
the funerals of the veterans comprised of not less than three 
persons with the capability to play a recording of Taps for 
funerals after December 31, 1999.
    The conferees intended that the requirement to provide a 
three-person burial detail upon request of a veteran to be 
effective only if the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs did not recommend an acceptable alternative 
proposal in the required report. This section would implement 
the alternative plan submitted by the Secretary of Defense. The 
section would require the secretaries of the military 
departments to provide, upon request, honor guard details for 
the funerals of veterans. The section would specify that the 
honor guard details be comprised of not less than two persons 
with the capability to play a recording of Taps. At least one 
member of the honor guard detail would be a member of the same 
service as the deceased veteran. The Secretary of Defense would 
be required to establish procedures for coordinating and 
responding to requests for honor guard details, establishing 
standards and protocol, and providing training and quality 
control. The Secretary would also be authorized to provide 
financial support, material, equipment, and training to support 
nongovernmental organizations, as necessary to support honor 
guard activities.
    The section would also provide incentives to facilitate the 
participation of reservists by providing retirement credit, 
reimbursement for transportation costs, and a $50 stipend to 
reservists who volunteer to provide funeral honors.
    The Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the 
military departments would be authorized to waive the 
requirements of this section only to meet the demands of 
contingency operations or other military requirements, and only 
after the Congress has been advised that a waiver has been 
granted.
    The committee believes that the alternative outlined in 
this section would meet the high standard for providing 
appropriate honors to those Americans who unselfishly answered 
the call to arms.

    Section 566--Purpose and Funding Limitations for National Guard 
                           Challenge Program

    This section would clarify that the National Guard 
Challenge Program must consist of a 22-week residential 
program, and a 12-month post residential mentoring period. The 
section would also expand the range of supervised work 
experience that Challenge students might experience, in 
addition to the community service work experience currently 
provided. Finally, the section would increase the limit on the 
annual amount of federal funds that can be spent on the program 
from $50.0 million to $62.5 million.

     Section 567--Access to Secondary School Students for Military 
                          Recruiting Purposes

    The committee strongly believes that military recruiters 
should not be disadvantaged, compared to other prospective 
employers, with regard to access to secondary school students. 
Therefore, this section would emphasize the committee's 
position by requesting that each local educational entity with 
responsibility for secondary school education provide military 
recruiters the same access to students as is provided to other 
prospective employers.

 Section 568--Survey of Members Leaving Military Service on Attitudes 
                        Toward Military Service

    Increasingly, the services are experiencing difficulty 
retaining career officer and enlisted personnel. In testimony 
before the committee, service personnel cited pay, reduced 
benefits, increased operations and deployment tempo, and a good 
economy as reasons they are leaving the military. The committee 
is concerned about the decreasing retention rates and feels it 
is imperative to get beyond the anecdotes contained in 
testimony to better understand the reasons for such trends. 
Therefore, this section would require the Secretary of Defense 
to conduct a one-time survey of military personnel leaving the 
services between January 1, 2000 and June 30, 2000 to determine 
military members' attitudes on a variety of subjects which may 
be affecting retention. Among the topics to be surveyed are: 
service members' attitudes toward civilian and military 
leadership, the effect of a constrained fiscal environment on 
the force, and military members' views on overall job 
satisfaction. The Secretary of Defense would be required to 
provide a report of the survey results to the Congress by 
October 1, 2000.

     Section 569--Improvement in System for Assigning Personnel to 
                           Warfighting Units

    This section would require the secretaries of the military 
departments to review the military personnel assignment system 
under their jurisdiction and identify those policies which 
prevent warfighting units from being fully manned. It also 
requires the service secretaries change or modify those 
policies in order to raise the priority of warfighting units in 
the manpower manning system and report on the changes to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services by December 31, 2000.
    The committee continues to be concerned about the shortage 
of manpower in combat units throughout the force. In almost 
every hearing held, service leaders told the committee that one 
of the most serious readiness problems facing the military was 
a lack of personnel in combat units. The committee heard 
testimony about aircraft carriers deploying with over 400 
billets vacant. At the Army's National Training Center, the 
opposing force commander testified that undermanned units 
participating in training rotations were not able to handle the 
high intensity scenarios and did not receive the maximum 
benefit from the exercise.
    The committee is concerned that the service personnel 
systems do not make manning combat units a priority. The 
constant requirement to man billets in the supporting 
establishment and external agencies often means that combat 
units are not manned to the levels necessary for maximum combat 
effectiveness. The committee understands the importance of the 
services manning billets on the Joint Staff, recruit training 
battalions, drill instructor duty, White House support duty and 
other high-visibility, non-combat units. However, the committee 
also believes that the manpower systems should be modified so 
that combat units receive a higher priority in allocating 
critical manpower resources.

   Section 570--Requirement for Department of Defense Regulations to 
 Protect the Confidentiality of Communications Between Dependents and 
   Professionals Providing Therapeutic or Related Services Regarding 
                        Sexual or Domestic Abuse

    This section would require the Comptroller General to 
conduct a study of the policies regarding confidentiality 
between military dependents and their psychotherapists. The 
Secretary of Defense would be required to prescribe regulations 
to protect confidentiality 90 days after receiving the 
Comptroller General's report.

          TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee remains deeply concerned about the level of 
compensation provided to service members and their families. 
The committee believes that enhanced compensation, to include 
military retirement, is pivotal to reversing the negative 
retention trends that plagued the services as the drawdown of 
military forces came to an end. By spring of 1998, retention 
problems that had alarmed the committee since 1995 had 
developed into serious retention shortfalls that commanded the 
attention of senior military and civilian leaders in the 
Department of Defense.
    The committee notes that the budget request included a 
number of initiatives that respond to the committee's previous 
recommendations for improving compensation programs to address 
the retention challenges confronting the military. The 
committee is pleased to support the following triad of major 
compensation initiatives that have finally been included in the 
budget request after years of delay:
          (1) Full Employment Cost Index (ECI) pay raises.
          (2) Pay table reform to recognize individual effort 
        and increase retention.
          (3) Reform of the military retirement system.
    While the committee is generally impressed with the 
comprehensive compensation package included in the budget 
request, the committee is disappointed that the military pay 
raise was limited to 4.4 percent. Accordingly, the committee 
recommends that an additional $156.0 million be allocated to 
increase the pay raise to 4.8 percent.
    The committee is also concerned that future pay raises 
remain sufficient to preclude further erosion of military pay 
when compared to pay raise trends in the private sector. 
Accordingly, the committee would require that future pay raises 
be calculated using the full ECI.
    The committee recognizes that retention of a quality force 
requires a competitive retirement system. Accordingly, the 
committee would enhance military retirement and offer mid-
career service members choices to give them more control over 
their retirement plan. The committee would also require the 
Secretary of Defense to examine tax deferred savings plan 
options that could be used to expand the list of retirement 
options available to service members in the future.
    The committee recognizes that this bill does not address 
all military compensation concerns. However, the committee 
remains committed to improving the compensation programs that 
are critical to retaining a quality force. The committee hopes 
the budget request reflects a new commitment by the 
Administration to properly support service members and their 
families that will be reflected in future budget requests.

                        ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST

                       Tax Deferred Savings Plans

    The committee believes that tax deferred savings plans 
offer the military services cost effective opportunities for 
enhancing retention that should be explored. Accordingly, the 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination 
with the secretaries of the military departments, to examine 
the potential for implementing a variety of options for tax 
deferred savings plans as supplements and alternatives to 
current military retirement systems. The Secretary should 
consider options that include government matching 
contributions, time-delayed vesting schemes, and plans designed 
to increase retention within select segments of the force, to 
include those members with more that 20 years of service. For 
each of the options being evaluated, the Secretary should 
consider authorizing the participation of members of the 
reserve components. The Secretary shall submit a report with 
the findings and recommendations resulting from this study to 
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee 
on Armed Services by September 30, 2000.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

                     Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances

Section 601--Fiscal Year 2000 Increase in Military Basic Pay and Reform 
                           of Basic Pay Rates

    This section would provide a 4.8 percent military pay raise 
effective January 1, 2000. This is four-tenths of one percent 
more than the pay raise called for in the budget request. To 
provide for this enhanced pay raise, the committee recommends 
an increase of $156.0 million over the amount requested in the 
President's request.
    This section would also restructure the pay tables to 
reduce pay compression between grades, eliminate 
inconsistencies in the pay table, and increase incentives for 
promotion effective July 1, 2000. This section would also 
adjust the cap on military pay levels to level III of the 
Executive Schedule to bring the standards for maximum pay in 
line with the standards established for federal civilian 
employees.

   Section 602--Pay Increases for Fiscal Years after Fiscal Year 2000

    This section would require that the rate of military pay 
increases for fiscal years after fiscal year 2000 be calculated 
using the full Employment Cost Index. The committee believes it 
is critical that military members know that they can expect 
future military pay increases to keep pace with the rate of pay 
increases in the private sector.

Section 603--Additional Amount Available for Fiscal Year 2000 Increase 
        in Basic Allowance for Housing Inside the United States

    The committee is concerned that military families are not 
receiving sufficient reimbursement for housing and that many 
families are electing to live in less than adequate housing in 
an effort to save money. The committee has had a long standing 
interest in reducing the out-of-pocket cost of housing for 
service members to correct the problem. The committee was 
disappointed that the Secretary of Defense abandoned a multi-
year strategy to restore out-of-pocket housing costs to the 
Congressionally established standard of 15 percent after just 
one year following its introduction in the fiscal year 1996 
budget request. The committee continued the program for one 
additional year until the basic allowance for housing (BAH) 
program was reformed in the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85). Now that the new 
basic allowance for housing system is operational, the 
committee desires to resume a program to reduce out-of-pocket 
housing costs for military families.
    The committee also desires to accelerate the schedule set 
by the Secretary of Defense for achieving market based BAH 
rates as required by the BAH reform legislation cited above. 
The committee believes that adopting the higher rates 
immediately will provide much needed relief to military 
families in high cost areas.
    Accordingly, this section would increase the funding 
available for basic allowance for housing by $442.5 million. 
The committee recommends that $217.5 million be allocated for 
the purpose of reducing out-of-pocket housing costs for service 
members, and that $225.0 million be allocated to accelerate 
implementation of market-based BAH rates.

           Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays


 Section 611--Extension of Certain Bonuses and Special Pay Authorities 
                           for Reserve Forces

    This section would extend the authority for the special pay 
for health care professionals who serve in the selected reserve 
in critically short wartime specialties, the selected reserve 
reenlistment bonus, the selected reserve enlistment bonus, 
special pay for enlisted members of the selected reserve 
assigned to certain high priority units, the selected reserve 
affiliation bonus, the ready reserve enlistment and 
reenlistment bonus, and the prior service enlistment bonus 
until December 31, 2000. The provision would also extend the 
authority for repayment of educational loans for certain health 
care professionals who serve in the selected reserve until 
January 1, 2001.

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

    This section would extend the authority for the nurse 
officer candidate accession program, the accession bonus for 
registered nurses, and the incentive special pay for nurse 
anesthetists until December 31, 2000.

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

    This section would extend the authority for the aviation 
officer retention bonus, reenlistment bonus for active members, 
enlistment bonus for persons with critical skills, Army 
enlistment bonus, special pay for nuclear qualified officers 
extending the period of active service, nuclear career 
accession bonus, and the nuclear career annual incentive bonus 
to December 31, 2000.

   Section 614--Aviation Career Incentive Pay for Air Battle Managers

    This section would authorize air battle managers to be paid 
either aviation career incentive pay (ACIP) or hazardous duty 
pay under section 301(a)(11) of title 37, United States Code, 
whichever is greater.

Section 615--Expansion of Authority to Provide Special Pay to Aviation 
            Career Officers Extending Period of Active Duty

    This section would expand the authority to pay Aviation 
Continuation Pay (ACP) to aviation officers in grades below 0-7 
through their twenty-fifth year of service. The section would 
also extend the $25,000 maximum annual amount of the bonus to 
all contracts, regardless of length.

                  Section 616--Diving Duty Special Pay

    This section would increase the maximum amount of monthly 
pay for diving duty from $200 to $240 for officers, and from 
$300 to $340 for enlisted members. The section would also 
repeal the restriction limiting recipients of diving duty pay 
to one additional hazardous duty pay under section 301 of title 
37, United States Code. Service members performing diving duty 
would be authorized to receive two hazardous duty pays under 
section 301 of title 37, United State Code.

                    Section 617--Reenlistment Bonus

    This section would reduce the number of months of service 
required before reaching eligibility to receive a reenlistment 
bonus from 21 to 17. The section would also increase the 
formula for determining the amount of the bonus from 10 to 15 
times the rate of monthly basic pay and the maximum bonus 
authorized from $45,000 to $60,000.

                     Section 618--Enlistment Bonus

    This section would increase the maximum enlistment bonus 
authorized from $12,000 to $20,000 and authorize the payment of 
the bonus to be a single lump sum or periodic installments.

  Section 619--Revised Eligibility Requirements for Reserve Component 
                     Prior Service Enlistment Bonus

    This section would expand the eligibility for the payment 
of a reserve component prior service enlistment bonus to 
service members who achieve a level of qualification 
commensurate with their grade and years of service following 
training or retraining in a critically short specialty skill.

Section 620--Increase in Special Pay and Bonuses for Nuclear-Qualified 
                                Officers

    This section would increase the maximum amount of annual 
special pay for nuclear-qualified officers extending period of 
active service from $15,000 to $25,000; the maximum amount of 
the nuclear career accession bonus from $10,000 to $20,000; the 
maximum amount of the nuclear career annual incentive bonus for 
officers who received naval nuclear power plant training as 
officers from $12,000 to $22,000; and the maximum amount of the 
nuclear career annual incentive bonus for officers who received 
naval nuclear power plant training as enlisted members from 
$5,500 to $10,000.

 Section 621--Increase in Authorized Monthly Rate of Foreign Language 
                            Proficiency Pay

    This section would increase the maximum amount of monthly 
foreign language proficiency pay from $100 to $300.

   Section 622--Authorization of Retention Bonus for Special Warfare 
                Officers Extending Period of Active Duty

    This section would authorize the annual payment of a 
maximum retention bonus of $15,000 to special warfare qualified 
officers in the grades of 0-3 or 0-4 (not selected for 
promotion) for each year the officer agrees to serve on active 
duty from the sixth through the fourteenth year of service.

 Section 623--Authorization of Surface Warfare Officer Continuation Pay

    This section would authorize the payment of a maximum 
retention bonus of $50,000 in prorated annual payments to 
qualified surface warfare officers who agree to serve on active 
duty to complete tours of duty to which the officers may be 
ordered as department heads afloat. The section would require 
that officers must be selected for assignments as department 
heads on surface ships and must complete any service commitment 
incurred through the officer's original commissioning program 
before being eligible for the retention bonus.

   Section 624--Authorization of Career Enlisted Flyer Incentive Pay

    This section would authorize continuous payment of a 
maximum monthly incentive pay of $400 to enlisted members who 
serve in skills that require career-long operational flying 
duties. The section would require the service members to 
perform flying duties for 6 of the first 10, 9 of the first 15, 
and 14 of the first 20 years of aviation service up to a 
maximum of 25 years of aviation service.

     Section 625--Authorization of Judge Advocate Continuation Pay

    The committee has observed a growing problem in recruiting 
and retaining judge advocates in the armed services.
    Accordingly, this section would authorize the service 
secretaries to pay officers serving as judge advocates a career 
continuation pay of up to $60,000 over the course of a career. 
The service secretaries would establish the payment schedules 
and amounts.
    The section would also require the Secretary of Defense, in 
coordination with the secretaries concerned, to study the need 
for additional incentives to improve the recruitment and 
retention of judge advocates. At a minimum, the Secretary would 
be required to include in the study assessments of constructive 
service credit for basic pay, educational loan repayment, and 
federal student loan relief initiatives. The Secretary shall 
submit a report with the findings and recommendations resulting 
from this study to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 
the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2000.

            Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances


  Section 631--Provision of Lodging in Kind for Reservists Performing 
 Training Duty and Not Otherwise Entitled to Travel and Transportation 
                               Allowances

    This section would authorize the use of operations and 
maintenance funds to provide lodging in kind to reservists 
performing active duty or inactive duty for training when 
transient government housing is not available.

 Section 632--Payment of Temporary Lodging Expenses for Members Making 
                their First Permanent Change of Station

    This section would authorize the payment of temporary 
lodging expenses to enlisted members upon assignment to their 
first permanent duty station from the member's home of record 
or training installation.

          Section 633--Emergency Leave Travel Cost Limitations

    This section would expand the authority for members and 
dependents stationed overseas to return at government expense 
during family emergencies. In addition to providing 
transportation to the closest airport of embarkation, the 
section would authorize transportation to any airport in the 
continental United States to which travel can be arranged at 
the same or lower cost as transportation provided to the 
closest airport of embarkation.

                     Subtitle D--Retired Pay Reform


 Sections 641-644--Redux Retired Pay System Applicable Only to Members 
                Electing New 15-Year Career Status Bonus

    The committee is concerned that the retirement plan adopted 
in the Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-
348), commonly referred to as the Redux plan, is inadequate to 
attract mid-career members to remain in the armed services for 
a 20-year career. The committee believes that a successful 
strategy to reverse current unfavorable retention trends must 
include a modification of the Redux retirement plan.
    Accordingly, this subtitle would authorize members covered 
by Redux the option to elect to retire under the pre-1986 
military retirement plan with the same cost-of-living 
adjustment mechanism used under the Federal Employees 
Retirement System, or to accept a one-time $30,000 lump sum 
bonus and remain under the Redux retirement plan. Service 
members who elect to accept the lump sum bonus would be 
obligated to serve the remaining five years to become 
retirement eligible.
    The committee believes that providing members the option to 
select the cash bonus or the pre-1986 retirement plan is an 
effective way to restore the power of the retirement system as 
an important positive factor in the decision of service members 
to remain in the armed services.

      Subtitle E--Other Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits Matters


Section 651--Effective Date of Disability Retirement for Members Dying 
                     in Civilian Medical Facilities

    The committee notes that there have been cases where the 
benefits paid to survivors of members who die on active duty 
have been reduced because civilian medical facilities have 
determined a date and time of death that is different from that 
that would have been determined in a military treatment 
facility. The committee notes that military treatment 
facilities are sensitive to the increased survivor benefits 
derived when the member dies in retired status and will prolong 
life, when possible, to allow the member to be medically 
retired. This section would authorize service secretaries to 
specify a later time of death for disability retirement 
purposes for members of the armed services who die in civilian 
medical facilities. The section would require that the time of 
death determined by the service secretary be consistent with 
the time of death that would be determined if the member had 
died in a military facility. The section would require that the 
time of death determined by the service secretary not be later 
than 48 hours after the time of death determined by the 
civilian medical facility.

Section 652--Extension of Annuity Eligibility for Surviving Spouses of 
              Certain Retirement Eligible Reserve Members

    This section would authorize surviving spouses of reserve 
retirees who died prior to October 1, 1978 to receive the 
annuity authorized for surviving spouses by section 644 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public 
Law 105-85). The section would align the entitlement provided 
to reserve surviving spouses with the entitlement provided to 
similarly situated surviving spouses of active duty members.

Section 653--Presentation of United States Flag to Retiring Members of 
             the Uniformed Services Not Previously Covered

    This section would authorize the presentation of a United 
States flag upon retirement to uniformed members of the reserve 
components, the Public Health Service, and the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration. The section would align the 
entitlement concerning the uniformed service members indicated 
above with the entitlement authorized for active duty members 
by section 644 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261).

  Section 654--Accrual Funding for Retirement System for Commissioned 
        Corps of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

    This section would convert the present pay-as-you-go 
retirement system for the NOAA officer corps to an accrual 
accounting methodology. This would be achieved by integrating 
the NOAA officer corps retirement system into the military 
retirement system and requiring the Department of Commerce to 
make annual payments into the Military Retirement Fund 
representing the future cost of retirement for those officers 
currently serving in NOAA. The committee believes this 
initiative is a cost effective method to account for future 
retirement costs.

                       Subtitle F--Other Matters


 Section 671--Payments for Unused Accrued Leave as Part of Reenlistment

    This section would authorize enlisted members to receive 
payment for unused accrued leave when reenlisting, regardless 
of the timing of that reenlistment.

    Section 672--Clarification of Per Diem Eligibility for Military 
   Technicians Serving on Active Duty Without Pay Outside the United 
                                 States

    This section would clarify that military technicians 
serving on active duty without pay while in civilian leave 
status, as provided by section 1039 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106), 
may be paid a per diem allowance in lieu of commutation for 
subsistence and quarters.

        Section 673--Overseas Special Supplemental Food Program

    Section 1060a of title 10, United States Code, authorizes 
the Secretary of Defense to provide supplemental food benefits 
similar to those provided under the Women, Infants, and 
Children (WIC) program to members of the armed forces, their 
families, and civilian employees of the armed forces residing 
at overseas locations. The committee is disappointed that the 
Secretary has not elected to implement a supplemental food 
program at overseas locations.
    This section would mandate that the Secretary of Defense 
implement the program and allocate Department of Defense funds 
to carry out the program. The section would require the 
Secretary of Agriculture to provide technical assistance to the 
Secretary of Defense.

   Section 674--Special Compensation for Severely Disabled Uniformed 
                           Services Retirees

    This section would authorize the service secretaries to pay 
a monthly allowance to military retirees with service connected 
disabilities rated at 70 percent or greater. The section would 
authorize the payment of $300 a month to retirees with 
disabilities rated as 100 percent, $200 a month to retirees 
with disabilities rated as 90 percent, and $100 a month to 
retirees with disabilities rated as 80 percent or 70 percent.

 Section 675--Tuition Assistance for Members Deployed in a Contingency 
                               Operation

    This section would authorize members serving in a 
contingency operation and participating in an education program 
to receive full payment of tuition expenses under the tuition 
assistance program.

                     TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE MATTERS

                                OVERVIEW

    For the past two years, the committee has worked 
aggressively to put into place a wide range of legislative 
authorities and demonstration projects designed to stop the 
erosion of health care benefits available to military 
beneficiaries. Generally speaking, the committee is pleased 
with the efforts undertaken by the Department of Defense to 
take advantage of these authorities or to implement directed 
changes.
    The committee, however, is disturbed by the trend on the 
part of the Department to ignore Congressional report due 
dates. As a result, the committee is limited in its ability to 
address some of the Department's most vexing problems. The 
committee is particularly concerned that the Department failed 
to produce a required report on the redesign of the 
Department's pharmacy program by March 1, 1999. As a result, 
the Department's pharmacy program remains uncoordinated, 
potential savings are forfeited, portions of the beneficiary 
population remain underserved, and the Department's at-risk 
contractors continue to accrue unexpectedly high, and to date 
unreimbursed, pharmacy costs. The Department's failure to 
provide the required report in a timely manner notwithstanding, 
the committee believes strongly that the status quo approach to 
the TRICARE pharmacy benefit can no longer be tolerated. 
Therefore, the committee provides specific direction to the 
Department to begin improving the pharmacy system.
    The committee also recognizes the need for some measure of 
stability in the dynamic and continually evolving TRICARE 
program. In the last two years in particular, the committee has 
directed the Department to initiate several important 
demonstration projects designed to improve access, control 
costs, or otherwise improve the management of the military 
health care system. These demonstrations continue apace. Other 
demonstration projects are nearing their evaluation phase and 
the committee awaits the prompt arrival of the reports on their 
performance in meeting the intended goals.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

                 Automated Clinical Practice Guidelines

    The committee understands that the Department of Defense is 
currently developing automated clinical practice guidelines 
which proactively present information to caregivers, measure 
guideline compliance and patient outcomes, and examine cost 
benefits. This collaborative initiative has identified diabetes 
management as its first focus of activity. Additional 
guidelines will be automated for clinical conditions with the 
potential to significantly reduce the cost of military and 
civilian health care, and could substantially assist the 
Department's prevention and health promotion programs. The 
committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to provide for 
the funding of a collaborative automated clinical practice 
guideline program.

              Defense Health Program Unfunded Requirements

    The committee recommends the following increases to provide 
for unfunded requirements in the Defense Health Program: Army, 
$1.0 million for real property maintenance; Navy, $5.0 million 
for medical equipment and real property maintenance; and Air 
Force, $4.0 million for private sector care.

            Report on Portability of TRICARE Prime Benefits

    A common theme among military health services beneficiaries 
enrolled in the Prime option of the Department of Defense 
TRICARE program is the lack of portability of their TRICARE 
Prime benefits when they are temporarily out of their own 
TRICARE provider network area and must seek care from a 
different TRICARE contractor. While the committee appreciates 
the need for actuarial stability in the management of the 
TRICARE program, it is concerned that the Department has taken 
little action to remedy this problem. The committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to provide a report by March 31, 2000 to 
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee 
on Armed Services on plans to improve the portability of the 
TRICARE Prime benefit for those enrollees who are only 
temporarily out of the TRICARE network in which they are 
enrolled, but need to exercise their TRICARE Prime benefits.

                Report on Preventive Healthcare Services

    The committee is encouraged by the Department of Defense's 
emphasis on Force Health Protection as a strategy for 
maintaining the health of its uniformed service members. These 
same strategies might help prevent many of the diseases and 
injuries experienced by other military health services 
beneficiaries and especially military family members. The 
committee is disappointed that the Department cannot clearly 
articulate the scope of preventive services programs available 
to military health services beneficiaries.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a 
report by March 1, 2000, to the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services which 
describes the scope of preventive health care benefits provided 
to all eligible TRICARE beneficiaries. The report should 
include a comparison of the Department of Defense preventive 
health service benefit to the preventive health service 
programs recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the 
American Academy of Family Physicians and the Agency for Health 
Care Policy and Research. The report should also:
          (1) Explain the Department's progress on implementing 
        the ``Put Prevention into Practice'' initiative set 
        forth in March 1998 for all military treatment 
        facilities;
          (2) Describe the programs in place and those planned 
        for instructing the Department's health care providers 
        on the preventive health services benefits available to 
        TRICARE beneficiaries; and
          (3) Describe the mechanisms for recording a 
        beneficiary's receipt of age-appropriate preventive 
        benefits, including electronic medical records, and any 
        improvements planned for these records.

Study on the Effect of TRICARE Cost Sharing on the Financial Status of 
         Enlisted Service Members in Pay Grades E-1 Through E-4

    The committee is concerned that the cost sharing 
requirements of the Department of Defense TRICARE program may 
be creating or exacerbating financial burdens for some high 
risk military families. However, the anecdotal evidence the 
committee has received to date has not been supported by any 
serious analysis of this potentially significant problem. 
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
provide to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2000, the report of a 
study on the effect of TRICARE cost sharing through annual 
deductible amounts and co-payments on the financial status of 
enlisted members of the armed forces in pay grades E-1 through 
E-4. At a minimum, the study should address:
          (1) Whether it costs more to administer the system of 
        co-pays for the E-4 and below population than the 
        collected revenues from these co-pays themselves 
        generate;
          (2) The effect on demand for health care services if 
        cost shares were reduced or eliminated for enlisted 
        personnel and their families in pay grades E1 to E4;
          (3) The extent to which E-4s and below with family 
        members are at greater risk for financial problems as a 
        result of these cost sharing arrangements than other 
        similarly ranked enlisted personnel without families;
          (4) The extent to which the Department of Defense 
        uses grade-differentiated payments for other, non-
        health care services;
          (5) The number of E4's and below on food stamps and 
        whether relief from cost sharing arrangements would 
        reduce that number; and
          (6) Programs the services employ to assist 
        financially at risk families with paying the cost 
        sharing associated with use of some TRICARE services.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                    Subtitle A--Health Care Services


  Section 701--Provision of Health Care to Members on Active Duty at 
                        Certain Remote Locations

    This section would expand the provisions of the Department 
of Defense TRICARE Remote program by allowing active duty 
service members assigned to duties in areas remote from 
military treatment facilities to receive care from designated 
providers.

           Section 702--Provision of Chiropractic Health Care

    The chiropractic health care demonstration program being 
conducted by the Department of Defense at 13 locations is 
scheduled to end September 30, 1999. This section would direct 
the Department to terminate the demonstration phase of the 
program, complete data collection and analysis, submit the 
report to the Congress as required by the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85). 
This section would also accelerate the date the report is 
required from May 1, 2000 to January 31, 2000. The committee 
expects the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the Oversight 
Advisory Committee, established by the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337), 
shall be full participants in the collection and analysis of 
data and preparation of the final report. The committee expects 
the Department to make provisions for a minority report to be 
forwarded as part of its final report if the Oversight Advisory 
Committee deems it necessary. Additionally, this section would 
direct the Department to maintain, as a minimum, the current 
level and scope of chiropractic care services at the present 
locations until at least September 30, 2000.
    This section would also direct the Secretary of Defense to 
prepare and submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services 
and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2000, a 
plan to implement chiropractic health services throughout the 
military health services system beginning in fiscal year 2001 
if this course of action is recommended in the final report on 
the Chiropractic Health Care Demonstration Project. The plan 
should also address other chiropractic service options the 
Secretary may recommend. The committee expects the Oversight 
Advisory Committee would be full participants in the 
development of the implementation plan.

  Section 703--Continuation of Provision of Domiciliary and Custodial 
                 Care for Certain CHAMPUS Beneficiaries

    The Department of Defense has conducted a wide range of 
health care demonstration programs under the general authority 
provided in section 1092 of title 10, United States Code. Since 
domiciliary and custodial care services are specifically 
excluded as covered benefits by section 1076 of title 10, 
United States Code, the Department has exercised this 
demonstration authority to experiment with alternate strategies 
for providing care to beneficiaries requiring those services. 
Based on the results of several demonstration projects, the 
Department has implemented a case management program which will 
provide for the medical management of most persons who need 
custodial or domiciliary care, while not establishing a de 
facto benefit currently excluded in law. This section would 
provide for the equitable treatment and protection of 
approximately 25 beneficiaries who have been receiving 
custodial care services through demonstration programs which 
are due to expire and who will not be eligible for that care 
under the Department's case management program.

 Section 704--Removal of Restriction on Use of Funds for Abortions in 
                        Cases of Rape or Incest

    Under current law, funds available to the Department of 
Defense may not be used to perform abortions except where the 
life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were 
carried to term. This section would include among the abortions 
funded by the Department those in which the pregnancy is the 
result of an act of forcible rape or incest which has been 
reported to a law enforcement agency.

                      Subtitle B--TRICARE Program


   Section 711--Improvements to Claims Processing under the TRICARE 
                                Program

    The committee received testimony from TRICARE contractors 
and the General Accounting Office (GAO) which highlighted 
significant provider and institutional claims processing 
problems. While the Department of Defense's claims processing 
contractors are doing a respectable job with small claims like 
those for pharmacy prescriptions, the larger and more costly 
claims from providers and institutions take too long to process 
and often result in questionable payments. This section would 
seek to correct such problems, and others, by directing the 
Secretary of Defense to implement changes to the TRICARE claims 
processing system recommended by GAO. The changes directed by 
this section would also bring TRICARE claims processing more in 
line with commercial best business practices and the procedures 
used by Medicare. Additionally, when contracts are re-awarded 
to other than the existing managed care support contractor, 
this section would require additional contract start-up time to 
ensure a smoother phase in of the new contract.

      Section 712--Authority to Waive Certain TRICARE Deductibles

    TRICARE eligible individuals and families are required to 
pay certain amounts each year before TRICARE begins sharing the 
cost of medical care. This payment, called the TRICARE 
deductible, is accumulated on an annual basis without regard to 
the amount of time spent on active duty by the sponsor. This 
section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to waive the 
TRICARE deductible requirement for the families of guardsmen 
and reservists recalled to active duty for less than one year.

                       Subtitle C--Other Matters


                 Section 721--Pharmacy Benefits Program

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 
(Public Law 105-261) directed the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a plan by March 1, 1999, to the Congress that would 
provide for a system-wide redesign of the Department of Defense 
military and contractor retail and mail-order pharmacy system 
by incorporating ``best business practices'' from the private 
sector. The committee expected this report to describe how the 
Department intended to implement a uniform formulary for 
military medical treatment facilities, TRICARE contractors' 
retail pharmacies, and the national mail-order pharmacy 
program. Moreover, and despite committee cautions against it, 
the Department proposed, as part of its fiscal year 2000 
legislative proposal, extending Defense Acquisition and 
Purchasing Agreement prices to pharmaceuticals dispensed by the 
TRICARE contractors. In light of the Department's failure to 
produce the requested report on comprehensive pharmacy reform 
in a timely manner, the committee cannot agree to the 
Department's request. Unfortunately, the report did not arrive 
in time to serve any useful purpose to the committee this year. 
However, the Department has moved forward with installation of 
the Pharmacy Data Transaction Service. The committee is pleased 
with this action and looks forward to similar action on the 
other important parts of pharmacy reform including adoption of 
a uniform formulary for all elements of the military health 
system's pharmacy benefit. To that end, this section would 
improve the committee's ability to oversee the Department's 
pharmacy reform by requiring the Department to report 
periodically on its efforts to improve management of the 
military pharmacy system.
    The committee is also disappointed to note that the 
Secretary of Defense did not fully comply with Section 703 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 
(Public Law 105-261) which required a plan for redesign of the 
military pharmacy system. Within this redesign, the Secretary 
was to include a system-wide drug benefit for certain 
beneficiaries who were entitled to care under chapter 55 of 
title 10, United States Code, and under Part A and Part B of 
title XVIII of the Social Security Act, otherwise known as 
Medicare-eligible beneficiaries. However this plan was not 
transmitted to the Congress. It was the committee's intention 
that the pharmacy redesign required by Section 721 of this bill 
is a necessary precursor to any system-wide pharmacy benefit 
for the Medicare-eligible beneficiaries. Therefore, this 
section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a 
design of a comprehensive pharmacy benefit for these 
beneficiaries to the Congress by April 15, 2001.

   Section 722--Improvements to Third-Party Payer Collection Program

    This section would make two changes to the third party 
collection program under section 1095 of title 10, United 
States Code, which allows military treatment facilities to 
collect from health insurance carriers and other third party 
payers. First, this section would allow Department of Defense 
facilities to bill third party payers on reasonable charges. 
These reasonable charges would be based on current payments 
rates under the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the 
Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS), which uses diagnosis related 
group (DRG) based rates for inpatient care and CHAMPUS maximum 
allowable charge (CMAC) rates for professional services. This 
change would be consistent with similar changes implemented for 
the Veterans Health Administration in 1997. The change would 
also simplify and improve claims processing by permitting the 
Department to bill for outpatient care on the same medical 
procedure basis prevalent in the health insurance industry.
    The second change made by this section would expand the 
definition of ``third party payer'' to match the definition of 
``other insurance'' in the CHAMPUS double coverage program. 
This action would further coordinate military treatment 
facility third party collection provisions and procedures with 
those of the CHAMPUS counterpart.

  Section 723--Authority of Armed Forces Medical Examiner to Conduct 
                   Forensic Pathology Investigations

    This section would clarify authorities of the Armed Forces 
Medical Examiner (AFME) to conduct forensic pathology 
investigations, including autopsies, in cases of deaths for 
which the Department of Defense, or a supported agency, has 
investigative responsibility. Sections 4711 and 9711 of title 
10, United States Code, provide for investigations when a 
person is found dead in a place garrisoned by Army or Air Force 
personnel and under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United 
States. No similar authorities exist for the Navy or Marine 
Corps. There also is no express authority for access to 
evidence in the case of a military dependent overseas. This 
section also ensures access by the AFME to evidence that might 
not be available under current law and clarifies the 
jurisdictional hierarchy in those cases in which primary 
authority does not rest with the AFME.

                  Section 724--Trauma Training Center

    Section 742 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261) authorized the Department 
of the Army to establish a Level 1 Trauma Training Center. The 
committee is disappointed that the budget request did not 
include funds to provide the Army with this much needed trauma 
training capability. This section would once again recommend an 
increase of $4.0 million in the Defense Health Program to 
support the Army Medical Department in establishing a Trauma 
Training Center up to Level 1.

 Section 725--Study on Joint Operations for the Defense Health Program

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct a study of areas where the Defense Health Program could 
improve its joint operations. This study shall be submitted to 
the Congress by October 1, 2000.

  TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGMENT, AND RELATED 
                                MATTERS

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

  Section 801--Sale, Exchange, and Waiver Authority for Coal and Coke

    The committee is aware that section 2404 of title 10, 
United States Code, provides the Secretary of Defense authority 
to sell, exchange, or waive provisions of law in the purchase 
of petroleum and natural gas when it would be in the public 
interest to do so. The committee believes the rationale for 
such authority equally applies to coal and coke. Therefore, the 
committee recommends a provision (sec. 801) that would amend 
section 2404 of title 10, United States Code, to include coal 
and coke.

    Section 802--Extension of Authority to Issue Solicitations for 
   Purchases of Commercial Items in Excess of Simplified Acquisition 
                               Threshold

    This section would extend by three years the expiring pilot 
authority to allow the application of simplified acquisition 
procedures to commercial items below a $5 million threshold.

 Section 803-Expansion of Applicability of Requirement to Make Certain 
        Procurements From Small Arms Production Industrial Base

    This section would amend section 2473(d) of title 10, 
United States Code, by adding the M2 and M60 machine guns to 
the list of weapon systems included in the small arms 
industrial base.

   Section 804--Repeal of Termination of Provision of Credit Towards 
  Subcontracting Goals for Purchases Benefiting Severely Handicapped 
                                Persons

    This section would make permanent existing authority to 
credit purchases from qualified nonprofit agencies for the 
blind or the severely handicapped toward meeting subcontracting 
goals for defense contractors.

Section 805--Extension of Test Program for Negotiation of Comprehensive 
                  Small Business Subcontracting Plans

    This section would extend by three years the expiring pilot 
authority to allow Department of Defense prime contractors to 
negotiate small and disadvantaged business subcontract plans 
that establish goals for their participation in subcontracts 
awarded by the prime contractor on a company-wide basis.

      Section 806--Facilitation of National Missile Defense System

    This section would provide the Secretary of Defense with 
the needed flexibility to proceed with production of a National 
Missile Defense (NMD) system prior to the completion of formal 
operational, test and evaluation requirements. The provision 
would also require the Secretary to successfully complete 
operational, test and evaluation of this system as soon as 
practicable following the application of any such exemption.
    The committee believes that the rapidly evolving long-range 
missile threat demands expeditious deployment of a national 
missile defense, and that authorizing the Secretary of Defense 
to allow NMD production would provide the flexibility to 
respond to these emerging threats. The committee expects that 
any national missile defense system would undergo sufficient 
ground and flight testing prior to a deployment decision to 
provide the Department of Defense high confidence that the 
system would perform effectively, whether or not initial 
operational test and evaluation had been completed.

Section 807--Options for Accelerated Acquisition of Precision Munitions

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
report to the Congressional defense committees existing 
inventories of precision munitions against the requirements of 
each of these munitions for two Major Theater Wars (MTW). For 
those precision munitions whose inventories fall short of the 
two-MTW requirement, the section would also direct the 
Secretary to create teams of experts to recommend to him 
options for accelerating their acquisition. Finally, the 
section would further require the Secretary to report to the 
Congressional defense committees his selected options for 
acceleration and the Department's plan to implement these 
options.

    Section 808--Program to Increase Opportunity for Small Business 
               Innovation in Defense Acquisition Programs

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a program to increase the opportunities for small 
business companies with innovative technology to participate in 
acquisition programs of the Department of Defense.

        TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND REFORM

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 901--Limitation on Amount Available for Contracted Advisory and 
                          Assistance Services

    The committee is aware the Department of Defense has 
partially implemented section 911 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261) and 
made significant efforts to improve the management of both 
Advisory and Assistance Services (A&AS) and miscellaneous 
contract services object classifications. However, the 
committee notes with concern that the report required by 
section 911 has not been submitted. The committee is concerned 
that prior year erroneous reporting of A&AS as miscellaneous 
services has resulted in underreporting of A&AS and has 
frustrated Congress' ability to fulfill its oversight 
responsibilities in this area. The committee notes the dramatic 
reductions within the budget request for fiscal year 2000 in 
miscellaneous contract services at the same time A&AS has 
increased $1.4 billion over last year's request.
    While the committee continues to believe the Department's 
acquisition structure is too large and costly, the committee 
maintains its support for a technically proficient workforce. 
Specifically, section 912 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) directed the 
Secretary of Defense to evaluate the opportunities to improve 
the capability of the acquisition system in fulfilling the 
needs of the military services and agencies.
    The committee contends many of the functions currently 
performed by A&AS contracts can and should be performed within 
the Department's acquisition structure. The committee further 
believes such an approach would yield similar results with less 
cost overall to the government. Therefore, the committee 
recommends a provision (sec. 901) that would reduce A&AS 
funding by $100.0 million in fiscal year 2000 and withhold an 
additional 10 percent of A&AS funding until the Department 
complies with the previously mentioned reporting requirement.

 Section 902-Responsibility for Logistics and Sustainment Functions of 
                       the Department of Defense

    The committee is aware that the costs associated with 
equipment logistics and sustainment support represents one of 
the largest and fastest growing categories of expenditures 
within the Department of Defense. During fiscal year 1999, 
these types of logistics costs are estimated to exceed $80 
billion. The committee believes that several factors, including 
an aging inventory of weapons systems, increased operational 
tempo, and underfunded modernization accounts will continue to 
demand increased attention to the issues of logistics, 
maintenance, materiel readiness, and sustainment support across 
the Department.
    To provide appropriate emphasis to this important 
functional area, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 
902) that would establish and clarify responsibility for 
logistics and sustainment functions within the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense. First, the provision would rename the 
current position of Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition 
and Technology to Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology and Logistics, reflecting the increased importance 
of the logistics function. The provision would also create the 
new position of Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics 
and Materiel Readiness to provide this function the 
organizational stature and visibility that it deserves. The new 
position would be subject to confirmation by the United States 
Senate, a requirement intended to enhance the quality of the 
individuals nominated for this job and increase congressional 
oversight of this critical area.
    The committee believes that, among other duties assigned by 
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 
Logistics, the Deputy Under Secretary for Logistics and 
Material Readiness must address such critical areas as 
establishing policies regarding life-cycle, sustainment support 
of weapons systems and combat support equipment, as well as 
policies regarding the logistics systems and facilities 
necessary to provide such support. The committee strongly 
believes that competition and public-private partnerships are 
important tools for reducing costs and improving efficiency. As 
such, the Deputy Under Secretary for Logistics and Material 
Readiness would be responsible for policies regarding the 
acquisition of services to support the above requirements and 
to promote a competitive environment for the provision of 
sustainment services, while preserving a cost efficient, core 
capability within the Department of Defense that ensures the 
military readiness of weapons systems, combat support equipment 
and other critical materiel. In addition, the Deputy Under 
Secretary for Logistics and Material Readiness would fill a 
vital role in the review and approval of logistics support and 
sustainment plans for current and future weapon systems and 
combat support equipment, including necessary materiel 
acquisition and modifications to ensure cost effectiveness 
while protecting military readiness.

     Section 903--Management Headquarters and Headquarters Support 
                               Activities

    The committee remains troubled by the lack of compliance of 
the Department of Defense with section 911 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-
85) that mandates annual reductions in management headquarters 
personnel. The General Accounting Office (GAO), in a February 
1999 report, stated that ``DOD does not have a plan to reduce 
management headquarters and headquarters support personnel DOD-
wide by 25 percent by the end of fiscal year 2002, as required 
by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1998.'' The committee reiterates its strong support for the 
statutorily required personnel reductions.
    The committee notes that the Department has made progress 
in complying with the submission of reports on management 
headquarters as required in section 904 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201) and 
section 911 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85). Furthermore, the 
committee is aware that the Department has recognized the 
current management headquarters personnel directive is 
inadequate and that proposed revisions to the directive in 
question have been drafted. The committee believes the existing 
directive dramatically understates the actual size of the 
Department's management headquarters. In its February 1999 
report on management headquarters, GAO stated ``In our review 
of selected subordinate organizations, nearly three of every 
four of them were primarily performing management or 
headquarters support functions and should have been reported to 
Congress by DOD.''
    Therefore, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 903) 
that would require the Department to implement a revised 
directive, to be applied uniformly throughout the Department, 
that accounts for management headquarters personnel by function 
rather than organization.

  Section 904--Further Reductions in Defense Acquisition and Support 
                               Workforce

    The committee continues to believe that the Department of 
Defense must significantly reorganize and streamline its 
acquisition structure for the purposes of reducing overhead and 
improving interoperability and jointness among the military 
services. The committee has pressed the Department for years to 
produce an implementation plan to achieve the aforementioned 
objectives but has been disappointed with the result. While the 
Defense Science Board (DSB), in response to section 912 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public 
Law 105-85), produced a report that identified a variety of 
opportunities for realignment of the defense acquisition 
system, the Department has committed only to study the DSB's 
findings rather than to implement any of its recommendations. 
The committee strongly believes the Department must make broad 
organizational changes to its acquisition structure, including 
adoption of a smaller, more flexible workforce. Therefore, the 
committee recommends a provision (sec. 904) that would reduce 
the defense acquisition workforce, as defined in section 931(d) 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 
(Public Law 105-261), by a total of 25,000 in fiscal year 2000.

     Section 905--Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs

    This section would establish a Center for the Study of 
Chinese Military Affairs at the National Defense University. In 
the committee's judgment, the establishment of such a center is 
an essential element for assessing what will be a central 
strategic relationship for the United States in the coming 
century. China's sustained economic growth, expanding security 
interests, growing military power, and historical importance 
would make it a worthy subject of constant Department of 
Defense study under any conditions. However, the increasingly 
tense relations between the People's Republic of China and the 
United States in recent years seems to underscore the 
requirement for such a center.
    Currently, the Department of Defense lacks an organization 
whose primary mission is to provide comprehensive analysis and 
promote broader understanding of Chinese military affairs and 
strategy. The primary mission of the Asia-Pacific Center, by 
contrast, is to engage with the officer corps of Asian military 
forces and to help inculcate American values such as civilian 
control of the military. In the committee's judgment, the Asia-
Pacific Center is not structured to provide the needed 
perspectives on Chinese military affairs, has a broader 
purpose, and is not well sited to provide senior policy-makers 
with timely analysis. Moreover, few in the academic or 
intelligence community combine knowledge of military affairs 
and strategy with a genuine expertise in Chinese language, 
history, and culture. The committee intends that the 
establishment of a Center for the Study of Chinese Military 
Affairs should begin to provide the Department of Defense with 
a critical capability not currently available.

 Section 906--Responsibility Within Office of the Secretary of Defense 
                  for Monitoring OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
monitor personnel tempo and operations tempo of the armed 
services. It also directs the Secretary work toward a common 
definition to measure personnel tempo and operations tempo to 
the maximum extent practicable in order to have a more accurate 
measurement system.
    The committee notes that that to date, there has been no 
single standard within the Department of Defense (DOD) used to 
measure personnel tempo (PERSTEMPO) and operations tempo 
(OPTEMPO). Currently, service cultures, mission 
characteristics, deployment timelines, and sustainment 
requirements account for most of the differences in service 
definitions and hamper efforts to establish a universal 
definition. Difficulties arise in evaluating PERSTEMPO 
measurements because each service defines levels of unit and 
individual activity differently and they each have a different 
definition of what constitutes high activity. Deployments are 
also defined differently by each service; for example training 
rotations to the National Training Center do not figure in the 
Army's measurement of deployments yet are clearly an activity 
that contributes to PERSTEMPO. According to a 1996 Government 
Accounting Office report titled Military Readiness: A Clear 
Policy is Needed to Guide Management of Frequently Deployed 
Units:

        It is difficult for DOD to determine the actual time 
        that either military personnel or their units are 
        deployed. This information is important to planning and 
        managing contingency operations. Although all services 
        now have systems to measure PERSTEMPO, each service has 
        different (1) definitions of what constitutes a 
        deployment, (2) policies or guidance for the length of 
        time units or personnel should be deployed, and (3) 
        systems for tracking deployments.

    The committee believes that a common definition is 
essential to present a more accurate evaluation and management 
of the PERSTEMPO and OPTEMPO problem.

              Section 907--Report on Military Space Issues

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit to the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate 
Armed Services Committee by March 1, 2000 a report on U.S. 
military space policy.
    The committee believes that the future security environment 
will be marked by profound technological change that will 
transform the conduct of war. This transformation will 
necessitate a fuller integration of land, air, sea, and space 
operations. The committee believes that the Department of 
Defense must be appropriately organized to exploit fully the 
opportunities offered by this transformation, and directs the 
Secretary to address in this report current and projected U.S. 
efforts to fully exploit space in preparation for possible 
conflicts in 2010 and beyond.

Section 908--Employment and Compensation of Civilian Faculty Members of 
       Department of Defense African Center for Strategic Studies

    This section would authorize the Department of Defense to 
hire civilian faculty members for the EUCOM African Center for 
Strategic Studies.

Section 909--Additional Matters for Annual Report on Joint Warfighting 
                            Experimentation

    This section would add to the matters to be discussed in 
the annual report on joint warfighting experimentation 
established section 435(b) of title 10, United States Code. The 
committee believes that it is appropriate to take 
recommendations gleaned from insights resulting from joint 
warfighting experimentation into consideration when joint 
requirements are established.

                      TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

                        Counter-Drug Activities

                                Overview

    The committee notes with concern the many challenges 
confronting the Department of Defense counter-drug program in 
fiscal year 2000. With the planned closure of Howard Air Force 
Base in Panama as a result of the 1977 Panama Canal Treaty, the 
United States will lose a premier airfield for conducting 
counter-drug aerial detection and monitoring missions. To 
ensure the Department of Defense complies with its tasking by 
the National Drug Control Strategy to provide detection and 
monitoring support to U.S. law enforcement, U.S. Southern 
Command has spearheaded an initiative to base reconnaissance 
and support aircraft at four locations throughout the source 
and transit zones, notably Ecuador, Curacao, Aruba, and 
eventually Costa Rica. The implementation of the Canal Treaty 
has additionally necessitated the realignment of the Joint 
Interagency Task Force--South, previously located in Panama, to 
Key West, Florida where it has merged with the Joint 
Interagency Task Force--East. Notwithstanding these challenges, 
the committee is hopeful that the near-term initial operating 
capability of the Relocatable Over-The-Horizon Radar based in 
Puerto Rico will greatly enhance the effectiveness of the 
interagency effort to curtail the flow of illegal narcotics 
into the United States.
    The committee remains deeply concerned that the eastern 
Pacific Ocean continues to be an under-resourced transit area 
for detection and monitoring assets despite its increased usage 
by drug traffickers. To address this problem, last year the 
committee recommended the restoration of a promising program 
known as Caper Focus intended to disrupt the eastern Pacific 
drug flow. While $10.5 million was authorized and $6.0 million 
appropriated in fiscal year 1999 for Caper Focus, 
implementation has unfortunately been slow and no maritime 
patrol aircraft have been dedicated to the program in fiscal 
year 1999 as required in section 1023(b) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-
261). The committee finds this lack of progress unacceptable 
and directs the Department to execute this program as 
expeditiously and effectively as possible.
    The Department of Defense budget request for fiscal year 
2000 contained $788.1 million for drug interdiction and 
counter-drug activities, in addition to $166.5 million for 
operational tempo which is included within the operating 
budgets of the military services. This represents a net 
increase of $60.5 million from the fiscal year 1999 budget 
request of $727.6 million, and an increase of $11.2 million for 
operational tempo from the fiscal year 1999 request of $155.3 
million. The committee understands that the increase is 
attributed to realignment activities required by implementation 
of the Panama Canal Treaty and specifically the establishment 
of forward operating locations.
    The committee recommends an authorization for fiscal year 
2000 Department of Defense counter-drug activities as follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]

FY99 Drug Interdiction & Counter-Drug Request.................   788,100
    Educate America's Youth...................................    16,800
    Increase Safety of Citizens...............................    82,900
    Reduce Health & Social Costs..............................    72,200
    Shield America's Frontiers................................   327,400
    Break Drug Sources of Supply..............................   288,800
Recommended Decreases:
    Tethered Aerostat Radar System (Project #4110).     8,800
    Air National Guard Fighter Operations (Project #7404).....     4,000
Costa Rica FOL (Project #9500)................................     6,700
Recommended Increases:
    Operation Caper Focus.....................................     6,000
    Wide Aperture Radar Facility..............................    17,500
    Southwest Border Fence....................................     6,000
    Joint Interagency Task Force-West.........................     1,000
    Other Joint Military Intelligence Programs................     8,000
    P-3 Forward Looking Infrared Radars.......................     2,700
    Observation Aircraft......................................     8,000
    Ground Based Radar in Tres Esquinas, Colombia.............    10,000
    Mothership Operations.....................................     5,000
    C-130 Sensor Packages.....................................    15,000
Program Transfers:
    Forward Operating Locations (Military Construction).......    36,100
    Recommendation............................................   811,700

                       Items of Special Interest


Air National Guard fighter operations

    The committee is concerned with the usage of Air National 
Guard F-16s in support of the counter-drug mission. While the 
committee recognizes the value of forward deployed alert 
interceptors for quick reaction and early identification of 
suspected drug trafficking aircraft, the committee does not 
believe premier tactical fighter aircraft are appropriate for 
such missions. Rather, the committee supports the transfer of 
the intercept mission to the United States Customs Service 
which operates aircraft more optimally suited to the mission. 
The committee notes the high operational tempo throughout the 
fighter community in part due to ongoing world-wide 
contingencies. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease 
of $4.0 million in this program.

Colombian detection and monitoring

    The committee recognizes the value of increased airborne 
surveillance over Colombia, the world's leading producer of 
cocaine, in the overall effort to reduce the flow of narcotics 
into the United States. Through enhanced monitoring of coca 
fields and production sites in Colombia, timely and actionable 
intelligence can be relayed to Colombian government forces for 
seizure and eradication purposes. Therefore, the committee 
recommends an increase of $8.0 million for the operation of 
leased observation aircraft to be based and operated in 
Colombia. Additionally, the committee notes the need to improve 
aerial surveillance in the vicinity of Tres Esquinas, Colombia, 
a major coca cultivation area. The committee supports the 
establishment of a ground based radar in Tres Esquinas to 
assist in Colombia's interdiction program and recommends an 
increase of $10.0 million for this purpose.

Joint interagency task force-West

    The committee is aware that the Joint Interagency Task 
Force-West (JIATF-West) retains an insufficient intelligence 
capability focused on narcotics and money laundering in 
Southwest Asia, notably Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Southeast 
Asia, specifically Burma and China. In addition, the committee 
recognizes that JIATF-West is significantly under-resourced to 
provide adequate tactical and strategic intelligence with 
regard to its increased responsibility for counter-drug and 
interdiction activities in the Eastern Pacific and Mexico. 
Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $1.0 million 
to support these intelligence shortfalls.

Other joint military intelligence programs

    The committee is aware that the effectiveness of operation 
Caper Focus has been degraded by the shortage of maritime 
patrol aircraft in the eastern Pacific transit zone. The 
committee understands that a fully operational Wide Aperture 
Radar Facility could provide the same radar capability against 
low altitude light aircraft as approximately five P-3B's with 
radar domes. The committee notes the many pressing world-wide 
demands placed upon DOD aircraft and flight crews and strongly 
believes that any defense resources used in the counter-drug 
effort should be used to their fullest potential. However, the 
committee is aware that many of the Department's detection and 
monitoring flights yield little, if any, actionable information 
on narcotics production and transportation. The committee 
contends DOD assets can and should be more optimally utilized 
in the war on drugs and believes enhanced signals intelligence 
and collections programs could improve the overall 
effectiveness of the DOD counter-drug effort. The budget 
request contained $12.9 million for four valuable signals 
intelligence, collections, and translation support programs 
designed to assist in the disruption of drug flow within source 
and transit zones. The committee believes these programs are 
funded below the levels necessary to achieve their stated 
objectives. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of 
$8.0 million for programs within the Joint Military 
Intelligence Program. A discussion of these programs is located 
in the classified annex accompanying this report.

Requirement for report on forward operating locations

    The committee remains concerned about the effectiveness of 
counter-drug detection and monitoring activities in the source 
and transit zones in light of the cessation of U.S. military 
operations in Panama. Accordingly, the committee directs the 
Department of Defense to submit to Congress, no later than July 
1, 2000, a report detailing the status of negotiations 
regarding the formal agreements on each of the proposed Forward 
Operating Locations (FOL) and the infrastructure and 
operational requirements of each FOL. The report shall also 
include an analysis of the feasibility and effectiveness of 
resuming, after fiscal year 2000, the counter-narcotics mission 
from bases in Panama, should the government of Panama consent 
to renewed U.S. military presence in its country.

Southwest border fence

    The committee remains concerned with the continued 
smuggling of narcotics across the Southwest border in the San 
Diego County, California region. Recognizing the continuing 
presence and operations of a major drug cartel located in 
proximity to the border, the committee believes that existing 
fence and road-building operations must continue. The committee 
notes the success of the previous fence projects in preventing 
much of the unimpeded, vehicular drug-smuggling that prevailed 
in the region as recently as five years ago. Therefore, the 
committee recommends $6.0 million for the continuation of the 
construction of a 14 mile, multiple-barrier fence and primary 
border fence in addition to patrol roads immediately adjacent 
to the Southwest border in the vicinity of San Diego County, 
California.

Tethered aerostat radar system

    The committee has long been aware of the operational 
difficulties involved with the aerostat program. Specifically, 
the committee understands that minimal counter-drug detection 
and monitoring capability is provided by the aerostat program 
along the Southwest border. The committee is aware that the 
budget request for the aerostat program contains an increase of 
$8.8 million over the previous year for purposes of upgrading 
existing aerostats as well as purchasing spares. The committee 
believes such decisions should be postponed pending the review 
by the Secretary of Defense of the Wide Aperture Radar Facility 
capability that would be required by April 15, 2000 pursuant to 
section 1021 of this bill. Therefore, the committee recommends 
a decrease of $8.8 million in the aerostat program.

Transfer of military construction funding for forward operating 
        locations

    The committee notes the budget request for Department of 
Defense counter-drug activities contained $36.1 million for 
military construction for forward operating locations at Manta, 
Ecuador and Curacao, Netherlands Antilles. Consistent with the 
established statutory framework for military construction, the 
committee recommends the transfer of $36.1 million from the 
Central Transfer Account to Military Construction, Defense-
Wide.

Transit zone detection and monitoring

    The committee is concerned with the continued exploitation 
of the Caribbean Sea corridor by narcotics traffickers. The 
committee is aware that 32 percent of the cocaine destined for 
the United States in 1998 was shipped through the Caribbean, of 
which 85 percent moved by maritime means. The committee 
supports a strong maritime detection and monitoring program in 
the Caribbean and recommends $15.0 million to operate and 
configure two C-130 aircraft for ocean surveillance purposes. 
Additionally, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 
million for so-called Mothership Operations and $2.7 million 
for upgrading the forward looking infrared radar capability of 
three Navy P-3 aircraft.

                             Other Matters


    Counterterrorism and Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction

    The committee continues to recognize that the threat of 
terrorist activity within the United States, including the use 
of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), is a potentially serious 
one and continues to support efforts to enhance domestic 
preparedness against this threat. Numerous federal agencies 
have a role to play in combating this threat, including the 
Department of Defense (DOD).
    The committee notes that the fiscal year 2000 budget 
request for counterterrorism activities across the federal 
government exceeds the fiscal year 1999 levels by 14 percent, 
excluding additional amounts provided in the fiscal year 1999 
Omnibus Appropriations bill. Likewise, the requested amount for 
combating WMD terrorism reflects a 13 percent increase, 
excluding supplemental funding, above the fiscal year 1999 
appropriated base levels. For the national security community, 
including the Department, the budget request reflects a 7 
percent increase for counterterrorism activities and a 40 
percent increase in WMD counterterrorism efforts over the 
fiscal year 1999 base amounts. This increase is intended 
largely for domestic preparedness capabilities such as training 
and equipment for state and local ``first responders,'' and 
research and development efforts that have potential 
applications to civilian domestic preparedness. The committee 
addresses the research and development portion of the request 
elsewhere in this report.
    The committee recalls that Presidential Decision Directive 
62 stresses the need for greater coordination of federal 
efforts to deal with the consequences of WMD terrorism. To this 
end, the Congress mandated the creation of a National 
Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and 
Counterterrorism to oversee this effort as part of the Defense 
Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996 (title XIV of 
Public Law 104-201). Unfortunately, despite the federal 
government's attempts to consolidate and better coordinate 
counterterrorism efforts among the various federal, state, and 
local agencies involved in this mission, substantial confusion 
remains over the appropriate agency roles. As a November 1998 
report by the General Accounting Office (GAO) concluded, the 
individual efforts among federal agencies to coordinate an 
effective approach to consequence management ``are not guided 
by an overarching strategy.'' The result has been an apparent 
piecemeal, uncoordinated approach to this issue.
    Congress has taken several actions to improve the 
coordination and integration of the domestic preparedness 
program. As part of ``The Domestic Emergency Preparedness Act 
of 1998'' of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261), the Congress required the 
President to increase the effectiveness of domestic emergency 
response preparedness programs at the federal, state, and local 
levels and to report to the Congress on the actions taken to 
develop an integrated program to respond to terrorist incidents 
involving weapons of mass destruction. Section 1051 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public 
Law 105-85), as amended by section 1403 of Public Law 105-261, 
required the President to provide a report on government 
expenditures to combat terrorism and terrorist incidents 
involving WMD. In addition, the committee notes that the 
statement of managers accompanying the conference report on the 
fiscal year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations bill (H. Rept. 105-405) 
required the Attorney General in consultation with the 
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of 
the Treasury, the Director of the FBI, and the Director of 
Central Intelligence to develop and submit to the Congress a 
Five-Year Interagency Counterterrorism and Technology Crime 
Plan, which would be updated annually and serve as a baseline 
strategy for coordination of national policy and operational 
capabilities to combat terrorism in the United States and 
against American interests overseas. These reports have 
provided the Congress with greater insight into the 
government's overall plan for combating terrorism and appear to 
reflect a good-faith effort to address the lack of an 
overarching strategy identified by GAO.
    In its support role to other federal agencies, the 
Department of Defense has provided expertise, equipment, and 
training to first responders in communities nationwide, and has 
assumed the role of lead federal agency with respect to this 
program since its inception as part of its responsibilities 
under Public Law 104-201. The committee notes the Department's 
intention to transfer this program to the Department of Justice 
by October 1, 2000, which will at that time assume lead federal 
agency funding and program responsibilities.
    Although the committee has encouraged the Department of 
Defense to accelerate its efforts to build a comprehensive and 
coordinated plan for integrating its program into the overall 
federal counterterrorism effort, progress has been slow. The 
Department is examining ways to improve its support to civil 
authorities in response to a WMD-related terrorist incident. 
One option being considered is standing up a Joint Task Force 
to plan, fund, and coordinate DOD support for consequence 
management activities. However, a number of issues related to 
implementation of such an option remain to be decided within 
the Department. Moreover, the committee notes that the 
Department's budget includes funding to support five National 
Guard Rapid Assessment and Initial Detection (RAID) teams, in 
addition to the 10 RAID teams already previously authorized. 
Consistent with section 511 of Public Law 105-261, the 
committee would expect to receive a separate legislative 
request from the Department to increase the statutory limit on 
the number of National Guard full-time personnel in support of 
the RAID teams. Finally, the committee notes that although the 
Congress mandated that the report required by section 1402 of 
Public Law 105-261 be a Presidential report, authority for its 
preparation was delegated to the Department by the National 
Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and 
Counterterrorism. This suggests additional confusion over the 
role of the National Coordinator and the overall federal 
government coordination effort.
    The committee believes that the Department should continue 
to play a critical support role in the overall counterterrorism 
effort, but remains troubled by the difficulties in 
coordination and implementation noted above. The committee 
encourages the Secretary of Defense to make greater efforts to 
ensure that the Department's support to this effort is 
thoroughly coordinated and effective.

Department of Defense Responsiveness to Congressional Questions for the 
                                 Record

    The committee is concerned over the Department of Defense's 
inadequate responsiveness to questions for the record submitted 
as a result of hearings. The committee finds the Department's 
current level of compliance with the request to provide timely 
and complete answers to be unacceptable and a serious 
impediment to the committee's commitment to produce timely, 
complete, and accurate records of these proceedings for public 
and official use. The committee also notes that attempts to 
address this matter with the Department have not led to any 
perceptible improvement. In fact, this problem has persisted 
for several years without regard to the committee's continued 
interest in resolving it.
    The committee reminds the Department that a continued lack 
of confidence in the ability of the committee to secure 
requested information that may be not immediately available to 
a Department witnesses could lead to a need to resort to a more 
formal process for securing information from the Department. 
The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to closely examine 
how the Department currently tracks and manages the committee's 
questions for the record with the intent of making the 
necessary changes to ensure more timely and complete 
compliance. The committee stands ready to work with the 
Secretary to arrive at a mutually acceptable process that 
ensures that the information requested is provided in a manner 
that addresses the committee's needs without unduly increasing 
the Department's administrative burden.

                      Illegal Immigration to Guam

    The committee is aware that Guam faces an increasing influx 
of illegal immigrants from the People's Republic of China. 
While 600 illegal aliens were apprehended in Guam last year, 
this year, in the past four months alone, over 700 have been 
apprehended and detained. Through May 1999, sixteen ships have 
made their way to Guam carrying an average of 50 to 100 illegal 
immigrant passengers each. The United States Coast Guard, with 
the assistance of the United States Navy, has interdicted less 
than half of these ships. The Coast Guard has led this effort 
despite having a single C-130 aircraft and two boats. The 
committee notes that the Navy has managed to provide assistance 
to this mission despite the diversion of military assets to the 
Balkans. The committee commends both of these services for 
their response to this difficult problem and supports and 
encourages continued cooperation in this effort.

           Pentagon Reservation Renovation Security Upgrades

    The Department of Defense has brought to the attention of 
the committee the need for improved physical security at the 
Pentagon Reservation. Given recent world events as well as the 
physical dimensions, geographic location and size of the 
workforce of the Pentagon, increasing the level of security 
poses significant challenges. The committee believes that in 
addition to ongoing initiatives being undertaken to increase 
security in and around the Pentagon, two additional initiatives 
identified by the Department should be incorporated into 
ongoing renovation efforts. Accordingly, the committee supports 
the construction of more secure secretarial office and support 
facilities and security related changes to the Pentagon 
Reservation subway entrance. The committee recommends that 
these new security upgrades be incorporated in the Pentagon 
Renovation and Maintenance Program and understands that the 
Department plans to pay for these two initiatives from within 
existing Pentagon renovation funds. The committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense 
committees revised cost adjustments for the planning, design, 
construction and installation of equipment for the Pentagon by 
January 1, 2000.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                     Subtitle A--Financial Matters


                    Section 1001--Transfer Authority

    This section would permit the transfer of amounts of 
authorizations made available in Division A of the bill for any 
fiscal year to any other authorization made available in 
Division A upon determination by the Secretary of Defense that 
such a transfer would be in the national interest. The 
provision would provide the authorization for reprogramming 
involving the transfer of authorization between amounts 
authorized as set out in bill language.
    The authority to transfer could only be used to provide 
authorization for higher priority items than the items from 
which authorization was transferred and could not be used to 
provide authorization for an item that was denied authorization 
by the Congress. The Secretary of Defense would be required to 
notify the Congress promptly of transfers. The total amount of 
transfers would be limited to $2.0 billion. Historically, the 
transfer authority authorized has changed as follows:

                [By fiscal years; in billions of dollars]

1985-88........................................................... $2.00
1989-91...........................................................  3.00
1992..............................................................  2.25
1993..............................................................  1.50
1994-99...........................................................  2.00

            Section 1002--Incorporation of Classified Annex

    This section would incorporate the classified annex 
prepared by the Committee on Armed Services into the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000.

   Section 1003--Authorization of Prior Emergency Military Personnel 
                             Appropriations

    This section would extend authorization to prior emergency 
military pay and benefits appropriations provided in section 
2012 of the fiscal year 1999 emergency supplemental 
appropriations act.

 Section 1004--Repeal of Requirement for Two-Year Budget Cycle for the 
                         Department of Defense

    This section would repeal the requirement for the 
Department of Defense to submit a detailed two-year budget in 
the first session of each Congress.

Section 1005--Consolidation of Various Department of the Navy Trust and 
                               Gift Funds

    This section would amend certain sections of title 10, 
United States Code, to allow consolidation of five Department 
of the Navy gift and trust funds into two funds, in order to 
manage the funds more efficiently and reduce administrative 
costs.

          Section 1006--Budgeting for Operations in Yugoslavia

    The committee has long been concerned with the significant 
drain that the conduct of under or unbudgeted contingency 
operations has had and continues to have on the Department of 
Defense's resources and budgets. Beginning with Somalia and 
continuing to present day operations in the Former Yugoslavia, 
the Administration continues to deploy military forces at an 
unprecedented rate, while often failing to properly budget for 
such operations in advance. This unfortunate practice has 
exacerbated already serious quality of life, readiness, and 
modernization shortfalls in the President's defense budgets and 
has also led to the diversion of a significant percentage of 
additional funds the Congress has authorized and appropriated 
for critical defense shortfalls over the past four years to pay 
for unbudgeted contingency and peacekeeping operations.
    The committee and the Congress have repeatedly attempted to 
address this problem over the past several years and have 
adopted a number of provisions designed to induce the 
Administration to more properly manage the costs and budgeting 
of unplanned or unbudgeted contingency operations. In 1995, the 
House-passed version of H.R. 1530, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, contained a number of 
provisions restricting the ability of the Department of Defense 
to use funds authorized for the Department's baseline 
operations to pay for contingency operations, requiring instead 
that the President seek supplemental appropriations to pay for 
such operations. In 1997, the Congress approved and the 
President enacted in two different bills, section 1203 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public 
Law 105-85) and section 8132 of the Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-56), 
provisions restricting the use of the Department's baseline 
operations funds to pay for the costs of the then-anticipated 
commitment of U.S ground forces for peacekeeping operations in 
Bosnia-Herzegovina. Both provisions required the President to 
submit a supplemental appropriations request to pay for any 
unbudgeted costs of Bosnia peacekeeping operations. In 1998, 
the Congress once again included and the President enacted a 
provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1999 (section 1004 of Public Law 105-261) that was 
likewise intended to protect the baseline operations budget of 
the Department from being used to pay for any unbudgeted costs 
of contingency and peacekeeping operations. This provision 
recognized that the budget request for the coming fiscal year 
(fiscal year 1999) contained funds necessary to conduct such 
operations, but restricted the Department's ability to exceed 
the requested amount and required the submission of a 
supplemental appropriations request if the costs of the 
operation were determined to exceed the authorized amount.
    At present, the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization are entering the third month of hostilities 
against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The committee notes 
that the Administration's declared policy is quite likely to 
result in continued military operations--either combat or 
peacekeeping--in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia next fiscal 
year. However, the committee further notes that the budget 
request contains no funds for either combat or peacekeeping 
operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia next fiscal 
year.
    Consistent with the committee's longstanding efforts to 
protect the Department's baseline operations budget from being 
used to pay for unbudgeted operations, the committee recommends 
a provision (sec. 1006) that would prohibit the use of the 
funds authorized for appropriation by this bill for the conduct 
of combat or peacekeeping operations in the Federal Republic of 
Yugoslavia during fiscal year 2000. In the event that military 
operations are conducted in Yugoslavia next fiscal year, the 
provision would require that the President submit to the 
Congress a supplemental appropriations request to pay for the 
costs of any such operations. The committee notes, consistent 
with current and past direction on how the Administration 
should budget and account for the costs of contingency 
operations, that the provision's limitation applies only to 
incremental costs and not to costs for which the Department 
would otherwise already be obligated or programmed to pay.
    The committee recommends this provision as a matter of 
fiscal management and is not rendering judgment on the merit of 
the Administration's current Yugoslavia policy or on the merit 
of any potential combat or peacekeeping operation in Yugoslavia 
in the future. With this provision the committee intends only 
to ensure that the funds authorized by this bill are applied 
against the Department's baseline operations as provided in the 
President's budget request and as subsequently authorized by 
the committee. The committee believes that the spending 
authorized in this bill to address serious quality of life, 
readiness, and modernization shortfalls that continue to plague 
the U.S. military must be spent for the intended purposes and 
not diverted to pay for the costs of unbudgeted operations. 
Consistent with a number of previous initiatives, the committee 
believes that the incremental costs associated with military 
operations in Yugoslavia during fiscal year 2000 should be paid 
for with funds that are in addition to those authorized by this 
bill.
    The committee notes that senior Administration officials 
have, on numerous occasions, indicated an intent to submit an 
amendment to the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request to 
pay for the costs of any future military operations in 
Yugoslavia. In the event that combat or peacekeeping operations 
are likely to occur next fiscal year, the committee urges the 
President to submit a budget amendment in time for the 
Congressional defense committees to address any policy and 
budgetary issues as part of their deliberations on the fiscal 
year 2000 defense authorization and appropriations bills.

                Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards

    Section 1011--Revision to Congressional Notice-and-Wait 
Period Required Before Transfer of a Vessel Stricken from Naval 
Vessel Register
    This section would modify the requirement that sixty days 
of continuous session of Congress transpire before transfer of 
a naval vessel to thirty days.

Section 1012--Authority to Consent to Retransfer of Former Naval Vessel

    This section would permit the President to consent to the 
retransfer of a former U.S. naval vessel from the government of 
Greece to the USS LST Memorial, Inc., a not-for-profit 
organization, for use as a memorial.

   Section 1013--Report on Naval Vessel Force Structure Requirements

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report on the naval vessel force structure required to 
carry out the National Military Strategy and the force 
structure that is provided for in the President's budget for 
fiscal year 2001.

Section 1014--Auxiliary Vessels Acquisition Program for the Department 
                               of Defense

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to 
contract for the long-term lease or charter of newly 
constructed surface vessels. Such leases or charters would 
apply to the Navy's combat logistics force and strategic 
sealift programs, as well as other auxiliary support vessels of 
the Department of Defense.

 Section 1015--Authority to Provide Advance Payments for the National 
                        Defense Features Program

    This section would amend section 2218 of title 10, United 
States Code, to permit advance payments for the modification 
and life-cycle maintenance costs of National Defense Features 
(NDF) program vessels. This change would make the financing 
practices of the NDF consistent with those of the Civil Reserve 
Air Fleet program.

        Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Counter Drug Activities


 Section 1021--Support for Detection and Monitoring Activities in the 
                         Eastern Pacific Ocean

    The committee remains deeply concerned with the lack of 
detection and monitoring assets in the eastern Pacific Ocean 
despite the large volume of cocaine that moves through the 
area. The committee notes the continuing lack of adequate 
maritime patrol aircraft to implement operation Caper Focus in 
fiscal year 1999 as required. The committee continues to 
support an aggressive program to disrupt narcotics trafficking 
in the eastern Pacific area and therefore recommends a 
provision (sec. 1021) that would provide $6.0 million to 
continue this valuable program.
    The committee understands that an additional Over-The-
Horizon Radar (OTHR) located in the United States could provide 
adequate coverage of the eastern Pacific transit area. The 
committee is aware that a test bed OTHR facility known as the 
Wide Aperture Radar Facility (WARF) exists in southern 
California that could be operationalized for use in detecting 
and tracking both air and maritime targets in the eastern 
Pacific and Mexico. The committee believes this capability will 
greatly enhance the ability of law enforcement agencies of both 
the United States and Mexico to interdict and disrupt shipments 
of narcotics destined for the United States.
    The committee is aware that the effectiveness of operation 
Caper Focus has been degraded by the shortage of maritime 
patrol aircraft in the eastern Pacific transit zone. The 
committee understands that a fully operational Wide Aperture 
Radar Facility could provide the same radar capability against 
low altitude light aircraft as approximately five P-3B's with 
radar domes. Moreover, an operational WARF is approximately 
five times more cost-effective than maritime patrol aircraft.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1021) 
that would provide $17.5 million to modify WARF from research 
to operational status and perform all-weather, 24-hour-a-day 
coverage of light aircraft movements in the eastern Pacific, 
Mexico, and along the Southwest border. In addition, the 
provision would direct WARF to conduct testing to validate its 
capability against ``go fast'' boats and other maritime craft. 
The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to 
report to Congress on the effectiveness of the WARF in these 
areas by April 15, 2000. Finally, the provision would direct 
the Department of the Air Force to make available the use of 
two currently mothballed Over-The-Horizon-Backscatter (OTH-B) 
Continental 100 KW transmitters and available spare parts for 
use at the WARF facility. The committee notes that two such 
transmitters were located at the southern California facility 
from 1986-1988 for purposes of cruise missile tests and that 
significant structural modifications were made to the facility 
at that time.

 Section 1022--Condition on Development of Forward Operating Locations 
     for United States Southern Command Counter-Drug Detection and 
                           Monitoring Flights

    The committee remains concerned by the loss of Howard Air 
Force Base in Panama as a premier staging area for the conduct 
of counter-drug detection and monitoring flights. While the 
committee generally supports the U.S. Southern Command's 
forward operating location (FOL) concept to forward base 
aircraft in the region, the committee is concerned that the 
budget request does not accurately represent the costs 
associated with the establishment of the four proposed FOLs. 
Specifically, the committee is aware that the U.S. Southern 
Command and the Department of the Air Force have undertaken a 
series of site surveys but have not reached a consensus as to 
the total costs to improve the capabilities of the airfield 
facilities in Ecuador, Curacao, or Aruba to necessary 
specifications. In addition, the committee is aware that FOL 
discussions with the government of Costa Rica were 
significantly delayed pending the signing of a bilateral 
maritime counter-drug agreement with the United States. 
Accordingly, it appears highly unlikely that the budget request 
for $6.7 million for infrastructure improvements to the 
airfield at Liberia, Costa Rica can be executed in fiscal year 
2000. Therefore, the committee recommends redirecting the 
funding in question to higher priority counter-drug programs 
and has included a provision (sec. 10X) that would prohibit the 
expenditure of funds for the purpose of improving physical 
infrastructure at any forward operating location until a formal 
agreement is signed by both the host nation and the United 
States.
    The committee strongly believes the forward operating 
location concept should remain expeditionary in nature and 
involve minimal infrastructure improvements except as necessary 
to ensure mission requirements, adequate quality of life and 
force protection for U.S. military personnel. Therefore, to the 
extent practicable, the Department of Defense should endeavor 
to maximize the local host nation facilities in the way of 
housing, food service, medical care, and aircraft service 
support. Implementation of an effective National Drug Control 
Strategy requires the full cooperation of all involved U.S. 
agencies and the committee expects that the United States 
Customs Service can and should play a larger role in the source 
zone detection and monitoring mission as it expands its fleet 
of P-3 reconnaissance aircraft.

      Section 1023--United States Military Activities in Colombia

    The committee is aware of the growing presence of U.S. 
military personnel in Colombia as part of a coordinated 
bilateral counter-drug program. The Secretary of Defense 
recently committed the Department of Defense to train and 
partially equip an unusually large Colombian army battalion of 
up to 950 soldiers with the stated intention of conducting 
counter-drug operations. The committee understands that the 
number of U.S. military personnel associated with training 
Colombian counter-drug forces is projected to increase. While 
the committee supports more direct involvement by the Colombian 
government in the war on drugs, the committee is concerned with 
the expanding role of the U.S. military in domestic Colombian 
affairs. The committee notes that Colombia has become a major 
recipient of military hardware assistance and training 
ostensibly for counter-drug purposes at the same time the 
government of Colombia is engaged in a protracted war against a 
wide-scale guerrilla insurgency. The committee is concerned 
that counter-drug training and assistance provided by the 
Department of Defense to Colombian forces may be redirected or 
used for non-counter-drug activities.
    The committee supports continued U.S. cooperation with the 
government of Colombia to stem the flow of illegal drugs into 
the United States but remains concerned over the prospect of 
U.S. military personnel being drawn into Colombia's civil war. 
Therefore, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1023) 
that would require the Department of Defense to provide an 
annual report to the Congress detailing the number of U.S. 
military personnel deployed or otherwise assigned to duty in 
Colombia at any time during the preceding year, the length and 
purpose of the deployment or assignment, and the costs and 
force protection risks associated with such deployments and 
assignments.

                       Subtitle D--Other Matters


    Section 1031--Identification in Budget Materials of Amounts for 
  Declassification Activities and Limitation on Expenditures For Such 
                               Activities

    This section would require that any future budget request 
submitted to the Congress by the Department of Defense (DOD) 
specifically identify as a budgetary line item funds being 
requested that would be used to declassify records to carry out 
Executive Order 12958, or to comply with any subsequent 
statutory declassification requirements. This section would 
also limit the expenditure of funds by the Department of 
Defense for declassification of records during fiscal year 2000 
to no more than $20 million.
    Executive Order 12958, signed by President Clinton on April 
17, 1995, requires the automatic declassification of documents 
after 25 years, subject to narrow exceptions such as the 
inclusion of nuclear weapon design information. The documents 
must be reviewed before they are declassified to determine if 
any of the exceptions apply. Presently, the Department of 
Defense holds millions of pages of classified documents that 
will need to be reviewed for declassification.
    The Department of Defense recently reported to the 
committee that DOD declassification activities related to 
Executive Order 12958 are costing the Department approximately 
$200 million per year, and will continue at this rate through 
fiscal year 2002. The Department projects that at this rate of 
expenditures, the backlog of classified documents over 25 years 
old will be eliminated some time during fiscal year 2003, and 
after that, the declassification effort will continue to cost 
$100 million per year as more documents reach the 25 year 
point.
    The committee is concerned over the significant drain on 
operation and maintenance resources resulting from the planned 
annual expenditure of $200 million due to this accelerated 
declassification process. The operation and maintenance 
accounts and key readiness accounts in particular have been 
dramatically underfunded for years, a serious problem that it 
exacerbated by unbudgeted contingency operations. The committee 
believes that record declassification is a significantly lower 
priority for already scarce O&M funds and believes these funds 
should be spent addressing shortfalls in higher priority areas 
such as maintenance, training, spare parts, and other key 
readiness activities. The committee understands that the 
services have not been explicitly budgeting for this 
declassification effort, and vital readiness requirements have 
therefore had to compete with records declassification for 
funding.
    Consequently, this section would also limit the amount of 
funds available for the Department's fiscal year 2000 records 
declassification effort to $20 million. The committee has 
redirected the resulting $180 million savings to a number of 
critical readiness related accounts identified as suffering 
from unfunded requirements by the military service chiefs.

   Section 1032--Notice to Congressional Committees of Compromise of 
  Classified Information within Defense Programs of the United States

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
notify the Armed Services Committee of the Senate and the Armed 
Services Committee of the House of Representatives whenever the 
Secretary receives information that indicates that classified 
information relating to U.S. defense operations, systems, or 
technologies has been disclosed in an unauthorized manner to a 
foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.
    This section extends to the Department of Defense the same 
congressional notification requirement that section 31xx 
mandates for the Department of Energy. Since the Armed Services 
Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives are 
the congressional committees responsible for the authorization 
and oversight of the defense programs and operations of the 
Department of Defense, its associated agencies, and the 
military services, it is necessary that these committees be 
kept informed of any compromise of classified information to 
foreign powers through espionage, or willful or accidental 
release by U.S. citizens. This information is essential so that 
these oversight committees can determine if the source of the 
unauthorized disclosure has been identified and closed, if a 
damage assessment has been conducted, and if remedial action is 
necessary and is being carried out. If such a disclosure of 
classified information caused significant damage to a U.S. 
defense program or operation, it would be vital for these 
authorizing committees be made aware of the damage, so that 
program redirection or remedial actions could be authorized in 
a timely manner.

Section 1033--Revision to Limitation on Retirement or Dismantlement of 
                   Strategic Nuclear Delivery Systems

    The committee understands that the Department of Defense 
seeks relief from existing statutory limitations on the 
retirement of strategic nuclear delivery systems in order to 
have greater flexibility in structuring U.S. nuclear forces and 
to allow for the retirement of up to four Trident ballistic 
missile submarines. Even though Russia has not yet ratified the 
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty II (START II), the Department's 
position is driven primarily by concern about the cost of 
sustaining delivery systems at current START I force levels.
    The committee believes that while cost issues are 
important, security and wider strategic and arms control issues 
ought to be paramount in determining strategic nuclear force 
levels and force structure. The committee has been, and 
remains, concerned that any significant restructuring of U.S. 
strategic nuclear forces prior to Russian ratification of the 
second Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START II) could reduce 
the effectiveness of U.S. deterrent forces while also 
undermining pending arms control agreements. The committee 
notes that reductions in strategic nuclear delivery systems 
will almost certainly also reduce flexibility with respect to 
the operation and deployment of U.S. strategic forces and 
potentially reduce the number of warheads on alert at any given 
time.
    The committee is convinced that maintaining a robust triad 
of strategic nuclear forces remains in the vital national 
security interest. Although overall Russian nuclear force 
levels have declined, Russia continues to aggressively 
modernize its strategic forces with newer, more capable 
systems. China is also modernizing its strategic forces, North 
Korea recently tested a missile with intercontinental range, 
and Iran seeks to develop long range missiles. The committee 
believes that, as the strategic threat diversifies, deterrence 
becomes more complex and deterrence requirements harder to 
assess. Accordingly, the committee notes that under such 
conditions, reducing strategic delivery systems simply to 
reduce fiscal costs is far from a cost-free option for the 
United States.
    To address these concerns, this section would amend section 
1302 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1997 (Public Law 104-201), as amended, by permanently extending 
the prohibition on the obligation of funds for the retirement 
of strategic nuclear delivery systems. The provision would 
allow the President to waive the prohibition provided he first 
certifies that any proposed reduction of strategic nuclear 
delivery systems would still allow U.S. strategic requirements 
to be met and that such reductions would not be detrimental to 
U.S. arms control objectives. The provision would require the 
President, if he exercises this waiver, to nonetheless sustain 
a force structure of strategic nuclear delivery vehicles such 
that it would be capable of employing at least 98 percent of 
the 6,000 warhead limit imposed by the Strategic Arms Reduction 
Treaty (START I). Consistent with current law, the provision 
would give the President the authority to waive the prohibition 
on retirement of U.S. strategic nuclear delivery systems or 
warheads if Russia ratifies START II.

Section 1034--Annual Report by Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff on the 
Risks in Executing the Missions Called for Under the National Military 
                                Strategy

    This section would require the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff to assess the strategic and military risks involved in 
executing the full range of missions called for under the 
National Military Strategy and to submit that assessment to the 
Secretary of Defense not later than January 1 each year. In 
addition, this section would require the Secretary of Defense 
to review the assessment, comment upon it and forward the 
assessment and comments to the Congress along with plans to 
mitigate the risks enumerated in the assessment.
    Since September, 1998, the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified 
repeatedly to the committee and the Congress that the ability 
of the armed forces to execute the missions required under the 
National Military Strategy of the United States carries with it 
``moderate to high'' risk. In testimony before the committee 
this year, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the 
military service chiefs of staff, and several regional 
commanders-in-chief have confirmed that assessment and 
elaborated on the nature of the risks involved. These senior 
leaders have stated that scarcities of ``low-density, high-
demand'' personnel and equipment are likely to mean increased 
numbers of U.S. and allied casualties in the event of war, 
delays in achieving the deployment and other timelines 
established by the theater commanders-in-chief in their war 
plans, and increased threats to U.S. national security 
interests. Marine Commandant Gen. Charles Krulak summarized the 
situation in his testimony to the committee February 24, 1999, 
saying, ``In terms of risk to [the ability to execute] the 
National Military Strategy, I think we've gone too far; I think 
we're there now. If we don't do something about this, we're 
going to be back into the hollow armed forces and this nation 
can't have that, can't take that, because the world is changing 
so rapidly, is so dangerous, the we need to stop this now.''
    The committee also has noted a disturbing trend to these 
statements. The risks assessed are no longer couched solely in 
terms of risks related to the ability to rapidly and decisively 
win two nearly simultaneous major theater wars. Although the 
capability to perform such a mission remains at the core of 
U.S. National Military Strategy, senior officers now speak of 
increased risk in conducting smaller-scale contingencies. In 
addition, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have yet to conduct a 
formal risk assessment accounting for the massive deployment of 
U.S. forces in support of Operation ``Allied Force'' in 
Yugoslavia.
    In sum, the committee has long believed that the gap 
between strategic ends and military means has grown dangerously 
large. While the committee commends the effort by the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff to come to grips with the nature and extent of 
the risk through the Joint Monthly Readiness Review, the 
committee believes that the mismatch between ends and means 
must be considered at the same time that U.S. National Military 
Strategy is articulated, and that a ``high-risk'' strategy--one 
lacking sufficient military force to execute--is not a credible 
strategy, nor one befitting the critical security interests of 
the United States.

Section 1035--Requirement To Address Unit Operations Tempo and Personal 
              Tempo in Department of Defense Annual Report

    This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to 
report on various aspects of operations tempo (OPTEMO) and 
personnel tempo (PERSTEMO) in his Annual Report to Congress. 
The committee understands that the services have different 
definitions as to what constitutes a deployment and have 
different policies or regulations limiting these deployments. 
In order to gain a better understanding of how the services 
address OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO, this section would request the 
Secretary to outline individual service polices in the report. 
In addition, the department is to report by service a 
comparison of the average number of personnel on active duty 
during the period covered by the report against the average 
number of personnel deployed as defined by that service.
    The committee is also concerned about increases in the 
number of officially designated exercises and contingencies 
that the services are required to support. In addition, the 
committee is concerned about the average number of days service 
personnel are deployed and whether the services are meeting 
their OPTEMPO/PERSTEMPO goals. The committee is also concerned 
about those units listed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff as high demand, low density units. Traditionally, these 
units have experienced higher OPTEMPO/PERSTEMPO rates than 
other units.

  Section 1036--Preservation of Certain Defense Reporting Requirements

    The committee notes that section 3003 of the Federal 
Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-66) 
provides that all statutory requirements for annual, semi-
annual, or periodic reports by federal agencies to the Congress 
that are contained in a 1993 report issued by the Clerk of the 
House shall cease to be effective as of December 21, 1999. The 
committee has been aware of this impending requirement and has 
identified those reports within its jurisdiction subject to 
termination under section 3003. Furthermore, the committee has 
conducted an extensive review of the merits of each report in 
question. As a result of this examination, the committee 
recommends a provision (sec. 1036) that would authorize the 
continuation of specific reports that are essential in the 
execution of the committee's oversight responsibilities.

            Section 1037--Technical and Clerical Amendments

    This section would make a number of technical and clerical 
amendments to existing law of a non-substantive basis.

Section 1038--Contributions for Spirit of Hope Endowment Fund of United 
                  Service Organizations, Incorporated

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
provide a grant of $25.0 million to the United Service 
Organizations, Incorporated (USO) for the purposes of helping 
to capitalize the Spirit of Hope Endowment Fund. The provision 
would require that the release of the authorized funds be 
contingent on the ability of the USO to match the authorized 
funds with funds raised from private sector sources. The 
committee recognizes the valuable and lengthy service that the 
USO has provided to members of the Armed Services and is 
concerned about the long-term financial health of the USO. This 
provision is intended to help ensure that the USO remains a 
viable service organization by assisting in its transition to a 
more established financial base.

            Section 1039--Chemical Defense Training Facility

    This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to 
transfer non-stockpile quantities of chemical agent to the 
Attorney General to support first responder training at the 
Department of Justice Center for Domestic Preparedness at Ft. 
McClellan, Alabama. It would also require the Secretary of 
Defense, in consultation with the Attorney General and the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to report 
annually to the Congress regarding the disposition of these 
agents.

           TITLE XI--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

   Section 1101--Increase of Pay Cap for Nonappropriated Fund Senior 
                          Executive Employees

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense and 
the secretaries of the military departments to fix the pay of 
Senior Executive Service (SES) nonappropriated fund employees 
at the same level as that of appropriated fund SES employees. 
Currently, nonappropriated fund SES employees are capped at 
Executive Level IV, while appropriated fund SES employees are 
capped at Executive Level III. This section would rectify this 
pay inequity.

 Section 1102--Restoration of Leave for Certain Department of Defense 
    Employees who Deploy to a Combat Zone Outside the United States

    This section would restore excess annual leave lost by 
certain Department of Defense employees deployed in support of 
the armed forces during hostilities. Section 6304 of title 5, 
United States Code, sets limits on the accumulation of annual 
leave by civilian employees, and does not except emergency 
essential civilian employees deployed in support of the armed 
forces during hostilities. This section would provide an 
exception to those limits in recognition of the increased 
support provided our deployed forces by Department of Defense 
civilian employees.

 Section 1103--Expansion of Guard-and-Reserve Purposes for which Leave 
     under Section 6323 of Title 5, United States Code, May be Used

    This section would expand the permitted uses of military 
leave by members of the reserve components who are also federal 
civilian employees. Currently, section 6323 of title 5, United 
States Code, provides that federal civilian employees may use 
military leave for periods of active duty or field or coastal 
defense training. This section would add periods of inactive 
duty for training to the categories for which military leave 
could be used. This change would recognize the increased and 
varied contributions made by today's reserve members and would 
allow them the flexibility to use this leave within the current 
15 day annual ceiling to further the military readiness of 
their reserve units.

              TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

                      Arms Control Implementation

    The fiscal year 2000 budget request contained $249.7 
million for arms control implementation programs, representing 
an increase from the fiscal year 1999 level of $227.3 million. 
The committee recommends $236.2 million, a decrease of $13.5 
million from the budget request.
    As in past years, the Department of Defense's requested 
level of funding is predicated in large measure on optimistic 
assumptions regarding the entry into force of a number of 
treaties, including START II, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty 
(CTBT), and the Open Skies Treaty. For example, the Defense 
Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) operation and maintenance budget 
request for START II implementation is $2.9 million, compared 
to only $0.2 million in fiscal year 1999. Moreover, the 
justification documents submitted with the budget request 
assume START II entry into force during the first or second 
quarter of fiscal year 1999. However, the second quarter of 
fiscal year 1999 has already passed, the Russian Duma shows no 
sign of ratifying the treaty anytime soon, and the Department 
has stated that the Protocol to the START II Treaty signed by 
Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin in September 1997 must be 
ratified by the Senate prior to the treaty's entry into force--
a development that does not appear likely in the near future. 
Consequently, the committee recommends a reduction of $2.0 
million for START II implementation activities.
    In addition, the Department's planning assumption regarding 
entry into force of the Open Skies Treaty is the second or 
third quarter of fiscal year 1999. As Russia, Ukraine, and 
Belarus have yet to ratify the treaty, this assumption also 
appears optimistic. Therefore, the committee recommends a 
reduction of $1.5 million for Open Skies Treaty implementation.
    Finally, the CTBT is unlikely to enter into force anytime 
soon. Among the 44 countries whose ratification is required for 
the treaty to take effect, 28 have not yet ratified it and 
three of those 28--North Korea, India, and Pakistan--have not 
even signed it. Consequently, the committee recommends a 
reduction of $1.0 million for CTBT-related implementation 
activities.
    The budget request also includes $9.0 million to reimburse 
the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) 
for costs associated with inspections and escort activities at 
DOD facilities under the terms of the Chemical Weapons 
Convention (CWC). The committee notes that the Department 
currently does not have the legal authority to pay the salary 
and other costs of CWC inspectors, and that this cost--as well 
as other CWC-related costs--has previously been assumed by the 
State Department. The committee also recalls that the Congress 
disapproved a similar DOD request last year. Accordingly, the 
committee does not believe that these costs are appropriately 
borne by the Department of Defense and recommends no funds for 
this activity.

           Ballistic Missile Defense Discussions With Russia

    The committee believes that discussions between the United 
States and Russia outside the framework of the 1972 U.S.-Soviet 
Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty would be useful in managing 
a transition from a strategic relationship based exclusively on 
offensive deterrence to a more stable one that includes 
ballistic missile defenses. The committee notes that such 
discussions have been held in the past but were suspended by 
the United States in January 1993. The committee also notes 
that in 1998, the United States engaged in early discussions 
with Russia concerning the possible deployment of a U.S. 
national missile defense. These discussions occurred outside 
the Standing Consultative Commission, the structure set up by 
the ABM Treaty to deal with questions of treaty compliance and 
to ``consider possible changes in the strategic situation which 
have a bearing on the provisions of the Treaty.''
    The committee notes that the ABM Treaty was signed in 1972 
when the relationship between the Soviet Union and the United 
States was adversarial. In the intervening 27 years, the 
strategic relationship that gave rise to the treaty has changed 
profoundly, rendering many of its underlying assumptions 
obsolete and opening up the possibility of a cooperative 
transition to a new strategic relationship. Moreover, while 
some maintain that the treaty still rests on a legitimate legal 
basis, the committee notes that several recent legal analyses 
conclude that the treaty legally lapsed when the Soviet Union 
ceased to exist in 1991. In light of the changed strategic 
situation and the emergence of ballistic missile threats posed 
by regional nuclear powers such as North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, 
and India, the committee believes that the United States and 
Russia can mutually benefit from missile defenses.
    The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to renew, 
broaden, and deepen discussions with the Russian Ministry of 
Defense intended to facilitate a cooperative transition to a 
strategic relationship that meets the requirements of both 
nations for active defenses against emerging missile and 
nuclear threats. The committee believes that such discussions 
would be an important confidence-building measure during the 
development and deployment of ballistic missile defense 
systems, help maintain strategic stability, and enable further 
opportunities for Russian-American cooperation.

           Department of Defense Review of Satellite Licenses

    The committee notes that the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261) established a 
process for ensuring that the licensing and export of 
satellites does not undermine United States national security. 
Section 1513 of Public Law 105-261 transferred the licensing 
jurisdiction for satellite exports from the Commerce Department 
back to the State Department and required the Secretary of 
State, in consultation with the Secretaries of Defense and 
Commerce, to submit a report to the Congress on the steps taken 
to implement the transfer in a manner that would permit the 
timely and orderly processing of license applications. That 
report was submitted on January 21, 1999.
    The report notes that the Departments of State and Defense 
``have agreed on the goal of providing a timely and transparent 
process'' for satellite export licensing, within existing 
statutory and regulatory frameworks and ``the constraints of 
each department's available resources.'' The committee believes 
that the Department of Defense should review all satellite 
license applications in an expeditious fashion in order to 
avoid unnecessary delays in the licensing process and urges the 
Department to continue exploring opportunities to ensure that 
this goal is realized as rapidly as possible.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

      Section 1201--Report on Strategic Stability Under START III

    Nuclear deterrence continues to be a cornerstone of United 
States national security. Key to the credibility of that 
deterrent is strategic stability: an assured United States 
capability to maintain robust nuclear options under a broad 
range of scenarios. Over the past decade, the nuclear posture 
of the United States has changed significantly as a consequence 
of a number of factors, including: deep reductions under the 
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) and pending 
reductions under START II; the de-alerting of United States 
strategic bombers and half of the United States force of 
intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs); the unilateral and 
virtual elimination by the United States of its arsenal of 
tactical nuclear weapons; and unilateral downsizing by the 
United States of its strategic command and control 
capabilities. Although the Russian Duma has not yet ratified 
the START II treaty, it is anticipated that Russia and the 
United States will both meet the terms of that treaty, and that 
a START III treaty will be negotiated requiring additional 
significant reductions and alterations in the nuclear posture 
of the United States.
    While the committee recognizes that the end of the Cold War 
afforded the opportunity to streamline nuclear force structure, 
it nevertheless views a robust nuclear deterrent capable of 
maintaining strategic stability as indispensable to the 
national security of the United States. The emerging threat 
environment, characterized by an unstable and unpredictable 
Russia that retains thousands of nuclear weapons, China's rapid 
modernization of its nuclear forces, and the proliferation of 
nuclear weapons and technology to rogue states and Third World 
nations, makes maintaining nuclear deterrence both imperative 
and more complicated than during the Cold War.
    The committee also views a robust nuclear deterrent capable 
of maintaining strategic stability as a critical prerequisite 
for further nuclear arms reductions under any START III regime. 
Strategic stability would not be possible if a potential 
adversary, or combination of adversaries, could gain a 
significant advantage from striking first or from exploiting 
asymmetries in the strategic balance resulting from a START III 
treaty.
    This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report, to be prepared by the Defense Science Board in 
cooperation with the Director of Central Intelligence in 
classified and unclassified forms, on the strategic stability 
of the future nuclear balance between the United States and 
Russia and other potential nuclear adversaries.

 Section 1202--One-Year Extension of Counterproliferation Authorities 
    for Support of United Nations Weapons Inspection Regime in Iraq

    This section would extend the authority through fiscal year 
2000 of the Department of Defense to provide support to the UN 
Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM), or any successor weapons 
monitoring and inspection regime in Iraq, under the Weapons of 
Mass Destruction Control Act of 1992.
    The committee notes with growing concern that Iraq 
continues to conceal and develop weapons of mass destruction 
(WMD). In response to the crisis last year over weapons 
inspections conducted by UNSCOM, precipitated by Iraq's 
continued refusal to grant UNSCOM complete and unfettered 
access to suspected WMD related facilities, the United States 
carried out a series of air strikes against Iraq (Operation 
Desert Fox) in December, 1998 with the intent of degrading 
Iraq's capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction and to 
threaten its neighbors. The committee notes that despite these 
strikes, Iraq has succeeded in stymieing all internationally-
sanctioned efforts to monitor its ongoing WMD programs. In the 
wake of Iraq's expulsion of all UNSCOM inspectors and its 
cessation of cooperation with the UN monitoring regime, no 
significant WMD monitoring and inspection program has existed 
since October 1998.
    The committee believes that preventing Iraq from possessing 
ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction must remain 
a high national priority. The committee is also troubled that 
ongoing military operations against Iraq in enforcing the 
northern and southern ``no-fly zones''--conducted under 
expanded rules of engagement--have neither diminished Iraq's 
WMD capability nor had any effect in coercing Saddam Hussein's 
regime to accept a resumption of the weapons monitoring and 
inspection regime.
    The committee supports continued DOD participation in any 
international effort to monitor and verify Iraq's ongoing WMD 
programs. Consequently, the committee agrees to a one-year 
extension of DOD's authority to provide support to UNSCOM, or 
its successor, for the purposes of monitoring, inspecting, 
verifying, and eliminating Iraq's proscribed weapons and 
delivery systems.

   Section 1203--Military-to-Military Contacts with Chinese People's 
                            Liberation Army

    This section would establish the policy for the conduct of 
military-to-military contacts between the U.S. armed forces and 
the People's Liberation Army of the People's Republic of China. 
First, the section would provide that such policy be governed 
by the principles of reciprocity and transparency. Second, the 
section would establish limits that would prevent members of 
the People's Liberation Army from inappropriate access to 
advanced technologies and capabilities of the U.S. armed 
forces. Third, the section would require the Secretary of 
Defense to certify prior to the start of any year that 
military-to-military contacts with the People's Liberation Army 
will be conducted in accordance with such principles of 
reciprocity and transparency, that such contacts are in the 
national security interest of the United States, and would 
prohibit members of the U.S. armed forces from participating in 
any military-to-military contacts until such a certification 
was given to the Congress. Finally, the section would require 
the Secretary of Defense to submit a detailed annual report to 
the Congress that provides an assessment of the military-to-
military contacts with the People's Liberation Army.
    The committee strongly believes that such policies and 
limitations are warranted by the pattern of Chinese efforts to 
improve the strength of its armed forces by acquiring advanced 
technologies and developing advanced military operational 
concepts and organizations based upon the model established by 
the U.S. armed forces over the past two decades. Through a 
coordinated pattern of activities ranging from official, high-
level visits through outright espionage, it is clear to the 
committee that the People's Liberation Army is embarked upon a 
broad modernization effort that has the potential to compromise 
the advantages enjoyed by U.S. forces, not merely in relation 
to Chinese forces but other armed forces as well. Past 
Department of Defense reports demonstrate to the committee that 
the Chinese seek to develop capabilities for force projection, 
nuclear operations, space operations and other advanced 
military operations in large part through understanding and 
emulating American practices.
    In addition, the committee has been increasingly concerned 
by the pattern of military-to-military contacts between U.S. 
forces and members of the People's Liberation Army. In the 
committee's judgment, the Administration has not taken adequate 
steps to protect U.S. operational practices and technological 
advantages. In general, the U.S. pattern of openness contrasts 
markedly with the restrictions placed upon American access to 
Chinese facilities and installations, personnel and units, and 
events such as major exercises. The committee is also disturbed 
to learn that U.S. policy for military-to-military contacts 
between U.S. armed forces and members of the People's 
Liberation Army has not been controlled by the Department of 
Defense, but rather by other elements of the Administration, 
and that military objections to such policy have been overruled 
in deference to the Administration's larger policy of strategic 
engagement with the People's Republic of China. In sum, the 
committee believes that the principles of transparency and 
reciprocity have not been observed by the Chinese and that 
programs of military exchange have been one-sided, to the 
detriment of U.S. national security interests.

  Section 1204--Report on Allied Capabilities to Contribute to Major 
                              Theater Wars

    It has long been a tenet of U.S. national military strategy 
and defense planning to acknowledge that American military 
forces are most likely to operate as members of coalition 
forces. This tenet has been reinforced by the strategic reviews 
conducted by the Department of Defense since the end of the 
Cold war, including the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review, which 
assumes in its analysis of the core mission of U.S. armed 
forces that major theater wars will be fought ``in concert with 
regional allies.''
    However, the Quadrennial Defense Review also postulates a 
``changing strategic environment'' that ``requires that we 
reassess . . . the degree to which we rely on allies . . . in 
major theater wars.'' In the committee's view, such a 
reassessment is overdue. Like U.S. armed forces, the armed 
forces of our major allies have been significantly reduced 
through the post-Cold War period. Also like U.S. armed forces, 
the pace of contingency operations for our major allies has 
been high. The French and British, for example, who provided 
supporting formations during the Persian Gulf War, including 
participating in the main ground attack of that conflict, are 
``doing more with less'' as are U.S. armed forces. After 
undergoing substantial force reductions over the past decade, 
both French and British forces are today operating in the air 
campaign against Yugoslavia, provide substantial ground forces 
in Bosnia, and would play a large role in any ground operations 
in Kosovo, either in a combat or peacekeeping role. In addition 
to ongoing operations in the Gulf and in the Balkans, both 
France and Britain have been involved in substantial 
contingency operations that are solely in their own security 
interests such as in Africa and Northern Ireland. In sum, the 
ability of France and Britain, perhaps the United States' most 
militarily capable allies, to surge large forces in the event 
of a major theater war, is increasingly open to question.
    This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to 
prepare a report, in both classified and unclassified form, 
describing the current capabilities and commitment of the 
allied forces anticipated to support U.S. operations in major 
theater wars and to determine the risk to the successful 
conduct of those wars resulting from any shortfalls in 
anticipated allied forces.

 Section 1205--Limitation on Funds for Bosnia Peacekeeping Operations 
                          for Fiscal Year 2000

    This section would limit the amount of funds available for 
peacekeeping operations in Bosnia to the amounts contained in 
the budget request, $1,824.4 million. The provision would also 
permit the President to waive this limitation by submitting to 
the Congress a certification of national security interest, a 
report, and a request for supplemental appropriations to cover 
the associated additional costs.

 TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF FORMER SOVIET 
                                 UNION

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request contained $475.5 million for cooperative 
threat reduction (CTR) activities, representing an increase of 
$35.1 million over the amounts appropriated for fiscal year 
1999. The request included $330.0 million for destruction and 
dismantlement, $119.7 million for fissile materials and nuclear 
weapons safety and storage, $20.0 million for reactor core 
conversion in Russia, $2.0 million for biological weapons 
proliferation prevention in Russia, and $3.8 million for other 
program support, including defense and military contacts.
    The committee recommends a total of $444.1 million for CTR 
activities in fiscal year 2000, a decrease of $31.4 million 
from the budget request and an increase of $3.7 million over 
the amounts appropriated for fiscal year 1999. The committee 
recommends the request of $9.3 million for warhead 
dismantlement processing in Russia; $15.2 million for weapons 
transportation security in Russia; $20 million for reactor core 
conversion in Russia; $2.0 million for biological weapons 
proliferation prevention activities in Russia; and $1.8 million 
for other program support. The committee recommends the 
following decreases to the budget request: $105.8 million for 
chemical weapons destruction; $3.6 million for a fissile 
material storage facility in Russia; and $2.0 million for 
defense and military contacts. The committee recommends the 
following increases to the budget request: $20.0 million for 
strategic offensive arms elimination activities in Russia; 
$10.0 million for strategic nuclear arms elimination in 
Ukraine; and $50.0 million for weapons storage security in 
Russia. The discussion below provides the rationale for these 
recommendations and raises other matters of interest and 
concern to the committee.
    In general, the committee notes that the Congress' 
consistent support for the CTR program since its inception has 
been predicated upon certain assumptions and assurances by the 
Department of Defense that are increasingly subject to 
challenge. These include a belief that the effort to assist in 
the elimination of former Soviet weapons would be cooperative 
in a fiscal as well as a practical sense--with the costs of the 
effort being shared by the parties concerned and not borne 
exclusively by the United States.
    Eight years after the CTR program was inaugurated, the 
committee notes that the economic decline of the states of the 
former Soviet Union--in particular, Russia--has resulted in a 
reduced financial commitment by those states to a variety of 
CTR projects. This situation has placed the Department in the 
position of having to absorb significant additional costs that 
previously were not planned to be borne by the United States. 
While the committee understands and has supported the national 
security rationale underlying the Department's CTR efforts, 
current economic conditions suggest that this assistance will 
cost the United States billions of dollars more than previously 
anticipated. Moreover, the committee is concerned that the 
United States' willingness to absorb these additional costs 
may, in turn, further dampen any incentive for the recipient 
countries to invest their own resources in weapons 
dismantlement and destruction activities.
    For these reasons, the committee recommends a provision 
(sec. 1308) that would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report by December 31, 1999 that explains the 
Department's strategy for encouraging CTR recipient states to 
contribute financially to the threat reduction effort, that 
prioritizes the Department's CTR projects on the basis of their 
national security benefit to the United States, and that 
identifies any limitations that the United States has imposed 
or will seek to impose, either unilaterally or through 
negotiations, on the U.S. level of assistance for each of these 
projects.
    In addition, the committee notes that the scope of the CTR 
program has expanded since its inception into areas beyond its 
original focus of reducing the nuclear threat to the United 
States. As a result, the committee questions whether some CTR 
activities are appropriately the responsibility of the 
Department of Defense. Therefore, the committee recommends a 
provision (sec. 1307) that would require the Secretary of 
Defense to submit a report no later than December 31, 1999 
explaining why the Department of Defense is the appropriate 
funding authority for each of the CTR projects for which 
funding is requested, identifying those activities that might 
be more appropriately funded by other agencies, and presenting 
a plan to migrate these projects to other non-DOD agencies.
    Finally, the committee notes that the seven-year 
``umbrella'' agreement that provides the authority under which 
CTR projects are implemented in Russia will expire on June 17, 
1999. Without its extension or renewal, all CTR work in Russia 
will cease after that date. According to the Department, Russia 
has been unwilling so far to renew the agreement without 
modifications that could affect taxation, audits and 
examinations, and other aspects of the CTR program. The 
committee strongly urges the Department not to agree to any 
modifications that would compromise the protections granted the 
CTR program under the original umbrella agreement.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

                  Arms Elimination Projects in Russia

    The budget request contained $157.3 million for strategic 
offensive arms elimination projects in Russia, a ten percent 
increase from the fiscal year 1999 appropriated amount of 
$142.2 million.
    The committee reiterates its support for the accelerated 
elimination of strategic offensive weapons in Russia in 
accordance with the START I Treaty, notwithstanding the 
concerns mentioned above, and recommends an additional $20.0 
million for this task. However, the committee remains concerned 
with Russia's continuing non-ratification of the 1993 START II 
Treaty and its apparent inability or unwillingness to move 
forward with START I Treaty-mandated reductions in the absence 
of additional U.S. CTR assistance. In the committee's view, 
Russia is legally obligated to reduce its strategic offensive 
forces according to the provisions of START I. This obligation 
is not conditioned upon the receipt of U.S. assistance. For 
Russia to refuse to carry out these reductions without CTR 
assistance places the United States in the position of having 
to buy Russian compliance with its arms control commitments and 
sets an objectionable precedent.
    In particular, the committee notes that the budget request 
includes more than $15.0 million to support the complete 
elimination of 26 SS-18 ICBM silo launcher sites. However, 
although Russia is legally obligated under START I to eliminate 
at least 22 SS-18 ICBM launchers each year, it has failed to do 
so on the grounds that it could not afford the cost of these 
dismantlements. The committee is concerned that the 
Department's willingness to relieve Russia of some of the 
financial burden associated with its treaty-mandated reductions 
will allow Russia to devote a greater proportion of its scarce 
resources to the development of newer and more sophisticated 
strategic offensive arms. In fact, the committee notes that 
Russia continues to invest in the production and deployment of 
the new SS-27 ``Topol-M'' ICBM.
    In this regard, the committee notes that the Russian 
government has acknowledged a linkage between the elimination 
of older systems through the CTR program and the development of 
newer missile systems. Yuri Maslyukov, First Vice Premier of 
the Russian Federation, stated in December 1998 that ``the 
funding of arms elimination under Nunn-Lugar [the CTR program] 
is now comparable with our annual expenditure on modernizing 
the strategic nuclear forces and deploying the grouping of 
Topol-M missiles. In other words, since the present missiles 
will anyhow have to be dismantled. the absence of the Nunn-
Lugar program. will compel Russia to take for these purposes 
the money currently planned for the deployment of new missile 
complexes, since there is simply nowhere to obtain any more 
money.'' The committee does not believe that the CTR program 
should relieve Russia of the necessity to choose between 
funding its legally-binding disarmament obligations and its 
strategic modernization program.
    Because of the concerns noted above, the committee directs 
the Secretary of Defense to submit a report by December 31, 
1999 that identifies:
        (1) the number of SS-18 missile and launcher 
            eliminations that have occurred since the START 
            I Treaty entered into force in 1991;
        (2) the Department's assumptions regarding Russia's 
            willingness and ability to eliminate at least 
            22 SS-18 ICBM launchers per year with the CTR 
            assistance currently being provided and 
            proposed for this task and in the absence of 
            such assistance;
        (3) whether additional CTR assistance for SS-18 
            eliminations establishes a precedent whereby 
            the United States will pay for Russian arms 
            control compliance; and
        (4) what Russia has spent and is expected to spend 
            on the strategic offensive arms elimination 
            effort, including the value of any ``in-kind'' 
            Russian contribution to the elimination 
            process.
    In addition, the report should discuss under what 
circumstances the Department might consider using CTR funds to 
eliminate Russia's stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons.

                  Arms Elimination Projects in Ukraine

    The budget request contained $33.0 million for strategic 
nuclear arms elimination projects in Ukraine, a reduction of 
$14.5 million from the fiscal year 1999 appropriated level. 
This decline reflects the achievement of certain project 
objectives. The budget request would support the elimination in 
Ukraine of ICBMs, ICBM silos, and heavy bombers. The committee 
supports this effort and recommends an additional $10 million 
for strategic nuclear arms elimination in Ukraine.

         Biological Weapons Proliferation Prevention in Russia

    The budget request contained $2.0 million for collaborative 
research projects with scientists at Russian institutes where 
biological weapons work has been carried out. The request is 
identical to the fiscal year 1999 appropriated level. The 
Department has justified this project as an effort to employ in 
civilian-oriented research Russian scientists formerly involved 
in biological weapons work and to keep them from selling their 
expertise to potentially hostile countries such as Iran.
    The committee notes that this effort is part of the multi-
agency ``Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative'' initially 
announced by President Clinton in his January 1999 State of the 
Union address. Although the Department proposes to fund its 
share of this effort at $2.0 million in fiscal year 2000, 
Administration projections forecast an increase in the DOD CTR 
budget for these activities to $34.8 million in fiscal year 
2004. In addition, significant funding for similar initiatives 
is being proposed within the State Department budget.
    The committee approves the requested amount for this 
purpose. The committee recognizes the threat posed by the 
proliferation of biological weapons and supports efforts to 
counter that threat. However, those efforts are complicated by 
the magnitude and expansiveness of the former Soviet Union's 
biological weapons activities, the continuing lack of 
transparency with respect to Russia's military biological 
weapons research and development programs, and the ambiguous 
line that separates civilian research from military research. 
The committee does not believe that increased funding and 
collaborative efforts with Russian scientists should be a 
prerequisite for greater Russian transparency. In addition, the 
committee is troubled by the prospect that such collaborative 
programs could result in the perpetuation of a knowledge base 
and a set of skills among Russian scientists that could be 
useful for biological weapons production and that might 
actually make them more attractive candidates for recruitment 
by states seeking a biological weapons capability in the 
future.
    With these concerns in mind, the committee notes that 
section 1305 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261) requires the Secretary of 
Defense to submit, prior to the obligation of any fiscal year 
1999 CTR funds for biological weapons proliferation prevention 
projects, a report on the use of CTR funds at biological 
institutes in Russia and on the development of any new strains 
of anthrax. Moreover, section 1308 of Public Law 105-261 
required the Secretary to submit by March 1, 1999 a report on 
biological weapons programs in Russia. The committee has not 
received either of these reports and therefore recommends a 
provision (sec. 1306) that would prohibit the obligation or 
expenditure of any fiscal year 2000 CTR funds for biological 
weapons proliferation prevention activities in Russia until the 
requirements of Public Law 105-261 have been met.

                 Chemical Weapons Destruction in Russia

    The budget request contained $130.4 million for chemical 
weapons destruction activities in Russia, a 47 percent increase 
over the fiscal year 1999 appropriated level of $88.4 million. 
The request would be used to support continued optimization of 
the chemical agent elimination process, procurement of 
equipment, and design and construction activities for a 
chemical weapons destruction facility to be built near 
Shchuch'ye, Russia. This project has fallen more than two years 
behind schedule.
    CTR officials have justified funding for the Shchuch'ye 
project on three grounds: that it would assist Russia in 
meeting the chemical weapons elimination deadlines established 
by the CWC; that it would encourage other countries to 
contribute to Russia's chemical weapons destruction effort; and 
that it would advance U.S. nonproliferation objectives. The 
committee believes that these arguments do not stand up well 
under scrutiny.
    The committee recommends $24.6 million for chemical 
weapons-related activities in Russia--a decrease of $105.8 
million from the request--and directs that these funds be used 
to initiate security enhancement projects at Russian chemical 
weapons storage sites. In addition, the committee recommends a 
provision (sec. 1305) that would prohibit the obligation or 
expenditure of any fiscal year 2000 CTR funds for activities 
related to the planning, design, or construction of the 
Shchuch'ye chemical weapons destruction facility. Further, the 
committee directs the Department to use unobligated prior year 
balances to provide for an orderly close-out of existing 
planning and design activity and not to use these funds for 
construction activity at Shchuch'ye.
    There are a number of long-standing concerns that lead the 
committee to this recommendation. First, according to the 
Department, the United States is not prepared to fund 
completion of this project until Russia makes significant 
improvements to the local community infrastructure, including 
roads, worker housing, public service facilities, and other 
social development projects. These infrastructure improvements 
have been estimated by CTR officials to cost at least $200.0 
million. Russia is unlikely to be able to pay for these 
improvements and the United States has stated that it has no 
intention of absorbing these costs.
    Second, only 14 percent of Russia's declared stockpile of 
chemical weapons is located at Shchuch'ye. Moreover, these 
munitions are ground-launched, not air-launched, and, 
consequently, pose a lesser threat to the United States and the 
West due to their shorter deliverable range.
    Third, Russia's desire for CTR assistance to help eliminate 
aging chemical weapons owes more to the fact that these weapons 
pose an environmental problem for Russia than a security threat 
to the United States.
    Fourth, as a pilot project, the Shchuch'ye facility would 
have an initial destruction capacity of 500 metric tons 
annually. In an April 1999 report, the General According Office 
(GAO) concluded that ``the Shchuch'ye pilot facility's limited 
capacity and delayed start of operations will prevent Russia 
from destroying the Shchuch'ye depot's nerve agent stocks 
before Russia's Chemical Weapons Convention deadline of 2007.'' 
The facility is expected to begin destroying nerve agents by 
2006 and at the initial elimination rate would not finish 
destroying most of the Shchuch'ye depot's stockpile until ``10 
years after the expiration of Russia's Convention deadline and 
5 years after the expiration of an extension to that 
deadline.'' The United States has stated that it does not plan 
to pay the estimated $250.0 million costs associated with 
increasing the facility's capacity to 1,200 metric tons 
annually, and the Russians are unlikely to do so. This raises 
doubt as to whether the facility will ever reach its full 
elimination potential.
    Fifth, Russia has chemical weapons stored at at least six 
other sites and would need to build at least six additional 
destruction facilities to destroy the 40,000 tons of chemical 
weapons in its declared stockpile. Although the total cost of 
eliminating Russia's declared arsenal of 40,000 tons of 
chemical weapons has been estimated at between $5.0 and $7.5 
billion, Russia reduced its fiscal year 1998 budget for 
chemical weapons elimination from $83 million to approximately 
$13 million. In fiscal year 1999, Russia has budgeted $63.0 
million for all chemical weapons elimination activities and is 
expected to actually spend only a fraction of that amount. The 
total non-U.S. international contribution to Russia's chemical 
weapons elimination effort amounts to only $18 million. For a 
number of reasons, the GAO concludes that ``the Shchuch'ye 
project cannot achieve its broader national security objectives 
unless Russia receives a large infusion of additional 
funding.''
    Sixth, the U.S. share of the costs to build the Shchuch'ye 
facility has been estimated by DOD at approximately $750.0 
million, yet there is no indication that Russia will be willing 
or able to absorb the annual costs of operating the facility, 
which are likely to be substantial and which the United States 
may be asked to assume.
    Finally, even the Department apparently believes this 
project to be a lower priority than other initiatives, as it 
reduced its planned budget for Shchuch'ye by approximately $85 
million in fiscal years 2000 and 2001 in order to reallocate 
the funds elsewhere. The committee believes that there are 
higher priority CTR efforts that are likely to provide a 
greater security return on investment and encourages the 
Department to focus its attention and resources on such 
efforts. These include efforts to enhance security at Russia's 
existing chemical weapons depots, which will contribute to U.S. 
non-proliferation objectives.

                   Fissile Material Storage Facility

    The budget request contained $64.5 million for equipment 
and construction of a fissile material storage facility in 
Russia to house materials from dismantled strategic nuclear 
weapons. This is an increase from the $60.9 million 
appropriated for fiscal year 1999.
    The committee recommends a decrease of $3.6 million for 
this project. Although the committee reiterates its support for 
the safe and secure storage of fissile materials removed from 
Russian nuclear weapons, the construction of the facility at 
Mayak, Russia has been marked by significant schedule delays 
and mounting costs. The completion of the facility has been 
delayed by at least three years, from 1999 to 2002.
    According to an April 1999 GAO report, ``Russian reluctance 
to share critical information with the United States may limit 
Mayak's national security benefits . . .'' In addition, GAO 
noted that it ``will cost more than previously estimated and 
take longer than previously scheduled. Unless Russia and other 
foreign nations take certain steps, [the facility] will not 
provide the United States with all the national security 
benefits that it sought.''
    The committee continues to have concerns over the total 
cost of the Mayak facility, and the appropriate U.S. share of 
these costs. In Congressional testimony in 1995 and 1996, DOD 
officials stated: ``The United States is willing to provide up 
to half the cost of the facility.'' This would have capped the 
U.S. share of Mayak costs at approximately $275.0 million. In 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 
(Public Law 105-85), the Congress reinforced this cost cap by 
requiring a cost-sharing agreement with Russia. However, last 
year Russia indicated that it does not plan to provide the 
funds for its share of the costs to complete this project. 
Consequently, the Department agreed to pay for most of Russia's 
costs for the Mayak facility. The committee notes that this 
decision was taken without Congressional consultation. In 
January 1999, the Department concluded an agreement with 
Russia's Ministry of Atomic Energy to cap U.S. funding at 
$412.6 million--a $137.6 million increase in the U.S. cost with 
the United States now estimated to be paying for roughly 90 
percent of the project's total cost.
    Moreover, while the United States has agreed to absorb this 
substantial cost increase, the facility itself will be only one 
half the size it was originally intended to be. According to 
GAO, completion of the second wing of the Mayak facility--which 
was originally included in the Department's $275.0 million cost 
cap--``would cost the United States another $230 million--
raising total U.S. Mayak design and construction costs to about 
$642 million''--roughly 125 percent more than the Department's 
1996 cap. Additional costs may raise the U.S. costs for this 
project to more than $1.2 billion.
    The committee is also concerned by the lack of a 
transparency agreement with Russia that will allow the United 
States to verify that the fissile materials stored at Mayak 
have been removed from dismantled nuclear weapons. The 
committee notes that the Congress' prior support for this 
project was predicated on the Department's position that the 
Mayak facility would house fissile materials removed from 
former Soviet nuclear weapons (so-called ``weapons-origin'' 
materials) and not simply weapons-grade fissile materials 
previously stored elsewhere. The committee notes that section 
1407 of Public Law 105-85 required the Secretary of Defense to 
notify the Congress once a transparency agreement had been 
reached with Russia. In requiring this notification, the 
Congress specifically intended to encourage the Department to 
negotiate a written agreement containing specific measures and 
procedures for verifying the weapons origin of the materials to 
be stored at Mayak. On April 8, 1999, the Secretary notified 
the committee that ``the Department of Defense and the 
[Russian] Ministry of Atomic Energy have also reached agreement 
incorporating the principle of transparency with respect to the 
storage facility.'' However, the Secretary's notification 
references a 1996 agreement on the ``requirement for 
transparency measures'' and a transparency ``Protocol'' that 
has not yet been finalized. No written agreement with the 
Russians has been concluded to date that specifies the 
transparency measures and procedures that will be used, in 
accordance with the clear intent of the section 1407 
limitation.
    The committee strongly encourages the Department to 
continue to seek an agreement that would ensure the ability of 
the United States to verify the weapons origin of any fissile 
materials stored at Mayak. However, the committee reminds the 
Department that as construction of the facility continues 
without such an agreement, U.S. negotiating leverage 
diminishes.
    As a result of these concerns, the committee recommends a 
provision (sec. 1304) that would prohibit funding for 
construction of the second wing at Mayak until the Secretary of 
Defense certifies to Congress that the additional storage 
capacity is required and submits a detailed cost estimate for 
the second wing. In addition, this provision would prohibit the 
use of fiscal year 2000 CTR funds for construction of the 
second wing and would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of 
these funds until 15 days after the Congress is notified that a 
written agreement detailing the specific transparency measures 
to be implemented has been reached.

                    Nuclear Reactor Core Conversion

    The budget request included $20.0 million for nuclear 
reactor core conversion projects in Russia, a reduction of $9.8 
million from the level appropriated in fiscal year 1999. This 
activity is intended to support of goal of eliminating Russian 
plutonium production by 2000. However, the core conversion 
project has been restructured in light of a lack of Russian 
funding and will take longer and cost more than previously 
planned. As a result, DOD funding for this activity is expected 
to increase steadily through fiscal year 2003.
    The committee recommends the requested amount for this 
project. However, the Department of Energy (DOE) initiated 
nuclear reactor core conversion efforts several years ago and 
remains the agency of primary responsibility for its execution. 
The committee believes that nuclear reactor core conversion is 
an activity that is more appropriately the responsibility of 
DOE and urges the Secretary of Defense to migrate funding and 
oversight responsibility for this effort back to DOE.

           Nuclear Warhead Dismantlement Processing in Russia

    The budget request contained $9.3 million to assist Russia 
in processing the fissile components of dismantled nuclear 
warheads in preparation for long-term storage. This is slightly 
less than last year's appropriated amount of $9.4 million. The 
committee recommends the budget request.

               Nuclear Weapons Storage Security in Russia

    The budget request included $40.0 million for nuclear 
weapons storage security in Russia, a slight decrease from the 
appropriated level of $41.7 million in fiscal year 1999.
    The committee supports the objective of ensuring the safe 
and secure storage of Russian nuclear weapons. However, the 
committee continues to have concerns regarding Russia's 
willingness to allow the United States access to certain 
nuclear weapons storage sites for the purposes of auditing U.S. 
CTR assistance. Moreover, Russia recently indicated that there 
are at least 70 additional sites requiring security 
enhancements than the United States previously believed.
    To assist Russia with security enhancements at these 
additional sites and to encourage Russian cooperation in 
agreeing to effective audit and examination procedures, the 
committee recommends $90.0 million for this activity, an 
increase of $50.0 million.

                Nuclear Weapons Transportation Security

    The budget request contained $15.2 million for nuclear 
weapons transportation security in Russia, roughly a 50 percent 
increase from the level appropriated in fiscal year 1999. The 
committee recommends the budget request.
    The committee has previously expressed concern over U.S. 
funding for these initiatives, which until last year had been 
Russia's responsibility. The committee reiterates its belief 
that the Department should seek to resolve transportation 
security issues with Russia in a manner that does not commit 
the United States to pay the future costs of rail 
transportation of nuclear weapons from operational deployment 
sites to storage facilities.

                 Other Support Programs and Assessments

    The budget request included $2.0 million for defense and 
military contacts with the states of the former Soviet Union 
and $1.8 million for other assessments, including management 
and administrative costs, project development, and audits and 
examinations, a reduction of $4.2 million from the appropriated 
levels in fiscal year 1999.
    The committee recommends no funds for defense and military 
contacts. The committee notes that the Department has more than 
$25.0 million available in prior-year unobligated balances for 
such initiatives. The committee recommends the request of $1.8 
million for other assessments.

                  Prohibition of Specified Activities

    The committee reiterates its belief that the focus of the 
CTR program should be on facilitating the elimination of former 
Soviet weapons of mass destruction and their delivery vehicles. 
For this reason, the committee has consistently resisted 
attempts to expand the program beyond its core objectives. 
Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1303) 
that would make permanent long-standing prohibitions on the use 
of CTR funds for peacekeeping-related activities, housing, 
environmental restoration, job retraining, and defense 
conversion, and would prohibit the use of CTR funds for the 
elimination of conventional weapons or their delivery vehicles.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

 Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs 
                               and Funds

    This section would specify the kinds of programs to be 
funded under this title and would make fiscal year 2000 CTR 
funds available for obligation for three years.

                   Section 1302--Funding Allocations

    This section would allocate fiscal year 2000 funding for 
various CTR purposes and activities.

    Section 1303--Prohibition on Use of Funds for Specified Purposes

    This section would prohibit the use of CTR funds for 
specified activities, including peacekeeping-related, housing, 
environmental restoration, job retraining, and defense 
conversion purposes. It would also prohibit the use of CTR 
funds for conventional weapons elimination purposes.

Section 1304--Limitations on Use of Funds for Fissile Material Storage 
                                Facility

    This section would prohibit the use of certain CTR funds 
for construction of an additional fissile material storage 
facility until various reports and certifications are submitted 
to Congress and would restrict fiscal year 2000 CTR funding for 
this purpose until a transparency agreement with Russia is 
signed.

     Section 1305--Limitation on Use of Funds for Chemical Weapons 
                              Destruction

    This section would prohibit the use of funds for activities 
related to a chemical weapons destruction facility in Russia.

    Section 1306--Limitation on Use of Funds for Biological Weapons 
                  Proliferation Prevention Activities

    This section would limit the use of funds for this purpose 
until the Secretary submits to the Congress reports required by 
Public Law 105-261.

Section 1307--Limitation on Use of Funds Until Submission of Report and 
                             Multiyear Plan

    This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure 
of any fiscal year 2000 CTR funds until the Secretary submits 
the update to the multiyear plan required by section 1205 of 
Public Law 103-337 and a report detailing the appropriate role 
of the Department in funding CTR programs.

               Section 1308--Requirement to Submit Report

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report on the fiscal and cost-sharing aspects of the 
CTR program.

      Section 1309--Report on Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative

    This section would require the President to submit a report 
by December 31, 1999 describing the multi-agency Expanded 
Threat Reduction Initiative and how interagency coordination 
will be achieved to eliminate program redundancies.
            DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

                                PURPOSE

    The purpose of Division B is to provide military 
construction authorizations and related authority in support of 
the military departments during fiscal year 2000. As approved 
by the committee, Division B would authorize appropriations in 
the amount of $8,590,243,000 for construction in support of the 
active forces, reserve components, defense agencies for fiscal 
year 2000.

                     MILITARY CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW

    The military construction authorization request for fiscal 
year 2000 was introduced by request as division B of H.R. 1401 
on April 14, 1999.
    The Department of Defense requested authorization of 
appropriations of $5,438,443,333 for fiscal year 2000 for 
military construction, including $705,911,000 for activities 
associated with base closure and realignment, and 
$3,115,687,000 for family housing construction and support. The 
committee reallocated $51,800,000 within the budget request of 
the Department of Defense to support military construction 
requirements related to the drug interdiction and counter-drug 
activities of the Department of Defense and planning and design 
activities for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. The 
committee recommends $4,988,012,000 for military construction, 
including $705,911,000 for activities associated with base 
closure and realignment, and $3,602,231,000 for family housing 
construction and support for fiscal year 2000.
    The committee restates its deepening concern about the 
condition of the Nation's military installations and facilities 
and continues to be troubled by the continuing and persistent 
underinvestment by the Administration in military facilities 
and infrastructure. The budget request for the authorization of 
appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for the military 
construction and military family housing programs of the 
Department of Defense, if enacted, would represent a 36 percent 
reduction from current spending levels and a 38 percent 
reduction from the budget estimates for the coming fiscal year 
presented to the Congress one year ago.
    To address the serious shortfalls in the Administration's 
budget request, the committee recommends an increase in new 
budget authority for these programs of $3,100,000,000. The 
committee notes that the increase in new budget authority would 
not address completely the funding deficit created by the 
budget request. The committee considers the full funding of 
justified military construction and military family housing 
projects, with a particular emphasis upon housing for 
unaccompanied military personnel and military families, 
facilities that enhance the quality of life for military 
personnel, and facilities to enhance the training and readiness 
of the Armed Forces, to be a critical readiness priority. 
Additionally, the committee recommends a limited number of 
additional military construction projects with a special 
emphasis on facilities that enhance the training and readiness 
of the Armed Forces. In limited instances, where large 
construction projects could be funded in phases, consistent 
with the well-established statutory and regulatory framework 
for such projects, the committee recommends such a funding 
approach.
    The committee recommends funding for the base closure and 
realignment activities of the Department of Defense at the 
amount requested for authorization of appropriations for the 
coming fiscal year. The committee notes the assurances of the 
Department of Defense that the requested amount of $705,911,000 
is adequate to address requirements in fiscal year 2000. 
Consistent with those assurances, the committee expects no 
delay in the timely environmental remediation of realigning or 
closing installations and no deferral in the reuse of affected 
military installations.
    In an effort to improve the quality of life for military 
personnel and their families, the committee reiterates its 
support for the authorities provided in subchapter IV, chapter 
169 of title 10, United States Code. The Military Housing 
Privatization Initiative remains a central component of the 
ultimate resolution of the military housing crisis. The 
committee, however, reiterates its view that this initiative 
should not be viewed by the military departments as a 
substitute for military family housing construction projects 
where those projects are necessary to alleviate immediate 
housing problems or in those locations where the privatization 
initiative is not economically or otherwise feasible.
    In that context, the committee is deeply concerned about 
the budget request of the Department of the Army for military 
family housing construction. The Army requested no funds for 
military family housing construction at military installations 
in the United States. While the committee strongly supports the 
requirement to improve living conditions for military families 
outside the United States, the committee does not believe 
divestment in military family housing construction is 
appropriate given the scope of the housing crisis and the slow 
pace of execution under the initiative. The committee urges the 
Secretary of Defense to ensure that future budget requests for 
the military family housing programs of the military 
departments adequately address current and anticipated 
requirements.

                    STRUCTURE OF THE BUDGET REQUEST

    The committee is concerned about the structure of the 
budget request for fiscal year 2000. The Administration 
proposed two significant changes in the management of the 
military construction and military family housing programs.
    First, the Administration requested $3,060,830,000 in 
authorization of advance appropriations for fiscal year 2001 to 
support military construction projects contained in the budget 
request for the coming fiscal year. The committee notes that 
every military construction and military family housing 
project, with the exception of projects affecting certain 
classified programs and the programs of the defense agencies, 
were subject to incremental funding on an outlay-rate basis. 
Second, the Administration requested the separation of funds 
for supervision, overhead, and inspection (SIOH) charges 
totaling $154,281,000 from specific military construction 
projects and to annualize those charges over a five-year 
period. The committee strongly opposes both changes to the 
management of the Department's military construction and 
military family housing programs.
    The committee notes that no precedent exists for the broad-
based, incremental funding of military construction as proposed 
by the Administration. The committee is concerned that the 
Administration's proposal would negatively affect the timely 
execution of the military construction program for the coming 
fiscal year. Execution would be dependent upon the development 
of new, possibly costly, business practices. Management 
uncertainty and the spread of project costs over multiple 
fiscal years would likely lead to increased costs and a delay 
in the delivery of needed facilities. The committee is also 
concerned that extensive incremental funding on an outlay-rate 
basis would reduce the flexibility of the military departments 
to meet unforeseen requirements or address contract 
difficulties due to a lack of funds. There is no evidence to 
suggest that either proposal would benefit the taxpayer, and 
both proposals would, over the long term, likely cost the 
taxpayer more.
    A tabular summary of the authorizations provided in 
Division B for fiscal year 2000 follows:


    A tabular summary of the military construction projects 
included with the authorization of appropriations for fiscal 
year 2000 for the BRAC IV account follows:



                            TITLE XXI--ARMY

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $656,003,000 for Army military 
construction and $1,112,083,000 for family housing for fiscal 
year 2000. The committee recommends authorization of 
$1,214,405,000 for military construction and $1,170,012,000 for 
family housing for fiscal year 2000.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

                Improvements to Military Family Housing

    The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts 
for improvements to military family housing and facilities, the 
Secretary of the Army execute the following project: $2,800,000 
for Whole Neighborhood Revitalization, Phase V (26 units) at 
Fort Campbell, Kentucky.

     Environmental Remediation at Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant, 
                         Chattanooga, Tennessee

    The committee notes the efforts of the Department of the 
Army to implement expeditiously the conveyance of the Volunteer 
Army Ammunition Plant, Chattanooga, Tennessee, authorized by 
section 2844 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1999 (division B of Public Law 105-261). The 
committee recognizes recent management practices of the Army in 
dedicating funds deposited into the special account established 
pursuant to section 485(h)(2) of title 40, United States Code, 
for the environmental remediation of real property at specific 
locations beyond the 50 percent of such deposits as required by 
law. The committee urges the Secretary of the Army to continue 
this practice where such funds are required to complete 
remediation in a timely manner. The committee directs the 
Secretary of the Army to report on the schedule for completion 
of remediation activities at the Volunteer Army Ammunition 
Plant concurrent with the submission of the budget request for 
fiscal year 2001.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

    Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects

    This section contains the list of authorized Army 
construction projects for fiscal year 2000. The authorized 
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the 
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location.

                      Section 2102--Family Housing

    This section would authorize new construction and planning 
and design of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year 
2000.

      Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

    This section would authorize improvements to existing units 
of family housing for fiscal year 2000.

          Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army

    This section would authorize specific appropriations for 
each line item contained in the Army's budget for fiscal year 
2000. This section also provides an overall limit on the amount 
the Army may spend on military construction projects.

                            TITLE XXII--NAVY

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $319,786,000 for Navy military 
construction and $959,675,000 for family housing for fiscal 
year 2000. The committee recommends authorization of 
$933,022,000 for military construction and $1,151,085,000 for 
family housing for fiscal year 2000.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

               Headquarters, Commander-in-Chief, Pacific

    The budget request contained $15,870,000 for the first 
increment of an $86,050,000 military construction project to 
develop a headquarters to support the Commander-in-Chief, 
Pacific, and associated command elements at Camp H.M. Smith, 
Hawaii. The committee recommends deferral of this project. The 
committee notes the authority recommended in section 2802 of 
this bill to further the development of Ford Island, Hawaii, 
for the support of the military activities of the Department of 
the Navy and other military activities of the Department of 
Defense. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, in 
consultation with the Secretary of Defense, to study the 
viability of the relocation of the headquarters, Commander-in-
Chief, Pacific, to Ford Island and to assess the adequacy of 
those authorities provided in section 2802 of this bill to 
support the development of appropriate headquarters facilities 
on Ford Island. The committee further directs the Secretary of 
the Navy to complete the study and assessment as part of the 
master plan for the development of Ford Island, Hawaii, 
required by that section.

 Acquisition of Prepositioned Equipment Maintenance Facilities, Blount 
                     Island, Jacksonville, Florida

    The committee notes the recent approval by the Secretary of 
Defense of a waiver of the current moratorium on land 
acquisition for the purchase of the afloat prepositioning 
maintenance facilities at Blount Island, Jacksonville, Florida, 
currently operated under lease by the Marine Corps. The 
committee notes that these facilities are critical to the 
prepositioning support of the Marine Corps. The committee has 
noted previously that ownership of these facilities could save 
the Department of the Navy between six and seven million 
dollars annually. The committee acknowledges again the analysis 
of studies previously required by law which concluded that the 
Army and the Marine Corps should maintain and operate separate, 
but complementary, prepositioning facilities in Charleston, 
South Carolina, and Blount Island, Jacksonville, Florida, 
respectively. In an effort to ensure the continued readiness of 
the Marine Corps, the need for strategic placement of 
prepositioning facilities, and the desire to obtain the most 
cost-effective solution to prepositioning operations, the 
committee strongly urges the Secretary of the Navy to proceed 
with those actions necessary to bring this acquisition to 
completion at the earliest possible time.

                Improvements to Military Family Housing

    The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts 
for improvements to military family housing and facilities, the 
Secretary of the Navy execute the following project: $9,100,000 
for Whole House Revitalization (91 units) at Marine Corps Base, 
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.

                     Unspecified Minor Construction

    The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts 
for unspecified minor construction, the Secretary of the Navy 
execute the following project: $950,000 for an aircraft parts 
staging facility at Naval Aviation Depot, Jacksonville, 
Florida.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

    Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects

    This section contains the list of authorized Navy 
construction projects for fiscal year 2000. The authorized 
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the 
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location.

                      Section 2202--Family Housing

    This section would authorize new construction and planning 
and design of family housing units for the Navy for fiscal year 
2000.

      Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

    This section would authorize improvements to existing units 
of family housing for fiscal year 2000.

          Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy

    This section would authorize specific appropriations for 
each line item in the Navy's budget for fiscal year 2000. This 
section also provides an overall limit on the amount the Navy 
may spend on military construction projects.

      Section 2205--Authorization to Accept Electrical Substation 
                           Improvements, Guam

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to 
accept electrical utility system improvements valued at 
$610,000 from the Guam Power Authority at Agana Substation and 
Harmon Substation at Public Works Center, Guam.

   Section 2206--Correction in Authorized Use of Funds, Marine Corps 
             Combat Development Command, Quantico, Virginia

    This section would correct the authorized use of funds 
authorized for appropriation for fiscal year 1997 for a 
military construction project at Marine Corps Command 
Development Command, Quantico, Virginia. This section would 
permit the use of previously authorized funds to carry out a 
military construction project involving infrastructure 
development at that installation.

                         TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $179,479,000 for Air Force 
military construction and $923,683,000 for family housing for 
fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends authorization of 
$713,165,000 for military construction and $1,160,888,000 for 
family housing for fiscal year 2000.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

 Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects

    This section contains the list of authorized Air Force 
construction projects for fiscal year 2000. The authorized 
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the 
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location.

                      Section 2302--Family Housing

    This section would authorize new construction and planning 
and design of family housing units for the Air Force for fiscal 
year 2000.

      Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

    This section would authorize improvements to existing units 
of family housing for fiscal year 2000.

        Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force

    This section would authorize specific appropriations for 
each line item in the Air Force's budget for fiscal year 2000. 
This section also would provide an overall limit on the amount 
the Air Force may spend on military construction projects.

                      TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $193,005,000 for defense 
agencies military construction, $705,911,000 for activities 
associated with base closure and realignment, and $120,246,000 
for family housing for fiscal year 2000. The committee 
recommends authorization of $792,808,000 for military 
construction, $705,911,000 for activities associated with base 
closure and realignment, and $120,246,000 for family housing.

                        ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST

   Military Construction in Support of Base Closure and Realignment 
                               Activities

    The committee is concerned that the total cost of military 
construction projects in support of the base closure and 
realignment activities of the Department of the Navy were not 
included in the budget request. The committee is concerned that 
less than full funding of such projects may place at risk the 
requirement to meet statutory deadlines for the beddown of 
operational and other missions at Marine Corps Air Station, 
Camp Pendleton, California, Naval Station, Norfolk, Virginia, 
and Naval Air Station, Oceana, Virginia. The committee directs 
that, within amounts authorized for base closure and 
realignment activities, the Secretary of Defense ensure the 
timely execution of each of the military construction projects 
in support of the base closure and realignment activities of 
the military departments specified in this report. The list is 
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects 
authorized at each location.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

    Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land 
                          Acquisition Projects

    This section contains the list of authorized defense 
agencies construction projects for fiscal year 2000. The 
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this report is 
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects 
authorized at each location.

      Section 2402--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
make improvements to existing units of family housing for 
fiscal year 2000 in an amount not to exceed $50,000,000.

           Section 2403--Military Housing Improvement Program

    This section would authorize appropriations of $78,756,000 
for credit to the Department of Defense Family Housing 
Improvement Fund.

               Section 2404--Energy Conservation Projects

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
carry out energy conservation projects.

    Section 2405--Authorization Of Appropriations, Defense Agencies

    This section would authorize specific appropriations for 
each line item in the Defense Agencies' budget for fiscal year 
2000. This section also would provide an overall limit on the 
amount the Defense Agencies may spend on military construction 
projects.

 Section 2406--Increase in Fiscal Year 1997 Authorization for Military 
      Construction Projects at Pueblo Chemical Activity, Colorado

    This section would amend the table in section 2401 of the 
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 
(division B of Public Law 104-201) to provide for an increase 
in the amount authorized for military construction projects to 
support chemical weapons and munitions destruction at Pueblo 
Chemical Activity, Colorado.

 Section 2407--Condition on Obligation of Military Construction Funds 
           for Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities

    This section would prohibit the obligation of funds 
authorized for appropriation for military construction to 
support the development of forward operating locations for the 
drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the Department 
of Defense in Manta, Ecuador, and Curacao, Netherlands 
Antilles, until after the end of the 30-day period beginning on 
the date on which the Secretary of Defense submits to the 
Congress a report describing in detail the purposes for which 
such funds will be obligated and expended.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit 
future requests for specific military construction projects for 
the support of the drug interdiction and counter-drug 
activities of the Department of Defense on a line-item basis, 
consistent with the requirements for major military 
construction projects, as part of the budget request for the 
military construction and military family housing programs of 
the Department of Defense for the fiscal year in which such 
military construction projects are required.

      TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION INFRASTRUCTURE

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $191,000,000 for the NATO 
infrastructure fund (NATO Security Investment Program) for 
fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends authorization of 
$191,000,000.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

    Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
make contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
security investment program in an amount equal to the sum of 
the amount specifically authorized in section 2502 of this bill 
and the amount of recoupment due to the United States for 
construction previously financed by the United States.

          Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO

    This section would authorize appropriations of $191,000,000 
as the U.S. contribution to the NATO security investment 
program.

            TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $77,572,000 for fiscal year 
2000 for guard and reserve facilities. The committee recommends 
authorization of $437,701,000 to be distributed as follows:

Army National Guard.....................................    $123,878,000
Air National Guard......................................     151,170,000
Army Reserve............................................      92,515,000
Air Force Reserve.......................................      48,564,000
Naval and Marine Corps Reserve..........................      21,574,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................    $437,701,000

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


   Section 2601--Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and Land 
                          Acquisition Projects

    This section would authorize appropriations for military 
construction for the guard and reserve by service component for 
fiscal year 2000. The state list contained in this report is 
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects 
authorized at each location.

        TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

 Section 2701--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required to be 
                            Specified by Law

    This section would provide that authorizations for military 
construction projects, repair of real property, land 
acquisition, family housing projects and facilities, 
contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
infrastructure program, and guard and reserve projects will 
expire on October 1, 2000 or the date of enactment of an Act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2001, whichever is later. This expiration would not apply to 
authorizations for which appropriated funds have been obligated 
before October 1, 2000 or the date of enactment of an Act 
authorizing funds for these projects, whichever is later.

Section 2702--Extensions of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 1997 
                                Projects

    This section would provide for selected extension of 
certain fiscal year 1997 military construction authorizations 
until October 1, 2000, or the date of the enactment of an Act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2001, whichever is later.

 Section 2703--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 1996 
                                Projects

    This section would provide for selected extension of 
certain fiscal year 1996 military construction authorizations 
until October 1, 2000, or the date of the enactment of the Act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2001, whichever is later.

                      Section 2704--Effective Date

    This section would provide that Titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, 
XXIV, and XXVI of this bill shall take effect on October 1, 
1999, or the date of the enactment of this Act, whichever is 
later.

                    TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

 Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing 
                                Changes

  Section 2801--Contributions for North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
                          Security Investment

    This section would amend section 2806 of title 10, United 
States Code, to clarify that contributions by the Secretary of 
Defense to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security 
Investment Program may be made for construction projects in 
support of the actual implementation of an approved military 
operations plan.

            Section 2802--Development of Ford Island, Hawaii

    This section would authorize a series of special 
authorities for the development of Ford Island, Hawaii, by the 
Secretary of the Navy. The authorities would authorize the 
Secretary to convey or lease excess real or personal property 
in the State of Hawaii for the purpose of facilitating such 
development and would authorize the Secretary to accept a lease 
of any facility constructed under this authority in lieu of 
cash payment for the sale or lease of real property under this 
authority. In general, no lease entered into by the Secretary 
under this section could exceed ten years and, upon the 
termination of any lease, the Secretary would have the right of 
first refusal to acquire the property. This section would 
require the Secretary to use competitive procedures when 
exercising any of the authorities provided by this section.
    As consideration for the sale or lease of real or personal 
property, the Secretary may accept cash, real property, 
personal property, services, or any combination thereof, and in 
no case shall the amount received be less than the fair market 
value of the real or personal property conveyed or leased. This 
section would establish an account on the books of the Treasury 
known as the Ford Island Improvement Account to carry out 
improvements and obtain property support services for property 
or facilities on Ford Island.
    This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to 
submit a master plan for the development of Ford Island to the 
appropriate committees of Congress not later than 30 days prior 
to exercising any of the authorities provided by this section. 
The section would also require the Secretary, 30 days prior to 
the commencement of any lease, sale, or exchange of real 
property, to submit to the Congressional defense committees a 
report detailing the terms and conditions of any transaction. 
This section would prohibit the Secretary from acquiring, 
constructing, or improving military family housing or 
unaccompanied personnel housing under this authority in lieu of 
the authority provided by subchapter IV, chapter 169 of title 
10, United States Code. The provision would authorize the 
Secretary to transfer funds from the Ford Island Improvement 
Account to the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement 
Fund and the Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied 
Housing fund for such purposes.

    Section 2803--Restriction on Authority to Acquire or Construct 
           Ancillary Supporting Facilities for Housing Units

    This section would amend section 2881 of title 10, United 
States Code, to restrict the development of ancillary 
supporting facilities in military housing projects undertaken 
under the authority of subchapter IV, chapter 169 of title 10, 
United States Code, which may be in direct competition with any 
resale activities provided by the Defense Commissary Agency or 
the Army and Air Force Exchange Service, the Navy Exchange 
Service Command, Marine Corps exchanges, or any other 
nonappropriated fund instrumentality which is conducted for the 
benefit of the morale, welfare, and recreation of members of 
the armed forces.

 Section 2804--Planning and Design for Military Construction Projects 
                         for Reserve Components

    This section would amend section 18233 of title 10, United 
States Code, to clarify the authority of the Secretary of 
Defense to contribute to the States funds for the design of 
facilities to support the Federal mission of the reserve 
components.

 Section 2805--Limitation on Authority to Carry Out Small Projects for 
            Acquisition of Facilities for Reserve Components

    This section would amend section 18233 of title 10, United 
States Code, to increase the threshold for unspecified minor 
construction projects for the support of the reserve components 
from $1,500,000 to $3,000,000 and the threshold for projects 
funded with operations and maintenance funds from $300,000 to 
$1,000,000 solely for construction and maintenance projects to 
remediate serious life, health, and safety deficiencies. The 
section would not increase the budgetary requirements of the 
Department of Defense.

    Section 2806--Expansion of Entities Eligible to Participate in 
   Alternative Authority for Acquisition and Improvement of Military 
                                Housing

    This section would amend subchapter IV, chapter 169, of 
title 10, United States Code, to expand the entities eligible 
to participate in the alternative authorities for the 
acquisition and improvement of military housing to include any 
individual, corporation, firm, partnership, company, State or 
local government, or housing authority of a State or local 
government.

        Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration

  Section 2811--Extension of Authority for Lease of Land for Special 
                         Operations Activities

    This section would amend section 2680 of title 10, United 
States Code, to extend, until September 30, 2005, the authority 
of the Secretary of Defense to lease real property to support 
special operations activities.

             Section 2812--Utility Privatization Authority

    This section would amend section 2688 of title 10, United 
States Code, to authorize the secretaries of the military 
departments to enter into a contract for the receipt of utility 
services in connection with the conveyance of a utility system 
for a period not to exceed 50 years. The Section would further 
amend section 2688 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify 
that the secretaries of the military department may convey 
associated real property, in addition to easements and rights-
of-way, if such property is required to further the 
privatization of a utility system. The section would further 
amend section 2688 of title 10, United States Code, to permit 
the secretaries of the military departments, in lieu of 
carrying out a military construction project to construct, 
repair, or replace a utility system, to use funds authorized 
and appropriated for such a project to make a contribution 
toward the cost of construction, repair, or replacement of the 
utility system by the entity to which the utility system is 
being conveyed.

  Section 2813--Acceptance of Funds to Cover Administrative Expenses 
             Relating to Certain Real Property Transactions

    This section would authorize the secretary of a military 
department to accept reimbursement from non-federal entities 
for the cost of administrative expenses relating to the 
disposal of real property of the United States for which the 
secretary will be the disposal agent.

  Section 2814--Study and Report on Impacts to Military Readiness of 
        Proposed Land Management Changes on Public Lands in Utah

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct a study to evaluate the impact upon military training, 
testing, and operational readiness of any proposed changes in 
land management on public lands under the jurisdiction of the 
Bureau of Land Management in the State of Utah that are 
adjacent to or near the Utah Test and Training Range and Dugway 
Proving Ground or beneath the military operating areas, 
restricted areas, and airspace that make up the Utah Test and 
Training Area. The Secretary of Defense would conduct the study 
in cooperation with the Secretary of the Air Force and the 
Secretary of the Army and coordinate the study with the 
Secretary of the Interior.

            Subtitle C--Defense Base Closure and Realignment

 Section 2821--Continuation of Authority to Use Department of Defense 
 Base Closure Account 1990 for Activities Required to Close or Realign 
                         Military Installations

    This section would amend section 2906 of the Defense Base 
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (division B of Public Law 
101-510), as amended, to extend the Treasury account known as 
the ``Department of Defense Base Closure Account 1990.'' The 
account would be the sole source of funds to carry out 
environmental restoration and mitigation activities and other 
caretaker activities associated with real property resulting 
from the closure or realignment of a military installation 
pursuant to the a base closure law after the termination of the 
authority of the Secretary of Defense to carry out a closure or 
realignment under such authority.

                      Subtitle D--Land Conveyances

                        Part I--Army Conveyances

    Section 2831--Transfer of Jurisdiction, Fort Sam Houston, Texas

    This section would authorize the transfer of, and exchange 
of jurisdiction on, a parcel of unimproved real property 
consisting of approximately 152 acres at Fort Sam Houston, 
Texas, between the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs. The parcel is to be incorporated into the 
Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery.

 Section 2832--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Kankakee, Illinois

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with 
improvements to the City of Kankakee, Illinois. The property is 
to be used for the economic development and other public 
purposes. The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance 
would be borne by the City.

          Section 2833--Land Conveyance, Fort Des Moines, Iowa

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with 
improvements to the Fort Des Moines Black Officers Memorial, 
Inc., a nonprofit corporation organized in the State of Iowa. 
The property is to be used for the purpose of a memorial and 
for educational purposes. The cost of any surveys necessary for 
the conveyance would be borne by the Corporation.

   Section 2834--Land Conveyance, Army Maintenance Support Activity 
             (Marine) Number 84, Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with 
improvements, consisting of approximately five acres, to the 
Borough of Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania. The property is to be 
used for recreational or economic development purposes. The 
cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance would be borne 
by the Borough. The section would also provide for the 
reversionary interest of the United States in the conveyed real 
property and any improvements thereon in the event the 
Secretary determines that the conveyed property is not used in 
accordance with the condition of conveyance.

Section 2835--Land Conveyances, Army Docks and Related Property, Alaska

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with 
improvements, consisting of less than one-tenth of an acre, to 
the City and Borough of Juneau, Alaska. The property is to be 
used for the furtherance of navigation-related commerce. The 
cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance would be borne 
by the City. The section would also authorize the Secretary of 
the Army to convey, without consideration, a parcel of real 
property with improvements, consisting of approximately 6.13 
acres in Whittier, Alaska, to the Alaska Railroad Corporation. 
The property is to be used for economic development purposes. 
The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance would be 
borne by the Corporation.

         Section 2836--Land Conveyance, Fort Huachuca, Arizona

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with 
improvements, consisting of approximately 130 acres at Fort 
Huachuca, Arizona, to the Veterans Services Commission of the 
State of Arizona. The property is to be used for the 
establishment of a State-run veterans' cemetery. The cost of 
any surveys necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the 
Commission.

   Section 2837--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Cannon Falls, 
                               Minnesota

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with 
improvements to the Cannon Falls Area Schools, Minnesota, 
Independent School District Number 252. The property is to be 
used for educational purposes. The cost of any surveys 
necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the District.

  Section 2838--Land Conveyance, Nike Battery 80 Family Housing Site, 
                   East Hanover Township, New Jersey

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with 
improvements, consisting of approximately 13.88 acres near East 
Hanover, New Jersey, to the Township Council of East Hanover. 
The property is to be used for the development of affordable 
housing and for recreational purposes. The cost of any surveys 
necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the Township.

       Section 2839--Land Exchange, Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
convey a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting 
of approximately one-third of an acre at the Rock Island 
Arsenal, Illinois, to the City of Moline, Illinois. The 
property is to be used for the purpose of construction by the 
City of an entrance and exit ramp for the bridge crossing the 
southeast end of the island containing the Arsenal. As 
consideration for the conveyance, the City would convey to the 
United States a parcel of real property consisting of 
approximately two-tenths of an acre located in the vicinity of 
the real property to be conveyed by the Secretary. The cost of 
any surveys necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the 
City.

 Section 2840--Modification of Land Conveyance, Joliet Army Ammunition 
                            Plant, Illinois

    This section would amend section 2922 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (division B 
of Public Law 104-106) to place additional conditions on the 
conveyance of certain real property at Joliet Army Ammunition 
Plant to Will County, Illinois, for a landfill. The section 
would require that the landfill may only contain waste 
generated in Will County or waste generated in municipalities 
located at least in part in Will County. The section would also 
require that the landfill be closed and capped after 23 years 
of operation.

  Section 2841--Land Conveyances, Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant, 
                               Minnesota

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
convey a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting 
of approximately four acres, at the Twin Cities Army Ammunition 
Plant, Minnesota, to the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota. The 
property is to be used for the purpose of permitting the City 
to construct a city hall complex. The cost of any surveys 
necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the City. The 
section would also authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
convey a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting 
of approximately 35 acres, at the Twin Cities Army Ammunition 
Plant, Minnesota, to Ramsey County, Minnesota. The property is 
to be used for the purpose of permitting the County to 
construct a maintenance facility. The cost of any surveys 
necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the County. As 
consideration for the conveyances, both the City and the County 
would make the facilities to be constructed available for use 
by the Minnesota National Guard at no cost.

                       Part II--Navy Conveyances

 Section 2851--Land Conveyance, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant 
                         No. 387, Dallas, Texas

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to 
convey a parcel of real property with improvements consisting 
of approximately 314 acres and including the Naval Weapons 
Industrial Reserve Plant No. 387, Dallas, Texas, to the City of 
Dallas. The property is to be used for economic development or 
other public purposes. The Secretary would be authorized to 
convey other fixtures located on the property if the Secretary 
determines such fixtures are not required by the Navy for other 
purposes. The section would authorize the Secretary to make the 
conveyance without consideration if determined to be in the 
best interest of the United States. If the City conveys any 
portion of the parcel to a private entity, the City shall pay 
the United States an amount equal to the fair market value as 
determined by the Secretary of the portion conveyed at the time 
of its initial conveyance.

 Section 2852--Land Conveyance, Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Center, 
                          Orange County, Texas

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to 
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with 
improvements, consisting of approximately 2.4 acres in Orange 
County, Texas, to the Orange County Navigation and Port 
District. The property is to be used for economic development, 
educational purposes, and the furtherance of navigation-related 
commerce. The section would also provide for the reversionary 
interest of the United States in the conveyed real property and 
any improvements thereon in the event the Secretary determines 
that the conveyed property is not used in accordance with the 
condition of conveyance.

Section 2853--Land Conveyance, Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, 
                             North Carolina

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to 
convey, without consideration, a parcel of unimproved real 
property, consisting of approximately 20 acres at Marine Corps 
Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina, to the State of 
North Carolina. The property is to be used for educational 
purposes. The conveyance would be subject to the condition that 
the State grant easements and rights-of-way necessary to ensure 
that the use of the parcel is compatible with the operations of 
Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point. The cost of any surveys 
necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the State.

                    Part III--Air Force Conveyances


Section 2861--Conveyance of Fuel Supply Line, Pease Air Force Base, New 
                               Hampshire

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force 
to convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property 
with improvements, consisting of approximately 14.87 acres at 
the former Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire and containing a 
deactivated fuel supply line, to the Pease Development 
Authority. The property is to be used for the support of the 
New Hampshire Air National Guard. The cost of any surveys 
necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the Authority.

     Section 2862--Land Conveyance, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force 
to convey a parcel of real property with improvements, 
consisting of approximately 33.07 acres, to the City of Panama 
City, Florida. The property is to be used for economic 
development or other purposes. As consideration for the 
conveyance, the City would pay to the United States an amount 
equal to the fair market value of the property as determined by 
the Secretary. The Secretary would use the funds paid by the 
City for the improvement or maintenance of military family 
housing units at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida. The cost of 
any surveys necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the 
City.

        Section 2863--Land Conveyance, Port of Anchorage, Alaska

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force 
and the Secretary of the Interior to convey, without 
consideration, two parcels of real property with improvements, 
consisting of approximately 14.22 acres in Anchorage, Alaska, 
to the Port of Anchorage. The property is to be used for 
economic development purposes. The cost of any surveys 
necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the Port.

     Section 2864--Land Conveyance, Forestport Test Annex, New York

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force 
to convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property 
with improvements of approximately 164 acres in Herkimer 
County, New York, and approximately 18 acres in Oneida County, 
New York, to the Town of Ohio, New York. The property is to be 
used for economic development purposes and for other public 
purposes. The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance 
would be borne by the Town.

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters


         Section 2871--Expansion of Arlington National Cemetery

    This section would authorize the transfer of real property, 
and exchange of jurisdiction, between the Secretary of Defense 
and the Secretary of the Army to provide for the expansion of 
Arlington National Cemetery, Virginia. The property to be 
transferred to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary 
of the Army consists of three parcels, totaling approximately 
36.5 acres, located at the Navy Annex of the Pentagon. The 
provision would also require the Secretary of the Army to 
modify the boundary of Arlington National Cemetery to include 
two parcels of real property, totaling approximately eight 
acres, situated in Fort Myer, Virginia, contiguous to the 
Cemetery.
 DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATION AND 
                          OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

      TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request contained $12.4 billion for Department 
of Energy national security programs, including $4.5 billion 
for weapons activities, $5.8 billion for defense environmental 
restoration and waste management, $1.8 billion for other 
defense activities, and $73.0 million for defense nuclear waste 
disposal. The committee recommends $12.3 billion, a decrease of 
$75.5 million. The following table summarizes the request and 
the committee recommendations:


                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


               Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative

    The budget request contained $341.0 million for the 
Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI).
    ASCI is an effort to develop a computer capable of 100 
trillion operations a second by 2004. This computer will be 
powerful enough to conduct three dimensional simulations of 
nuclear explosions as a means of assuring the safety, 
reliability, and effectiveness of U.S. nuclear weapons in the 
absence of actual testing. The committee understands the 
significance of ASCI for science-based stockpile stewardship 
and is encouraged by the technical progress demonstrated to 
date. However, the committee remains concerned by the very 
aggressive program schedule. The committee notes that the 
program request is 14 percent higher than the amount 
appropriated for fiscal year 1999. The budget request also 
includes $34.0 million in new ASCI-related construction and 
$67.3 million for the Numeric Environment for Weapons 
Simulation (NEWS), a 138 percent increase compared to the 
fiscal year 1999 appropriation. Directly related to ASCI, NEWS 
is an effort to develop visualization tools to allow nuclear 
weapons scientists to understand the vast amounts of data 
generated by ASCI simulations.
    The committee is also concerned with ASCI's pace compared 
to other science tools the Department of Energy needs to 
support science based stockpile stewardship. Ignition 
experiments in the National Ignition Facility, for example, are 
projected to start in 2006. Also, advanced radiographic images 
of the initial phases of a nuclear weapon explosion will not be 
available under current planning until 2005.
    The Department justifies ASCI's aggressive schedule in part 
on the fact that nuclear weapons designers with the testing 
experience needed to interpret the results of ASCI simulations 
are aging and retiring. However, the most recent data provided 
by the Department shows that the decline in this population is 
expected to level out from 2004 to 2007. Further, the committee 
believes that the Department could have access to such 
expertise if they sought it.
    In light of these considerations, the committee believes 
that an aggressive but more moderately paced ASCI program is 
justified. Therefore, the committee recommends $316.0 million 
for ASCI, a decrease of $25.0 million.

    Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative Construction Projects

    The budget request contained $8.0 million for construction 
of a terascale simulation facility at Lawrence Livermore 
National Laboratory and $26.0 million for the strategic 
computing complex at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
    Both of these facilities will house supercomputers being 
developed in the ASCI program. They are very similar in size, 
scope, and purpose yet the total estimated cost of the Los 
Alamos facility is 20 percent higher than the Lawrence 
Livermore facility. Although the committee recommends the 
requested amounts, it directs the Secretary of Energy not to 
obligate any of the funds for the Los Alamos strategic 
computing complex until a full and independent review of the 
cost and schedule of this project has been completed and the 
results of the review have been transmitted to the 
Congressional defense committees.

                   Arms Control and Nonproliferation

    The budget request contained $296.0 million for arms 
control, a $39.1 million increase to the amount appropriated 
for fiscal year 1999.
    The committee notes that the Department of Energy was not 
able to expend all fiscal year 1998 appropriated funds for arms 
control and, as a result, $144.1 million of these funds were 
brought forward into fiscal year 1999. The fiscal year 1999 
appropriation of $256.9 million was added to this amount, 
totaling $401.0 million of funds available for arms control 
during fiscal year 1999. Based on this program's expenditure 
rate for the first half of fiscal year 1999 and the program's 
historical expenditure rate for the second half of prior fiscal 
years, the General Accounting Office (GAO) projects that the 
carryover balance for this program will increase to $162.5 
million and will exceed the Department's 15 percent target 
carryover balance going into fiscal year 2000.
    Consequently, the committee recommends $206.0 million, a 
decrease of $90.0 million. The committee further recommends 
that $20.0 million of this decrease should be assessed to the 
Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention program and the 
Nuclear Cities Initiative. The committee believes that the 
carryover balance for arms control is excessive and that, 
before initiating new projects with fiscal year 2000 funds, the 
Department should complete ongoing programs with prior year 
funds.

        Commercializing Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention

    The Department of Energy's Initiatives for Proliferation 
Prevention (IPP) program was established to develop employment 
opportunities for Russian scientists to avoid risking the 
marketing of their weapons of mass destruction knowledge to 
countries of proliferation concern or terrorist organizations. 
The objectives of the IPP program are initially to engage these 
weapons scientists in productive nonmilitary work and to then 
transition this work into long-term employment in the high-
technology commercial marketplace. This long-term employment 
would be self-sustaining and not dependent on continued U.S. 
financial assistance.
    According to a February, 1999 report by the General 
Accounting Office (GAO), none of the 79 IPP projects has been a 
commercial success. The first step in a IPP process is the 
identification and verification of technologies and skills 
possessed by the institutes and scientists that can have 
commercial applications. However, most of the IPP projects 
never progress past this stage. As acknowledged by the director 
of the IPP program, commercializing science and engineering 
projects is very difficult in the United States and much more 
difficult in Russia.
    The committee believes that due to the lack of commercial 
success of the IPP projects, the program has been, and will be 
reliant on financial support by the U.S. government. Therefore, 
the committee directs the Secretary of Energy to prepare a 
report on efforts of the Department to make IPP projects 
commercially viable. The report should discuss projects the 
Department is pursuing within the IPP program that utilize more 
commonly held production technologies with the major emphasis 
on the manufacture of commercially marketable products, versus 
current attempts at utilizing high technology. The report 
should also contain information on the Department's criteria 
and timetable for terminating IPP projects that have shown 
little chance of commercial success. The report should be 
submitted to the Armed Services Committee of the Senate and the 
Armed Services Committee of the House of Representatives by 
April 1, 2000.

           Commission to Review Nuclear Policy and Management

    The committee believes a broad, high level review of issues 
pertaining to the management and oversight of nuclear weapons 
policy is timely. Since the last such review in the 1980s, the 
Cold War has ended, U.S. nuclear forces have been reshaped and 
resized, the nuclear weapons programs at the Department of 
Energy (DOE) have changed in scope and structure, and nuclear 
weapons budgets have declined dramatically. Several studies, 
including those by the Commission on Sustaining U.S. Nuclear 
Weapons Expertise in 1999 and the Institute for Defense 
Analyses in 1997, have noted a need for better coordination 
between the Department of Defense (DOD) and DOE. The recent 
reorganization of the Office of Secretary of Defense also 
suggests a lack of focus on nuclear matters within DOD. 
Consequently, a top level commission to review the management 
and oversight of nuclear policy, requirements, forces, and 
budgets in the context of these changed circumstances would be 
very useful.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a series of provisions 
(sections 3151-3159) that would establish a commission to 
conduct such a review and report its results to the 
Congressional defense committees by January 1, 2001.

 Comptroller General Audit of Department of Energy Contract Management 
                               Practices

    The committee is aware of the results of the February 1999 
Defense Contract Audit Agency report to the Congress which 
indicated that the cost accounting practices of the prime 
contractor at the Hanford site were within acceptable 
standards. However, the committee is also aware of additional 
allegations of possible fraud and abuse regarding subcontractor 
management practices at the Hanford site.
    Consequently, the committee continues to be concerned about 
the Department of Energy's management of contract activities, 
particularly at the Hanford site. Therefore, the committee 
requests that the Comptroller General conduct an investigation 
of these activities and report the findings to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services.

                         Construction Projects

    The budget request contained $61.0 million for core 
stockpile stewardship construction projects and $94.7 million 
for core stockpile management construction projects.
    The conference report for the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act, 1999 (Rept. 105-749) forbade the obligation 
of funding for new construction starts authorized in fiscal 
year 1999 until an independent assessment validated the cost 
and schedule for those specific projects. Most of these 
independent assessments have not been completed, and those that 
are complete have identified some difficulties that should be 
addressed before the projects proceed. Given these early 
results, the committee believes that the remaining independent 
assessments could find similar difficulties that would lead to 
delays in the release of fiscal year 1999 funds, and thus would 
reduce the fiscal year 2000 requirement. Consequently, the 
committee recommends $51.0 million for core stockpile 
stewardship construction, a decrease of $10.0 million, and 
$84.7 million for core stockpile management construction, a 
decrease of $10.0 million.
    The committee notes that the budget request contained no 
funds in Stockpile Management designated for infrastructure 
construction but that such a request was made in Stockpile 
Stewardship, providing a more stable foundation for sustaining 
infrastructure at the national laboratories. The committee 
recommends that the Department include funding for Stockpile 
Management infrastructure construction in its fiscal year 2001 
budget request.

                               Education

    The budget request contained $29.8 million for educational 
activities, including funding for math and science education 
for local schools near the national weapons laboratories, the 
National Atomic Museum, the Los Alamos County School District, 
and the Northern New Mexico Educational Enrichment Foundation.
    The committee understands the importance of primary and 
secondary education in math and science, but believes that 
funding of these activities by the Defense Programs account 
provides no direct benefit to the Department's core national 
security mission. Consequently, the committee recommends no 
funding for these education programs.
    However, the committee notes that the Commission on 
Maintaining United States Nuclear Weapons Expertise recommended 
that the Department's laboratories and production plants 
``establish and implement plans on a priority basis for 
replenishing essential personnel.'' The commission noted that 
significant downsizing of the nuclear weapons complex has led 
to an aging workforce, a trend that will lead to ``a crisis of 
talent within the next 15 years'' unless reversed.
    The committee believes that encouraging talented young 
Americans to contribute to the nuclear weapons effort is 
important to the nation's long term security. Therefore, the 
committee recommends amendments to revitalize the Department of 
Energy fellowship program for graduate and post doctoral 
students who are specializing in physical sciences relevant to 
the needs of the nuclear weapons complex authorized in section 
3140 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1996 (Public Law 104-106). The committee recommends $5.0 
million for this fellowship program.

  Eligibility to Bid on Excess Department of Energy Equipment at the 
                          Savannah River Site

    The committee understands that McDuffie County, Georgia, is 
currently not on the list of counties whose residents are 
eligible to submit bids for the purchase of surplus Department 
of Energy equipment at the Savannah River Site. Therefore, the 
committee recommends that the Department add McDuffie County to 
that list.

                Environmental Management Science Program

    The budget request contained $32.0 million for the 
Environmental Management Science Program, a decrease of $15.0 
million from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1999.
    The committee recognizes the importance of developing 
advanced environmental cleanup and remediation technologies 
that can both reduce long-term costs and lessen the damage 
resulting from nuclear waste. Consequently, the committee 
recommends $42.0 million, an increase of $10.0 million to 
maintain a more robust environmental management science 
program.

       Environmental Management, Environmental, Safety and Health

    The budget request contained $20.0 million for public 
health activities for the Department's Office of Environmental 
Management, an $8.0 million increase to the amount appropriated 
for fiscal year 1999. The committee believes that this increase 
has not been adequately justified and, therefore, recommends 
$12.0 million, a decrease of $8.0 million. In addition, the 
committee directs that the $12.0 million be transferred to the 
Department's Office of Environment, Safety and Health in order 
to provide more effective oversight of these programs.

        Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP)

    The national defense budget function (budget function 050) 
request contained $150.0 million for the FUSRAP. The committee 
acknowledges the importance of remediating these former 
Manhattan Project sites and notes that the Army Corps of 
Engineers has been tasked to perform this service. However, 
because the sites are commercially owned, the committee 
believes it is more appropriate for this program to be funded 
by the civil Army Corps of Engineers portion of the budget 
(budget function 301).
    Accordingly, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261) contained a Sense of 
Congress provision recommending that this program be funded 
within the Army Corps of Engineers budget. Since the Department 
chose to ignore this recommendation, the committee recommends 
no funding for FUSRAP within budget function 050, a decrease of 
$150.0 million.

              Hanford Site Tri-Party Agreement Compliance

    The budget request contained $376.3 million for 
environmental management at the Hanford site. The committee 
recommends an increase of $3.9 million in order to achieve four 
compliance deadlines established by the tri-party agreement 
among the Department, the State of Washington's Department of 
Ecology, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

             Hanford Plutonium Finishing Plant Deactivation

    The budget request contained $136.2 million to stabilize, 
repackage, and remove all remaining plutonium materials from 
the Hanford Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) and to deactivate 
the plant complex. The committee understands that the large 
quantity of plutonium stored at the PFP is a significant safety 
hazard and, therefore, recommends $146.4 million, an increase 
of $10.2 million to accelerate the stabilization and 
repackaging of the plutonium for permanent storage.

          Hanford Reactor Decontamination and Decommissioning

    The budget request contained $10.8 million for facility 
decommissioning at the Hanford Site. The committee recommends 
$22.2 million, an increase of $11.4 million to accelerate 
progress on the cocooning of the reactor cores. The committee 
believes that safe storage of these reactor cores on an interim 
basis will permit the Department of Energy to more effectively 
use its remediation funds for decontaminating and 
decommissioning ancillary buildings at Hanford, thereby saving 
millions of dollars in annual maintenance and surveillance 
costs.

 Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) Post 
                            2006 Completion

    The budget request contained $291.3 million for the INEEL 
Post 2006 Completion account, including $7.0 million for the 
Idaho Waste Management Complex (IWMC) project. The committee 
understands the funding requested for the IWMC is to be 
augmented by $43.0 million in prior year carryover balances 
from the Pit Nine project within this account and notes that 
the resultant $50.0 million in available funds would represent 
a $26.3 million increase to the amount appropriated for fiscal 
year 1999.
    The committee believes that the available prior year 
carryover balance from the Pit Nine project is excessive and, 
therefore, recommends a decrease of $26.3 million from the 
INEEL Post 2006 Completion account. The committee makes this 
reduction without prejudice and believes that it should not 
have a negative impact on this project.

                      Inertial Confinement Fusion

    The budget request contained $217.6 million for inertial 
confinement fusion (ICF) operations and maintenance, including 
$30.5 million for the University of Rochester's Laboratory for 
Laser Energetics (LLE).
    The ICF program includes the development and construction 
of the National Ignition Facility (NIF), which will use a large 
array of lasers focused to achieve a fusion reaction in a small 
quantity of hydrogen. The program will provide experimental 
data to scientists, allowing them to confirm computer models on 
the behavior of nuclear weapons explosions.
    The committee understands that the budget request does not 
include sufficient funding to initiate design work for a 
cryogenic target needed to achieve hydrogen ignition or to 
provide diagnostics that will allow NIF to measure the physical 
results of testing. The committee believes that additional 
funding would reduce schedule and technical risk for these 
important aspects of the NIF effort, and therefore recommends 
$227.6 million for ICF operations and maintenance, an increase 
of $10.0 million. Further, the committee believes that LLE's 
Omega laser continues to make important contributions to the 
ICF program and directs that the Department fund this facility 
at the requested level.

                     In-Tank Precipitation Process

    The budget request contained $42.1 million for the high-
level waste treatment at the Savannah River Site. The committee 
notes that as a result of equipment problems associated with 
the release of explosive benzene that occurred in start-up 
testing, the Salt Processing Plant must be redesigned. 
Accordingly, the committee recommends $92.1 million, an 
increase of $50.0 million to initiate redesign and avoid 
further delays to the vitrification program.

      International Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting

    The budget request contained $145.0 million for 
International Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting 
(MPC&A), a $4.9 million increase to the amount appropriated for 
fiscal year 1999. The objective of this program is to improve 
the protection of nuclear weapons-usable materials at 
facilities and institutions in the former Soviet Union. The 
committee believes that the MPC&A program is one of the most 
important of the Department's arms control efforts.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $172.0 million for 
International Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting, an 
increase of $27.0 million.

                      International Nuclear Safety

    The budget request contained $34.0 million for 
International Nuclear Safety, a $4.0 million increase to the 
amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999. The objective of this 
program is to improve the safety of Soviet-designed nuclear 
reactors in countries of the former Soviet Union.
    The committee notes that the Department was not able to 
expend all fiscal year 1998 appropriated funds for 
International Nuclear Safety and, as a result, $93.6 million of 
these funds were brought forward into fiscal year 1999. Adding 
the fiscal year 1999 appropriation of $30.0 million to this 
amount, a total of $123.6 million of funds are available for 
International Nuclear Safety during fiscal year 1999. Based on 
this program's expenditure rate for the first half of fiscal 
year 1999 and the program's historical expenditure rate for the 
second half of prior fiscal years, the General Accounting 
Office projects that the carryover balance for this program 
will exceed the Department's 15 percent target carryover 
balance by $23.7 million going into fiscal year 2000.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $15.3 million, a 
decrease of $18.7 million. The committee believes that the 
carryover balance for International Nuclear Safety is excessive 
and that, before initiating new projects with fiscal year 2000 
funds, the Department should complete ongoing programs with 
prior year funds. In addition, the committee understands that 
the Agency for International Development may supplement the 
Department's fiscal year 2000 International Nuclear Safety 
program by amounts that have not yet been identified.

                             Naval Reactors

    The budget request contained $665.0 million for the naval 
reactors program.
    The committee believes that the program office has done an 
excellent job of managing the development, construction, 
maintenance, and disposal of naval nuclear reactors. However, 
the committee is concerned that the budget request appears 
insufficient to fully support planned non-pressure vessel 
removal at the Kesselring site in New York and remediation 
efforts at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental 
Laboratory. Therefore, the committee recommends $681.0 million, 
an increase of $16.0 million to fund these activities.

                   Nuclear Weapons Industrial Complex

    On December 21, 1998, the Secretary of Energy announced 
that he was deferring for a year a decision on whether to 
consolidate existing stockpile management contracts for the 
Kansas City, Pantex, and Y-12 plants. While the committee 
supports the motivation underlying the consolidation proposal, 
the committee believes that the decision to defer resolution of 
this issue is justified.
    The Department expressed interest in contract consolidation 
based on the belief that it would offer greater efficiencies in 
coordinating plant activities, cleaner lines of authority and 
responsibility, reduced personnel levels, and cost savings. 
However, the committee notes that a consolidated contract could 
undermine competition for plant management in the future; few 
savings have been identified, the costs of implementing the 
modified contract structure could be considerable, and 
Departmental oversight of and leverage over a single contractor 
managing virtually the entire production complex could be 
problematic. While remaining open to the idea of consolidation 
where it makes sense, the committee believes that these issues 
must be thoroughly addressed and presented to the Congress 
before any decision to consolidate the production complex 
contracts is made.

                   Nuclear Weapons Personnel Reserve

    The Commission on Sustaining U.S. Nuclear Weapons 
Expertise, in its March 1999 report, noted that the nuclear 
weapons workforce is aging rapidly and that expertise in a 
number of technical areas is in dangerously short supply. The 
commission also pointed out that, as these experts retire and 
leave the nuclear workforce, the Department of Energy is doing 
an inadequate job of transferring specific and detailed 
knowledge related to the nuclear weapons stockpile to a new 
generation of experts. Further, the commission argued that the 
nuclear weapons complex is deficient in its ability to 
reconstitute the expertise required in the event of an 
emergency or an urgent need to resume testing.
    The committee concurs with the commission's conclusion that 
personnel with critical skills who leave the nuclear weapons 
program represent an unexploited national asset, and endorses 
the commission's recommendation that the Department establish a 
nuclear weapons personnel reserve to be composed of current or 
former employees of the nuclear complex with skills critical to 
the Department's mission. Therefore, the committee urges the 
Secretary to establish such a reserve.

              Oak Ridge Operations Compliance Obligations

    The budget request contained $530.6 million for the Oak 
Ridge Operations site. The committee notes that several 
environmental cleanup and remediation project milestones that 
have been missed or delayed due to insufficient funding. 
Consequently, the committee recommends $539.2 million, an 
increase of $8.6 million to ensure that these compliance 
requirements are met.

                     Office of Counterintelligence

    The budget request contained $18.6 million for the Office 
of Counterintelligence to be augmented by an additional $12.6 
million contributed by the DOE nuclear weapons laboratories.
    The committee recommends $31.2 million for the Office of 
Counterintelligence, an increase of $12.6 million. The 
committee is very concerned over reports of espionage 
activities at the DOE laboratories and believes that the 
Director of the Office of Counterintelligence needs to have the 
full $31.2 million available for obligation at the beginning of 
the fiscal year rather than waiting for 40 percent of the 
requirement to become available at some later date, if at all.

                             Pit Production

    The committee understands that substantial progress has 
been made to reestablish a near-term plutonium pit production 
capability at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and to define 
the longer-term pit production capacity required to support the 
nuclear weapons stockpile. The committee also notes that the 
pit production manufacturing process has been designed, 
established by, and, in the current production plan, will be 
performed at Los Alamos.
    Based on Department of Energy analysis, the committee 
believes that the requirement for additional pit production 
capacity in the future is unambiguous. However, the committee 
also believes that a science oriented laboratory is not the 
best institution to retain responsibility for pit manufacture 
or to expand pit manufacturing capacity. The committee strongly 
urges the Secretary of Energy to maximize the ability of 
industry to manage both the production process and the 
expansion effort by planning to transition pit production from 
laboratory to industrial operations prior to expansion of pit 
production capacity.

                 Program Direction for Defense Programs

    The budget request contained $246.5 million for Defense 
Programs program direction.
    The committee notes that the request includes a $10.0 
million increase in salaries, benefits, travel, and advisory 
and support services compared to funding appropriated for 
fiscal year 1999.
    The committee recommends $236.5 million, a decrease of 
$10.0 million. Of this amount, the committee directs that $15.0 
million may only be obligated for voluntary separation 
incentive payments.

             Program Direction for Environmental Management

    The budget request contained $349.4 million for 
environmental management program direction, which includes 
salaries, personnel, contractor support, and advisory and 
assistance funding. This amount represents a $12.3 million 
increase to the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999. The 
committee finds no justification for such an increase, and 
notes that the program direction request for defense programs 
has been reduced from fiscal year 1999 levels. Consequently, 
the committee recommends $327.1 million, a decrease of $22.3 
million.

                        Records Declassification

    The budget request contained $15.9 million for records 
declassification, a $7.4 million increase to the amount 
appropriated for fiscal year 1999.
    The committee believes that there are more compelling uses 
for national defense funds than for declassifying historical 
records. Therefore, the committee recommends $8.5 million, a 
decrease of $7.4 million.

       Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site Closure Project

    The budget request contained $657.2 million for the Rocky 
Flats Environmental Technology Site Closure Project. For the 
last three years, the committee has emphasized the importance 
of providing adequate funding for the cleanup efforts at sites 
that are nearing closure. The Rocky Flats Environmental 
Technology Site was originally scheduled to close in 2010, but 
the Department of Energy is working to accelerate its closure 
by 2006. The committee notes that the Department and the 
associated contractors have confidence in the accelerated 
closure schedule, which would save an estimated $1.3 billion. 
The committee supports the accelerated closure plan and, 
therefore, recommends $695.2 million, an increase of $38.0 
million for this purpose.

             Savannah River Site Infrastructure Investment

    The budget request contained $14.5 million for operating 
projects at the Savannah River Site. The committee is concerned 
that both capital equipment and safety and security systems 
equipment needs at this site have gone unmet due to funding 
shortfalls. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of 
$20.0 million to upgrade fire protection and security systems, 
to replace domestic water and telephone systems, and to support 
engineering facilities for health physics, analytical 
chemistry, and environmental monitoring.

                        Security Investigations

    The budget request contained $30.0 million for security 
investigations.
    The Security Investigations Program funds background 
investigations for Department of Energy (DOE) federal staff and 
DOE contractors at the Department's headquarters. The committee 
notes that the budget request assumes that DOE program offices 
will offset or contribute $20.0 million of this expense for 
background investigations of their staff members and 
headquarters contractors resulting in a total of $30.0 million 
in available funds to execute the fiscal year 2000 security 
investigation program. Therefore, the committee recommends 
$10.0 million, a decrease of $20.0 million and assumes the 
transfer of $20.0 million from DOE program offices to the 
Security Investigations Program.

                          Stockpile Management

    The budget request contained $2.0 billion for stockpile 
management, including $240.8 million for the Pantex plant, 
$287.5 million for the Kansas City plant, $374.2 million for 
the Y-12 plant, and $127.4 million for the Savannah River Site.
    The committee notes that the request represents a decrease 
of four percent compared to the amount appropriated for fiscal 
year 1999. This decrease was imposed even though the required 
workload at the nuclear weapons production complex has been 
increased. While greater efficiencies and intelligent planning 
at the plants can meet some of the increased demand at lower 
funding levels, the committee believes that serious problems in 
the complex will remain. The Committee on Sustaining U.S. 
Nuclear Weapons Expertise identified multiple ``fragile skill 
areas'' and a limited ability of the plants to retain and 
replenish personnel with the proper skills as overall 
employment levels continue to fall. The plants must also 
continue to reduce their size and modernize their physical 
infrastructure. The committee notes that while stable funding 
for infrastructure improvements to the national laboratories 
has been identified, no such funding has been programmed for 
the plants. Finally, advanced technologies will be required to 
improve processes, increase efficiency, and meet future 
workload requirements.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $270.8 million for the 
Pantex plant, an increase of $30.0 million to meet increased 
surveillance, assembly and disassembly workload demands, to 
fund the Enhanced Surveillance Program and the Advanced 
Manufacturing, Design and Production Technologies (ADAPT) 
initiatives, and to support necessary infrastructure 
improvements and recapitalization projects.
    The committee also recommends $317.5 million for the Kansas 
City plant, an increase of $30.0 million to support increased 
workload, ADAPT initiatives and necessary infrastructure 
improvements and recapitalization projects.
    The committee further recommends $404.2 million for the Y-
12 plant, an increase of $30.0 million to support a site-wide 
environmental impact statement necessary to modernize Y-12 
facilities and necessary infrastructure improvements and 
recapitalization projects.
    Finally, the committee recommends $134.4 million for the 
Savannah River Site, an increase of $7.0 million to support 
additional tritium reservoir testing and necessary capital 
investments.

     Stockpile Management Fissile Material Storage and Disposition

    The budget request contained $200.0 million for fissile 
materials control and disposition. It also contained, within 
Stockpile Management, $22.0 million for storage of excess 
special nuclear material at Los Alamos National Laboratory and 
the Y-12 plant; $10.0 million for storage and surveillance of 
excess plutonium pits at the Pantex plant; $3.0 million for a 
pit disassembly conversion demonstration project at Los Alamos 
National Laboratory; and $4.0 million for the Parallax Project 
at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
    Based on discussions with senior Department of Energy 
officials, the committee believes these projects fall outside 
of the Stockpile Management mission of production and 
surveillance and are more appropriately funded within the Other 
Defense accounts for fissile materials control and disposition. 
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $39.0 million 
to the Stockpile Management account, and $239.0 million for 
fissile materials control and disposition, an increase of $39.0 
million.

                        Technology Partnerships

    The budget request contained $22.2 million for technology 
partnerships.
    Technology partnerships are intended to provide Defense 
Programs expertise to a variety of commercial partners through 
projects that enhance Defense Programs capabilities. The 
Department of Energy believes, and the committee concurs, that 
the projects funded in this program are of lower priority than 
activities funded in the core stockpile stewardship mission.
    However, the committee is mindful that the Department has 
made certain commitments in the past to its commercial partners 
concerning shared funding responsibilities in joint projects. 
One such commitment is with the American Textile (AMTEX) 
Partnership; however, no funding for AMTEX is contained in the 
budget request. The committee believes that another year of 
funding for this project would satisfy the Department's 
obligation to its partners in the commercial textile industry. 
Another such commitment is with the Amarillo Plutonium Research 
Center and the committee believes that the Secretary of Energy 
should consider continuation of this cooperative effort beyond 
fiscal year 2000.
    Consequently, the committee recommends $14.5 million for 
technology partnerships, a decrease of $7.7 million. Of this 
amount, $5.0 million is for AMTEX and $5.0 million is for the 
Amarillo Plutonium Research Center.

                    Worker and Community Transition

    The budget request contained $30.0 million for Worker and 
Community Transition, a $1.8 million increase to the amount 
appropriated for fiscal year 1999.
    The committee notes that the Department of Energy was not 
able to expend all fiscal year 1998 appropriated funds for 
Worker and Community Transition, and, as a result, $72.1 
million of these funds were carried forward into fiscal year 
1999. Adding the fiscal year 1999 appropriation of $28.2 
million to this amount leaves a total of $100.3 million 
available for Worker and Community Transition during fiscal 
year 1999. Based on this program's expenditure rate for the 
first half of fiscal year 1999 and the program's historical 
expenditure rate for the second half of prior fiscal years, the 
General Accounting Office projects that the carryover balance 
for this program will exceed the Department's 15 percent target 
carryover balance by $53.0 million going into fiscal year 2000.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $20.0 million, a 
decrease of $10.0 million. The committee further recommends 
that none of this decrease should come from the amounts 
specifically requested for fiscal year 2000 for the Idaho 
Operations Office, the Ohio Field Office, the Oak Ridge 
Operations Office, and the Richland Operations Office. The 
committee believes that the carryover balance for Worker and 
Community Transition is excessive and that, before initiating 
new projects with fiscal year 2000 funds, the Department should 
complete ongoing programs with prior year funds.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


         Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations


                    Section 3101--Weapons Activities

    This section would authorize Department of Energy weapons 
activity funding for fiscal year 2000.

  Section 3102--Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management

    This section would authorize funds for Department of Energy 
environmental restoration and waste management activities for 
fiscal year 2000.

                 Section 3103--Other Defense Activities

    This section would authorize funds for Department of Energy 
other defense activities for fiscal year 2000.

              Section 3104--Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

    This section would authorize funds for defense nuclear 
waste disposal activities of the Department of Energy for 
fiscal year 2000.

      Section 3105--Defense Environmental Management Privatization

    This section would authorize funds for privatization 
initiatives in carrying out environmental restoration and waste 
management activities necessary for Department of Energy 
national security programs.

                Subtitle B--Recurring General Provisions


                      Section 3121--Reprogramming

    This section would prohibit the reprogramming of funds in 
excess of 110 percent of the amount authorized for the program, 
or in excess of $1.0 million above the amount authorized for 
the program until the Secretary of Energy has notified the 
Congressional defense committees and a period of 60 days has 
elapsed after the date on which the notification is received.

             Section 3122--Limits on General Plant Projects

    This section would limit the initiation of ``general plant 
projects'' authorized by the bill if the current estimated cost 
for any project exceeds $5.0 million. However, if the Secretary 
of Energy finds that the estimated cost of any project will 
exceed $5.0 million, the Congressional defense committees must 
be notified of the reasons for the cost variation.

             Section 3123--Limits on Construction Projects

    This section would permit any construction project to be 
initiated and continued only if the estimated cost for the 
project does not exceed 125 percent of the higher of: (1) the 
amount authorized for the project, or (2) the most recent total 
estimated cost presented to the Congress as justification for 
such project. To exceed such limits, the Secretary of Energy 
must report in detail to the Congressional defense committees 
and the report must be before the committees for 30 legislative 
days. This section would also specify that the 125 percent 
limitation would not apply to projects estimated to cost under 
$5.0 million.

                 Section 3124--Fund Transfer Authority

    This section would permit funds authorized by the bill to 
be transferred to other agencies of the government for 
performance of work for which the funds were authorized and 
appropriated. The provision would permit the merger of such 
funds with the authorizations of the agency to which they are 
transferred. This section would also limit to no more than five 
percent the amount of funds that may be transferred between 
accounts in the Department of Energy that were authorized by 
the bill.

     Section 3125--Authority for Conceptual and Construction Design

    This section would limit the Secretary of Energy's 
authority to request construction funding until the Secretary 
has certified a conceptual design has been completed, except in 
the case of emergencies.

Section 3126--Authority for Emergency Planning, Design and Construction 
                               Activities

    This section would permit, in addition to any advance 
planning and construction design otherwise authorized by the 
bill, the Secretary of Energy to perform planning and design 
utilizing available funds for any Department of Energy national 
security program construction project whenever the Secretary 
determines that the design must proceed expeditiously to 
protect the public health and safety, to meet the needs of 
national defense, or to protect property.

Section 3127--Funds Available for All National Security Programs of the 
                          Department of Energy

    This section would authorize, subject to section 3121 of 
this bill, amounts for management and support activities and 
for general plant projects to be made available for use, when 
necessary, in connection with all national security programs of 
the Department of Energy.

                  Section 3128--Availability of Funds

    This section would allow amounts appropriated for operation 
and maintenance or for plant projects to remain available until 
expended. This section would provide an exception for program 
direction funding which would remain available until the end of 
fiscal year 2000.

   Section 3129--Transfers of Defense Environmental Management Funds

    This section would provide the manager of each field office 
of the Department of Energy with the limited authority to 
transfer defense environmental management funds from a program 
or project under the jurisdiction of the office to another such 
program or project.

   Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations


Section 3131--Limitation on Use at Department of Energy Laboratories of 
  Funds Appropriated for the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention 
                                Program

    This section would establish a limitation that not more 
than 25 percent of the funds appropriated for the Initiatives 
for Proliferation Prevention (IPP) program for any fiscal year 
could be spent at Department of Energy laboratories.
    The IPP program was established to provide employment for 
the thousands of unemployed and underemployed Russian nuclear 
weapons scientists in projects with commercial applications, 
thereby providing them with an incentive to remain in Russia 
and resist the temptation to emigrate to countries of 
proliferation concern.
    The committee notes that the Department of Energy's 
laboratories are involved in the IPP program to assist in 
designing and monitoring IPP research projects. However, the 
General Accounting Office has reported that 51 percent of IPP 
funds are consumed by the laboratories and that a majority of 
those expenditures are used for administrative support fees. 
The committee believes that the amount of IPP funds spent at 
the laboratories should be limited so that more funds are spent 
in Russia for the intended purpose of the program.

  Section 3132--Prohibition on Use for Payment of Russian Government 
Taxes and Customs Duties of Funds Appropriated for the Initiatives for 
                    Proliferation Prevention Program

    This section would prohibit the payment of Russian taxes or 
customs duties with funds appropriated for the Department of 
Energy's Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP) 
program.
    The IPP program was established to provide employment for 
the thousands of unemployed and underemployed Russian nuclear 
weapon scientists. The intent of the program is to provide 
salaries to these scientists for working on commercial research 
projects, thereby persuading them to remain in Russia and to 
refrain from emigrating to countries or projects of 
proliferation concern.
    However, the effectiveness of the program is severely 
diminished by the amount of IPP funds that are taxed by the 
Russian government. According to a November 1998 DOE report, 53 
percent of the IPP funds that are sent to Russia are extracted 
by the Russian government in the form of a variety of taxes, 
customs duties, and fees. As a result, the Russian scientists 
receive less than 50 percent of those IPP funds actually spent 
in Russia.

    Section 3133--Modification of Laboratory Directed Research and 
   Development to Provide Funds for Theater Ballistic Missile Defense

    This provision would amend section 3132 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-
510) by reducing the maximum laboratory directed research and 
development (LDRD) surcharge from six percent to three percent. 
It would also establish a three percent surcharge to fund 
theater ballistic missile defense (TMD) development projects at 
the national weapons laboratories. The provision would require 
that such projects be established and executed consistent with 
the memorandum of understanding between the Secretaries of 
Energy and Defense that was required by section 3131 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public 
Law 105-85). For fiscal year 2000, the provision would direct 
funds available for TMD to the development and test of kinetic 
energy theater ballistic missile defense warheads based on 
advanced explosive technology.
    The committee strongly believes that the development of 
effective ballistic missile defenses remains a critical 
national security requirement. The committee recognizes the 
national laboratories as a valuable, multi-mission, national 
security resource and believes that the high priority of 
meeting ballistic missile defense requirements dictates the use 
of their technical expertise.
    The committee believes that kinetic energy warheads based 
on advanced explosive technology could be a valuable technical 
adjunct to hit-to-kill technology and notes that such a program 
would take advantage of the Department of Energy's expertise 
and previous research in advanced explosive technology. The 
committee expects that this effort would focus on liquid metal 
jets produced by precisely initiated explosives, multiple 
pellet generation aimed by phased initiation, and a smart 
pellet projector.

 Section 3134--Support of Theater Ballistic Missile Defense Activities 
                      of the Department of Defense

    This section would authorize $30.0 million for stockpile 
stewardship for theater ballistic missile defense technology 
development, concept demonstration, and integrated testing to 
improve reliability and reduce risk in hit-to-kill interceptors 
for theater ballistic missile defenses; for science and 
engineering teams to address technical problems identified by 
the Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization 
(BMDO) which are critical to the acquisition of a theater 
ballistic missile defense capability; and for other research, 
development, and demonstration activities that support the 
mission of BMDO. The section would also require that any such 
activities conform to the memorandum of understanding between 
the Secretaries of Energy and Defense required by section 3131 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 
(Public Law 105-85) and be funded either through direct 
contributions or through a waiver of a federal administrative 
charge, overhead costs, or other indirect costs of the 
Department of Energy or its contractors.
    The budget request contained no funds for research related 
to ballistic missile defense. The committee continues to 
believe that the Department of Energy's national weapons 
laboratories possess substantial technical expertise relevant 
to the challenge of theater ballistic missile defenses and that 
the laboratories can enhance the core competencies required to 
sustain the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile.
    The committee understands that a memorandum of 
understanding (MOU) has been signed by the Secretaries of 
Energy and Defense on cooperative research and development 
activities between the DOE laboratories and the Ballistic 
Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) and that funds for specific 
projects based on this MOU have been requested by BMDO for 
fiscal year 2000. The committee believes that an expansion of 
this effort is justified.

          Subtitle D--Commission on Nuclear Weapons Management


   Sections 3151-3159--Commission to Examine Nuclear Weapons Policy 
                        Management and Oversight

    These sections would establish a ``Commission on Nuclear 
Weapons Management,'' the procedures by which members of the 
commission would be selected, general rules governing the 
operation of the commission, the duties of the commission, the 
commission's reporting requirements, and the commission's 
powers.

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters


  Section 3161--Procedures for Meeting Tritium Production Requirements

    Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen necessary for 
the proper functioning of U.S. nuclear weapons and due to a 
short half life, must be periodically replenished. Despite the 
fact that U.S. tritium production ceased in 1988, the committee 
notes that a new source of tritium is required by 2005 to meet 
tritium requirements imposed by nuclear warhead levels 
consistent with Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty I force levels. 
In December 1998, the Secretary of Energy designated commercial 
light water reactor technology to be the Department's primary 
tritium production technology and designated accelerator 
production of technology (APT) as the backup production 
technology.
    The committee notes that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC) will have to issue amended licenses to the Tennessee 
Valley Authority's Watts Bar and Sequoya light water reactors, 
selected by the Secretary as the preferred facilities for 
tritium production. The committee understands that the NRC 
licensing process is often very lengthy and is concerned that 
delays in issuing amended licenses to the preferred tritium 
production facilities could jeopardize the ability of the 
Department to meet tritium requirements. The Department's 
tritium production implementation plan indicates that the 
amended licenses will be granted by the first quarter of fiscal 
year 2003, and senior Department of Energy officials have 
informed the committee that they expect the amended licenses 
will be issued at an earlier date. Because the committee 
strongly believes that renewed production of tritium is 
essential to U.S. security requirements, it directs the 
Department to initiate the licensing process promptly.
    To mitigate the risks inherent in a potentially lengthy 
licensing process, this provision would require the Secretary 
of Energy to prepare a plan to expedite APT design completion 
and construction. If amended licenses for the operation of 
commercial light water reactors for tritium production have not 
been completed by December 31, 2002, the provision would also 
require that the Secretary designate APT as the primary 
technology for tritium production and implement the APT plan.

  Section 3162--Extension of Authority of Department of Energy to Pay 
                     Voluntary Separation Payments

    This provision would extend the Department of Energy's 
authority to pay voluntary separation incentive payments for 
one year beyond its current authority and would require the 
Department to submit a report on the Department's use of this 
authority. The committee believes that this authority is a key 
tool available to Defense Programs to shape its future 
workforce as it downsizes.
    The committee notes that several recent reports, including 
``The Organization and Management of the Nuclear Weapons 
Program,'' issued by the Institute for Defense Analyses in 
February 1997, and the report of the Commission on Sustaining 
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Expertise, issued March 15, 1999, have 
concluded that the Department of Energy Weapons Activities 
program is overstaffed in its management and oversight 
functions. In spite of these conclusions, Defense Programs 
personnel levels have remained steady since fiscal year 1998 
and are projected to remain steady through fiscal year 2000.

Section 3163--Fellowship Program for Development of Skills Critical to 
            the Department of Energy Nuclear Weapons Complex

    This provision would amend section 3140 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-
106) by authorizing the establishment of a fellowship program 
for graduate and postdoctoral students who are U.S. citizens 
specializing in physical sciences with relevance to the nuclear 
weapons complex; requiring recipients to accept a postdoctoral-
level appointment of at least one year, if offered, at one of 
national weapons laboratories or plants of the nuclear weapons 
complex; and requiring the Secretary of Energy to submit to the 
congressional defense committees by January 1, 2000 a plan that 
would establish criteria for the awarding of fellowships and a 
description of service obligations to be incurred by fellowship 
recipients. The provision would also authorize $5.0 million for 
the fellowship program.

      Section 3164--Department of Energy Records Declassification

    This section would require that any future budget request 
submitted to the Congress by the Department of Energy continue 
to specifically identify as a budgetary line item funds that 
would be used to declassify records pursuant to Executive Order 
12958 or to comply with any subsequent statutory 
declassification requirements. This section would also limit 
the expenditure of funds by the Department of Energy for 
declassification of records during fiscal year 2000 to no more 
than $8.5 million.

 Section 3165--Management of Nuclear Weapons Production Facilities and 
                         National Laboratories

    This section would require the Secretary of Energy to 
assign to the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Defense 
Programs direct authority over, and responsibility for, the 
nuclear weapons production facilities and national laboratories 
with respect to strategic management, policy development and 
guidance, budget guidance and formulation, resource 
requirements determinations and allocations, administration of 
contracts, environmental safety and health operations, 
integrated safety and management, safeguard and security 
operations, and relations with government agencies. It would 
also establish that the nuclear weapons production facilities, 
national laboratories, and operations offices report directly 
to the Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs. Finally, it 
would allow the Assistant Secretary to delegate to the 
operations offices a number of support functions, including 
operational activities, program execution, personnel, 
contracting and procurement, facility operations oversight, and 
integration of production and research activities.
    The committee notes that a 1997 study, entitled ``The 
Organization and Management of the Nuclear Weapons Program (120 
Study),'' found that Defense Programs suffers from confused 
lines of authority and weak integration of programs, budgets, 
and functions. The Commission on Sustaining United States 
Nuclear Weapons Expertise, established by section 3162 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public 
Law 104-201), recently completed its report and repeated those 
conclusions. This provision would address these concerns by 
clarifying the lines of authority for the national 
laboratories, nuclear weapons production facilities, and 
operations offices.

   Section 3166--Notice to Congressional Committees of Compromise of 
     Classified Information within Nuclear Energy Defense Programs

    This section would require the Secretary of Energy to 
notify the Armed Services Committee of the Senate and the Armed 
Services Committee of the House of Representatives whenever the 
Secretary has any knowledge that classified information 
relating to military applications of nuclear energy has been 
disclosed in an unauthorized manner to a foreign power or an 
agent of a foreign power.
    Since the Armed Services Committees of the Senate and the 
House of Representatives are the congressional committees 
responsible for the authorization of the nuclear energy defense 
programs of the Department of Energy, it is necessary that 
these committees be kept informed of any compromise of 
classified information to foreign powers either through 
espionage or through willful or accidental release by U.S. 
citizens. This information is essential so that these oversight 
committees can determine if such a disclosure of classified 
information caused significant damage to U.S. nuclear energy 
defense programs, so that program redirection or remedial 
actions can be authorized in a timely manner.

          TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISION

                      Section 3201--Authorization

    This section would authorize $17.5 million for the Defense 
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board during fiscal year 2000.

                TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

                       Section 3301--Definitions

    This section would provide specific definitions of the 
National Defense Stockpile and the National Defense Stockpile 
Transaction Fund.

            Section 3302--Authorized Uses Of Stockpile Funds

    This section would authorize $78.7 million from the 
National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund for the operation 
and maintenance of the National Defense Stockpile for fiscal 
year 2000. The provision would also permit the use of 
additional funds for extraordinary or emergency conditions 
after a notification to the Congress.

     Section 3303--Elimination of Congressionally Imposed Disposal 
              Restrictions on Specific Stockpile Materials

    This section would repeal sections 3303 and 3304 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public 
Law 104-106) pertaining to restrictions on the disposal of 
manganese ferro from the National Defense Stockpile.

                  TITLE XXXIV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

                      Great Lakes Maritime Academy

    The budget request contained $7.161 million for State 
Maritime Schools, representing an increase of $411,000 over the 
amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999. The committee 
understands that the training simulator at the Great Lakes 
Maritime Academy (GLMA) requires maintenance upgrades in order 
to continue to support cadet training and certification. The 
committee is concerned that the GLMA, the only State school 
without a federally supported training vessel, may not be able 
to continue to train its cadets to international maritime 
standards without the use of this simulator. Therefore, the 
committee directs that $190,000 of the $411,000 increase 
requested for State maritime schools be used to upgrade and 
repair the GLMA simulator.

                        Merchant Marine Academy

    The budget request contained $34.1 million for the U.S. 
Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA). The committee is concerned 
about the deteriorating material condition of the physical 
plant and campus infrastructure at the USMMA. The plant and 
facilities are in such need of repair and replacement that they 
have become a health and safety hazard to the midshipmen and 
the staff. The budget request contained $150,000 for a 
feasibility study for the design of a replacement utility 
system. The committee directs the Secretary of Transportation 
to provide by October 31, 1999, a report to the House Committee 
on Armed Services summarizing the findings of this feasibility 
study as well as a detailed outline of estimated costs 
necessary to repair and restore the facilities at the USMMA. In 
addition, the committee recommends $41.7 million, an increase 
of $7.6 million, for deferred capital maintenance projects for 
fiscal year 2000.

       Repair and Maintenance of Maritime Administration Vessels

    The committee understands that Ready Reserve Force vessels 
managed by the Maritime Administration (MARAD) but operated 
under the Military Sealift Command when activated for exercises 
or crisis, must be maintained according to U.S. Coast Guard 
standards. The committee expects that non-emergency repairs and 
maintenance to these vessels will be made in U.S. shipyards, 
except in cases of national emergency or unless the national 
security readiness of the vessel may be adversely affected. In 
addition, the committee directs the Secretary of Transportation 
to provide a report to the House Committee on Armed Services 
and the Senate Committee on Armed Services, by February 1, 
2000, detailing the type, cost, and location of all non-
emergency maintenance or repairs to these vessels since 1990. 
The report should also define ``emergency repairs'' and 
indicate the official reason for any repairs or maintenance 
performed in a shipyard outside of the Unites States or Guam.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

                       Section 3401--Short Title

    This Section would establish the Act as ``The Maritime 
Administration Act for Fiscal Year 2000.''

   Section 3402--Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2000

    This section would authorize $213.4 million for fiscal year 
2000. Of the funds authorized, $98.7 million is for the 
Maritime Security Program and $79.8 million is for operations 
and training programs, including $41.7, an increase of $7.6 
million, for capital maintenance at the U.S. Merchant Marine 
Academy. In addition, $31.0 million, an increase of $25.0 
million, is for the costs, as defined in section 502 of the 
Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, of loan guarantees 
authorized by Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as 
amended (46 App. U.S.C. 1271 et seq.) and $3.9 million is for 
administrative expenses related to these loan guarantee 
commitments.

 Section 3403--Amendments to Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936

    This section would authorize the Secretary of 
Transportation to place all Title XI bond proceeds in escrow to 
protect the government's interest during vessel construction. 
In addition, this section would prohibit the Secretary from 
releasing funds from the escrow account until the Secretary 
determines that the obligor has paid its portion of the actual 
cost of construction or reconstruction and that the funds to be 
released are needed to cover payments to the shipyard or other 
approved vessel related costs.
    This section would also authorize the Secretary of 
Transportation to deposit funds into the Treasury which are 
earned by an obligor and required to be paid into such an 
account by the terms of the obligor's agreement with the 
Secretary under a reserve fund or other collateral account 
agreement. The Secretary shall have a security interest in such 
deposits. In addition, this section would authorize the 
Secretary to invest and reinvest the funds on deposit with the 
Treasury in obligations of the United States with income from 
the account to be paid to the obligor in the absence of a 
default by the obligor. In the event of a default, the 
Secretary could retain and offset all of the funds in the 
account for the benefit of the United States. In no event could 
funds be withdrawn for this without the consent of the 
Secretary.

        Section 3404--Extension of War Risk Insurance Authority

    This section would extend through June 30, 2005, the 
current authority provided to the Secretary of Transportation, 
under Title XII of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, to provide 
policies for vessel war risk insurance to vessel operators, 
without premium, at the request of the Secretary of Defense 
whenever it appears that such insurance cannot be obtained on 
reasonable terms and conditions from commercial underwriters.

            Section 3405--Ownership of the JEREMIAH O'BRIEN

    This section would amend the Federal Maritime Commission 
Act of 1990 (46 U.S.C. Sec. 3302) to clarify the ownership 
status of the JEREMIAH O'BRIEN. The Coast Guard Authorization 
Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-324) authorized the conveyance of 
title of the JEREMIAH O'BRIEN to a nonprofit corporation for 
use as a merchant marine memorial. Under this authority, the 
National Liberty Ship Memorial, Inc. received title to the ship 
on October 10, 1998. Nothing in this section would amend or 
alter the terms and conditions set forth in either the Federal 
Maritime Commission Act of 1990 or the Coast Guard 
Authorization Act of 1996 as they relate to this vessel.

                  TITLE XXXV--PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

                       Section 3501--Short Title

    This section would establish the Act as the ``Panama Canal 
Commission Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000.''

              Section 3502--Authorization of Expenditures

    This section would authorize the Panama Canal Commission 
(the Commission) to make expenditures from the Panama Canal 
Commission Revolving Fund within existing statutory limits for 
the final period of U.S. operation of the Panama Canal, from 
the beginning of fiscal year 2000 to noon on December 31, 1999. 
The Commission does not draw from U.S. taxpayer funds for the 
operation of the Canal, but receives funding to cover its 
operating, administrative, and capital improvement expenses 
from tolls and other revenues collected. The Commission's total 
operating costs, including depreciation and interest payments, 
in fiscal year 2000 are estimated to be $156.9 million. Due to 
the numerous official activities that will precede and 
accompany the transfer in this final period, the committee is 
recommending the same amount that was authorized for fiscal 
year 1999.

                   Section 3503--Purchase of Vehicles

    This section would authorize the Commission to purchase 
passenger motor vehicles built in the United States provided 
that the purchase price is less than $26,000 per vehicle.

           Section 3504--Office of Transition Administration

    This section would authorize the Office of Transition 
Administration (OTA), established by section 1305 of the Panama 
Canal Act of 1979 (22 U.S.C. 3714a) to expend or obligate funds 
from the Panama Canal Commission Dissolution Fund established 
by that same provision. This authority would be in effect from 
enactment until the Fund terminates by law on October 24, 2004. 
This section would also set forth certain operating parameters 
of OTA. Specifically, it would deem the director of OTA as the 
head of the agency for purposes of the exercise of procurement 
authority, clarify that the relevant provisions of the Panama 
Canal Act of 1979 will govern OTA's operation, and establish 
Panama and Washington, D.C. as OTA's locations. Finally, this 
section would confirm that the OTA office in Panama will be 
subject to normal Chief of Mission authority exercised by the 
United States Embassy in Panama.

                           DEPARTMENTAL DATA

    The Department of Defense requested legislation, in 
accordance with the program of the President, as illustrated by 
the correspondence set out below:

              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST

                             Department of Defense,
                                 Office of General Counsel,
                                    Washington, DC, March 23, 1999.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Speaker: The Department of Defense proposes the 
enclosed draft of legislation, ``To authorize appropriations 
for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for military activities of the 
Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel 
strengths for fiscal years 2000 and 2001, and for other 
purposes.''
    This legislative proposal is part of the Department of 
Defense Legislative Program for the First Session of the 106th 
Congress and is necessary to carry out the President's budget 
plans for fiscal years 2000 and 2001. The Office of Management 
and Budget advises that there is no objection to the 
presentation of this proposal to the Congress, and that its 
enactment would be in accord with the program of the President.
    The bill proposes several important initiatives needed for 
the efficient operation of the Department of Defense. It 
contains two additional rounds of base closures that would 
provide a fair process for eliminating unnecessary 
infrastructure while saving billions of dollars needed for 
increased modernization costs to replace aging weapon systems. 
It also would authorize appropriations for construction at 
certain military installations for fiscal years 2000 and 2001, 
and for other military construction activities of the 
Department.
    The bill's 4.4 percent increase in basic pay, targeted pay 
increases, restoration of retirement pay, and extensions and 
increases in certain special pays and bonuses, would enable the 
Department to recruit and retain qualified members in the 
uniformed services. Finally, the bill would contribute to the 
smooth management of the Department by providing many other 
improvements and additions to the authorities under which we 
operate.
    Sincerely,
                                                  Judith A. Miller.
    Enclosures.

                           COMMITTEE POSITION

    On May 19, 1999 the Committee on Armed Services, a quorum 
being present, approved H.R. 1401, as amended, by a vote of 55 
to 1.
                                ------                                


                  COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES

                          House of Representatives,
                                    Committee on Education,
                                      Washington, DC, May 20, 1999.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, 
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Spence: Thank you for working with me in your 
development of H.R. 1401, National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001, specifically:
          1. Section 341, Assistance to Local Education 
        Agencies that Benefit Dependents of Members of the 
        Armed Forces and Department of Defense Civilian 
        Employees;
          2. Section 343; Technical Amendments to Defense 
        Dependents' Education Act of 1978;
          3. Section 549, Re-codification and Consolidation of 
        Statutes Denying Federal Grants and Contracts by 
        certain Departments and Agencies to Institutions of 
        Higher Education that Prohibit Senior ROTC Units or 
        Military Recruiting on Campus;
          4. Section 567, Access to Secondary School Students 
        for Military Recruiting Purposes; and
          5. Section 673, Overseas Special Supplemental Food 
        Program.
    As you know, these provisions are within the jurisdiction 
of the Education and the Workforce Committee.
    While I do not intend to seek sequential referral of H.R. 
1401, the Committee does hold an interest in preserving its 
future jurisdiction with respect to issues raised in the 
aforementioned provisions and its jurisdictional prerogatives 
should the provisions of this bill or any Senate amendments 
thereto be considered in a conference with the Senate. We would 
expect to be appointed as conferees on these provisions should 
a conference with the Senate arise.
    Again, I thank you for working with me in developing the 
amendments to H.R 1401 and look forward to working with you on 
these issues in the future.
            Sincerely,
                                           Bill Goodling, Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                            Committee on Government Reform,
                                      Washington, DC, May 21, 1999.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, 
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Committee on Government Reform has 
decided not to assert its jurisdiction over the following 
provisions in H.R. 1401, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2000, that fall within the legislative 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform.

Title V--Military Personnel Policy

    Section 521: Revision to Military Technician (Dual Status) 
Law.
    Section 522: Civil Service Retirement of Technicians.
    Section 523: Revision to Non-Dual Status Technicians 
Statute.
    Section 524: Revision to Authorities Relating to National 
Guard Technicians.

Title VI--Compensation and other Personnel Benefits

    Section 672: Clarification of per diem eligibility for 
military technicians serving on active duty without pay outside 
the United States.

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

    Section 802: Extension of Authority to issue solicitations 
for purposes of commercial items in excess of simplified 
acquisition threshold.

Title IX--Department of Defense Organization and Management

    Section 902: Responsibility for logistics and sustainment 
functions of the DOD.

Title XI--Department of Defense Civilian Personnel

    Section 1101: Increase of pay cap for non-appropriated fund 
senior executive employees.
    Section 1102: Restoration of leave for certain DOD 
employees who deploy to combat zone outside U.S.
    Section 1103: Expansion of Guard & Reserve purposes for 
which leave may be used.

Title XXVIII--General Provisions

    Section 2802: Development of Ford Island, Hawaii.

Title XXXI--Department of Energy National Security Programs

    Section 3156: Personnel matters.
    Section 3157: Miscellaneous Administrative Provisions.
    Section 3162: Extension of authority of DOE to pay 
voluntary separation incentive payments.
    As you know, House Rule X, Establishment and Jurisdiction 
of Standing Committees, grants the Government Reform Committee 
wide jurisdiction over government management issues including 
matters related to Federal civil service, procurement policy, 
and property disposal.
    This committee also oversees legislation regarding holidays 
and celebrations. This waiver is not intended or designed to 
limit our jurisdiction over any future consideration of related 
matters.
    Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your consultation with the 
Government Reform Committee to ensure that these provisions 
address the legislative goals of both Committees as well as the 
American taxpayer.
    I look forward to working with you in the on this and other 
issues throughout the 106th Congress.
    Sincerely,
                                              Dan Burton, Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                      Committee on International Relations,
                                      Washington, DC, May 21, 1999.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, 
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that on Wednesday, May 19, 
1999, the Committee on Armed Services ordered favorably 
reported H.R. 1401, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2000. The bill includes a number of provisions that 
fall within the legislative jurisdiction of the Committee on 
International Relations pursuant to Rule X(k) of the House of 
Representatives.
    The specific provisions within our committee's jurisdiction 
are: (1) Section 1023, United States Military Activities in 
Colombia; (2) Section 1201, Report on Strategic Stability under 
START III; (3) Section 1202, One-Year Extension of Counter-
Proliferation Authorities for Support of United Nations Weapons 
Inspection Regime in Iraq; and (4) Title XIII, Cooperative 
Threat Reduction with States of the Former Soviet Union.
    With respect to Section 1006, Limitation on Operations in 
Yugoslavia, and Section 1206, Limitation on Funds for Bosnia 
Peacekeeping Operations for Fiscal Year 2000, it is my 
understanding that the Parliamentarians have not made a final 
determination regarding our jurisdictional claim on these 
provisions. Because of our Committee's strong interest in these 
provisions, which we believe are at the heart of our 
Committee's jurisdiction regarding decisions governing 
intervention abroad, we will continue to seek jurisdiction over 
these provisions as we move toward conference committee on H.R. 
1401.
    Pursuant to Chairman Dreier's announcement that the 
Committee on Rules will move expeditiously to consider a rule 
for H.R. 1401 and your desire to have the bill considered on 
the House floor next week, the Committee on International 
Relations will not seek a sequential referral of the bill as a 
result of including these provisions, without waiving or ceding 
now or in the future this committee's jurisdiction over the 
provisions in question. I will seek to have conferees appointed 
for these provisions during any House-Senate conference 
committee.
    I would appreciate your including this letter as a part of 
the report on H.R. 1401 and as part of the record during 
consideration of the bill by the House of Representatives.
    With best wishes,
    Sincerely,
                                      Benjamin A. Gilman, Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                                    Committee on Resources,
                                      Washington, DC, May 21, 1999.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, 
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I have reviewed H.R. 1401, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, as reported by 
the Committee on Armed Services for provisions within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources. Based on my 
reading, I believe the Committee on Resources has a 
jurisdictional interest in sections 365, 601, 653, 654, 2814 
and 2863, all dealing with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration Corps, public lands or historic preservation.
    Because I have no objection to these provisions and because 
of the excellent working relationship our committees have 
enjoyed these last three Congresses, I will not seek a 
sequential referral of the bill based on their inclusion. 
However, I do ask that you support my request to have the 
Committee on Resources represented on any conference on this 
measure or any similar measure for those provisions, and that 
you include this letter in the report for the bill.
    Thank you for keeping me and my staff apprized of the 
progress of H.R. 1401; Robert Rangel, Philip Grone, Peter 
Steffes and Michael Higgins of your Committee staff were 
especially helpful. I look forward to seeing H.R. 1401 enacted 
soon.
            Sincerely,
                                               Don Young, Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                      Washington, DC, May 21, 1999.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, 
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the 
jurisdictional interest of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee in matters being considered in H.R. 
1401, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 
2000 and 2001.
    Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1401 and 
the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, 
while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over a number of 
provisions of the bill, I do not intend to request a sequential 
referral. This, of course, is conditional on our mutual 
understanding that nothing in this legislation or my decision 
to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise 
affects the jurisdiction of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, that every effort will be made to 
include any agreements worked out by staff of our two 
Committees in amendments as the bill is taken to the House 
Floor, and that a copy of this letter and of your response 
acknowledging our jurisdictional interest will be included in 
the Committee Report and as part of the record during 
consideration of this bill by the House. In addition, the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee reserves the right 
to be included as conferees on any matter within its 
jurisdiction should this legislation go to a House-Senate 
conference.
    Pursuant to Rule X, clause 1 (q), of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives, the Transportation and Infrastructure has 
jurisdiction over oil and other pollution of navigable waters, 
the non-military activities of the Army Corps of Engineers, the 
Tennessee Valley Authority, as well as the Coast Guard. Our 
environmental jurisdiction includes provisions which amend or 
affect the Clean Water Act, the Ocean Dumping Act, the Coastal 
Zone Management Act, the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, 
the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, (including the double hull 
phase-out schedule), and the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
    In particular, our Committee has a jurisdictional interest 
in Section 321, ``Remediation of asbestos and lead-based 
paint'', which requires the Secretary of Defense to use the 
Army Corps of Engineers to remediate asbestos and lead-based 
paint at military installations. Nonmilitary activities of the 
Corps are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure and this additional program 
will impact the Corps' ability to carry out its existing 
missions. Similarly, our Committee has jurisdiction over the 
Tennessee Valley Authority, and accordingly, the Committee has 
a jurisdictional interest in Section 3161, ``Procedures for 
Meeting Tritium Production Requirements.''
    Furthermore, the Committee has an interest in the following 
sections, as well as any other section in the reported version 
of the bill, affecting Coast Guard pay or personnel matters:
          361. Discretionary Authority to install 
        telecommunications equipment for persons performing 
        voluntary services.
          367. Treatment of Alaska, Hawaii, and Guam in defense 
        household goods moving programs.
          411. End Strengths for Selected Reserve.
          511. Continuation on Reserve active status list to 
        complete disciplinary action.
          515. Computation of years of service exclusion.
          517. Expansion and codification of authority for 
        space-required travel for Reserves.
          601. Fiscal year 2000 increase in military basic pay 
        and reform of basic pay rates.
          602. Pay increase for fiscal years after fiscal year 
        2000.
          611. Extension of certain bonuses and special pay 
        authorities for reserve forces.
          613. Extension of authorities relating to payment of 
        other bonuses and special pays.
          614. Aviation career incentive pay for air battle 
        managers.
          615. Expansion of authority to provide special pay to 
        aviation career officers extending period of active 
        duty.
          616. Diving duty special pay.
          617. Reenlistment bonus.
          618. Enlistment bonus.
          619. Revised Eligibility requirements for reserve 
        component prior service enlistment bonus.
          621. Increase in authorized monthly rate of foreign 
        lanuage proficiency pay.
          622. Authorization of retention bonus for special 
        warfare officers extending period of active duty.
          624. Authorization of career enlisted flyer incentive 
        pay.
          625. Authorization of judge advocate continuation 
        pay.
          631. Provision of lodging in kind for Reservists 
        performing training duty and not otherwise entitled to 
        travel and transportation allowances.
          632. Payment of temporary lodging expenses for 
        members making their first permanent change of station.
          633. Emergency leave travel cost limitations.
          641. Redux retired pay system applicable only to 
        members electing new 15-year career status bonus.
          642. Authorization of 15-year career status bonus.
          651. Effective date of disability retirement for 
        members dying in civilian medical facilities.
          653. Preservation of United States flag to retiring 
        members of the uniformed services not previously 
        covered.
          654. Accrual funding for retirement system for 
        commissioned corps of National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
        Administration.
          671. Payments for unused accrued leave as part of 
        reenlistment.
          672. Clarification of per diem eligibility for 
        military technicians serving on active duty without pay 
        outside the United States.
          674. Special compensation for severely disabled 
        uniformed serviced retirees.
          721. Pharmacy benefits program.
          722. Improvements to third-party payer collection 
        program.
          3404. Extension of war risk insurance authority.
    Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. I look 
forward to continuing to work with you on H.R. 1401 and other 
matters of mutual interest to our two Committees.
            Sincerely,
                                             Bud Shuster, Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 21, 1999.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of 
        Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of May 21, 
1999 regarding H.R. 1401, the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2000.
    I agree that the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure has valid jurisdictional claims to certain 
provisions in this important legislation, and I am most 
appreciative of your decision not to request such a referral in 
the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree 
that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure is not waiving its 
jurisdiction. Further, as you requested, this exchange of 
letters will be included in the Committee report on the bill.
    Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
            Sincerely,
                                         Floyd D. Spence, Chairman.
                              FISCAL DATA

    Pursuant to clause 3(d) Rule XIII of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives, the committee attempted to ascertain annual 
outlays resulting from the bill during fiscal year 2000 and the 
four years. The results of such efforts are reflected in the 
cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional 
Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, which is included in this report pursuant to clause 
3(c)(3).

                  Congressional Budget Office Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House 
of Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by the 
Congressional Budget Office and submitted pursuant to section 
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is as follows:

                                                      May 21, 1999.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, 
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Earlier today, the Congressional Budget 
Office (CBO) transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 1401, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. Please 
note, that for a variety of reasons, the estimates contained in 
the transmittal are not directly comparable with the total for 
the national defense function specified in the budget 
resolution. For example, H.R. 1401 contains a few items that do 
not fall under the national defense function. If appropriate 
adjustments were made to place the cost estimate of H.R. 1401 
on a comparable basis with the amounts contained in the budget 
resolution, the budget authority for H.R. 1401 would be 
$288,800 million (compared to $288,812 million in the budget 
resolution), and the outlays would be $274,534 million 
(compared to $276,567 million in the budget resolution).
    I hope this clarifies the information provided in CBO's 
cost estimate of H.R. 1401.
            Sincerely,
                                                    Dan L. Crippen.
                                ------                                

                                                      May 21, 1999.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, 
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 
has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1401, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. Also 
enclosed are two tables with comparisons among the budget 
request, the bill, and the budget resolution.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them.
            Sincerely,
                                                    Dan L. Crippen.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    Summary: H.R. 1401 would authorize appropriations totaling 
$291.0 billion for fiscal year 2000 for the military functions 
of the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Energy 
(DOE). It also would prescribe personnel strengths for each 
active duty and selected reserve component of the U.S. armed 
forces. CBO estimates that appropriation of the authorized 
amounts for 2000 would result in additional outlays of $287 
billion over the 2000-2004 period. In addition, the bill 
contains provisions that would raise the costs of discretionary 
defense programs over the 2001-2004 period by about $2.6 
billion.
    The bill contains provisions that would affect direct 
spending, primarily through changes to military retirement 
programs. We estimate that the direct spending resulting from 
provisions of H.R. 1401 would total about $7 million over the 
2000-2004 period and $186 million over the 2000-2009 period. 
Over the long run, the provisions to change the military 
retirement system would raise the costs of that entitlement 
program by about 6 percent. Under current law, spending for 
that program will amount to about $32 billion in 1999. Because 
it would affect direct spending, the bill would be subject to 
pay-as-you-go procedures.
    One section of the bill may contain an intergovernmental 
and private-sector mandate, but the costs of the mandate would 
not exceed thresholds established by the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act (UMRA). UMRA excludes from application of the act 
legislative provisions that are necessary for the national 
security or for the ratification or implementation of 
international treaty obligations. CBO has determined that all 
other provisions of this bill either fit within that exclusion 
or do not contain private-sector or intergovernmental mandates 
as defined by UMRA.
    Estimated Cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 1401 is shown in Table 1, assuming 
that the bill will be enacted by October 1, 1999.
    Basis of Estimate:
Authorizations of Appropriations
    The bill would authorize specific appropriations totaling 
$291.0 billion in 2000 for military programs of DOD and DOE 
(see Table 2). These costs would fall within budget function 
050 (national defense). The estimate assumes that the amounts 
authorized will be appropriated for 2000. Outlays are estimated 
based on historical spending patterns. In addition, H.R. 1401 
would authorize appropriations of $80 million for the Maritime 
Administration (function 400) and $68 million for the Armed 
Forces Retirement Home (function 700).

      TABLE 1.--BUDGETARY IMPACT OF H.R. 1401 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                                    [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   1999       2000       2001       2002       2003       2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Spending Under Current Law for Defense
 Programs:
    Budget Authority \1\......................    279,421          0          0          0          0          0
    Estimated Outlays.........................    273,507     93,107     34,029     13,420      5,808      2,850
Proposed Changes:
    Authorization Level.......................          0    291,031          0          0          0          0
    Estimated Outlays.........................          0    192,959     61,061     21,367      7,880      3,462
Spending Under H.R. 1401 for Defense Programs:
    Authorization Level \1\...................    279,421    291,031          0          0          0          0
    Estimated Outlays.........................    273,507    286,066     95,090     34,787     13,688      6,312

                                                 DIRECT SPENDING

Estimated Budget Authority....................          0          1          2          0          2          2
Estimated Outlays.............................          0          1          2          0          2          2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1999 level is the amount appropriated for programs authorized by the bill.

 Note.--Costs of the bill would fall under budget function 050 (national defense), except for certain items
  noted in the text.


  TABLE 2.--SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATIONS IN THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000, AS ORDERED
                                REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                                    [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Category                           2000        2001        2002        2003        2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Personnel:
    Authorization Level.............................      72,116           0           0           0           0
    Estimated Outlays...............................      69,520       1,587         505         144           0
Operation and Maintenance:
    Authorization Level.............................     106,008           0           0           0           0
    Estimated Outlays...............................      79,667      20,598       3,202       1,324         545
Procurement:
    Authorization Level.............................      55,599           0           0           0           0
    Estimated Outlays...............................      13,122      18,995      13,158       5,229       2,438
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation:
    Authorization Level.............................      35,836           0           0           0           0
    Estimated Outlays...............................      19,638      13,332       2,012         547         142
Military Construction and Family Housing:
    Authorization Level.............................       8,590           0           0           0           0
    Estimated Outlays...............................       2,488       3,173       1,716         653         324
Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
    Authorization Level.............................      12,285           0           0           0           0
    Estimated Outlays...............................       7,903       3,336         835          11          10
Other Accounts:
    Authorization Level.............................         523           0           0           0           0
    Estimated Outlays...............................         274          93          59          32          23
General Transfer Authority:
    Authorization Level.............................           0           0           0           0           0
    Estimated Outlays...............................         280         -60        -120         -60         -20
Total:
    Authorization Level.............................     290,957           0           0           0           0
    Estimated Outlays...............................     192,892      61,054      21,367       7,880       3,462
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bill also contains provisions that would affect various 
costs, mostly for personnel, that would be covered by the 
fiscal year 2000 authorization and by authorizations in future 
years. Table 3 contains estimates of these amounts. In addition 
to the costs covered by the authorizations in the bill for 
2000, these provisions would raise estimated costs by $2.6 
billion over the 2001-2004 period. The following sections 
describe the estimated authorizations shown in Table 3 and 
provide information about CBO's cost estimates.
    Multiyear Procurement Programs. In most cases, purchases of 
weapon systems are authorized annually, and as a result DoD 
negotiates a separate contract for each annual purchase. In a 
small number of cases, the law permits multiyear procurement; 
that is, it allows DoD to enter into a contract to buy 
specified annual quantities of a system for up to five years. 
In those cases DoD can negotiate lower prices because its 
commitment to purchase the weapons gives the contractor an 
incentive to find more economical ways to manufacture the 
weapon, including cost-saving investments. Funding would 
continue to be provided on an annual basis for these multiyear 
contracts, but termination costs would be covered by an initial 
appropriation.
    H.R. 1401 would authorize DoD to enter into multiyear 
contracts for six weapon systems: Javelin missiles, Bradley 
fighting vehicles, Apache Longbow attack helicopters, upgrades 
to the Abrams main battle tank, Wolverine heavy assault 
bridges, and F/A-18 E/F aircraft. The Javelin missile and 
Bradley fighting vehicle contracts would cover four years of 
production while contracts for the F/A-18E/F, Apache Longbow 
helicopters, Abrams tank upgrades, and Wolverine bridges would 
cover five years.
    CBO estimates savings from buying the five Army systems 
with multiyear contracts would total $870 million, an average 
of $174 million a year, over the 2000-2004 period. Funding 
requirements through 2004 would total $7.2 billion instead of 
the $8.0 billion needed under annual contracts. Multiyear 
procurement of the Javelin would raise costs in 2000 because 
that system did not receive advance procurement funding in 1999 
in anticipation of multiyear procurement starting in 2000. 
Similarly, CBO estimates that the Navy would save $706 million, 
or about $140 million a year, through 2004 under a multiyear 
contract for the F/A-18E/F, which under current law would cost 
about $15.8 billion over that period. Those estimates are based 
on the assumption that annual production will be at the levels 
planned by the Administration for each of the six programs.

TABLE 3.--ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR SELECTED PROVISIONS IN H.R. 1401 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY
                                      THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                                    [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Category                             2000       2001       2002       2003       2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiyear Procurement:
    Javelin Missile System...............................         33       -106        -73        -84         -9
    Bradley Fighting Vehicle.............................         -1        -31        -36        -33          0
    Apache Longbow Helicopters...........................         -2        -77        -97       -112        -96
    Tank Upgrades........................................          0        -29        -29        -30        -19
    Wolverine Bridge.....................................          0         -7         -8         -9        -16
    F/A-18 E/F Aircraft..................................       -148       -163       -166       -124       -106
Military Endstrengths:
    Department of Defense................................       -511       -531       -551       -570       -589
    Coast Guard Reserve..................................         74          0          0          0          0
    Grade Structure......................................          1          1          1          1          1
Compensation and Benefits (DoD):
    Military Pay Raise in 2000...........................        204        278        287        297        306
    Pay Table Reform.....................................        195        809        838        864        893
    Enlistment/Reenlistment Bonuses (active).............        266        182         91         59         35
    Aviation and Nuclear Special Pay.....................         40         43         33         25         20
    Various Bonuses (Reserve)............................         45         52         37         26         18
    Special Pay for Nurses...............................          7          3          0          0          0
    Increases in Special Pays............................         34         55         50         45         43
    New Special Pays.....................................         52         53         54         55         55
    Travel and Transportation Allowances.................         21         21         22         22         22
    Reserve Components...................................          5          5          6          6          6
    Military Academies and Education Benefits............         15         15         15         15         15
    Other Military Benefits..............................         22         22         22         22         22
Military Retirement:
    Changes to REDUX System..............................        443        596      1,136      1,137      1,187
    Payments to Disabled Retirees........................         45         45         45         45         46
Other Provisions:
    Acquisition Workforce................................        -28       -492     -1,047     -1,146     -1,184
    Agency Retirement Contributions......................          2          3          3          4          4
    DOE Separation Incentives............................          0          0          6          0          0
    Domiciliary and Custodial Care.......................          7          7          7          7          7
Bill Total:
    Estimated Authorizations.............................        821        754        646        523        663

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes.--For every item in this table except one, the 2000 impacts are included in the amounts specifically
  authorized to be appropriated in the bill. Those amounts are shown in Table 2. Only the authorization of
  endstrength for the Coast Guard Reserve is additive to the amounts in Table 2.

    Endstrength. The bill would authorize active and reserve 
endstrengths for 2000 and would lower the minimum endstrength 
authorization under permanent law. The authorized endstrengths 
for active-duty personnel and personnel in the Selected Reserve 
would total 1,385,432 and 865,298, respectively. The bill would 
specifically authorize appropriations of $72.1 billion for 
military pay and allowances in 2000. Current law sets the 
minimum endstrength for active-duty personnel at 1,395,698 but 
the bill would lower that figure for future years to 1,384,806. 
The reduction in authorized personnel would decrease future 
costs by more than $500 million annually.
    Also the bill would authorize an endstrength of 8,000 in 
2000 for the Coast Guard Reserve. This authorization would cost 
about $74 million and would fall under budget function 400, 
transportation.
    Grade Structure. Section 414 would change the grade 
structure of active duty personnel in support of the reserves. 
This change would not increase the overall endstrength, but 
would result in more promotions. The provision would cost about 
$1 million a year.
    Compensation and Benefits. H.R. 1401 contains several 
provisions that would affect military compensation and 
benefits.
    Pay Raises. Section 601 would raise basic pay by 4.8 
percent at a total cost of about $2.0 billion in 2000. Because 
this pay raise would be 0.5 percent above what is projected 
under current law, CBO estimates that the incremental costs 
would be $204 million in 2000 and average about $290 million 
over the next four years.
    In addition to the across-the-board pay raise, section 601 
would authorize additional pay raises for individuals with 
specific ranks and years of service. These raises would become 
effective after July 1, 2000. They would cost $196 million in 
2000 and about $900 million annually by 2004.
    Expiring Bonuses and Allowances. Several sections would 
extend for one year DoD's authority to pay certain bonuses and 
allowances to current personnel. Under current law, these 
authorities are scheduled to expire in December 1999, or three 
months into fiscal year 2000. The bill would extend these 
authorities through December 2000. CBO estimates that payment 
of enlistment and reenlistment bonuses for active duty 
personnel would cost $266 million in 2000 and $182 million in 
2001. The cost of extending special payments for aviators and 
nuclear-qualified personnel would be $40 million in 2000 and 
$43 million in 2001. Payment authorities for various bonuses 
for the Selected and Ready Reserve would cost $45 million in 
2000 and $52 million in 2001. We estimate that authorities to 
make special payments to nurse officer candidates, registered 
nurses, and nurse anesthetists would cost $7 million in 2000 
and $3 million in 2001. Most of these changes would result in 
additional, smaller costs in subsequent years because payments 
are made in installments.
    Increases in Special Pays and Bonuses. Sections 614 through 
621 would revise certain eligibility criteria and pay rates for 
personnel with special skills. Under those provisions, pay 
would be increased for aviators, nuclear-qualified naval 
officers, servicemembers performing diving duty, and 
individuals with proficiency in foreign languages. In addition, 
the maximum payments for enlistment and reenlistment bonuses 
for personnel on active duty would increase and limits on 
receiving only one hazardous duty incentive pay would be 
removed. Those changes would cost $34 million in 2000 and 
larger amounts in subsequent years.
    New Special Pays. Sections 622 through 625 would authorize 
four new special compensation categories. These include a 
retention bonus for special warfare officers, continuation pay 
for surface warfare officers, and incentive pay for career 
enlisted flyers, which would replace a similar pay for certain 
enlisted personnel. Continuation pay would also be extended to 
personnel serving as judge advocates. Additional costs for 
these provisions would total $52 million in 2000 and similar 
amounts in subsequent years.
    Travel and Transportation Allowances. Section 631 would 
require DoD to cover the lodging expenses of reservists on 
training duty when they are not otherwise entitled to travel 
and transportation allowances and when government housing is 
not available. Because the services have already been providing 
lodging as needed, CBO attributes minimal additional costs to 
this provision. Section 632 would allow enlisted personnel 
reporting to their first permanent duty station to receive 
temporary lodging expenses. Estimated costs for increased 
lodging expenses would total about $21 million annually.
    Reserve Components. Several provisions would affect 
servicemembers in the reserves. Section 512 would authorize the 
Secretary of Defense to order a member of the reserves to 
active duty for the purpose of receiving authorized medical 
care, receiving a disability evaluation, or participating in a 
health care study. Costs would total about $1 million a year. 
Section 518 would authorize a financial assistance program for 
certain members of the Marine Corps Reserves at an estimated 
cost of $4 million annually.
    Military Academies and Education Benefits. Section 531 
would increase DoD's authority to waive some of the 
reimbursement that it receives for the expenses for foreign 
students to attend the military academies. CBO estimates 
additional waivers would total $3 million a year. Section 546 
would increase the monthly subsistence allowance for senior 
ROTC cadets selected for advanced training. The estimated costs 
are $12 million annually.
    Other Military Benefits. The bill contains several 
additional provisions pertaining to pay and benefits.
    Overseas Special Supplemental Food Program. The Special 
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children 
(WIC), operated by the Food and Nutrition Service of the 
Department of Agriculture, provides food assistance and 
nutrition services to pregnant and post-partum women and 
children up to five years of age who meet income and nutrition 
eligibility guidelines. The bill would require DoD to operate a 
similar program for personnel living overseas. CBO estimates 
that about 5,100 women and children would participate in an 
average month under the program, increasing discretionary costs 
by $2 million each year.
    The bill would require DoD to use the eligibility criteria 
that apply to the WIC program, to the extent practicable, with 
the specific exception that the value of in-kind housing 
benefits be included in calculating a household's income. Based 
on data from DoD on personnel living overseas, CBO assumes that 
about 4,800 children under the age of five would meet the 
requirements for age and household income. Assuming that 1,400 
of the eligible children are up to one year old, program data 
suggest that 1,900 pregnant, post-partum, and breast-feeding 
women would be eligible based on income. Thus, a total of 6,700 
women and children would meet the income criteria for 
assistance. CBO estimates that about 80 percent of those 6,700 
individuals would be determined to be at nutritional risk, and 
assumes that 95 percent of those eligible would participate. We 
therefore project a total of 5,100 participants in an average 
month.
    CBO estimates that the average monthly food cost would be 
about $28 for each participant, based on a DoD estimate of the 
cost of an average WIC food package in military commissaries, 
adjusted for inflation. In addition to supplemental foods, 
participants would receive nutrition services. Nutrition 
services and other administrative costs are typically about 25 
percent of the total cost in WIC. Based on the estimated food 
costs, administrative costs would be about $7 per month per 
participant.
    Other Provisions. Section 566 would increase funding 
limitations for the National Guard Challenge Program. Section 
671 would allow payment of accrued leave to servicemembers upon 
immediate reenlistment. Section 675 would allow the Secretaries 
of the military departments to waive tuition charges for 
servicemembers deployed in a contingency operation. CBO 
estimates the cost of these increased authorities would total 
about $20 million a year.
    Military Retirement. H.R.1401 contains provisions that 
would increase retirement benefits for various military 
retirees.
    Changes to the REDUX System. The bill would increase 
retirement benefits for members who entered the service after 
July 31, 1986, and are covered under the system known as REDUX.
    Background. The Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986 
(REDUX) governs the retirement of military personnel who 
initially entered the armed forces after July 31, 1986. Under 
REDUX a retiree's initial annuity ranges from 40 percent to 75 
percent of the individual's highest three years of basic pay. 
Retirees with 20 years of service will receive 40 percent, and 
the fraction will grow with each additional year of service and 
reach the maximum at 30 years of service. When the retiree is 
62 years old, the annuity is raised in most cases to equal 2.5 
percent of the average of the highest 36 months of basic pay 
for each year of service up to a maximum of 75 percent. Also, 
under REDUX, retirees receive annual cost-of-living adjustments 
(COLAs) equal to the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) 
less 1 percentage point. When the retiree reaches age 62, the 
annuity is raised to reflect all of the CPI growth until that 
point, but thereafter annual COLAs continue to equal the CPI 
less one percentage point.
    Current law provides two different formulas for other 
individuals who become eligible for a nondisability retirement 
benefit but are not covered by REDUX. Military personnel who 
first became members of the armed forces before September 8, 
1980, receive retired pay equal to a multiple of their highest 
amount of basic pay; the multiple is 2.5 percent for every year 
of service up to 75 percent. Retirees who first became members 
of the armed forces between September 8, 1980, and July 31, 
1986, receive retired pay based on the average of the highest 
36 months of basic pay and the multiplier of 2.5 percent for 
each year of service (the so-called high three plan). Annuities 
for both of these groups are fully adjusted for changes in the 
CPI.
    Changes Under H.R. 1401. Under section 642, members who 
under current law would retire under REDUX would face a choice 
upon reaching 15 years of service. They could elect to receive 
a lump-sum bonus of $30,000 and retire under the REDUX plan or 
they could forgo that payment and upon retirement receive 
annuities under the high three plan. Section 641 would 
establish a floor for COLAs under both of those options--1 
percent for those retiring under REDUX and 2 percent for those 
selecting the other option.
    Accrual Costs. Prior to 2009 the primary budgetary impact 
would stem from the payments that DoD would make to the 
military retirement trust fund. The military retirement system 
is financed in part by payments from appropriated funds to the 
military retirement trust fund based on an estimate of the 
system's accruing liabilities. Repealing REDUX would increase 
payments from the military personnel accounts to the military 
retirement fund (a DoD outlay in budget function 050) to 
finance the increased liability to the fund resulting from 
additional years of service under a more generous system. CBO 
estimates that the resulting increase in discretionary spending 
from the accrual payments would be $443 million in 2000 and 
would average about $600 million by 2004. The costs to DoD 
would increase annually by projected increases in basic pay. 
Accrual charges are reestimated by DoD every year depending 
upon endstrengths, projected years of service at the time of 
retirement, grade structures, and projected rates of military 
pay raises, inflation, and interest rates. CBO's assumption 
about these factors are consistent with the ones currently used 
by the DoD's actuaries. These estimates assume that annual pay 
raises are between 3 and 4 percent, the CPI grows at 3.5 
percent a year over the long term, and the trust fund's 
holdings of Treasury securities earn interest at a rate of 6.5 
percent annually.
    Lump-Sum Payments. In addition to the higher accrual 
charges, CBO estimates that DoD would spend about $500 million 
a year for lump-sum bonuses, assuming 50 percent of enlisted 
personnel and about 40 percent of officers would elect to 
receive the lower annuity in retirement. That estimate is based 
on DoD's experience with two buyout programs in recent years 
and the distribution of years of service among military 
personnel. Those expecting to retire with long terms of service 
and a relatively high REDUX annuity would tend to take the 
bonus. Those who expect to retire with 20 years of service 
would be more likely to take the other option. The members who 
would be affected by this provision entered service in 1986; 
thus, they would not be eligible for the lump-sum payment until 
2001.
    Direct Spending. These provisions would raise direct 
spending for annuities by about $185 million over the 2000-2009 
period, as discussed below with other provisions affecting 
direct spending.
    Payments to Disabled Retirees. Under current law, disabled 
veterans who are retired from the military, the Coast Guard, 
the Public Health Service (PHS), or the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) cannot receive both full 
retirement annuities and disability compensation. Such veterans 
usually forgo a portion of their retirement annuity equal to 
the nontaxable veterans' benefit. Section 674 would allow 
retirees to receive additional payments if they receive 
nondisability annuities, completed at least 20 years of 
service, and have service-connected disabilities rated as 70 
percent or greater within four years of their retirement.
    The potential costs of section 674 depend on the number of 
beneficiaries, their disability levels, and the benefit 
amounts. CBO estimates that in 1999 about 20,000 retirees meet 
the criteria under the bill, assuming that 80 percent of the 
estimated 25,000 retirees who meet the other criteria had their 
disability rated as at least 70 percent within four years of 
retirement. Nearly all beneficiaries would be military 
retirees, but about 300 retired members of the Coast Guard, 
NOAA, and PHS would be eligible for payments.
    CBO projects the potential caseload for future years using 
expected mortality rates and expected rates of growth in the 
population of new beneficiaries. On this basis, we expect that 
the number of beneficiaries would change only slightly over the 
next several years.
    CBO estimated the distribution of those beneficiaries among 
disability levels using data from a report prepared by the 
General Accounting Office (GAO) in 1995. According to 
information from the Department of Veterans Affairs, veterans 
with disabilities rated 70 percent or greater generally receive 
that rating soon after leaving military service. Veterans with 
service-connected disabilities may have their ratings 
reevaluated over time, but those veterans whose ratings are 
increased usually have low-rated disabilities. Also, veterans 
with psychiatric disabilities may have highly rated 
disabilities, but most reevaluations of their disabilities lead 
to reductions rather than increases.
    The bill would define the additional benefit as follows: 
$300 per month for a retiree whose disability is rated as 
total, $200 per month for a retiree whose disability is rated 
as 90 percent, and $100 per month for a retiree whose 
disability is rated as 70 percent or 80 percent.
    CBO estimates that the provision would cost about $45 
million in 2000 and $226 million over the 2000-2004 period, 
assuming that the bill would be enacted and implemented by 
October 1, 1999. The benefits would be paid out of 
discretionary appropriations for pay and benefits, and the bill 
specifies how each Secretary would allocate funding that is 
insufficient to pay all eligible beneficiaries.
    Reductions in Defense Acquisition Workforce. The bill would 
limit the size of the acquisition workforce and would require a 
reduction of 50,000 military and civilian personnel during 
fiscal years 2000 and 2001. Because the total number of 
military personnel is determined by endstrength requirements, 
CBO assumes that the provision would lead to their transfer to 
other activities rather than separation from the services. 
Separations of civilian personnel, who comprise about 80 
percent of the acquisition workforce, would account for the 
remaining reductions. CBO estimates that these changes in the 
acquisition workforce would save $28 million in 2000, $492 
million in 2001, and over $1.1 billion a year once the 
reduction is fully accomplished. Savings would be relatively 
small during the first few years because the cost of separation 
payments offsets most of the initial savings in salaries. 
Savings accumulate more rapidly once employees are off the 
payroll for a full year and the government no longer pays 
separation costs.
    Agency Retirement Contributions. Section 522 of the bill 
would change the early retirement provisions that apply to dual 
status military technicians who are covered by the Federal 
Employees' Retirement System (FERS) and lose their membership 
in the Selected Reserve. Under current law, these technicians 
can retire early if they are at least 50 years old and have at 
least 25 years of service. The bill would allow technicians 
hired after February 10, 1996, to retire early if they are at 
least 50 years old and have 20 years of service, or at any age 
if they have 25 years of service.
    Under FERS, combined employee and agency retirement 
contributions to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability 
Fund (CSRDF) are equal to the normal cost of providing 
retirement benefits. The current normal cost for dual status 
military technicians is 11.9 percent of basic pay. The 
technicians contribute 0.8 percent of basic pay, and DoD pays 
the rest. According to the Office of Personnel Management, 
section 522 would increase the normal cost for affected 
technicians to 12.6 percent of basic pay by allowing additional 
technicians to take early retirement. Since employee 
contributions would be unchanged, DoD's contribution for these 
technicians would increase from 11.1 to 11.8 percent of basic 
pay.
    According to DoD, about 60,000 technicians are also members 
of the Selected Reserve. Based on information from the National 
Guard and the Reserves, CBO estimates that the number of 
technicians that would be affected by this provision would rise 
from about 10,000 in 2000 to 15,000 by 2004. CBO estimates that 
the additional DoD retirement contributions for these 
technicians would total $16 million over the 2000-2004 period.
    DOE Separation Incentives. Under current law, the 
Department of Energy (DOE) has the authority to offer buyouts 
to employees who voluntarily retire or resign. Section 3162 of 
the bill would extend this authority, which is scheduled to 
expire at the end of calendar year 2000, through calendar year 
2001. DOE would be required to make two payments for each 
employee who accepts a buyout: a lump-sum payment to the 
employee of up to $25,000 and a deposit into the Civil Service 
Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF) equal to 26 percent of 
the employee's final pay.
    Because DOE plans to use this buyout authority between 
October and December 2001, the payment of the separation 
incentives would occur in fiscal year 2002. According to DOE, 
approximately 150 employees are projected to accept a buyout. 
Based on past buyout experience at DOE, CBO assumes that each 
employee would receive a buyout payment of $25,000. CBO 
estimates that total DOE payments for separation incentives, 
including the deposits to the CSRDF, would total $6 million in 
2002.
    Military Health Care Programs and Benefits. Title VII 
contains several provisions that would affect DoD health care 
and benefits, although only a few would have a budgetary 
impact.
    Domiciliary and Custodial Care. Section 703 would authorize 
DoD to continue to waive the custodial care exclusion under 
TRICARE for certain individuals. The beneficiaries would be 
those who were receiving coverage for ongoing custodial care 
when the benefit was reduced significantly under a new program. 
According to DoD, this provision would not affect more than 25 
people. CBO estimates that the average annual cost of the 
provision would be about $300,000 per person and that section 
703 would cost about $7 million a year.
    Other Health Care Provisions. The bill contains two other 
health care provisions that could have budgetary impacts that 
CBO cannot estimate. Section 721 would require the Secretary of 
Defense to establish a uniform formulary of pharmaceutical 
agents by October 1, 2000. Although savings from economies of 
scale in purchasing drugs and other efficiencies are possible, 
CBO cannot estimate the budgetary impact of a uniform formulary 
because it has no information about how the new formulary would 
compare with the system DoD operates under current law.
    Section 722 would alter the criteria used by DoD to 
calculate charges to third-party insurers. Although CBO cannot 
estimate the precise budgetary impact of this provision, it 
expects the impact would be relatively small because of 
offsetting effects of the provision. This change could raise 
some of DoD's charges and consequent receipts, but it could 
also increase the likelihood that third-party insurers would 
deny claims from DoD.
    Long-Term Charter of Naval Vessels. Section 1014 would 
authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter into long-term 
commitments to lease newly built surface vessels. The contract 
may include an option for the Navy to purchase the vessel. 
Contracts under this section would have to be specifically 
authorized in subsequent legislation. Under current practices, 
a contract authorized under this section would probably be 
considered either a capital lease or a lease-purchase 
arrangement. As a result, the subsequent authorization would be 
scored with a large amount of budget authority in the first 
year. If the arrangement is a lease purchase, the budget would 
record all outlays over the expected construction period.

Direct spending

    The bill contains provisions that would affect direct 
spending primarily through changes to military retirement 
programs. We estimate that the direct spending from provisions 
of H.R. 1401 would total about $186 million over the 2000-2009 
period.
    Military Retirement. Sections 641 and 642 (see the 
discussion above) would increase direct spending from the 
military retirement trust fund by $1 million in 2000 and by 
about $185 million over the 2000-2009 period. The outlay impact 
before 2006 is primarily due to higher cost-of-living 
allowances for individuals who receive a disability annuity. 
Starting in 2006 the impact is almost all due to regular 
retirements. In the long run, direct spending for military 
retirement would be about 6 percent higher than under current 
law for a program that costs about $32 billion in 1999.
    Property Transactions. The bill contains various provisions 
that would authorize property transactions involving both large 
and small parcels of real estate.
    Ford Island. The bill would provide the Navy with a variety 
of means to develop Ford Island, which is located in Pearl 
Harbor. Under section 2802, the Navy could sell and lease its 
excess Hawaiian property in exchange for cash and services. But 
because the use of cash proceeds would require appropriation 
action, the Navy would probably enter into barter arrangements 
and enhanced-use leases that would allow it to obtain 
construction and maintenance services that could have a cash 
value up to about $500 million.
    Direct spending would increase to the extent that the Navy 
would sell its excess property under current law. In that case, 
the bill would result in forgone receipts to the Treasury. If 
the land was formally declared excess and sold through normal 
procedures that govern property disposal, the receipts could 
total tens of millions of dollars or more. But because the Navy 
has no incentive under current law to formally declare that its 
valuable real estate is excess to its needs, CBO believes that 
the property is unlikely to be sold under current law.
    Forgone Receipts from Other Provisions. Section 2832 would 
convey an Army Reserve Center to the City of Kankakee, 
Illinois. The Army has declared that property excess to its 
needs. Thus, under current law, it would likely be transferred 
to the General Services Administration and sold. Based on 
information from the Army, CBO estimates that forgone receipts 
would total about $1 million in 2001.
    Sections 2851 and 2863 would convey land that is being 
leased to nongovernmental entities. Under current law, receipts 
from these lease payments are deposited in the Treasury. The 
loss of receipts from enactment of these provisions would total 
less than $500,000 annually.
    Other Land Transactions. Title XXVIII contains a variety of 
other provisions that would authorize DoD to convey land at no 
cost to the recipient. These conveyances would affect both 
small and large properties, ranging from six acres of docks and 
facilities in Whittier, Alaska, to 314 acres of land that 
contain a naval weapons industrial plant near Dallas, Texas.
    Some of the property that would be conveyed in title XXVIII 
has been declared excess by DoD. Under current law, this 
property is likely to be given to state or local governments. 
Therefore, CBO estimates these conveyances would not affect 
receipts. Other parcels--some worth up to several million 
dollars each--have not been declared excess. Because it is 
unclear if or when these parcels would be declared excess and 
sold under current law, CBO has no basis for estimating whether 
these conveyances would affect receipts.
    Still other parcels that would be conveyed by the bill are 
excess land from prior rounds of Base Realignment and Closure 
(BRAC). Under current law, DoD can use proceeds from the sale 
of BRAC properties to offset base closure costs. Thus, the 
conveyance of these properties would have no net effect on 
spending. The conveyances would, however, increase the need for 
future appropriations.
    DOE Separation Incentives. As noted previously, section 
3162 would extend DOE's authority to offer buyout payments to 
employees who voluntarily retire or resign. These payments 
would induce some employees to retire--and begin receiving 
federal retirement benefits--earlier than they would otherwise. 
These additional payments would represent direct spending. In 
later years, annual federal retirement outlays would be lower 
than under current law because the employees who retire earlier 
would receive a smaller annuity.
    Based on information from DOE, CBO assumed that buyouts 
under this extended authority would be offered at the beginning 
of fiscal year 2002, and that 150 employees would accept them. 
CBO assumes that these buyouts would induce about 40 percent of 
these employees to retire a year or two earlier. We estimate 
that the resulting increase in federal retirement benefits 
would be $2 million in 2002 and $1 million in 2003. In 
addition, DOE would make $3 million in payments in 2002 to the 
CSRDF for the employees who accept buyouts. These additional 
payments would be treated as offsetting receipts, resulting in 
a net decrease in direct spending of $1 million in 2002.
    Waiver of Certain TRICARE Deductibles. Section 712 would 
allow the Secretary of Defense to waive the TRICARE deductibles 
for family members of certain reservists and National Guardsmen 
who are recalled to active duty. Based on the current authority 
of the Secretary of Defense to call about 33,000 members of the 
Selected Reserve to active duty to support operations in 
Kosovo, CBO believes this provision could affect approximately 
10,000 families. This estimate assumes that 45 percent of the 
reservists have other insurance and would not use TRICARE and 
that 50 percent of the remainder would have dependents who 
would benefit from this provision, based on data from the 1996 
Survey of Retired Military Personnel and the Defense Manpower 
Data Center, respectively. The current annual deductible for 
these families is $300. CBO estimates that this provision would 
reduce collections in fiscal year 2000 by about $3 million. DoD 
has the authority to spend much of those collections; thus, 
lower spending would offset most of the forgone collections. 
However, DoD's needs for discretionary funding may rise by a 
like amount. Although it is impossible to predict the extent, 
frequency, and duration of reserve call-ups, CBO expects the 
budgetary effects of this provision would be insignificant in 
most years.
    Per Diem for Certain Military Technicians. Section 672 
would authorize the Department of Defense to pay a per diem 
allowance to military technicians serving on active duty 
without pay outside the United States. The per diem allowance 
would substitute for the provision of subsistence and housing. 
Because the provision would be effective as of February 10, 
1996, payment of any retroactive allowances would constitute 
direct spending. CBO cannot estimate the cost of this provision 
because no accounting of eligible personnel is currently 
available.
    Stockpile Sales. Section 3303 would eliminate two mandated 
restrictions on the disposal of certain manganese and chromium 
materials. These restrictions were included in the National 
Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-
106). The first restriction would require the manager of the 
National Defense Stockpile to give a right of first refusal on 
all such sales to domestic suppliers of those materials. CBO 
estimates that the repeal of this restriction would have little 
or no budgetary impact because, even under current law, 
domestic suppliers were required to pay market prices for the 
materials. The second restriction would delay the sale of high-
carbon manganese ferro alloy until all lower carbon grades are 
disposed. CBO estimates that the repeal of this restriction 
would have no budgetary impact because there are no lower 
carbon grades of manganese ferro alloy remaining in the 
stockpile inventory.
    Other Provisions. The following provisions would have an 
insignificant budgetary impact:
          Section 801 would allow DoD to sell holdings of coke 
        and coal and to spend the proceeds of those sales.
          Section 522 of the bill would impose mandatory 
        retirement rules for certain military technicians in 
        the Reserves and would allow other technicians to 
        retire early; CBO estimates that this provision would 
        have no impact on the federal budget during the 2000-
        2009 period.
          Section 652 would extend eligibility for limited 
        survivor annuities to surviving spouses of reserve 
        members who died before September 21, 1977, and had met 
        all the requirements for retirement except reaching 
        their 60th birthday.
          Section 655 would allow members with over eight years 
        active duty or 15 years reserve service to receive a 
        disability retirement or separation if they are 
        separated from the service due to a pre-existing 
        condition. Costs would be insignificant in the short 
        run and would amount to approximately $10 million a 
        year after 23 years, as certain reservists reach 60 
        years of age.

Pay-as-you-go considerations

    Section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act of 1985 sets up pay-as-you-go procedures for 
legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. The net 
changes in direct spending that would result from H.R. 1401 are 
shown in the following table. For the purposes of enforcing 
pay-as-you-go procedures, only the effects in the current year, 
the budget year, and the succeeding four years are counted.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          By fiscal year, in millions of dollars
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   1999    2000    2001    2002    2003    2004    2005    2006    2007    2008    2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays..............................................       0       1       2       0       2       2       2       3      17      54     103
Changes in receipts.............................................   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)  (\1\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not applicable.

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact

    Section 722 of the bill would allow the Department of 
Defense to bill third-party insurers at ``reasonable charges'' 
for care provided at a facility of the uniformed services, 
rather than what current law refers to as ``reasonable costs.'' 
That provision may impose a private-sector and 
intergovernmental mandate on insurers and health care plans 
because they would be required to pay charges for health care 
above those that are currently charged by the government. The 
costs of the provision would exceed neither the private-sector 
threshold ($100 million in 1996, adjusted annually for 
inflation) nor the intergovernmental threshold ($50 million in 
1996, adjusted annually for inflation) specified in UMRA.


    UMRA excludes from application of the act legislative 
provisions that are necessary for the national security or the 
ratification or implementation of international treaty 
obligations. CBO has determined that all other provisions of 
this bill either fit within that exclusion or do not contain 
private-sector or intergovernmental mandates as defined by 
UMRA.
    Estimate Prepared By.--Federal Cost: (Supplemental Food 
Program) Valerie Baxter, (Military Construction and Other 
Defense) Kent Christensen, (Military and Civilian Personnel) 
Jeannette Deshong, (Stockpile Sales and Atomic Energy Defense 
Activities) Raymond Hall, (Military Retirement) Sarah Jennings, 
(Civilian Retirement and Separation) Eric Rollins, (Health 
Programs) Dawn Sauter, (Multiyear Procurement) Jo Ann Vines, 
(Maritime Administration) Deborah Reis. Impact on State, Local, 
and Tribal Governments: Leo Lex. Impact on the Private Sector: 
R. William Thomas.
    Estimate Approved By.--Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                        COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

    Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the committee generally concurs with 
the estimates as contained in the report of the Congressional 
Budget Office.

                           OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

    With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, this legislation results from 
hearings and other oversight activities conducted by the 
committee pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X.
    With respect to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this legislation does not 
include any new spending or credit authority, nor does it 
provide for any increase or decrease in tax revenues or 
expenditures. The bill does, however, authorize appropriations. 
Other fiscal features of this legislation are addressed in the 
estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974.
    With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the committee has not received a 
report from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
pertaining to the subject matter of H.R. 1401.

                   CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

    Pursuant to Rule XIII, clause 3 (d)(1) of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in Article I, Section 8 of the United States 
Constitution.

                     STATEMENT OF FEDERAL MANDATES

    Pursuant to section 423 of Public Law 104-4, this 
legislation contains no federal mandates with respect to state, 
local, and tribal governments, nor with respect to the private 
sector. Similarly, the bill provides no federal 
intergovernmental mandates.

                              RECORD VOTES

    In accordance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, record and voice votes were taken 
with respect to the committee's consideration of H.R. 1401. The 
record of these votes is attached to this report.
    The committee ordered H.R. 1401 reported to the House with 
a favorable recommendation by a vote of 55-1, a quorum being 
present.


         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



            DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                       Subtitle E--Other Matters

SEC. 141. PILOT PROGRAM ON SALES OF MANUFACTURED ARTICLES AND SERVICES 
                    OF CERTAIN ARMY INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES WITHOUT 
                    REGARD TO AVAILABILITY FROM DOMESTIC SOURCES.

  (a) Pilot Program Required.--During [fiscal years 1998 and 
1999] fiscal years 1998 through 2001, the Secretary of the Army 
shall carry out a pilot program to test the efficacy and 
appropriateness of selling manufactured articles and services 
of Army industrial facilities under section 4543 of title 10, 
United States Code, without regard to the availability of the 
articles and services from United States commercial sources. In 
carrying out the pilot program, the Secretary may use articles 
manufactured at, and services provided by, not more than three 
Army industrial facilities.
  (b) Temporary Waiver of Requirement for Determination of 
Unavailability From Domestic Source.--Under the pilot program, 
the Secretary of the Army is not required under section 
4543(a)(5) of title 10, United States Code, to determine 
whether an article or service is available from a commercial 
source located in the United States in the case of any of the 
following sales for which a solicitation of offers is issued 
during [fiscal year 1998 or 1999] the period during which the 
pilot program is being conducted:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Update of Report.--Not later March 1, 2001, the Inspector 
General of the Department of Defense shall submit to Congress 
an update of the report required to be submitted under 
subsection (c) and an assessment of the success of the pilot 
program.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle E--Military Education and Training

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART III--TRAINING OF ARMY DRILL SERGEANTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 557. TRAINING IN HUMAN RELATIONS MATTERS FOR ARMY DRILL SERGEANT 
                    TRAINEES.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Effective Date.--Section 4318 of title 10, United States 
Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply with respect to 
drill sergeant trainee classes that begin after the end of the 
90-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
Act.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle F--Commission on Military Training and Gender-Related Issues

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 563. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Authority of Individuals To Act for Commission.--Any 
member or agent of the commission may, if authorized by the 
commission, take any action which the commission is authorized 
to take under this [title] subtitle.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 644. ANNUITIES FOR CERTAIN MILITARY SURVIVING SPOUSES.

  (a) Survivor Annuity.--(1) The Secretary concerned shall pay 
an annuity to the qualified surviving spouse of each member of 
the uniformed services who--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (A) died before March 21, 1974, and was entitled to 
        retired or retainer pay on the date of death; or
          (B) was a member of a reserve component of the Armed 
        Forces [during the period beginning on September 21, 
        1972, and ending on] before October 1, 1978, and at the 
        time of his death would have been entitled to retired 
        pay under chapter 67 of title 10, United States Code 
        (as in effect before December 1, 1994), but for the 
        fact that he was under 60 years of age.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
          (1) * * *
          (2) The term ``surviving spouse'' has the meaning 
        given the terms ``widow'' and ``widower'' in paragraphs 
        [(3) and (4)] (7) and (8) of section 1447 of title 10, 
        United States Code.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle C--Department of Defense Schools and Centers

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 934. POW/MIA INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Use of Intelligence in Analysis of POW/MIA Cases in 
Department of Defense.--The Secretary of Defense shall ensure 
that the Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office of 
the Department of Defense takes into full account all 
intelligence regarding matters concerning [of] prisoners of war 
and missing persons (as defined in chapter 76 of title 10, 
United States Code) in analyzing cases involving such persons.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle C--Counter-Drug Activities

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 1033. AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR COUNTER-DRUG 
                    ACTIVITIES OF PERU AND COLOMBIA.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Condition on Provision of Support.--(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (4) Not later than January 1 of each year, the Secretary 
shall submit to the congressional committees a report detailing 
the number of United States military personnel deployed or 
otherwise assigned to duty in Colombia at any time during the 
preceding year, the length and purpose of the deployment or 
assignment, and the costs and force protection risks associated 
with such deployments and assignments.
  [(4)] (5) For purposes of this subsection, the term 
``congressional committees'' means the following:
          (A) The Committee on Armed Services and the Committee 
        on Foreign Relations of the Senate.
          (B) The Committee on National Security and the 
        Committee on International Relations of the House of 
        Representatives.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE XIII--ARMS CONTROL AND RELATED MATTERS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 1302. LIMITATION ON RETIREMENT OR DISMANTLEMENT OF STRATEGIC 
                    NUCLEAR DELIVERY SYSTEMS.

  [(a) Funding Limitation.--Funds available to the Department 
of Defense may not be obligated or expended during fiscal year 
1998 for retiring or dismantling, or for preparing to retire or 
dismantle, any of the following strategic nuclear delivery 
systems below the specified levels:
          [(1) 71 B-52H bomber aircraft.
          [(2) 18 Trident ballistic missile submarines.
          [(3) 500 Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic 
        missiles.
          [(4) 50 Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic 
        missiles.
  [(b) Waiver Authority.--If the START II Treaty enters into 
force during fiscal year 1998, the Secretary of Defense may 
waive the application of the limitation under subsection (a) to 
the extent that the Secretary determines necessary in order to 
implement the treaty.]
  (a) Funding Limitation.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph 
(2), funds available to the Department of Defense may not be 
obligated or expended for retiring or dismantling, or for 
preparing to retire or dismantle, any of the following 
strategic nuclear delivery systems below the specified levels:
          (A) 76 B-52H bomber aircraft.
          (B) 18 Trident ballistic missile submarines.
          (C) 500 Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic 
        missiles.
          (D) 50 Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic 
        missiles.
  (2) The limitation in paragraph (1) shall cease to apply upon 
a certification by the President to Congress of the following:
          (A) That the effectiveness of the United States 
        strategic deterrent will not be decreased by reductions 
        in strategic nuclear delivery systems.
          (B) That the requirements of the Single Integrated 
        Operational Plan can be met with a reduced number of 
        strategic nuclear delivery systems.
          (C) That reducing the number of strategic nuclear 
        delivery systems will not, in the judgment of the 
        President, provide a disincentive for Russia to ratify 
        the START II treaty or serve to undermine future arms 
        control negotiations.
  (3) If the President submits the certification described in 
paragraph (2), then effective upon the submission of that 
certification, funds available to the Department of Defense may 
not be obligated or expended to maintain a United States force 
structure of strategic nuclear delivery systems with a total 
capacity in warheads that is less than 98 percent of the 6,000 
warhead limitation applicable to the United States and in 
effect under the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.
  (b) Waiver Authority.--If the START II treaty enters into 
force, the President may waive the application of the 
limitation in effect under paragraph (1) or (3) of subsection 
(a), as the case may be, to the extent that the President 
determines such a waiver to be necessary in order to implement 
the treaty.
  (c) Funding Limitation on Early Deactivation.--(1) * * *
  (2) For purposes of this subsection and subsection (d), a 
substantial early deactivation is an action [during the 
strategic delivery systems retirement limitation period] during 
the fiscal year during which the START II Treaty enters into 
force to deactivate a substantial number of strategic nuclear 
delivery systems specified [in subsection (a)] by--
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(e) Contingency Plan for Sustainment of Systems.--(1) Not 
later then February 15, 1998, the Secretary of Defense shall 
submit to Congress a plan for the sustainment beyond October 1, 
1999, of United States strategic nuclear delivery systems and 
alternative Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty force structures in 
the event that a strategic arms reduction agreement subsequent 
to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty does not enter into 
force before 2004.
  [(2) The plan shall include a discussion of the following 
matters:
          [(A) The actions that are necessary to sustain the 
        United States strategic nuclear delivery systems, 
        distinguishing between the actions that are planned for 
        and funded in the future-years defense program and the 
        actions that are not planned for and funded in the 
        future-years defense program.
          [(B) The funding necessary to implement the plan, 
        indicating the extent to which the necessary funding is 
        provided for in the future-years defense program and 
        the extent to which the necessary funding is not 
        provided for in the future-years defense program.]
  (e) Strategic Nuclear Delivery Systems Defined.--For purposes 
of this section, the term ``strategic nuclear delivery 
systems'' means the following:
          (1) B-52H bomber aircraft.
          (2) Trident ballistic missile submarines.
          (3) Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic 
        missiles.
          (4) Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missiles.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(g) Strategic Delivery Systems Retirement Limitation 
Period.--For purposes of this section, the term ``strategic 
delivery systems retirement limitation period'' means the 
period of fiscal years 1998 and 1999.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT, 1986

TITLE XIV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[SEC. 1405. TWO-YEAR BUDGET CYCLE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

  [(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that the programs and 
activities of the Department of Defense could be more 
effectively and efficiently planned and managed if funds for 
the Department were provided on a two-year cycle rather than 
annually.
  [(b) Requirement for Two-Year Budget Proposal.--The President 
shall include in the budget submitted to the Congress pursuant 
to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, for fiscal 
year 1998 a single proposed budget for the Department of 
Defense and related agencies for fiscal years 1988 and 1989. 
Thereafter, the President shall submit a proposed two-year 
budget for the Department of Defense and related agencies every 
other year.
  [(c) Reports.--Not later than April 1, 1986, the Secretary of 
Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services and on 
Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives a 
report containing the Secretary's views on the following:
          [(1) The advantages and disadvantages of operating 
        the Department of Defense and related agencies on a 
        two-year budget cycle.
          [(2) The Secretary's plans for converting to a two-
        year
        budget cycle.
          [(3) A description of any impediments (statutory or 
        otherwise) to converting the operations of the 
        Department of Defense and related agencies to a two-
        year budget cycle beginning with fiscal year 1988.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 1412. DESTRUCTION OF EXISTING STOCKPILE OF LETHAL CHEMICAL AGENTS 
                    AND MUNITIONS

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Environmental Protection and Use of Facilities.--(1) * * 
*
  [(2) Facilities constructed to carry out this section may not 
be used for any purpose other than the destruction of lethal 
chemical weapons and munitions, and when no longer needed to 
carry out this section, such facilities shall be cleaned, 
dismantled, and disposed of in accordance with applicable laws 
and regulations.]
  (2) Facilities constructed to carry out this section shall, 
when no longer needed for the purposes for which they were 
constructed, be disposed of in accordance with applicable laws 
and regulations and mutual agreements between the Secretary of 
the Army and the Governor of the State in which the facility is 
located.
  (3)(A) Facilities constructed to carry out this section may 
not be used for a purpose other than the destruction of the 
stockpile of lethal chemical agents and munitions that exists 
on November 8, 1985.
  (B) The prohibition in subparagraph (A) shall not apply with 
respect to items designated by the Secretary of Defense as 
lethal chemical agents, munitions, or related materials after 
November 8, 1985, if the State in which a destruction facility 
is located issues the appropriate permit or permits for the 
destruction of such items at the facility.
  [(3)] (4) In order to carry out subparagraph (A) of paragraph 
(1), the Secretary may make grants to State and local 
governments (either directly or through the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency) to assist those governments in carrying out 
functions relating to emergency preparedness and response in 
connection with the disposal of the lethal chemical agents and 
munitions referred to in subsection (a). Funds available to the 
Department of Defense for the purpose of carrying out this 
section may be used for such grants. Additionally, the 
Secretary may provide funds through cooperative agreements with 
State and local governments for the purpose of assisting them 
in processing, approving, and overseeing permits and licenses 
necessary for the construction and operation of facilities to 
carry out this section. The Secretary shall ensure that funds 
provided through such a cooperative agreement are used only for 
the purpose set forth in the preceding sentence.
  [(4)] (5)(A) In coordination with the Secretary of the Army 
and in accordance with agreements between the Secretary of the 
Army and the Director of the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, the Director shall carry out a program to provide 
assistance to State and local governments in developing 
capabilities to respond to emergencies involving risks to the 
public health or safety within their jurisdictions that are 
identified by the Secretary as being risks resulting from--
          (i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Identification of Funds.--(1) * * *
  (2) Amounts appropriated to the Secretary for the purpose of 
carrying out subsection [(c)(4)] (c)(5) shall be promptly made 
available to the Director of the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency.
  (g) Periodic Reports.--(1) * * *
  (2) Each annual report shall include the following:
          (A) * * *
          (B) A site-by-site description of actions taken to 
        assist State and local governments (either directly or 
        through the Federal Emergency Management Agency) in 
        carrying out functions relating to emergency 
        preparedness and response in accordance with subsection 
        [(c)(3)] (c)(4).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


STROM THURMOND NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



            DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                       Subtitle E--Other Matters

SEC. 142. ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR DESTRUCTION OF ASSEMBLED 
                    CHEMICAL WEAPONS.

  [(a) Program Management.--The program manager for the 
Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment shall continue to manage 
the development and testing (including demonstration and pilot-
scale testing) of technologies for the destruction of lethal 
chemical munitions that are potential or demonstrated 
alternatives to the baseline incineration program. In 
performing such management, the program manager shall act 
independently of the program manager for Chemical 
Demilitarization and shall report to the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition and Technology.]
  (a) Program Management.--(1) The program manager for the 
Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment program shall manage the 
development and testing of technologies for the destruction of 
lethal chemical munitions that are potential or demonstrated 
alternatives to the baseline incineration program.
  (2) The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology and the Secretary of the Army shall jointly submit 
to Congress, not later than December 1, 1999, a plan for the 
transfer of oversight of the Assembled Chemical Weapons 
Assessment program from the Under Secretary to the Secretary.
  (3) Oversight of the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment 
program shall be transferred from the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition and Technology to the Secretary of the 
Army pursuant to the plan submitted under paragraph (2) not 
later than 90 days after the date of the submission of the 
notice required under section 152(f)(2) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 50 
U.S.C. 1521).
  (4) The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology and the Secretary of the Army shall ensure 
coordination of the activities and plans of the program manager 
for the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment program and the 
program manager for Chemical Demilitarization during the 
demonstration and pilot plant facility phase for an alternative 
technology.
  (5) For those baseline demilitarization facilities for which 
the Secretary decides that implementation of an alternative 
technology may be recommended, the Secretary may take those 
measures necessary to facilitate the integration of the 
alternative technology.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                       Subtitle A--Active Forces

SEC. 402. REVISION IN PERMANENT END STRENGTH LEVELS.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Revision to Flexibility Authority for the Army.--
Subsection (e) of such section is amended by striking out ``1 
percent or, in the case of the Army, by not more than 1.5 
percent[,].'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``0.5 percent.''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                 Subtitle B--Reserve Component Matters

SEC. 511. USE OF RESERVES FOR EMERGENCIES INVOLVING WEAPONS OF MASS 
                    DESTRUCTION.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Use of Active Guard and Reserve Personnel.--(1) * * *
  (2) The Secretary of Defense may not submit to Congress 
earlier than 90 days after the date of the receipt by Congress 
of the report required by section [1411] 1402 of this Act a 
request for the enactment of legislation to modify the 
requirements of paragraph (3), or to increase the number of 
personnel authorized by paragraph (4), of section 12310(c) of 
title 10, United States Code, as added by paragraph (1).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 513. REDUCED TIME-IN-GRADE REQUIREMENT FOR RESERVE GENERAL AND 
                    FLAG OFFICERS INVOLUNTARILY TRANSFERRED FROM ACTIVE 
                    STATUS.

  (a) Minimum Service in Active Status.--Section 1370(d)(3) of 
title 10, United States Code, as amended by section [511] 
512(a), is further amended by adding at the end the following 
new subparagraph:

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle C--Military Education and Training

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 525. IMPROVED OVERSIGHT OF INNOVATIVE READINESS TRAINING.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Implementation.--The Secretary of Defense may not 
initiate any project under section 2012 of title 10, United 
States Code, after October 1, 1998, until the program required 
by subsection [(i)] (j) of that section (as added by subsection 
(a)) has been established.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle G--Other Matters

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 568. STATUS IN THE NAVAL RESERVE OF CADETS AT THE MERCHANT MARINE 
                    ACADEMY.

  Section 1303(c) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 U.S.C. 
App. [1295(c)] 1295b(c)), is amended--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


 Subtitle C--Health Care Services for Medicare-Eligible Department of 
Defense Beneficiaries

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 722. TRICARE AS SUPPLEMENT TO MEDICARE DEMONSTRATION.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Eligible Individuals.--(1) An individual is eligible to 
participate under this section if the individual is a member or 
former member of the uniformed services described in section 
1074(b) of title 10, United States Code, a dependent of the 
member described in section 1076(a)(2)(B) or 1076(b) of that 
title, or a dependent of a member of the uniformed services who 
died while on active duty for a period of more than 30 days, 
who--
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (D) resides in an area selected by the Secretary 
        under subsection [(c)] (d).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[SEC. 742. AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A LEVEL 1 TRAUMA TRAINING CENTER.

  [The Secretary of the Army is hereby authorized to establish 
a Level 1 Trauma Training Center (as designated by the American 
College of Surgeons) in order to provide the Army with a trauma 
center capable of training forward surgical teams.]

SEC. 742. AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A TRAUMA TRAINING CENTER.

  The Secretary of the Army is hereby authorized to establish a 
Trauma Training Center in order to provide the Army with a 
trauma center capable of training forward surgical teams.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


SECTION 1053 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                                  1997

SEC. 1053. DISPOSAL OF TRACT OF REAL PROPERTY IN THE DISTRICT OF 
                    COLUMBIA.

  (a) Disposal Authorized.--(1) Notwithstanding title II the 
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 
U.S.C. 481 et seq.), title VIII of such Act (40 U.S.C. 531 et 
seq.), section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless 
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), or any other provision of law 
relating to the management and disposal of real property by the 
United States, the Armed Forces Retirement Home Board shall 
[convey by sale] convey, by sale or lease, all right, title, 
and interest of the United States in a parcel of real property, 
including improvements thereon, consisting of approximately 49 
acres located in Washington, District of Columbia, east of 
North Capitol Street, and recorded as District Parcel 121/19.
  [(2) The sale under paragraph (1) may not occur before April 
30, 1999.]
  (2) The Armed Forces Retirement Home Board shall sell or 
lease the property described in subsection (a) within 12 months 
after the date of the enactment of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000.
  (b) Manner, Terms and Conditions of Disposal.--[(1) The sale 
under subsection (a) shall be made to a neighboring nonprofit 
organization from whose extensive educational and charitable 
services the public benefits and has benefited from for more 
than 100 years, or an entity or entities related to such 
organization, and whose substantial investment in the 
neighborhood is consistent with the continued existence and 
purpose of the Armed Forces Retirement Home.] (1) The Armed 
Forces Retirement Home Board shall determine the manner, terms, 
and conditions for the sale or lease of the real property under 
subsection (a), except as follows:
          (A) Any lease of the real property under subsection 
        (a) shall include an option to purchase.
          (B) The conveyance may not involve any form of 
        public/private partnership, but shall be limited to 
        fee-simple sale or long-term lease.
          (C) Before conveying the property by sale or lease to 
        any other person or entity, the Board shall provide the 
        Catholic University of America with the opportunity to 
        match or exceed the highest bona fide offer otherwise 
        received for the purchase or lease of the property, as 
        the case may be, and to acquire the property.
  (2) As consideration for the real property conveyance under 
subsection (a), the purchaser selected under paragraph (1) 
shall pay to the United States an amount equal to the fair 
market value of the real property at its highest and best 
economic use, as determined by the Armed Forces Retirement Home 
Board, based on an independent appraisal. In no event shall the 
sale or lease of the property be for less than the appraised 
value of the property in its existing condition and on the 
basis of its highest and best use.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                      TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE

Subtitle A--General Military Law

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 2--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 115. Personnel strengths: requirement for annual authorization

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Upon determination by the Secretary of Defense that such 
action is in the national interest, the Secretary may--
          (1) increase the end strength authorized pursuant to 
        subsection (a)(1)(A) for a fiscal year for any of the 
        armed forces by a number equal to not more than 1 
        percent of that end strength; [and]
          (2) increase the end strength authorized pursuant to 
        subsection (a)(1)(B) for a fiscal year for any of the 
        armed forces by a number equal to not more than 2 
        percent of that end strength[.]; and
          (3) vary the end strength authorized pursuant to 
        subsection (a)(2) for a fiscal year for the Selected 
        Reserve of any of the reserve components by a number 
        equal to not more than 2 percent of that end strength.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                CHAPTER 3--GENERAL POWERS AND FUNCTIONS

Sec.
121.  Regulations.
     * * * * * * *
130b.   Authority of armed forces medical examiner to conduct forensic 
          pathology investigations.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 130b. Authority of armed forces medical examiner to conduct 
                    forensic pathology investigations

  (a) In General.--The Armed Forces Medical Examiner may 
conduct a forensic pathology investigation, including an 
autopsy, to determine the cause or manner of death of an 
individual in any case in which--
          (1) the individual was killed, or from any cause died 
        an unnatural death;
          (2) the cause or manner of death is unknown;
          (3) there is reasonable suspicion that the death was 
        by unlawful means;
          (4) the death appears to be from an infectious 
        disease or the result of the effects of a hazardous 
        material that may have an adverse effect on the 
        installation or community in which the individual died 
        or was found dead; or
          (5) the identity of the deceased individual is 
        unknown.
  (b) Limitations on Authority.--(1) The authority provided 
under subsection (a) may only be exercised with respect to an 
individual in a case in which--
          (A) the individual died or is found dead at an 
        installation garrisoned by units of the armed forces 
        and under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United 
        States;
          (B) the individual was, at the time of death, a 
        member of the armed forces on active duty or inactive 
        duty for training or a member of the armed forces who 
        recently retired under chapter 61 of this title and 
        died as a result of an injury or illness incurred while 
        on active duty;
          (C) the individual was a civilian dependent of a 
        member of the armed forces and died or was found dead 
        at a location outside the United States;
          (D) the Armed Forces Medical Examiner determines, 
        pursuant to an authorized investigation by the 
        Department of Defense of matters involving the death of 
        an individual or individuals, that a factual 
        determination of the cause or manner of the death of 
        the individual is necessary; or
          (E) pursuant to an authorized investigation being 
        conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the 
        National Transportation Safety Board, or other Federal 
        agency, an official of such agency with authority to 
        direct a forensic pathology investigation requests that 
        an investigation be conducted by the Armed Forces 
        Medical Examiner.
  (2) The authority provided in subsection (a) shall be subject 
to the primary jurisdiction, to the extent exercised, of a 
State or local government with respect to the conduct of an 
investigation or, if outside the United States, of authority 
exercised under any applicable Status-of-Forces or other 
international agreement between the United States and the 
country in which the individual died or was found dead.
  (c) Designation of Pathologist.--The Armed Forces Medical 
Examiner may designate any qualified pathologist to carry out 
the authority provided in subsection (a).

             CHAPTER 4--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

Sec.
131.  Office of the Secretary of Defense.
     * * * * * * *
[133.  Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology.]
133.  Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
          Logistics.
133a.   Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
          Technology.
133b.   Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel 
          Readiness.
     * * * * * * *

Sec. 131. Office of the Secretary of Defense

  (a) * * *
  (b) The Office of the Secretary of Defense is composed of the 
following:
          (1) The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
          (2) The [Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition 
        and Technology] Under Secretary of Defense for 
        Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[Sec. 133. Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology]

Sec. 133. Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
                    Logistics

  (a) There is an [Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition 
and Technology] Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics, appointed from civilian life by the 
President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. 
The Under Secretary shall be appointed from among persons who 
have an extensive management background in the private sector.
  (b) Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the 
Secretary of Defense, the [Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition and Technology] Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics shall perform such 
duties and exercise such powers relating to acquisition as the 
Secretary of Defense may prescribe, including--
          (1) supervising Department of Defense acquisition;
          (2) establishing policies for acquisition (including 
        procurement, research and development, [logistics,] 
        developmental testing, and contract administration) for 
        all elements of the Department of Defense;
          (3) establishing policies for logistics, maintenance, 
        and sustainment support for all elements of the 
        Department of Defense;
          [(3)] (4) establishing policies of the Department of 
        Defense for maintenance of the defense industrial base 
        of the United States; and
          [(4)] (5) the authority to direct the Secretaries of 
        the military departments and the heads of all other 
        elements of the Department of Defense with regard to 
        matters for which the Under Secretary has 
        responsibility.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e)(1) With regard to all matters for which he has 
responsibility by law or by direction of the Secretary of 
Defense, the [Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology] Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics takes precedence in the Department of 
Defense after the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary 
of Defense.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 133b. Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel 
                    Readiness

  (a) There is a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for 
Logistics and Materiel Readiness, appointed from civilian life 
by the President by and with the advice and consent of the 
Senate. The Deputy Under Secretary shall be appointed from 
among persons with an extensive background in the sustainment 
of major weapon systems and combat support equipment.
  (b) The Deputy Under Secretary is the principal adviser to 
the Secretary and the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics on logistics and 
materiel readiness in the Department of Defense and is the 
principal logistics official within the senior management of 
the Department of Defense.
  (c) The Deputy Under Secretary shall perform such duties 
relating to logistics and materiel readiness as the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics 
may assign, including--
          (1) prescribing, by authority of the Secretary of 
        Defense, policies and procedures for the conduct of 
        logistics, maintenance, materiel readiness, and 
        sustainment support in the Department of Defense;
          (2) advising and assisting the Secretary of Defense, 
        the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the Under 
        Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, 
        and providing guidance to and consulting with the 
        Secretaries of the military departments, with respect 
        to logistics, maintenance, materiel readiness, and 
        sustainment support in the Department of Defense; and
          (3) monitoring and reviewing all logistics, 
        maintenance, materiel readiness, and sustainment 
        support programs in the Department of Defense.

Sec. 134. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) The Under Secretary takes precedence in the Department of 
Defense after the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of 
Defense, the [Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology] Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics, and the Secretaries of the military 
departments.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 136. Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness

  (a) There is an Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness, appointed from civilian life by the President, by 
and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness is responsible, subject to the authority, direction, 
and control of the Secretary of Defense, for the monitoring of 
the operations tempo and personnel tempo of the armed forces. 
The Under Secretary shall establish, to the extent practicable, 
uniform standards within the Department of Defense for 
terminology and policies relating to deployment of units and 
personnel away from their assigned duty stations (including the 
length of time units or personnel may be away for such a 
deployment) and shall establish uniform reporting systems for 
tracking deployments.

Sec. 137. Director of Defense Research and Engineering

  (a) * * *
  (b) Except as otherwise prescribed by the Secretary of 
Defense, the Director of Defense Research and Engineering shall 
perform such duties relating to research and engineering as the 
[Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology] 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics may prescribe.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 139. Director of Operational Test and Evaluation

  (a) * * *
  (b) The Director is the principal adviser to the Secretary of 
Defense and the [Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology] Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics on operational test and evaluation in 
the Department of Defense and the principal operational test 
and evaluation official within the senior management of the 
Department of Defense. The Director shall--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 143. Office of the Secretary of Defense personnel: limitation

  (a) Permanent Limitation on OSD Personnel.--[Effective 
October 1, 1999, the] The number of OSD personnel may not 
exceed [75 percent of the baseline number] 3,767.
  [(b) Phased Reduction.--The number of OSD personnel--
          [(1) as of October 1, 1997, may not exceed 85 percent 
        of the baseline number; and
          [(2) as of October 1, 1998, may not exceed 80 percent 
        of the baseline number.
  [(c) Baseline Number.--For purposes of this section, the term 
``baseline number'' means the number of OSD personnel as of 
October 1, 1994.]
  [(d)] (b) OSD Personnel Defined.--For purposes of this 
section, the term ``OSD personnel'' means military and civilian 
personnel of the Department of Defense who are assigned to, or 
employed in, functions in the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense (including Direct Support Activities of that Office and 
the Washington Headquarters Services of the Department of 
Defense).
  [(e)] (c) Limitation on Reassignment of Functions.--In 
carrying out reductions in the number of personnel assigned to, 
or employed in, the Office of the Secretary of Defense in order 
to comply with this section, the Secretary of Defense may not 
reassign functions solely in order to evade the requirements 
contained in this section.
  [(f) Flexibility.--If the Secretary of Defense determines, 
and certifies to Congress, that the limitation in subsection 
(b) with respect to any fiscal year would adversely affect 
United States national security, the Secretary may waive the 
limitation under that subsection with respect to that fiscal 
year. If the Secretary of Defense determines, and certifies to 
Congress, that the limitation in subsection (a) during fiscal 
year 1999 would adversely affect United States national 
security, the Secretary may waive the limitation under that 
subsection with respect to that fiscal year. The authority 
under this subsection may be used only once, with respect to a 
single fiscal year.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 5--JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 153. Chairman: functions

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Risks Under National Military Strategy.--(1) Not later 
than January 1 each year, the Chairman shall submit to the 
Secretary of Defense a report providing the Chairman's 
assessment of the nature and magnitude of the strategic and 
military risks associated with executing the missions called 
for under the current National Military Strategy.
  (2) The Secretary shall forward the report received under 
paragraph (1) in any year, with the Secretary's comments 
thereon (if any), to Congress with the Secretary's next 
transmission to Congress of the annual Department of Defense 
budget justification materials in support of the Department of 
Defense component of the budget of the President submitted 
under section 1105 of title 31 for the next fiscal year. If the 
Chairman's assessment in such report in any year is that risk 
associated with executing the missions called for under the 
National Military Strategy is significant, the Secretary shall 
include with the report as submitted to Congress the 
Secretary's plan for mitigating that risk.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 7--BOARDS, COUNCILS, AND COMMITTEES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 180. Service academy athletic programs: review board

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Administrative Provisions.--(1) Each member of the board 
who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government 
shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of 
the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for [grade GS-18 of the 
General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5] Executive 
Schedule Level IV under section 5376 of title 5, for each day 
(including travel time) during which such member is engaged in 
the performance of the duties of the board. Members of the 
board who are officers or employees of the United States shall 
serve without compensation in addition to that received for 
their services as officers or employees of the United States.
  (2) The members of the board shall be allowed travel 
expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates 
authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I of 
chapter 57 of title 5, while away from their homes or regular 
places of business in the performance of services for the 
board.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 8--DEFENSE AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FIELD ACTIVITIES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBCHAPTER I--COMMON SUPPLY AND SERVICE ACTIVITIES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 192. Defense Agencies and Department of Defense Field Activities: 
                    oversight by the Secretary of Defense

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Special Rule for Defense Commissary Agency.--
Notwithstanding the results of any periodic review under 
subsection (c) with regard to the Defense Commissary Agency, 
the Secretary of Defense may not transfer to the Secretary of a 
military department the responsibility to manage and fund the 
provision of services and supplies provided by the Defense 
Commissary Agency unless the transfer of the management and 
funding responsibility is specifically authorized by a law 
enacted after [the date of the enactment of this subsection] 
October 17, 1998.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                   CHAPTER 9--DEFENSE BUDGET MATTERS

Sec.
221.  Future-years defense program: submission to Congress; consistency 
          in budgeting.
     * * * * * * *
229.  Amounts for declassification of records.

Sec. 223. Ballistic missile defense programs: program elements

  (a) Program Elements Specified.--In the budget justification 
materials submitted to Congress in support of the Department of 
Defense budget for any fiscal year (as submitted with the 
budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title 31), the 
amount requested for activities of the Ballistic Missile 
Defense Organization shall be set forth in accordance with the 
following program elements:
          (1) The Patriot system.
          (2) The Navy Area system.
          (3) The Theater High-Altitude Area Defense system.
          (4) The Navy Theater Wide system.
          (5) Upper Tier.
          [(5)] (6) The Medium Extended Air Defense System.
          [(6)] (7) Joint Theater Missile Defense.
          [(7)] (8) National Missile Defense.
          [(8)] (9) Support Technologies.
          [(9)] (10) Family of Systems Engineering and 
        Integration.
          [(10)] (11) Ballistic Missile Defense Technical 
        Operations.
          [(11)] (12) Threat and Countermeasures.
          [(12)] (13) International Cooperative Programs.
          (14) Space Based Infrared System Low.
          (15) Space Based Infrared System High.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 229. Amounts for declassification of records

  (a) Specific Identification in Budget.--The Secretary of 
Defense shall include in the budget justification materials 
submitted to Congress in support of the Department of Defense 
budget for any fiscal year (as submitted with the budget of the 
President under section 1105(a) of title 31) specific 
identification, as a budgetary line item, of the amounts 
required to carry out programmed activities during that fiscal 
year to declassify records pursuant to Executive Order 12958 
(50 U.S.C. 435 note), or any successor Executive order, or to 
comply with any statutory requirement to declassify Government 
records.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 18--MILITARY SUPPORT FOR CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 374. Maintenance and operation of equipment

  (a) * * *
  (b)(1) Subject to paragraph (2) and in accordance with other 
applicable law, the Secretary of Defense may, upon request from 
the head of a Federal law enforcement agency, make Department 
of Defense personnel available to operate equipment (including 
equipment made available under section 372 of this title) with 
respect to--
          (A) a criminal violation of a provision of law 
        specified in paragraph (4)(A);
          (B) assistance that such agency is authorized to 
        furnish to a State, local, or foreign government which 
        is involved in the enforcement of similar laws;
          (C) a foreign or domestic counter-terrorism 
        operation; or
          (D) a rendition of a suspected terrorist from a 
        foreign country to the United States to stand trial.
  (2) Department of Defense personnel made available to a 
civilian law enforcement agency under this subsection may 
operate equipment for the following purposes:
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (F) Subject to joint approval by the Secretary of 
        Defense and the Attorney General (and the Secretary of 
        State in the case of a law enforcement operation 
        outside of the land area of the United States)--
                  (i) the transportation of civilian law 
                enforcement personnel along with any other 
                civilian or military personnel who are 
                supporting, or conducting, a joint operation 
                with civilian law enforcement personnel;[;]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


             CHAPTER 23--MISCELLANEOUS STUDIES AND REPORTS

Sec.
481.  Race relations, gender discrimination, and hate group activity: 
          annual survey and report.
     * * * * * * *
486.  Unit operations tempo and personnel tempo: annual report.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 485. Joint warfighting experimentation

  (a) * * *
  (b) Matters To Be Included.--Each report under this section 
shall include, for the fiscal year covered by the report, the 
following:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (5) With respect to interoperability of equipment and 
        forces, any recommendations that the commander 
        considers appropriate, developed on the basis of joint 
        warfighting experimentation, for reducing unnecessary 
        redundancy of equipment and forces, including guidance 
        regarding the synchronization of the fielding of 
        advanced technologies among the armed forces to enable 
        the development and execution of joint operational 
        concepts.
          (6) Recommendations for mission needs statements and 
        operational requirements related to the joint 
        experimentation and evaluation process.
          (7) Recommendations based on the results of joint 
        experimentation for the relative priorities for 
        acquisition programs to meet joint requirements.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 486. Unit operations tempo and personnel tempo: annual report

  (a) Inclusion in Annual Report.--The Secretary of Defense 
shall include in the annual report required by section 113(c) 
of this title a description of the operations tempo and 
personnel tempo of the armed forces.
  (b) Specific Reporting Requirements.--To satisfy subsection 
(a), the report shall include the following:
          (1) A description of the methods by which each of the 
        armed forces measures operations tempo and personnel 
        tempo.
          (2) A description of the personnel tempo policies of 
        each of the armed forces and any changes to these 
        policies since the preceding report.
          (3) A table depicting the active duty end strength 
        for each of the armed forces for each of the preceding 
        five years and also depicting the number of members of 
        each of the armed forces deployed over the same period, 
        as determined by the Secretary concerned.
          (4) An identification of the active and reserve 
        component units of the armed forces participating at 
        the battalion, squadron, or an equivalent level (or a 
        higher level) in contingency operations, major training 
        events, and other exercises and contingencies of such a 
        scale that the exercises and contingencies receive an 
        official designation, that were conducted during the 
        period covered by the report and the duration of their 
        participation.
          (5) For each of the armed forces, the average number 
        of days a member of that armed force was deployed away 
        from the member's home station during the period 
        covered by the report as compared to recent previous 
        years for which such information is available.
          (6) For each of the armed forces, the number of days 
        that high demand, low density units (as defined by the 
        Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) were deployed 
        during the period covered by the report, and whether 
        these units met the force goals for limiting 
        deployments, as described in the personnel tempo 
        policies applicable to that armed force.
  (c) Definitions.--In this section:
          (1) The term ``operations tempo'' means the rate at 
        which units of the armed forces are involved in all 
        military activities, including contingency operations, 
        exercises, and training deployments.
          (2) The term ``personnel tempo'' means the amount of 
        time members of the armed forces are engaged in their 
        official duties, including the rate at which members 
        are required, as a result of these duties, to spend 
        nights away from home.
          (3) The term ``armed forces'' does not include the 
        Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in 
        the Department of the Navy.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART II--PERSONNEL

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 31--ENLISTMENTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 503. Enlistments: recruiting campaigns; compilation of directory 
                    information

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Each local educational agency is requested to provide to 
the Department of Defense, upon a request made for military 
recruiting purposes, the same access to secondary school 
students, and to directory information concerning such 
students, as is provided generally to post-secondary 
educational institutions or to prospective employers of those 
students.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 525. Distribution of commissioned officers on active duty in 
                    general officer and flag officer grades

  (a) * * *
  (b)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (5)(A) An officer while serving in a position specified in 
section 604(b) of this title, if serving in the grade of 
general or admiral, is in addition to the number that would 
otherwise be permitted for that officer's armed force for 
officers serving on active duty in grades above major general 
or rear admiral, as the case may be, under the first sentence 
of paragraph (1) or (2), as applicable. Any increase by reason 
of the preceding sentence in the number of officers of an armed 
force serving on active duty in grades above major general or 
rear admiral may only be realized by an increase in the number 
of lieutenant generals or vice admirals, as the case maybe, 
serving on active duty, and any such increase may not be 
construed as authorizing an increase in the limitation on the 
total number of general or flag officers for that armed force 
under section 526(a) of this title or in the number of general 
and flag officers that may be designated under section 526(b) 
of this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(C) This paragraph shall cease to be effective at the end of 
September 30, 2000.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (7) An officer of the Army while serving as Superintendent of 
the United States Military Academy, if serving in the grade of 
lieutenant general, is in addition to the number that would 
otherwise be permitted for the Army for officers serving on 
active duty in grades above major general under paragraph (1). 
An officer of the Navy or Marine Corps while serving as 
Superintendent of the United States Naval Academy, if serving 
in the grade of vice admiral or lieutenant general, is in 
addition to the number that would otherwise be permitted for 
the Navy or Marine Corps, respectively, for officers serving on 
active duty in grades above major general or rear admiral under 
paragraph (1) or (2). An officer while serving as 
Superintendent of the United Air Force Academy, if serving in 
the grade of lieutenant general, is in addition to the number 
that would otherwise be permitted for the Air Force for 
officers serving on active duty in grades above major general 
under paragraph (1).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  CHAPTER 33A--APPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, AND INVOLUNTARY SEPARATION AND 
RETIREMENT FOR MEMBERS ON THE WARRANT OFFICER ACTIVE-DUTY LIST

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 575. Recommendations for promotion by selection boards

  (a) * * *
  (b)(1) * * *
  (2) The number of officers recommended for promotion from 
below the promotion zone may not exceed 10 percent of the total 
number recommended, except that the Secretary of Defense and 
the Secretary of Transportation, when the Coast Guard is not 
operating as a service in the Navy, may authorize such 
percentage to be increased to not more than 15 percent. If the 
number determined under this subsection within a grade (or 
grade and competitive category) is less than one, the board may 
recommend one such officer from within that grade (or grade and 
competitive category).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


   CHAPTER 36--PROMOTION, SEPARATION, AND INVOLUNTARY RETIREMENT OF 
OFFICERS ON THE ACTIVE-DUTY LIST

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBCHAPTER II--PROMOTIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 619a. Eligibility for consideration for promotion: joint duty 
                    assignment required before promotion to general or 
                    flag grade; exceptions

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(g) Transition Waiver Authorities.--(1)(A) Until January 1, 
1999, the Secretary of Defense may waive subsection (a) in the 
case of an officer who served in an assignment (other than a 
joint duty assignment) that began before October 1, 1986, and 
that involved significant experience in joint matters (as 
determined by the Secretary) if the officer served in that 
assignment for a period of sufficient duration (which may not 
be less than 12 months) for the officer's service to have been 
considered a full tour of duty under the policies and 
regulations in effect on September 30, 1986.
  [(B) Of the total number of appointments to the grades of 
brigadier general and rear admiral (lower half) for officers on 
the active-duty lists of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine 
Corps during each of the years 1995 through 1999, the number in 
any such year that are made using a waiver under subparagraph 
(A) may not exceed the applicable percentage of such total 
determined as follows:
                                                              Applicable
[Year:                                                       Percentage:
    1995......................................................       20 
    1996......................................................       15 
    1997......................................................       10 
    1998......................................................        5.
  [(C) The provisions of subsections (c) and (e) apply to 
waivers under this paragraph in the same manner as to waivers 
under subsection (b).
  [(2) Until January 1, 1999, the Secretary of Defense may 
waive subsection (d) in the case of an officer granted a waiver 
of subsection (a) under the authority of subsection (b)(1).
  [(3)(A) An officer described in subparagraph (B) may not be 
appointed to the grade of lieutenant general or vice admiral 
until the officer completes a full tour of duty in a joint duty 
assignment.
  [(B) Subparagraph (A) applies to an officer--
          [(i) who is promoted after January 1, 1994, to the 
        grade of brigadier general or rear admiral (lower half) 
        and who receives a waiver of subsection (a) under the 
        authority of paragraph (1) of this subsection; or
          [(ii) who receives a waiver of subsection (d) under 
        the authority of paragraph (2) of this subsection.]
  (g) Limitation for General and Flag Officers Previously 
Receiving Joint Duty Assignment Waiver.--A general officer or 
flag officer who before January 1, 1999, received a waiver of 
subsection (a) under the authority of this subsection (as in 
effect before that date) may not be appointed to the grade of 
lieutenant general or vice admiral until the officer completes 
a full tour of duty in a joint duty assignment.
  (h) Special Transition Rules for Nuclear Propulsion 
Officers.--[(1) Until January 1, 1997, an] An officer of the 
Navy designated as a qualified nuclear propulsion officer [may 
be] who before January 1, 1997, is appointed to the grade of 
rear admiral (lower half) without regard to subsection (a)[. An 
officer so appointed may not be appointed] to the grade of rear 
admiral until the officer completes a full tour of duty in a 
joint duty assignment.
  [(2) Not later than March 1 of each year from 1994 through 
1997, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on 
Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on National 
Security of the House of Representatives a report on the 
implementation during the preceding calendar year of the 
transition plan developed by the Secretary pursuant to section 
1305(b) of Public Law 100-180 (10 U.S.C. 619a note) with 
respect to service by qualified nuclear propulsion officers in 
joint duty assignments.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 38--JOINT OFFICER MANAGEMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 664. Length of joint duty assignments

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (i) Joint Duty Credit for Certain Joint Task Force 
Assignments.--(1) * * *
  (2)(A) For purposes of paragraph (1), a qualifying temporary 
joint task force assignment of an officer is a temporary 
assignment, any part of which is performed by the officer on or 
after [the date of the enactment of this subsection] February 
10, 1996--
          (i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 39--ACTIVE DUTY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 688. Retired members: authority to order to active duty; duties

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Limitation of Period of Recall Service.--(1) A member 
ordered to active duty under subsection (a) may not serve on 
active duty pursuant to orders under that subsection [for more 
than 12 months within the 24 months] for more than 36 months 
within 48 months following the first day of the active duty to 
which ordered under that subsection.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 690. Retired members ordered to active duty: limitation on number

  (a) General and Flag Officers.--Not more than 15 retired 
general officers of the Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps, and 
not more than 15 retired flag officers of the Navy, may be on 
active duty at any one time. [For the purposes of this 
subsection a retired officer ordered to active duty for a 
period of 60 days or less is not counted.]
  (b) Limitation by Service.--(1) [Not more than 25 officers] 
In addition to the officers subject to subsection (a), not more 
than 150 officers of any one armed force may be serving on 
active duty concurrently pursuant to orders to active duty 
issued under section 688 of this title.
  (2) In the administration of paragraph (1), the following 
officers shall not be counted:
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (D) Any officer assigned to duty as a member of the 
        Army, Navy, or Air Force Retiree Council for the period 
        of active duty to which ordered.
  (c) Exclusion From Limitations of Officers Recalled for 60 
Days or Less.--A retired officer ordered to active duty for a 
period of 60 days or less shall not be counted for the purposes 
of subsection (a) or (b).
  [(c)] (d) Waiver for Periods of War or National Emergency.--
Subsection (a) does not apply in time of war or of national 
emergency declared by Congress or the President after November 
30, 1980. Subsection (b) does not apply in time of war or of 
national emergency declared by Congress or the President.

Sec. 691. Permanent end strength levels to support two major regional 
                    contingencies

  (a) * * *
  (b) Unless otherwise provided by law, the number of members 
of the armed forces (other than the Coast Guard) on active duty 
at the end of any fiscal year shall be not less than the 
following:
          (1) For the Army, 480,000.
          (2) For the Navy, [372,696] 371,781.
          (3) For the Marine Corps, [172,200] 172,148.
          (4) For the Air Force, [370,802] 360,877.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 45--THE UNIFORM

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 777. Wearing of insignia of higher grade before promotion 
                    (frocking): authority; restrictions

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Limitation on Number of Officers Frocked to Specified 
Grades.--(1) The total number of colonels and Navy captains on 
the active-duty list who are authorized as described in 
subsection (a) to wear the insignia for the grade of brigadier 
general or rear admiral (lower half), as the case may be, [may 
not exceed the following:
          [(A) During fiscal years 1996 and 1997, 75.
          [(B) During fiscal year 1998, 55.
          [(C) After fiscal year 1998, 35.] may not exceed 35.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 49--MISCELLANEOUS PROHIBITIONS AND PENALTIES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec.
971.  Service credit: officers may not count service performed while 
          serving as cadet or midshipman.
     * * * * * * *
[983.  Institutions of higher education that prohibit Senior ROTC units: 
          denial of Department of Defense grants and contracts.]
983.  Institutions of higher education that prevent ROTC access or 
          military recruiting on campus: denial of grants and contracts 
          from Department of Defense, Department of Education, and 
          certain other departments and agencies.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 973. Duties: officers on active duty; performance of civil 
                    functions restricted

  (a) * * *
  (b)(1) This subsection applies--
          (A) to a regular officer of an armed force on the 
        active-duty list (and a regular officer of the Coast 
        Guard on the active duty promotion list);
          (B) to a retired regular officer of an armed force 
        serving on active duty under a call or order to active 
        duty for a period in excess of [180] 270 days; and
          (C) to a reserve officer of an armed force serving on 
        active duty under a call or order to active duty for a 
        period in excess of [180] 270 days.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 977. Operation of commissary stores: assignment of active duty 
                    members generally prohibited

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Exception for Certain Navy Personnel.--(1) The Secretary 
of the Navy may assign to the Defense Commissary Agency a 
member of the Navy on active duty whose assignment afloat is 
part of the operation of a ship's food service or a ship's 
store. Any such assignment shall be on a nonreimbursable basis.
  (2) The number of such members assigned to the Defense 
Commissary Agency during any period may not exceed [the lesser 
of (A) the number of members so assigned on October 1, 1993, 
and (B)].

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[Sec. 983. Institutions of higher education that prohibit Senior ROTC 
                    units: denial of Department of Defense grants and 
                    contracts

  [(a) Denial of Department of Defense Grants and Contracts.--
(1) No funds appropriated or otherwise available to the 
Department of Defense may be made obligated by contract or by 
grant (including a grant of funds to be available for student 
aid) to any institution of higher education that, as determined 
by the Secretary of Defense, has an anti-ROTC policy and at 
which, as determined by the Secretary, the Secretary would 
otherwise maintain or seek to establish a unit of the Senior 
Reserve Officer Training Corps or at which the Secretary would 
otherwise enroll or seek to enroll students for participation 
in a unit of the Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps at 
another nearby institution of higher education.
  [(2) In the case of an institution of higher education that 
is ineligible for Department of Defense grants and contracts by 
reason of paragraph (1), the prohibition under that paragraph 
shall cease to apply to that institution upon a determination 
by the Secretary that the institution no longer has an anti-
ROTC policy.
  [(b) Notice of Determination.--Whenever the Secretary makes a 
determination under subsection (a) that an institution has an 
anti-ROTC policy, or that an institution previously determined 
to have an anti-ROTC policy no longer has such a policy, the 
Secretary--
          [(1) shall transmit notice of that determination to 
        the Secretary of Education and to the Committee on 
        Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on 
        National Security of the House of Representatives; and
          [(2) shall publish in the Federal Register notice of 
        that determination and of the effect of that 
        determination under subsection (a)(1) on the 
        eligibility of that institution for Department of 
        Defense grants and contracts.
  [(c) Semiannual Notice in Federal Register.--The Secretary 
shall publish in the Federal Register once every six months a 
list of each institution of higher education that is currently 
ineligible for Department of Defense grants and contracts by 
reason of a determination of the Secretary under subsection 
(a).
  [(d) Anti-ROTC Policy.--In this section, the term ``anti-ROTC 
policy'' means a policy or practice of an institution of higher 
education that--
          [(1) prohibits, or in effect prevents, the Secretary 
        of Defense from maintaining or establishing a unit of 
        the Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps at that 
        institution, or
          [(2) prohibits, or in effect prevents, a student at 
        that institution from enrolling in a unit of the Senior 
        Reserve Officer Training Corps at another institution 
        of higher education.]

Sec. 983. Institutions of higher education that prevent ROTC access or 
                    military recruiting on campus: denial of grants and 
                    contracts from Department of Defense, Department of 
                    Education, and certain other departments and 
                    agencies

  (a) Denial of Funds for Preventing ROTC Access to Campus.--No 
funds described in subsection (d) may be provided by contract 
or by grant (including a grant of funds to be available for 
student aid) to a covered educational entity if the Secretary 
of Defense determines that the covered educational entity has a 
policy or practice (regardless of when implemented) that either 
prohibits, or in effect prevents--
          (1) the Secretary of a military department from 
        maintaining, establishing, or operating a unit of the 
        Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps (in accordance 
        with section 654 of this title and other applicable 
        Federal laws) at the covered educational entity; or
          (2) a student at the covered educational entity from 
        enrolling in a unit of the Senior Reserve Officer 
        Training Corps at another institution of higher 
        education.
  (b) Denial of Funds for Preventing Military Recruiting on 
Campus.--No funds described in subsection (d) may be provided 
by contract or by grant (including a grant of funds to be 
available for student aid) to a covered educational entity if 
the Secretary of Defense determines that the covered 
educational entity has a policy or practice (regardless of when 
implemented) that either prohibits, or in effect prevents--
          (1) the Secretary of a military department from 
        gaining entry to campuses, or access to students (who 
        are 17 years of age or older) on campuses, for purposes 
        of military recruiting; or
          (2) access by military recruiters for purposes of 
        military recruiting to the following information 
        pertaining to students (who are 17 years of age or 
        older) enrolled at the covered educational entity:
                  (A) Names, addresses, and telephone listings.
                  (B) Date and place of birth, levels of 
                education, academic majors, degrees received, 
                and the most recent educational institution 
                enrolled in by the student.
  (c) Exceptions.--The limitation established in subsection (a) 
or (b) shall not apply to a covered educational entity if the 
Secretary of Defense determines that--
          (1) the covered educational entity has ceased the 
        policy or practice described in that subsection; or
          (2) the institution of higher education involved has 
        a longstanding policy of pacifism based on historical 
        religious affiliation.
  (d) Covered Funds.--The limitations established in 
subsections (a) and (b) apply to the following:
          (1) Any funds made available for the Department of 
        Defense.
          (2) Any funds made available in a Departments of 
        Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and 
        Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
  (e) Notice of Determinations.--Whenever the Secretary of 
Defense makes a determination under subsection (a), (b), or 
(c), the Secretary--
          (1) shall transmit a notice of the determination to 
        the Secretary of Education and to Congress; and
          (2) shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of 
        the determination and the effect of the determination 
        on the eligibility of the covered educational entity 
        for contracts and grants.
  (f) Semiannual Notice in Federal Register.--The Secretary of 
Defense shall publish in the Federal Register once every six 
months a list of each covered educational entity that is 
currently ineligible for contracts and grants by reason of a 
determination of the Secretary under subsection (a) or (b).
  (g) Covered Educational Entity.--In this section, the term 
``covered educational entity'' means an institution of higher 
education, or a subelement of an institution of higher 
education.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 53--MISCELLANEOUS RIGHTS AND BENEFITS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1060a. Special supplemental food program

  (a) [Authority.--The Secretary of Defense may] Program 
Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall carry out a program 
to provide special supplemental food benefits to members of the 
armed forces on duty at stations outside the United States (and 
its territories and possessions) and to eligible civilians 
serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces 
outside the United States (and its territories and 
possessions).
  [(b) Federal Payments and Commodities.--For the purpose of 
obtaining Federal payments and commodities in order to carry 
out the program referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary of 
Agriculture shall make available to the Secretary of Defense 
the same payments and commodities as are made for the special 
supplemental food program in the United States under section 17 
of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786). The 
Secretary of Defense may use funds available for the Department 
of Defense to carry out the program under subsection (a).]
  (b) Funding Mechanism.--The Secretary of Defense shall use 
funds available for the Department of Defense to carry out the 
program under subsection (a).
  (c) Program Administration.--(1)(A) The Secretary of Defense 
shall administer the program referred to in subsection (a) and, 
except as provided in subparagraph (B), shall determine 
eligibility for program benefits under the criterion published 
by the Secretary of Agriculture under section 17 of the Child 
Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786).
  [(B) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations 
governing computation of income eligibility standards for 
families of individuals participating in the program under this 
section.]
  (B) In determining income eligibility standards for families 
of individuals participating in the program under this section, 
the Secretary of Defense shall, to the extent practicable, use 
the criterion described in subparagraph (A). The Secretary 
shall also consider the value of housing in kind provided to 
the individual when determining program eligibility.
  (2) The program benefits provided under the program shall be 
similar to benefits provided by State and local agencies in the 
United States, particularly with respect to nutrition education 
and counseling.
  (3) The Secretary of Agriculture shall provide technical 
assistance to the Secretary of Defense, if so requested by the 
Secretary of Defense, for the purpose of carrying out the 
program under subsection (a).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                  CHAPTER 55--MEDICAL AND DENTAL CARE

Sec.
1071.  Purpose of this chapter.
     * * * * * * *
1074f.   Medical tracking system for members deployed overseas.
1074g.   Pharmacy benefits program.
     * * * * * * *
1095b.   TRICARE program: contractor payment of certain claims.
1095c.   TRICARE program: facilitation of processing of claims.
1095d.   TRICARE: program waiver of certain deductibles.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1073. Administration of this chapter

  Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the Secretary 
of Defense shall administer this chapter for the armed forces 
under his jurisdiction, the Secretary of Transportation shall 
administer this chapter for the Coast Guard when the Coast 
Guard is not operating as a service in the Navy, and the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall administer this 
chapter for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
and the Public Health Service. This chapter shall be 
administered consistent with the Assisted Suicide Funding 
Restriction Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 14401 et seq.).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1074g. Pharmacy benefits program

  (a) Pharmacy Benefits.--(1) The Secretary of Defense, after 
consultation with the other administering Secretaries, shall 
establish an effective, efficient, integrated pharmacy benefits 
program under this chapter (hereinafter in this section 
referred to as the ``pharmacy benefits program'').
  (2)(A) The pharmacy benefits program shall include a uniform 
formulary of pharmaceutical agents, which shall assure the 
availability of pharmaceutical agents in a complete range of 
therapeutic classes. The selection for inclusion on the uniform 
formulary of particular pharmaceutical agents in each 
therapeutic class shall be based on the relative clinical and 
cost effectiveness of the agents in such class.
  (B) The Secretary shall establish procedures for the 
selection of particular pharmaceutical agents for the uniform 
formulary, and shall begin to implement the uniform formulary 
not later than October 1, 2000.
  (C) Pharmaceutical agents included on the uniform formulary 
shall be available to eligible covered beneficiaries through--
          (i) facilities of the uniformed services, consistent 
        with the scope of health care services offered in such 
        facilities;
          (ii) retail pharmacies designated or eligible under 
        the TRICARE program or the Civilian Health and Medical 
        Program of the Uniformed Services to provide 
        pharmaceutical agents to eligible covered 
        beneficiaries; or
          (iii) the national mail order pharmacy program.
  (3) The pharmacy benefits program shall assure the 
availability of clinically appropriate pharmaceutical agents to 
members of the armed forces, including, if appropriate, agents 
not included on the uniform formulary described in paragraph 
(2).
  (4) The pharmacy benefits program may provide that prior 
authorization be required for certain categories of 
pharmaceutical agents to assure that the use of such agents is 
clinically appropriate. Such categories shall be the following:
          (A) High-cost injectable agents.
          (B) High-cost biotechnology agents.
          (C) Pharmaceutical agents with high potential for 
        inappropriate use.
          (D) Pharmaceutical agents otherwise determined by the 
        Secretary to require prior authorization.
  (5)(A) The pharmacy benefits program shall include procedures 
for eligible covered beneficiaries to receive pharmaceutical 
agents not included on the uniform formulary. Such procedures 
shall include peer review procedures under which the Secretary 
may determine that there is a clinical justification for the 
use of a pharmaceutical agent that is not on the uniform 
formulary, in which case the pharmaceutical agent shall be 
provided under the same terms and conditions as an agent on the 
uniform formulary.
  (B) If the Secretary determines that there is not a clinical 
justification for the use of a pharmaceutical agent that is not 
on the uniform formulary under the procedures established 
pursuant to subparagraph (A), such pharmaceutical agent shall 
be available through at least one of the means described in 
paragraph (2)(C) under terms and conditions that may include 
cost sharing by the eligible covered beneficiary in addition to 
any such cost sharing applicable to agents on the uniform 
formulary.
  (6) The Secretary of Defense shall, after consultation with 
the other administering Secretaries, promulgate regulations to 
carry out this subsection.
  (7) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as 
authorizing a contractor to penalize an eligible covered 
beneficiary with respect to, or decline coverage for, a 
maintenance pharmaceutical that is not on the list of preferred 
pharmaceuticals of the contractor and that was prescribed for 
the beneficiary before the date of the enactment of this 
section and stabilized the medical condition of the 
beneficiary.
  (b) Establishment of Committee.--(1) The Secretary of Defense 
shall, in consultation with the Secretaries of the military 
departments, establish a pharmaceutical and therapeutics 
committee for the purpose of developing the uniform formulary 
of pharmaceutical agents required by subsection (a), reviewing 
such formulary on a periodic basis, and making additional 
recommendations regarding the formulary as the committee 
determines necessary and appropriate. The committee shall 
include representatives of pharmacies of the uniformed services 
facilities, contractors responsible for the TRICARE retail 
pharmacy program, contractors responsible for the national mail 
order pharmacy program, providers in facilities of the 
uniformed services, and TRICARE network providers. Committee 
members shall have expertise in treating the medical needs of 
the populations served through such entities and in the range 
of pharmaceutical and biological medicines available for 
treating such populations.
  (2) Not later than 90 days after the establishment of the 
pharmaceutical and therapeutics committee by the Secretary, the 
committee shall submit a proposed uniform formulary to the 
Secretary.
  (c) Advisory Panel.--(1) Concurrent with the establishment of 
the pharmaceutical and therapeutics committee under subsection 
(b), the Secretary shall establish a Uniform Formulary 
Beneficiary Advisory Panel to review and comment on the 
development of the uniform formulary. The Secretary shall 
consider the comments of the panel before implementing the 
uniform formulary or implementing changes to the uniform 
formulary.
  (2) The Secretary shall determine the size and membership of 
the panel established under paragraph (1), which shall include 
members that represent nongovernmental organizations and 
associations that represent the views and interests of a large 
number of eligible covered beneficiaries.
  (d) Inapplicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply 
to the committee established under subsection (b) or the panel 
established under subsection (c).
  (e) Procedures.--In the operation of the pharmacy benefits 
program under subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall 
assure through management and new contractual arrangements that 
financial resources are aligned such that the cost of 
prescriptions is borne by the organization that is financially 
responsible for the health care of the eligible covered 
beneficiary.
  (f) Pharmacy Data Transaction Service.--Not later than April 
1, 2000, the Secretary of Defense shall implement the use of 
the Pharmacy Data Transaction Service in all fixed facilities 
of the uniformed services under the jurisdiction of the 
Secretary, the TRICARE network retail pharmacy program, and the 
national mail order pharmacy program.
  (g) Definition of Eligible Covered Beneficiary.--As used in 
this section, the term ``eligible covered beneficiary'' means a 
covered beneficiary for whom eligibility to receive pharmacy 
benefits through the means described in subsection (a)(2)(C) is 
established under this chapter or another provision of law.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1076a. Dependents' dental program

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  ( j) Limitation on Reduction of Benefits.--The Secretary of 
Defense may not reduce benefits provided under this section 
until--
          (1) * * *
          (2) [1] one year has elapsed following the date of 
        such notice.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1093. Performance of abortions: restrictions

  (a) Restriction on Use of Funds.--Funds available to the 
Department of Defense may not be used to perform abortions 
except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the 
fetus were carried to term or in a case in which the pregnancy 
is the result of an act of forcible rape or incest which has 
been reported to a law enforcement agency.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1095. Health care services incurred on behalf of covered 
                    beneficiaries: collection from third-party payers.

  (a)(1) In the case of a person who is a covered beneficiary, 
the United States shall have the right to collect from a third-
party payer [the reasonable costs of] reasonable charges for 
health care services incurred by the United States on behalf of 
such person through a facility of the uniformed services to the 
extent that the person would be eligible to receive 
reimbursement or indemnification from the third-party payer if 
the person were to incur [such costs] such charges on the 
person's own behalf. If the insurance, medical service, or 
health plan of that payer includes a requirement for a 
deductible or copayment by the beneficiary of the plan, then 
the amount that the United States may collect from the third-
party payer is [the reasonable cost of] a reasonable charge for 
the care provided less the appropriate deductible or copayment 
amount.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(f) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the other 
administering Secretaries, shall prescribe regulations for the 
administration of this section. Such regulations shall provide 
for computation of the reasonable cost of health care services. 
Computation of such reasonable cost may be based on--
          [(1) per diem rates;
          [(2) all-inclusive per visit rates;
          [(3) diagnosis-related groups; or
          [(4) such other method as may be appropriate.]
  (f) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the other 
administering Secretaries, shall prescribe regulations for the 
administration of this section. Such regulations shall provide 
for the computation of reasonable charges for inpatient 
services, outpatient services, and other health care services. 
Computation of such reasonable charges may be based on--
          (1) per diem rates;
          (2) all-inclusive per visit rates;
          (3) diagnosis-related groups;
          (4) rates prescribed under the regulations prescribed 
        to implement sections 1079 and 1086 of this title; or
          (5) such other method as may be appropriate.
  (g)(1) Amounts collected under this section from a third-
party payer or under any other provision of law from any other 
payer for [the costs of] health care services provided at or 
through a facility of the uniformed services shall be credited 
to the appropriation supporting the maintenance and operation 
of the facility and shall not be taken into consideration in 
establishing the operating budget of the facility.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (h) In this section:
          (1) [The term ``third-party payer'' means an entity 
        that provides an insurance, medical service, or health 
        plan by contract or agreement, including an automobile 
        liability insurance or no fault insurance carrier.] The 
        term ``third-party payer'' means an entity that 
        provides an insurance, medical service, or health plan 
        by contract or agreement, including an automobile 
        liability insurance or no fault insurance carrier, and 
        any other plan or program that is designed to provide 
        compensation or coverage for expenses incurred by a 
        beneficiary for health care services or products. Such 
        term also includes entities described in subsection (j) 
        under the terms and to the extent provided in such 
        subsection and a workers' compensation program or plan.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1095c. TRICARE program: facilitation of processing of claims

  (a) Reduction of Processing Time.--(1) With respect to claims 
for payment for medical care provided under the TRICARE 
program, the Secretary of Defense shall implement a system for 
processing of claims under which--
          (A) 95 percent of all mistake-free claims must be 
        processed not later than 30 days after the date that 
        such claims are submitted to the claims processor; and
          (B) 100 percent of all mistake-free claims must be 
        processed not later than 100 days after the date that 
        such claims are submitted to the claims processor.
  (2) The Secretary may, under the system required by paragraph 
(1) and consistent with the provisions in chapter 39 of title 
31, United States Code (commonly referred to as the ``Prompt 
Payment Act''), require that interest be paid on claims that 
are not processed within 30 days.
  (b) Requirement to Provide Start-up Time For Certain 
Contractors.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall not require 
that a contractor described in paragraph (2) begin to provide 
managed care support pursuant to a contract to provide such 
support under the TRICARE program until at least nine months 
after the date of the award of the contract. In such case the 
contractor may begin to provide managed care support pursuant 
to the contract as soon as practicable after the award of the 
contract, but in no case later than one year after the date of 
such award.
  (2) A contractor under this paragraph is a contractor who is 
awarded a contract to provide managed care support under the 
TRICARE program--
          (A) who has not previously been awarded such a 
        contract by the Department of Defense; or
          (B) who has previously been awarded such a contract 
        by the Department of Defense but for whom the 
        subcontractors have not previously been awarded the 
        subcontracts for such a contract.

Sec. 1095d. TRICARE program: waiver of certain deductibles

  (a) Waiver Authorized.--The Secretary of Defense may waive 
the deductible payable for medical care provided under the 
TRICARE program to an eligible dependent of--
          (1) a member of a reserve component on active duty 
        pursuant to a call or order to active duty for a period 
        of less than one year; or
          (2) a member of the National Guard on full-time 
        National Guard duty pursuant to a call or order to 
        full-time National Guard duty for a period of less than 
        one year.
  (b) Eligible Dependent.--As used in this section, the term 
``eligible dependent'' means a dependent described 
subparagraphs (A), (D), or (I) of section 1072(2) of this 
title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


      CHAPTER 61--RETIREMENT OR SEPARATION FOR PHYSICAL DISABILITY

Sec.
1201.  Regulars and members on active duty for more than 30 days: 
          retirement.
     * * * * * * *
1220.  Members dying in civilian medical facilities: authority for 
          determination of later time of death to allow disability 
          retirement.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1220. Members dying in civilian medical facilities: authority for 
                    determination of later time of death to allow 
                    disability retirement

  (a) Authority for Later Time-of-Death Determination To Allow 
Disability Retirement.--In the case of a member of the armed 
forces who dies in a civilian medical facility in a State, the 
Secretary concerned may, solely for the purpose of allowing 
retirement of the member under section 1201 or 1204 of this 
title and subject to subsection (b), specify a date and time of 
death of the member later than the date and time of death 
determined by the attending physician in that civilian medical 
facility.
  (b) Limitations.--A date and time of death may be determined 
by the Secretary concerned under subsection (a) only if that 
date and time--
          (1) are consistent with the date and time of death 
        that reasonably could have been determined by an 
        attending physician in a military medical facility if 
        the member had died in a military medical facility in 
        the same State as the civilian medical facility; and
          (2) are not more than 48 hours later than the date 
        and time of death determined by the attending physician 
        in the civilian medical facility.
  (c) State Defined.--In this section, the term ``State'' 
includes the District of Columbia and any Commonwealth or 
possession of the United States.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 69--RETIRED GRADE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1370. Commissioned officers: general rule; exceptions

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Reserve Officers.--(1) Unless entitled to a higher grade, 
or to credit for satisfactory service in a higher grade, under 
some other provision of law, a person who is entitled to 
retired pay under chapter [1225] 1223 of this title shall, upon 
application under section 12731 of this title, be credited with 
satisfactory service in the highest grade in which that person 
served satisfactorily at any time in the armed forces, as 
determined by the Secretary concerned in accordance with this 
subsection.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (5) The Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of a 
military department to reduce the 3-year period required by 
paragraph (3)(A) to a period not less than 2 years in the case 
of retirements effective during the period beginning on [the 
date of the enactment of this paragraph] October 17, 1998, and 
ending on September 30, 2001. The number of reserve 
commissioned officers of an armed force in the same grade for 
whom a reduction is made during any fiscal year in the period 
of service-in-grade otherwise required under this paragraph may 
not exceed the number equal to 2 percent of the strength 
authorized for that fiscal year for reserve commissioned 
officers of that armed force in an active status in that grade.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                 CHAPTER 71--COMPUTATION OF RETIRED PAY

Sec.
1401.  Computation of retired pay.
     * * * * * * *
1413.  Special compensation for certain severely disabled uniformed 
          services retirees.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1401a. Adjustment of retired pay and retainer pay to reflect 
                    changes in Consumer Price Index

  (a) * * *
  (b) Cost-of-Living Adjustments Based on CPI Increases.--
          (1) [In general.--] Increase required.--Effective on 
        December 1 of each year, the Secretary of Defense shall 
        increase the retired pay of members and former members 
        entitled to that pay in accordance with paragraphs (2) 
        and (3).
          (2) Pre-august 1, 1986 [members.--
                  [(A) General rule.--The Secretary shall] 
                members.--The Secretary shall increase the 
                retired pay of each member and former member 
                who first became a member of a uniformed 
                service before August 1, 1986, by the percent 
                (adjusted to the nearest one-tenth of 1 
                percent) by which--
                  [(i)] (A) the price index for the base 
                quarter of that year, exceeds
                  [(ii)] (B) the base index.
                  [(B) Special rule for fiscal year 1996.--In 
                the case of the increase in retired pay that, 
                pursuant to paragraph (1), becomes effective on 
                December 1, 1995, the initial month for which 
                such increase is payable as part of such 
                retired pay shall (notwithstanding such 
                December 1 effective date) be March 1996.
                  [(C) Inapplicability to disability 
                retirees.--Subparagraph (B) does not apply with 
                respect to the retired pay of a member retired 
                under chapter 61 of this title.
          [(3) Post-august 1, 1986 members.--If the percent 
        determined under paragraph (2) is greater than 1 
        percent, the Secretary shall increase the retired pay 
        of each member and former member who first became a 
        member on or after August 1, 1986, by the difference 
        between--
                  [(A) the percent determined under paragraph 
                (2); and
                  [(B) 1 percent.]
          (3) Post-august 1, 1986 members.--
                  (A) Members electing 15-year career status 
                bonus.--In the case of a member or former 
                member who first became a member on or after 
                August 1, 1986, and who elected to receive a 
                bonus under section 321 of title 37, the 
                Secretary shall increase the retired pay of the 
                member or former member (unless the percent 
                determined under paragraph (2) is less than 1 
                percent) by the difference between--
                          (i) the percent determined under 
                        paragraph (2); and
                          (ii) 1 percent.
                  (B) Members not electing 15-year career 
                status bonus.--In the case of a member or 
                former member who first became a member on or 
                after August 1, 1986, and who did not elect to 
                receive a bonus under section 321 of title 37, 
                the Secretary shall increase the retired pay of 
                the member or former member--
                          (i) if the percent determined under 
                        paragraph (2) is equal to or greater 
                        than 3 percent, by the difference 
                        between--
                                  (I) the percent determined 
                                under paragraph (2); and
                                  (II) 1 percent; and
                          (ii) if the percent determined under 
                        paragraph (2) is less than 3 percent, 
                        by the lesser of--
                                  (I) the percent determined 
                                under paragraph (2); or
                                  (II) 2 percent.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1406. Retired pay base for members who first became members before 
                    September 8, 1980: final basic pay

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (i) Special Rule for Former Chairmen and Vice Chairmen of the 
JCS, Chiefs of Service, and Senior Enlisted Members.--
          (1) * * *
          (2) Exception for members reduced in grade or who do 
        not serve satisfactorily.--Paragraph (1) does not apply 
        in the case of a member who, while or after serving in 
        a position specified in that paragraph and by reason of 
        conduct occurring [on or after the date of the 
        enactment of the Strom Thurmond National Defense 
        Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999] after October 
        16, 1998--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1409. Retired pay multiplier

  (a) Retired Pay Multiplier for Regular-Service Nondisability 
Retirement.--In computing--
  (b) Percentage.--
          (1) * * *
          (2) Reduction applicable to certain new-retirement 
        members with less than 30 years of service.--In the 
        case of a member who first became a member of a 
        uniformed service after July 31, 1986, has elected to 
        receive a bonus under section 321 of title 37, has less 
        than 30 years of creditable service, and is under the 
        age of 62 at the time of retirement, the percentage 
        determined under paragraph (1) shall be reduced by--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1410. Restoral of full retirement amount at age 62 for members 
                    entering on or after August 1, 1986

  (a) In General.--In the case of a member or former member who 
first became a member of a uniformed service on or after August 
1, 1986, and who becomes entitled to retired pay before the age 
of 62, in accordance with subsection (b) or (c), as applicable.
  (b) Members Receiving Career Status Bonus.--In the case of a 
member or former member described in subsection (a) who 
received a bonus under section 321 of title 37, the retired pay 
of the member or former member shall be recomputed under 
subsection (a) the retired pay of such member or former member 
shall be recomputed, effective on the first day of the first 
month beginning after the member or former member attains 62 
years of age, so as to be the amount equal to the amount of 
retired pay to which the member or former member would be 
entitled on [that date] the effective date of the recomputation 
if--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Members Not Receiving Career Status Bonus.--In the case 
of a member or former member described in subsection (a) who 
did not receive a bonus under section 321 of title 37, the 
retired pay of the member or former member shall be recomputed 
under subsection (a) so as to be the amount equal to the amount 
of retired pay to which the member or former member would be 
entitled on the effective date of the recomputation if 
increases in the retired pay of the member or former member 
under section 1401a(b) of this title had been computed as 
provided in paragraph (2) of that section (rather than under 
paragraph (3)(B) of that section).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1413. Special compensation for certain severely disabled uniformed 
                    services retirees

  (a) Authority.--The Secretary concerned shall, subject to the 
availability of appropriations for such purpose, pay to each 
eligible disabled uniformed services retiree a monthly amount 
determined under subsection (b).
  (b) Amount.--The amount to be paid (subject to the 
availability of appropriations) to an eligible disabled 
uniformed services retiree in accordance with subsection (a) is 
the following:
          (1) For any month for which the retiree has a 
        qualifying service-connected disability rated as total, 
        $300.
          (2) For any month for which the retiree has a 
        qualifying service-connected disability rated as 90 
        percent, $200.
          (3) For any month for which the retiree has a 
        qualifying service-connected disability rated as 80 
        percent or 70 percent, $100.
  (c) Eligible Disabled Uniformed Services Retiree Defined.--In 
this section, the term ``eligible disabled military retiree'' 
means a member of the uniformed services in a retired status 
(who is retired under a provision of law other than chapter 61 
of this title) who--
          (1) completed at least 20 years of service in the 
        uniformed services that are creditable for purposes of 
        computing the amount of retired pay to which the member 
        is entitled; and
          (2) has a qualifying service-connected disability.
  (d) Qualifying Service-Connected Disability Defined.--In this 
section, the term ``qualifying service-connected disability'' 
means a service-connected disability that--
          (1) was incurred or aggravated in the performance of 
        duty as a member of a uniformed service, as determined 
        by the Secretary concerned; and
          (2) is rated as not less than 70 percent disabling--
                  (A) by the Secretary concerned as of the date 
                on which the member is retired from the 
                uniformed services; or
                  (B) by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
                within four years following the date on which 
                the member is retired from the uniformed 
                services.
  (e) Status of Payments.--Payments under this section are not 
retired pay.
  (f) Source of Funds.--(1) Payments under this section for any 
fiscal year shall be paid out of funds appropriated for pay and 
allowances payable by the Secretary concerned for that fiscal 
year.
  (2) If the amount of funds available to the Secretary 
concerned for any fiscal year for payments under this section 
is less than the amount required to make such payments to all 
eligible disabled uniformed services retirees for that year, 
the Secretary shall make such payments first to retirees 
described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b), then (to the 
extent funds are available) to retirees described in paragraph 
(2) of that subsection, and then (to the extent funds are 
available) to retirees described in paragraph (3) of that 
subsection.
  (g) Other Definitions.--In this section:
          (1) The terms ``compensation'' and ``service-
        connected'' have the meanings given those terms in 
        section 101 of title 38.
          (2) The term ``disability rated as total'' means--
                  (A) a disability that is rated as total under 
                the standard schedule of rating disabilities in 
                use by the Department of Veterans Affairs; or
                  (B) a disability for which the schedular 
                rating is less than total but for which a 
                rating of total is assigned by reason of 
                inability of the disabled person concerned to 
                secure or follow a substantially gainful 
                occupation as a result of service-connected 
                disabilities.
          (3) The term ``retired pay'' includes retainer pay, 
        emergency officers' retirement pay, and naval pension.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 73--ANNUITIES BASED ON RETIRED OR RETAINER PAY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SUBCHAPTER II--SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 1448. Application of Plan

  (a) * * *
  (b) Insurable Interest and Former Spouse Coverage.--
          (1) * * *
          (3) Former spouse coverage by persons already 
        participating in plan.--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (E) Effective date of election.--An election 
                under this paragraph is effective as of--
                          (i) * * *
                          (ii) in the case of a person required 
                        (as described in section 1450(f )(3)(B) 
                        of this title) to make the election by 
                        reason of a court order or filing the 
                        date of which is [on or after the date 
                        of the enactment of the subparagraph] 
                        after October 16, 1998, the first day 
                        of the first month which begins after 
                        the date of that court order or filing.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1451. Amount of annuity

  (a) * * *
  (h) Adjustments to Base Amount.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Disregarding of retired pay reductions for 
        retirement of certain members before 30 years of 
        service.--Computation of a member's retired pay for 
        purposes of this section shall be made without regard 
        to any reduction under section 1409(b)(2) of this 
        title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 74--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MILITARY RETIREMENT FUND

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 1461. Establishment and purpose of Fund; definition

  (a) There is established on the books of the Treasury a fund 
to be known as the Department of Defense Military Retirement 
Fund (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the ``Fund''), 
which shall be administered by the Secretary of the Treasury. 
The Fund shall be used for the accumulation of funds in order 
to finance on an actuarially sound basis liabilities of the 
Department of Defense and the Department of Commerce under 
military retirement and survivor benefit programs.
  (b) In this chapter, the term ``military retirement and 
survivor benefit programs'' means--
          (1) the provisions of this title and the Coast and 
        Geodetic Survey Commissioned Officers' Act of 1948 (33 
        U.S.C. 853a et seq.) creating entitlement to, or 
        determining the amount of, retired or retainer pay;
          (2) the programs under the jurisdiction of the 
        Department of Defense providing annuities for survivors 
        of members and former members of the armed forces, 
        including chapter 73 of this title, section 4 of Public 
        Law 92-425, and section 5 of Public Law 96-402; [and]
          (3) the authority provided in section 1408(h) of this 
        title[.]; and
          (4) the programs under the jurisdiction of the 
        Department of Commerce providing annuities for 
        survivors of members and former members of the NOAA 
        Corps.
  (c) In this chapter, the term ``NOAA Corps'' means the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned 
Corps and its predecessors.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1463. Payments from the Fund

  (a) There shall be paid from the Fund--
          (1) retired pay payable to members on the retired 
        lists of the Army, Navy, Air Force, [and Marine Corps] 
        Marine Corps, and the NOAA Corps;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) benefits payable under programs under the 
        jurisdiction of the Department of Defense and the 
        Department of Commerce that provide annuities for 
        survivors of members and former members of the [armed 
        forces] uniformed services, including chapter 73 of 
        this title, section 4 of Public Law 92-425, and section 
        5 of Public Law 96-402; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1464. Board of Actuaries

  (a) * * *
  (b) The Board shall report to the Secretary of Defense and 
the Secretary of Commerce with respect to the NOAA Corps 
annually on the actuarial status of the Fund and shall furnish 
its advice and opinion on matters referred to it by the 
Secretary.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1465. Determination of contributions to the Fund

  (a)(1) Not later than six months after the Board of Actuaries 
is first appointed, the Board shall determine the amount that 
is the present value (as of October 1, 1984) of future benefits 
payable from the Fund that are attributable to service in the 
armed forces performed before October 1, 1984. That amount is 
the original unfunded liability of the Fund. The Board shall 
determine the period of time over which the original unfunded 
liability should be liquidated and shall determine an 
amortization schedule for the liquidation of such liability 
over that period. Contributions to the Fund for the liquidation 
of the original unfunded liability in accordance with such 
schedule shall be made as provided in section 1466(b) of this 
title.
  (2) Not later than January 1, 2000, the Secretary of Commerce 
shall provide to the Board the amount that is the present value 
(as of October 1, 1999) of future benefits payable from the 
Fund that are attributable to service in the NOAA Corps 
performed before October 1, 1999. That amount is the NOAA Corps 
original unfunded liability of the Fund. The Board shall 
determine the period of time over which that unfunded liability 
should be liquidated and shall determine an amortization 
schedule for the liquidation of such liability over that 
period. Contributions to the Fund for the liquidation of the 
original unfunded liability in accordance with that schedule 
shall be made as provided in section 1466(b) of this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (b)(1) The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Commerce 
shall determine each year, in sufficient time for inclusion in 
budget requests for the following fiscal year, the total amount 
of Department of Defense contributions and the Department of 
Commerce contributions with respect to the NOAA Corps to be 
made to the Fund during that fiscal year under section 1466(a) 
of this title. That amount shall be the sum of the following:
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (C) The product of--
                  (i) the current estimate of the value of the 
                single level percentage of basic pay to be 
                determined under subsection (c)(1)(C) at the 
                time of the next actuarial valuation under 
                subsection (c); and
                  (ii) the total amount of basic pay expected 
                to be paid during that fiscal year to members 
                of the NOAA Corps.
  (2) The amount determined under paragraph (1) for any fiscal 
year is the amount needed to be appropriated to the Department 
of Defense and the Department of Commerce for that fiscal year 
for payments to be made to the Fund during that year under 
section 1466(a) of this title. The President shall include not 
less than the full amount so determined in the budget 
transmitted to Congress for that fiscal year under section 1105 
of title 31 and shall include separate amounts for the 
Department of Defense and the Department of Commerce. The 
President may comment and make recommendations concerning any 
such amount.
  (c)(1) Not less often than every four years, the Secretary of 
Defense and the Secretary of Commerce with respect to the NOAA 
Corps shall carry out an actuarial valuation of Department of 
Defense military retirement and survivor benefit programs. Each 
actuarial valuation of such programs shall include--
          (A) a determination (using the aggregate entry-age 
        normal cost method) of a single level percentage of 
        basic pay for members of the armed forces (other than 
        the Coast Guard) on active duty (other than active duty 
        for training) or full-time National Guard duty (other 
        than full-time National Guard duty for training only); 
        [and]
          (B) a determination (using the aggregate entry-age 
        normal cost method) of a single level percentage of 
        basic pay and of compensation (paid pursuant to section 
        206 of title 37) for members of the Ready Reserve of 
        the armed forces (other than the Coast Guard and other 
        than members on full-time National Guard duty other 
        than for training) who are not otherwise described by 
        subparagraph (A)[.]; and
          (C) a determination (using the aggregate entry-age 
        normal cost method) of a single level percentage of 
        basic pay for members of the NOAA Corps.
Such single level percentages shall be used for the purposes of 
subsection (b) and section 1466(a) of this title.

Sec. 1466. Payments into the Fund

  (a) The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Commerce 
with respect to the NOAA Corps shall pay into the Fund at the 
end of each month as the [Department of Defense] contribution 
to the Fund for that month the amount that is the sum of the 
following:
          (1) The product of--
                  (A) the level percentage of basic pay 
                determined using all the methods and 
                assumptions approved for the most recent (as of 
                the first day of the current fiscal year) 
                actuarial valuation under section 1465(c)(1)(A) 
                and 1465(c)(1)(C) of this title (except that 
                any statutory change in the military retirement 
                and survivor benefit systems that is effective 
                after the date of that valuation and on or 
                before the first day of the current fiscal year 
                shall be used in such determination); and
                  (B) the total amount of basic pay accrued for 
                that month by members of the armed forces 
                (other than the Coast Guard) on active duty 
                (other than active duty for training) or full-
                time National Guard duty (other than full-time 
                National Guard duty for training only) and by 
                members of the NOAA Corps.
          (2) The product of--
                  (A) the level percentage of basic pay and of 
                compensation (paid pursuant to section 206 of 
                title 37) determined using all the methods and 
                assumptions approved for the most recent (as of 
                the first day of the current fiscal year) 
                actuarial valuation under section 1465(c)(1)(B) 
                of this title (except that any statutory change 
                in the military retirement and survivor benefit 
                systems that is effective after the date of 
                that valuation and on or before the first day 
                of the current fiscal year shall be used in 
                such determination); and
                  (B) the total amount of basic pay and of 
                compensation (paid pursuant to section 206 of 
                title 37) accrued for that month by members of 
                the Ready Reserve of the armed forces (other 
                than the Coast Guard and other than members on 
                full-time National Guard duty other than for 
                training) who are not otherwise described in 
                paragraph (1)(B).
Amounts paid into the Fund under this subsection shall be paid 
from funds available for the pay of members of the armed forces 
under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of a military 
department or by members of the NOAA Corps.
  (b)(1) At the beginning of each fiscal year the Secretary of 
the Treasury shall promptly pay into the Fund from the General 
Fund of the Treasury the amount certified to the Secretary by 
the Secretary of Defense under paragraph (3). Such payment 
shall be the contribution to the Fund for that fiscal year 
required by sections 1465(a) and 1465(c) of this title.
  (2) At the beginning of each fiscal year the Secretary of 
Defense shall determine the sum of the following:
          (A) The amount of the payment for that year under the 
        amortization schedule determined by the Board of 
        Actuaries under section 1465(a) of this title for the 
        amortization of the original unfunded liability and the 
        NOAA original unfunded liability of the Fund.
          (B) The amount (including any negative amount) for 
        that year under the most recent amortization schedule 
        determined by the Secretary of Defense under section 
        1465(c)(2) of this title for the amortization of any 
        cumulative unfunded liability (or any gain) to the Fund 
        resulting from changes in benefits.
          (C) The amount (including any negative amount) for 
        that year under the most recent amortization schedule 
        determined by the Secretary of Defense under section 
        1465(c)(3) of this title for the amortization of any 
        cumulative actuarial gain or loss to the Fund.
  (c)(1) The Secretary of Transportation shall process, on 
behalf of the Fund, payments under section 1463 of this title 
to members on the retired list of the NOAA Corps and to 
survivors of members and former members of the NOAA Corps.
  (2) Payments made by the Secretary of Transportation under 
paragraph (1) shall be charged against the Fund.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                       CHAPTER 75--DEATH BENEFITS

Sec. 1491. Honor guard details at funerals of veterans

  (a) * * *
  (b) Composition of Honor Guard Details.--The Secretary of 
each military department shall ensure that an honor guard 
detail for the funeral of a veteran [consists of not less than 
three persons and (unless a bugler is part of the detail) has 
the capability to play a recorded version of Taps.] consists of 
not less than two persons, who shall, at a minimum, perform a 
ceremony to fold and present a United States flag to the 
deceased veteran's family and who shall (unless a bugler is 
part of the detail) have the capability to play a recorded 
version of Taps. At least one member of an honor guard detail 
provided in response to a request to the Department of Defense 
shall be a member of the same armed force as the deceased 
veteran.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Support for Nongovernmental Organizations.--The Secretary 
of a military department may provide material, equipment, and 
training to support nongovernmental organizations, as necessary 
for the support of honor guard activities.
  [(d)] (e) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall by 
regulation establish a system for selection of units of the 
armed forces and other organizations to provide honor guard 
details. [The system shall place an emphasis on balancing the 
funeral detail workload among the units and organizations 
providing honor guard details in an equitable manner as they 
are able to respond to requests for such details in terms of 
geographic proximity and available resources. The Secretary 
shall provide in such regulations that the armed force in which 
a veteran served shall not be considered to be a factor when 
selecting the military unit or other organization to provide an 
honor guard detail for the funeral of the veteran.] The 
Secretary shall require that procedures be established by the 
Secretaries of the military departments for coordinating and 
responding to requests for honor guard details, for 
establishing standards and protocols for, responding to 
requests for and conducting military funeral honors, and for 
providing training and quality control.
  [(e)] (f) Annual Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the 
Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives 
a report not later than January 31 of each year beginning with 
2001 and ending with 2005 on the experience of the Department 
of Defense under this section. Each such report shall provide 
data on the number of funerals supported under this section, 
the cost for that support, shown by manpower and other cost 
factors, and the number and costs of funerals supported by each 
participating organization. The data in the report shall be 
presented in a standard format, regardless of military 
department or other organization.
  (g) Waiver Authority.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may waive 
any of the provisions of this section when the Secretary 
determines that such a waiver is necessary because of a 
contingency operation or when the Secretary otherwise considers 
such a waiver to be necessary to meet military requirements. 
The authority to make such a waiver may not be delegated to any 
official of a military department other than the Secretary of 
the military department and may not be delegated within the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense to an official at a level 
below Under Secretary of Defense.
  (2) Whenever a waiver is granted under paragraph (1), the 
Secretary of Defense shall promptly submit notice of the waiver 
to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the 
Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives.
  [(f )] (h) Veteran Defined.--In this section, the term 
``veteran'' has the meaning given that term in section 101(2) 
of title 38[.] and includes a deceased member or former member 
of the Selected Reserve described in section 2301(f) of title 
38.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 76--MISSING PERSONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1501. System for accounting for missing persons

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Primary Next of Kin.--The individual who is primary next 
of kin of any person [prescribed] described in subsection (c) 
may for purposes of this chapter designate another individual 
to act on behalf of that individual as primary next of kin. The 
Secretary concerned shall treat an individual so designated as 
if the individual designated were the primary next of kin for 
purposes of this chapter. A designation under this subsection 
may be revoked at any time by the person who made the 
designation.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1509. Preenactment cases

  (a) Review of Status.--(1) * * *
  (2) For purposes of this subsection, new information is 
information that is credible and that--
          (A) is found or received after [the date of the 
        enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
        Fiscal Year 1998] November 18, 1997, by a United States 
        intelligence agency, by a Department of Defense agency, 
        or by a person specified in section 1504(g) of this 
        title; or
          (B) is identified after [the date of the enactment of 
        the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
        1998] November 18, 1997, in records of the United 
        States as information that could be relevant to the 
        case of one or more unaccounted for persons described 
        in subsection (b).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1513. Definitions

  In this chapter:
          (1) The term ``missing person'' means--
                  (A) a member of the armed forces on active 
                duty who is in a missing status; or
                  (B) a civilian employee of the Department of 
                Defense or an employee of a contractor of the 
                Department of Defense who serves in direct 
                support of, or accompanies, the armed forces in 
                the field under orders and who is in a missing 
                status.
        Such term includes an unaccounted for person described 
        in section 1509(b) of this title[, under the 
        circumstances specified in the last sentence of section 
        1509(a) of this title] who is required by section 
        1509(a)(1) of this title to be considered a missing 
        person.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 79--CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 1555. Professional staff

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) In this section, the term ``service review agency'' 
means--
          (1) with respect to the Department of the Army, the 
        Army Review Boards Agency;
          (2) with respect to the Department of the Navy, the 
        Navy Council of Personnel Boards and the Board for 
        Correction of Naval Records; and
          (3) with respect to the Department of the Air Force, 
        the Air Force Review Boards Agency.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


 CHAPTER 80--MISCELLANEOUS INVESTIGATION REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER DUTIES

Sec.
1561.  Complaints of sexual harassment: investigation by commanding 
          officers.
1562.  Confidentiality of communications between dependents and 
          professionals providing therapeutic or related services 
          regarding sexual or domestic abuse.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1562. Confidentiality of communications between dependents and 
                    professionals providing therapeutic or related 
                    services regarding sexual or domestic abuse

  (a) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe in 
regulations such policies and procedures as the Secretary 
considers necessary to provide the maximum possible protection 
for the confidentiality of communications described in 
subsection (b) relating to misconduct described in that 
subsection. Those regulations shall be consistent with--
          (1) the standards of confidentiality and ethical 
        standards issued by relevant professional 
        organizations;
          (2) applicable requirements of Federal and State law;
          (3) the best interest of victims of sexual 
        harassment, sexual assault, or intrafamily abuse; and
          (4) such other factors as the Secretary, in 
        consultation with the Attorney General, considers 
        appropriate.
  (b) Covered Communications.--Subsection (a) applies to 
communications between--
          (1) a dependent of a member of the armed forces who--
                  (A) is a victim of sexual harassment, sexual 
                assault, or intrafamily abuse; or
                  (B) has engaged in such misconduct; and
          (2) a therapist, counselor, advocate, or other 
        professional from whom the dependent seeks professional 
        services in connection with effects of such misconduct.

CHAPTER 81--CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1588. Authority to accept certain voluntary services

  (a) Authority To Accept Services.--Subject to subsection (b) 
and notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, the Secretary 
concerned may accept from any person the following services:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) Voluntary services as a member of an honor guard 
        detail under section 1491 of this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Authority To Install Equipment.--(1) The Secretary 
concerned may install telephone lines and any necessary 
telecommunication equipment in the private residences of 
designated persons providing voluntary services accepted under 
subsection (a)(3) and pay the charges incurred for the use of 
the equipment for authorized purposes.
  (2) Notwithstanding section 1348 of title 31, the Secretary 
concerned may use appropriated or nonappropriated funds of the 
military department under the jurisdiction of the Secretary or, 
with respect to the Coast Guard, the department in which the 
Coast Guard is operating, to carry out this subsection.
  (3) The Secretary of Defense and, with respect to the Coast 
Guard, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard 
is operating, shall prescribe regulations to carry out this 
subsection.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1595. Civilian faculty members at certain Department of Defense 
                    schools: employment and compensation

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Covered Institutions.--This section applies with respect 
to the following institutions of the Department of Defense:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (6) The African Center for Strategic Studies.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Applicability to Director and Deputy Director at Certain 
Institutions.--In addition to the persons specified in 
subsection (a), this section also applies with respect to the 
Director and the Deputy Director of the following:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) The African Center for Strategic Studies.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART III--TRAINING AND EDUCATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 101--TRAINING GENERALLY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 2007. Payment of tuition for off-duty training or education

  (a) The Secretary of a military department may not pay more 
than 75 percent of the charges of an educational institution 
for the tuition or expenses of a member of the armed forces 
enrolled in such institution for education or training during 
his off-duty periods, except that--
          (1) * * *
          (2) in the case of a member enrolled in a high school 
        completion program, all of the charges may be paid; 
        [and]
          (3) in the case of a commissioned officer on active 
        duty, no part of the charges may be paid unless the 
        officer agrees to remain on active duty for a period of 
        at least two years after the completion of the training 
        or education[.]; and
          (4) in the case of a member serving in a contingency 
        operation or similar operational mission (other than 
        for training) designated by the Secretary concerned, 
        all of the charges may be paid.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


          CHAPTER 102--JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS

Sec.
2031.  Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps.
2032.  Responsibility of the Secretaries of the military departments to 
          maximize 
          enrollment and enhance efficiency.
2033.  Contingent funding increase.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2033. Contingent funding increase

  If for any fiscal year the amount appropriated for the 
National Guard Challenge Program under section 509 of title 32 
is in excess of $62,500,000, the Secretary of Defense shall 
(notwithstanding any other provision of law) make the amount in 
excess of $62,500,000 available for the Junior Reserve 
Officers' Training Corps program under section 2031 of this 
title, and such excess amount may not be used for any other 
purpose.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


          CHAPTER 103--SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS

Sec.
2101.  Definitions.
     * * * * * * *
2111a.   Support for senior military colleges.
2111b.   Senior military colleges: Department of Defense international 
          student program.

Sec. 2101. Definitions

  In this chapter:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) The term ``advanced training'' means the training 
        and instruction offered in the Senior Reserve Officers' 
        Training Corps to students enrolled in an advanced 
        education program beyond the baccalaureate degree level 
        or to students enrolled in an advanced education 
        program beyond the baccalaureate degree level or to 
        students in the third and fourth years of a four-year 
        Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps course, or the 
        equivalent period of training in an approved two-year 
        Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps course (except 
        that, in the case of a student enrolled in an academic 
        program which has been approved by the Secretary of the 
        military department concerned and which requires more 
        than four academic years for completion of 
        baccalaureate degree requirements, including elective 
        requirements of the Senior Reserve Officers' Training 
        Corps course, such term includes a fifth academic year 
        or a combination of a part of a fifth academic year and 
        summer sessions).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2107. Financial assistance program for specially selected members

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c)(1) * * *
  [(2) The Secretary of Defense shall authorize the Secretaries 
of the military departments to carry out a test program to 
determine the desirability of enabling graduate students to 
participate in the financial assistance program under this 
section. As part of such test program, the Secretary of a 
military department may provide financial assistance, as 
described in paragraph (1), to a student enrolled in an 
advanced education program beyond the baccalaureate degree 
level if the student also is a cadet or midshipman in an 
advanced training program. Not more than 15 percent of the 
total number of scholarships awarded under this section in any 
year may be awarded under the test program. No scholarship may 
be awarded under the test program after September 30, 1999.]
  (2) The Secretary concerned may provide financial assistance, 
as described in paragraph (1), to a student enrolled in an 
advanced education program beyond the baccalaureate degree 
level if the student also is a cadet or midshipman in an 
advanced training program. Not more than 15 percent of the 
total number of scholarships awarded under this section in any 
year may be awarded under the program.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2111a. Support for senior military colleges

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Assignment to Active Duty.--(1) The Secretary of the Army 
shall ensure that a graduate of a senior military college who 
desires to serve as a commissioned officer on active duty upon 
graduation from the college, who is medically and physically 
qualified for active duty, and who is recommended for such duty 
by the professor of military science at the college, shall be 
assigned to active duty. [This paragraph shall apply to a 
member of the program at a senior military college who 
graduates from the college after March 31, 1997.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2111b. Senior military colleges: Department of Defense 
                    international student program

  (a) Program Requirement.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
establish a program to facilitate the enrollment and 
instruction of persons from foreign countries as international 
students at the senior military colleges.
  (b) Purposes.--The purposes of the program shall be--
          (1) to provide a high-quality, cost-effective 
        military-based educational experience for international 
        students in furtherance of the military-to-military 
        program objectives of the Department of Defense; and
          (2) to enhance the educational experience and 
        preparation of future United States military leaders 
        through increased, extended interaction with highly 
        qualified potential foreign military leaders.
  (c) Coordination with the Senior Military Colleges.--
Guidelines for implementation of the program shall be developed 
in coordination with the senior military colleges.
  (d) Recommendations for Admission of Students Under the 
Program.--The Secretary of Defense shall annually identify to 
the senior military colleges the international students who, 
based on criteria established by the Secretary, the Secretary 
recommends be considered for admission under the program. The 
Secretary shall identify the recommended international students 
to the senior military colleges as early as possible each year 
to enable those colleges to consider them in a timely manner in 
their respective admissions processes.
  (e) DOD Financial Support.--An international student who is 
admitted to a senior military college under the program under 
this section is responsible for the cost of instruction at that 
college. The Secretary of Defense may, from funds available to 
the Department of Defense other than funds available for 
financial assistance under section 2107a of this title, provide 
some or all of the costs of instruction for any such student.

   CHAPTER 105--ARMED FORCES HEALTH PROFESSIONS FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE 
PROGRAMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


 SUBCHAPTER I--HEALTH PROFESSIONS SCHOLARSHIP AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE 
PROGRAM FOR ACTIVE SERVICE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 2126. Members of the program: service credit

  (a) * * *
  (b) Service Creditable for Certain Purposes.--(1) * * *
  (2) Service credited under paragraph (1) counts [only for the 
following purposes:
          [(A) Award of] only for the award of retirement 
        points for computation of years of service under 
        section 12732 of this title and for computation of 
        retired pay under section 12733 of this title.
          [(B) Computation of years of service creditable under 
        section 205 of title 37.]
  (3) For purposes of [paragraph (2)(A), a member] paragraph 
(2), a member who completes a satisfactory year of service in 
the Selected Reserve may be credited in accordance with 
paragraph (1) with not more than 50 points for each year of 
participation in a course of study that the member 
satisfactorily completes as a member of the program.
  (4) Service may not be counted under paragraph (1) for more 
than four years of participation in a course of study as a 
member of the program.
          (5) A member of the Selected Reserve who is awarded 
        points or service credit under this subsection shall 
        not be considered to have been in an active status, by 
        reason of the award of the points or credit, while 
        pursuing a course of study under this subchapter for 
        purposes of any provision of law other than sections 
        12732(a) and 12733(3) of this title.
  [(5)] (6) A member is not entitled to any retroactive award 
of, or increase in, pay or allowances under title 37 by reason 
of an award of service credit under paragraph (1).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBCHAPTER II--NURSE OFFICER CANDIDATE ACCESSION PROGRAM

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 2130a. Financial assistance: nurse officer candidates

  (a) Bonus Authorized.--(1) A person described in subsection 
(b) who, during the period beginning on November 29, 1989, and 
ending on December 31, [1999] 2000, executes a written 
agreement in accordance with subsection (c) to accept an 
appointment as a nurse officer may, upon the acceptance of the 
agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid an accession 
bonus of not more than $5,000. The bonus shall be paid in 
periodic installments, as determined by the Secretary concerned 
at the time the agreement is accepted, except that the first 
installment may not exceed $2,500.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


               CHAPTER 108--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SCHOOLS

Sec.
2161.  Joint Military Intelligence College: academic degrees.
     * * * * * * *
2166.  National Defense University: Center for the Study of Chinese 
          Military Affairs.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2164. Department of Defense domestic dependent elementary and 
                    secondary schools

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Eligibility of Dependents of Federal Employees.--(1) * * 
*

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(3) A dependent of a Federal employee may continue 
enrollment in a program under this subsection for the remainder 
of a school year notwithstanding a change during such school 
year in the status of the Federal employee that, except for 
this paragraph, would otherwise terminate the eligibility of 
the dependent to be enrolled in the program. The preceding 
sentence does not limit the authority of the Secretary to 
remove the dependent from enrollment in the program at any time 
for good cause determined by the Secretary.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (h) Continuation of Enrollment Despite Change in Status.--(1) 
A dependent of a member of the armed forces or a dependent of a 
Federal employee may continue enrollment in an educational 
program provided by the Secretary of Defense pursuant to 
subsection (a) for the remainder of a school year 
notwithstanding a change during such school year in the status 
of the member or Federal employee that, except for this 
paragraph, would otherwise terminate the eligibility of the 
dependent to be enrolled in the program.
  (2) A dependent of a member of the armed forces, or a 
dependent of a Federal employee, who was enrolled in an 
educational program provided by the Secretary pursuant to 
subsection (a) while a junior in that program may be enrolled 
as a senior in that program in the next school year, 
notwithstanding a change in the enrollment eligibility status 
of the dependent that, except for this paragraph, would 
otherwise terminate the eligibility of the dependent to be 
enrolled in the program.
  (3) Paragraphs (1) and (2) do not limit the authority of the 
Secretary to remove a dependent from enrollment in an 
educational program provided by the Secretary pursuant to 
subsection (a) at any time for good cause determined by the 
Secretary.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2166. National Defense University: Center for the Study of Chinese 
                    Military Affairs

  (a) Establishment.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall 
establish a Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs 
(hereinafter in this section referred to as the ``Center'') as 
part of the National Defense University. The Center shall be 
organized as an independent institute under the University.
  (2) The Director of the Center shall be appointed by the 
Secretary of Defense. The Secretary shall appoint as the 
Director an individual who is a distinguished scholar of proven 
academic, management, and leadership credentials with a 
superior record of achievement and publication regarding 
Chinese political, strategic, and military affairs.
  (b) Mission.--The mission of the Center is to study the 
national goals and strategic posture of the People's Republic 
of China and the ability of that nation to develop, field, and 
deploy an effective military instrument in support of its 
national strategic objectives.
  (c) Areas of Study.--The Center shall conduct research 
relating to the People's Republic of China as follows:
          (1) To assess the potential of that nation to act as 
        a global great power, the Center shall conduct research 
        that considers the policies and capabilities of that 
        nation in a regional and world-wide context, including 
        Central Asia, Southwest Asia, Europe, and Latin 
        America, as well as the Asia-Pacific region.
          (2) To provide a fuller assessment of the areas of 
        study referred to in paragraph (1), the Center shall 
        conduct research on--
                  (A) economic trends relative to strategic 
                goals and military capabilities;
                  (B) strengths and weaknesses in the 
                scientific and technological sector; and
                  (C) relevant demographic and human resource 
                factors on progress in the military sphere.
          (3) The Center shall conduct research on the armed 
        forces of the People's Republic of China, taking into 
        account the character of those armed forces and their 
        role in Chinese society and economy, the degree of 
        their technological sophistication, and their 
        organizational and doctrinal concepts. That research 
        shall include inquiry into the following matters:
                  (A) Concepts concerning national interests, 
                objectives, and strategic culture.
                  (B) Grand strategy, military strategy, 
                military operations, and tactics.
                  (C) Doctrinal concepts at each of the four 
                levels specified in subparagraph (B).
                  (D) The impact of doctrine on China's force 
                structure choices.
                  (E) The interaction of doctrine and force 
                structure at each level to create an integrated 
                system of military capabilities through 
                procurement, officer education, training, and 
                practice and other similar factors.
  (d) Faculty of the Center.--(1) The core faculty of the 
Center should comprise scholars capable of providing diverse 
perspectives on Chinese political, strategic, and military 
thought. Center scholars shall demonstrate the following 
competencies and capabilities:
          (A) Analysis of national strategy, military strategy, 
        and doctrine.
          (B) Analysis of force structure and military 
        capabilities.
          (C) Analysis of--
                  (i) issues relating to weapons of mass 
                destruction, military intelligence, defense 
                economics, trade, and international economics; 
                and
                  (ii) the relationship between those issues 
                and grand strategy, science and technology, the 
                sociology of human resources and demography, 
                and political science.
  (2) A substantial number of Center scholars shall be 
competent in the Chinese language. The Center shall include a 
core of junior scholars capable of providing linguistics and 
translation support to the Center.
  (e) Activities of the Center.--The activities of the Center 
shall include other elements appropriate to its mission, 
including the following:
          (1) The Center should include an active conference 
        program with an international reach.
          (2) The Center should conduct an international 
        competition for a Visiting Fellowship in Chinese 
        Military Affairs and Chinese Security Issues. The term 
        of the fellowship should be for one year, renewable for 
        a second.
          (3) The Center shall provide funds to support at 
        least one trip per analyst per year to China and the 
        region and to support visits of Chinese military 
        leaders to the Center.
          (4) The Center shall support well defined, 
        distinguished, signature publications.
          (5) Center scholars shall have appropriate access to 
        intelligence community assessments of Chinese military 
        affairs.
  (f) Studies and Reports.--The Director may contract for 
studies and reports from the private sector to supplement the 
work of the Center.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART IV--SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 131--PLANNING AND COORDINATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2208. Working-capital funds

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (j) The Secretary of a military department may authorize a 
working capital funded industrial facility of that department 
to manufacture or remanufacture articles and sell these 
articles, as well as manufacturing [or remanufacturing], 
remanufacturing, and engineering services provided by such 
facilities, to persons outside the Department of Defense if--
          (1) the person purchasing the article or service is 
        fulfilling a Department of Defense contract or a 
        subcontract under a Department of Defense contract; and
          (2) the [Department of Defense solicitation for such 
        contract] solicitation for the contract or subcontract 
        is open to competition between Department of Defense 
        activities and private firms.
  (l)(1) * * *
  (2) The Secretary of Defense may waive the notification 
requirements of paragraph (1)--
          (A) during a period of war or national emergency; or

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2212. Obligations for contract services: reporting in budget 
                    object classes

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Definitions.--In this section:
          (1) * * *
          (2) The term ``advisory and assistance services 
        object class'' means those contract services 
        constituting the budget object class that is 
        denominated ``Advisory and Assistance Service'' and 
        designated ([as of the date of the enactment of this 
        section] as of October 17, 1998) as Object Class 25.1 
        (or any similar object class established [after the 
        date of the enactment of this section] after October 
        17, 1998, for the reporting of obligations for advisory 
        and assistance contract services).
          (3) The term ``miscellaneous services object class'' 
        means those contract services constituting the budget 
        object class that is denominated ``Other Services 
        (services not otherwise specified in the 25 series)'' 
        and designated ([as of the date of the enactment of 
        this section] as of October 17, 1998) as Object Class 
        25.2 (or any similar object class established [after 
        the date of the enactment of this section] after 
        October 17, 1998, for the reporting of obligations for 
        miscellaneous or unspecified contract services).
          (4) The term ``authorized exemptions'' means those 
        exemptions authorized ([as of the date of the enactment 
        of this section] as of October 17, 1998) under 
        Department of Defense Directive 4205.2, captioned 
        ``Acquiring and Managing Contracted Advisory and 
        Assistance Services (CAAS)'' and issued by the Under 
        Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology on 
        February 10, 1992, such exemptions being set forth in 
        Enclosure 3 to that directive (captioned ``CAAS 
        Exemptions'').

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2218. National Defense Sealift Fund

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (k)(1) The Secretary of Defense, after making a determination 
of economic soundness for any proposed offer, may provide 
advance payments to a contractor by lump sum or annual payments 
(or a combination thereof) for the following costs associated 
with inclusion or incorporation of defense features in a 
commercial vessel:
          (A) Costs to build, procure, and install the defense 
        features in the vessel.
          (B) Costs to periodically maintain and test the 
        defense features on the vessel.
          (C) Any increased costs of operation or any loss of 
        revenue attributable to the inclusion or incorporation 
        of the defense feature on the vessel.
          (D) Any additional costs associated with the terms 
        and conditions of the contract to install and 
        incorporate defense features.
  (2) For any contract under which the United States provides 
advance payments under paragraph (1) for the costs associated 
with incorporation or inclusion of defense features in a 
commercial vessel, the contractor shall provide to the United 
States such security interests, which may include a preferred 
mortgage under section 31322 of title 46, on the vessel as the 
Secretary may prescribe to project the interests of the United 
States relating to all costs associated with incorporation or 
inclusion of defense features in such vessel or vessels.
  (3) The functions of the Secretary under this subsection may 
not be delegated to an officer or employee in a position below 
the head of the procuring activity, as defined in section 
2304(f)(6)(A) of this title.
  [(k)] (l) Definitions.--In this section:
          (1) The term ``Fund'' means the National Defense 
        Sealift Fund established by subsection (a).
          (2) The term ``Department of Defense sealift vessel'' 
        means any ship owned, operated, controlled, or 
        chartered by the Department of Defense [that is--] that 
        is any of the following:
                  (A) [a] A fast sealift ship, including any 
                vessel in the Fast Sealift Program established 
                under section 1424 of Public Law 101-510 (104 
                Stat. 1683)[;].
                  (B) [a] A maritime prepositioning ship[;].
                  (C) [an] An afloat prepositioning ship[;].
                  (D) [an] An aviation maintenance support 
                ship[; or].
                  (E) [a] A hospital ship.
                  (F) A large medium-speed roll-on/roll-off 
                ship.
                  (G) A combat logistics force ship.
                  (H) Any other auxiliary support vessel.
          (3) The term ``national defense sealift vessel'' 
        means--
                  (A) a Department of Defense sealift vessel; 
                and
                  (B) a national defense reserve fleet vessel, 
                including a vessel in the Ready Reserve Force 
                maintained under section 11 of the Merchant 
                Ship Sales Act of 1946 (50 U.S.C. App. 1744).
          (4) The term ``congressional defense committees'' 
        means--
                  (A) the Committee on Armed Services and the 
                Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and
                  (B) the Committee on National Security and 
                the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
                Representatives.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


         CHAPTER 136--PROVISIONS RELATING TO SPECIFIC PROGRAMS

Sec.
2281.  Global Positioning System.
2282.  Purchase or lease of communications services: limitation.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2282. Purchase or lease of communications services: limitation

  The Secretary of Defense may not obligate any funds after 
September 30, 2000, to buy a commercial satellite 
communications system or to lease a communications service, 
including mobile satellite communications, unless the Secretary 
determines that the system or service to be purchased or leased 
has been proven through independent testing--
          (1) not to cause harmful interference to, or to 
        disrupt the use of, colocated commercial or military 
        Global Positioning System receivers used by the 
        Department of Defense; and
          (2) to be safe for use with such receivers in all 
        other respects.

CHAPTER 137--PROCUREMENT GENERALLY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2302c. Implementation of electronic commerce capability

  (a) * * *
  (b) Designation of Agency Official.--The head of each agency 
named in paragraph (5) or (6) of section [2303] 2303(a) of this 
title shall designate a program manager to implement the 
electronic commerce capability for that agency. The program 
manager shall report directly to an official at a level not 
lower than the senior procurement executive designated for the 
agency under section 16(3) of the Office of Federal Procurement 
Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 414(3)).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2325. Restructuring costs

  (a) Limitation on Payment of Restructuring Costs.--(1) The 
Secretary of Defense may not pay, under section 2324 of this 
title, a defense contractor for restructuring costs associated 
with a business combination of the contractor that occurs after 
November 18, 1997, unless the Secretary determines in writing 
either--
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 141--MISCELLANEOUS PROCUREMENT PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec.
2381.  Contracts: regulations for bids.
     * * * * * * *
[2404.  Acquisition of petroleum and natural gas: authority to waive 
          contract procedures; acquisition by exchange; sales.] 
          authority
2404.  Acquisition of certain fuel sources: authority to waive contract 
          procedures; acquisition by exchange; sales authority.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[Sec. 2404. Acquisition of petroleum and natural gas: authority to 
                    waive contract procedures; acquisition by exchange; 
                    sales authority]

Sec. 2404. Acquisition of certain fuel sources: authority to waive 
                    contract procedures; acquisition by exchange; sales 
                    authority

  (a) Waiver Authority.--The Secretary of Defense may, for any 
purchase of [petroleum or natural gas] a defined fuel source, 
waive the application of any provision of law prescribing 
procedures to be followed in the formation of contracts, 
prescribing terms and conditions to be included in contracts, 
or regulating the performance of contracts if the Secretary 
determines--
          (1) that [petroleum market conditions or natural gas 
        market conditions, as the case may be,] market 
        conditions for the defined fuel source have adversely 
        affected (or will in the near future adversely affect) 
        the [acquisition of petroleum or acquisition of natural 
        gas, respectively,] acquisition of that defined fuel 
        source by the Department of Defense; and
          (2) the waiver will expedite or facilitate the 
        acquisition of [petroleum or natural gas, as the case 
        may be,] that defined fuel source for Government needs.
  (b) Scope of Waiver.--A waiver under subsection (a) may be 
made with respect to a particular contract or with respect to 
classes of contracts. Such a waiver that is applicable to a 
contract for the purchase of [petroleum or natural gas] a 
defined fuel source may also be made applicable to a 
subcontract under that contract.
  (c) Exchange Authority.--The Secretary of Defense may acquire 
[petroleum, petroleum-related services, natural gas, or natural 
gas-related services by exchange of petroleum, petroleum-
related services, natural gas, or natural gas-related 
services.] a defined fuel source or services related to a 
defined fuel source by exchange of a defined fuel source or 
services related to a defined fuel source.
  (d) Authority To Sell.--The Secretary of Defense may sell 
[petroleum or natural gas] a defined fuel source of the 
Department of Defense if the Secretary determines that the sale 
would be in the public interest. The proceeds of such a sale 
shall be credited to appropriations of the Department of 
Defense for the acquisition of [petroleum, petroleum-related 
services, natural gas, or natural gas-related services. Amounts 
so credited shall be available for obligation for the same 
period as the appropriations to which the amounts are 
credited.] a defined fuel source or services related to a 
defined fuel source.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Defined Fuel Sources.--In this section, the term 
``defined fuel source'' means any of the following:
          (1) Petroleum.
          (2) Natural gas.
          (3) Coal.
          (4) Coke.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2410d. Subcontracting plans: credit for certain purchases

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(c) Termination.--Subsection (a) shall cease to be effective 
at the end of September 30, 1999.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  CHAPTER 146--CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE OF CIVILIAN COMMERCIAL OR 
                       INDUSTRIAL TYPE FUNCTIONS

Sec.
2460.  Definition of depot-level maintenance and repair.
     * * * * * * *
[2467.  Cost comparisons: requirements with respect to retirement costs 
          and consultation with employees.]
2467.  Cost comparisons: inclusion of retirement costs; consultation 
          with employees; waiver of comparison.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2461. Commercial or industrial type functions: required studies 
                    and reports before conversion to contractor 
                    performance

  (a) * * *
  (b) Notification and Elements of Analysis.--(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3) An analysis of a commercial or industrial type function 
for possible change to performance by the private sector shall 
include the following:
          (A) * * *
          (B) An examination of the potential economic effect 
        of performance of the function by the private sector on 
        the following:
                  (i) Employees of the Department of Defense 
                who would be affected by such a change in 
                performance.
                  [(ii) The local community and the Government, 
                if more than 75 employees of the Department of 
                Defense perform the function.]
                  (ii) The local community and the local 
                economy, identifying and taking into 
                consideration any unique circumstances 
                affecting the local community or the local 
                economy, if more than 50 employees of the 
                Department of Defense perform the function.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g) Annual Reports.--(1) Not later than February 1 of each 
fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress 
a written report describing the extent to which commercial and 
industrial type functions were performed by Department of 
Defense contractors during the preceding fiscal year. [The 
Secretary shall]
  (2) The Secretary shall include in each such report a summary 
of the number of work year equivalents performed by employees 
of private contractors in providing services to the Department 
(including both direct and indirect labor attributable to the 
provision of the services) and the total value of the 
contracted services. The work year equivalents and total value 
of the services shall be categorized by Federal supply class or 
service code (using the first character of the code), the 
appropriation from which the services were funded, and the 
major organizational element of the Department procuring the 
services.
  (3) The Secretary shall also include in each such report an 
estimate of the percentage of commercial and industrial type 
functions of the Department of Defense that will be performed 
by Department of Defense civilian employees, and the percentage 
of such functions that will be performed by private 
contractors, during the fiscal year during which the report is 
submitted.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2466. Limitations on the performance of depot-level maintenance of 
                    materiel

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(e) Report.--(1) Not later than February 1 of each year, the 
Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report 
identifying, for each military department and Defense Agency, 
the percentage of the funds referred to in subsection (a) that 
were expended during the preceding fiscal year for performance 
of depot-level maintenance and repair workloads by the public 
and private sectors as required by section 2466 of this title.
  [(2) Not later than 90 days after the date on which the 
Secretary submits the annual report under paragraph (1), the 
Comptroller General shall submit to Congress the Comptroller 
General's views on whether the Department of Defense has 
complied with the requirements of subsection (a) for the fiscal 
year covered by the report.]
  (e) Annual Reports.--(1) Not later than February 1 of each 
year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a 
report identifying, for each of the armed forces (other than 
the Coast Guard) and each Defense Agency, the percentage of the 
funds referred to in subsection (a) that were expended during 
the preceding two fiscal years for performance of depot-level 
maintenance and repair workloads by the public and private 
sectors, as required by this section.
  (2) Not later than April 1 of each year, the Secretary of 
Defense shall submit to Congress a report identifying, for each 
of the armed forces (other than the Coast Guard) and each 
Defense Agency, the percentage of the funds referred to in 
subsection (a) that are projected to be expended during each of 
the next five fiscal years for performance of depot-level 
maintenance and repair workloads by the public and private 
sectors, as required by this section.
  (3) Not later than 60 days after the date on which the 
Secretary submits a report under this subsection, the 
Comptroller General shall submit to Congress the Comptroller 
General's views on whether--
          (A) in the case of a report under paragraph (1), the 
        Department of Defense has complied with the 
        requirements of subsection (a) for the fiscal years 
        covered by the report; and
          (B) in the case of a report under paragraph (2), the 
        expenditure projections for future fiscal years are 
        reasonable.

[Sec. 2467. Cost comparisons: requirements with respect to retirement 
                    costs and consultation with employees]

Sec. 2467. Cost comparisons: inclusion of retirement costs; 
                    consultation with employees; waiver of comparison

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Congressional Notification of Cost Comparison Waiver.--
(1) Not later than 10 days after a decision is made to waive 
the cost comparison study otherwise required under Office of 
Management and Budget Circular A-76 as part of the process to 
convert to contractor performance any commercial activity of 
the Department of Defense, the Secretary of Defense shall 
submit to Congress a report describing the commercial activity 
subject to the waiver and the rationale for the waiver.
  (2) The report shall also include the following:
          (A) The total number of civilian employees or 
        military personnel adversely affected by the decision 
        to waive the cost comparison study and convert the 
        commercial activity to contractor performance.
          (B) An explanation of whether the contractor was 
        selected, or will be selected, on a competitive basis 
        or sole source basis.
          (C) The anticipated savings to result from the waiver 
        and resulting conversion to contractor performance.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2469. Contracts to perform workloads previously performed by 
                    depot-level activities of the Department of 
                    Defense: requirement of competition

  (a) * * *
  (b) Scope.--Subsection (a) applies to any depot-level 
maintenance and repair workload that has a value of not less 
than $3,000,000 (including the cost of labor and materials) and 
is being performed by a depot-level activity of the Department 
of Defense.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2469a. Use of competitive procedures in contracting for 
                    performance of depot-level maintenance and repair 
                    workloads formerly performed at certain military 
                    installations

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Exceptions.--This section shall not apply with respect 
to--
          (1) a depot-level maintenance and repair workload 
        that is to be consolidated to another military 
        installation (other than a closed or realigned military 
        installation) as a result of a base closure or 
        realignment action or a decision made by the Secretary 
        concerned or the Defense Depot Maintenance Council;
          (2) a workload necessary to maintain a core logistics 
        capability identified under section 2464 of this title; 
        or
          (3) any contract originally entered into before [the 
        date of the enactment of the National Defense 
        Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998] November 18, 
        1997.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (i) Oversight of Contracts Awarded Public Entities.--The 
Secretary of Defense or the Secretary concerned may not impose 
on a public sector entity awarded a contract for the 
performance of any depot-level maintenance and repair workload 
described in subsection (b) any requirements regarding 
management systems, reviews, oversight, or reporting different 
from the requirements used in the performance and management of 
other depot-level maintenance and repair workloads by the 
entity, unless specifically provided in the solicitation for 
the contract.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2473. Procurements from the small arms production industrial base

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Applicability.--This section applies only to procurements 
of covered property and services involving the following small 
arms:
          (1) M16 series rifle.
          (2) MK19 grenade machine gun.
          (3) M4 series carbine.
          (4) M240 series machine gun.
          (5) M249 squad automatic weapon.
          (6) M2 machine gun.
          (7) M60 machine gun.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 147--COMMISSARIES AND EXCHANGES AND OTHER MORALE, WELFARE, AND 
RECREATION ACTIVITIES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2486. Commissary stores: merchandise that may be sold; uniform 
                    surcharges and pricing

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Uniform Sales Price Surcharge or Adjustment.--An 
adjustment of or surcharge on sales prices in commissary stores 
under section 2484(b) or 2685(a) of this title or for any other 
purpose shall be applied as a uniform percentage of the sales 
price of all merchandise sold in, at, or by commissary stores. 
Effective on [the date of the enactment of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998,] November 18, 1997, the 
uniform percentage shall be equal to five percent and may not 
be changed except by a law enacted after such date.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2492. Overseas commissary and exchange stores: access and purchase 
                    restrictions

  (a) * * *
  (b) Controlled Item Lists.--For each location outside the 
United States that is served by the commissary system or the 
exchange system, the Secretary of Defense may maintain a list 
of controlled merchandise items, except that, after [the date 
of the enactment of this section] October 17, 1998, the 
Secretary may not change the list to add a merchandise item 
unless, before making the change, the Secretary submits to 
Congress a notice of the proposed addition and the reasons for 
the addition of the item.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


 CHAPTER 148--NATIONAL DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRIAL BASE, DEFENSE 
REINVESTMENT, AND DEFENSE CONVERSION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBCHAPTER IV--MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2525. Manufacturing Technology Program

  (a) * * *
  (b) Purpose of Program.--The Secretary of Defense shall use 
the program--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) to address broad defense-related manufacturing 
        inefficiencies and requirements;
          [(4)] (5) to promote dual-use manufacturing 
        processes;
          [(5)] (6) to disseminate information concerning 
        improved manufacturing improvement concepts, including 
        information on such matters as best manufacturing 
        practices, product data exchange specifications, 
        computer-aided acquisition and logistics support, and 
        rapid acquisition of manufactured parts;
          [(6)] (7) to sustain and enhance the skills and 
        capabilities of the manufacturing work force;
          [(7)] (8) to promote high-performance work systems 
        (with development and dissemination of production 
        technologies that build upon the skills and 
        capabilities of the work force), high levels of worker 
        education and training; and
          [(8)] (9) to ensure appropriate coordination between 
        the manufacturing technology programs and industrial 
        preparedness programs of the Department of Defense and 
        similar programs undertaken by other departments and 
        agencies of the Federal Government or by the private 
        sector.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Competition and Cost Sharing.--(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(3) As a goal, at least 25 percent of the funds available 
for the program each fiscal year should be used for awarding 
grants and entering into contracts, cooperative agreements, and 
other transactions on a cost-share basis under which the ratio 
of recipient cost to Government cost is two to one. The 
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretaries of 
the military departments and upon recommendation of the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, shall 
establish annual objectives to meet such goal.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBCHAPTER V--MISCELLANEOUS TECHNOLOGY BASE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2539b. Availability of samples, drawings, information, equipment, 
                    materials, and certain services

  (a) Authority.--The Secretary of Defense and the 
[secretaries] Secretaries of the military departments, under 
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense and when 
determined by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary 
concerned to be in the interest of national defense, may each--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 152--ISSUE OF SUPPLIES, SERVICES, AND FACILITIES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2553. Articles and services of industrial facilities: sale to 
                    persons outside the Department of Defense

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g) Definitions.--In this section:
          (1) * * *
          (2) The term ``not available'', with respect to an 
        article or service proposed to be sold under this 
        section, means that the article or service is 
        unavailable from a commercial source in the required 
        quantity and quality, within the time required, or at 
        prices less than the price available through an 
        industrial facility of the armed forces.
          [(2)] (3) The term ``variable costs'', with respect 
        to sales of articles or services, means the costs that 
        are expected to fluctuate directly with the volume of 
        sales and--
                  (A) in the case of articles, the volume of 
                production necessary to satisfy the sales 
                orders; or
                  (B) in the case of services, the extent of 
                the services sold.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 157--TRANSPORTATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 2641a. Transportation of American Samoa veterans on Department of 
                    Defense aircraft for certain medical care in Hawaii

  (a) * * *
  (b) Veterans Eligible for Transport.--A veteran eligible for 
transport under subsection (a) is any veteran who--
          (1) resides in and is located in American Samoa; and
          (2) as determined by an official of the Department of 
        Veterans Affairs designated for that purpose by the 
        Secretary of Veterans Affairs, must be transported to 
        the State of Hawaii in order to receive hospital care 
        to which such veteran is entitled under chapter 17 of 
        title 38[, United States Code,] in facilities of such 
        Department in the State of Hawaii.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(d) Definitions.--In this section:
          [(1) The term ``veteran'' has the meaning given that 
        term in section 101(2) of title 38, United States Code.
          [(2) The term ``hospital care'' has the meaning given 
        that term in section 1701(5) of title 38, United States 
        Code.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  CHAPTER 159--REAL PROPERTY; RELATED PERSONAL PROPERTY; AND LEASE OF 
NONEXCESS PROPERTY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 2680. Leases: land for special operations activities

  (a) * * *
  (d) Expiration of Authority.--The authority of the Secretary 
of Defense to acquire a leasehold interest in real property 
under this section shall expire on September 30, [2000] 2005. 
The expiration of that authority shall not affect the validity 
of any contract entered into under this section on or before 
that date.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2688. Utility systems: conveyance authority

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Consideration.--(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3) A contract for the receipt of utility services as 
consideration under paragraph (1), or any other contract for 
utility services entered into by the Secretary concerned in 
connection with the conveyance of a utility system under this 
section, may be for a period not to exceed 50 years.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g) Assistance for Construction, Repair, or Replacement of 
Utility Systems.--In lieu of carrying out a military 
construction project to construct, repair, or replace a utility 
system, the Secretary concerned may use funds authorized and 
appropriated for the project to facilitate the conveyance of 
the utility system under this section by making a contribution 
toward the cost of construction, repair, or replacement of the 
utility system by the entity to which the utility system is 
being conveyed. The Secretary concerned shall consider any such 
contribution in the economic analysis required under subsection 
(e).
  [(g)] (i) Utility System Defined.--(1) In this section, the 
term ``utility system'' means any of the following:
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (2) The term ``utility system'' includes the following:
          (A) Equipment, fixtures, structures, and other 
        improvements utilized in connection with a system 
        referred to in paragraph (1).
          (B) [Easements] Real property, easements, and rights-
        of-way associated with a system referred to in that 
        paragraph.
  [(h)] (j) Limitation.--This section shall not apply to 
projects constructed or operated by the Army Corps of Engineers 
under its civil works authorities.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2692. Storage, treatment, and disposal of nondefense toxic and 
                    hazardous materials

  (a) * * *
  (b) Subsection (a) does not [apply to--] apply to the 
following:
          (1) [the] The storage, treatment, or disposal of 
        materials that will be or have been used in connection 
        with an activity of the Department of Defense or in 
        connection with a service to be performed on an 
        installation of the Department for the benefit of the 
        Department[;].
          (2) [the] The storage of strategic and critical 
        materials in the National Defense Stockpile under an 
        agreement for such storage with the Administrator of 
        General Services[;].
          (3) [the] The temporary storage or disposal of 
        explosives in order to protect the public or to assist 
        agencies responsible for Federal, State, or local law 
        enforcement in storing or disposing of explosives when 
        no alternative solution is available, if such storage 
        or disposal is made in accordance with an agreement 
        between the Secretary of Defense and the head of the 
        Federal, State, or local agency concerned[;].
          (4) [the] The temporary storage or disposal of 
        explosives in order to provide emergency lifesaving 
        assistance to civil authorities[;].
          (5) [the] The disposal of excess explosives produced 
        under a Department of Defense contract, if the head of 
        the military department concerned determines, in each 
        case, that an alternative feasible means of disposal is 
        not available to the contractor, taking into 
        consideration public safety, available resources of the 
        contractor, and national defense production 
        requirements[;].
          (6) [the] The temporary storage of nuclear materials 
        or non-nuclear classified materials in accordance with 
        an agreement with the Secretary of Energy[;].
          (7) [the] The storage of materials that constitute 
        military resources intended to be used during peacetime 
        civil emergencies in accordance with applicable 
        Department of Defense regulations[;].
          (8) [the] The temporary storage of materials of other 
        Federal agencies in order to provide assistance and 
        refuge for commercial carriers of such material during 
        a transportation emergency[;].
          (9) [the] The storage of any material that is not 
        owned by the Department of Defense if the Secretary of 
        the military department concerned determines that the 
        material is required or generated in connection with 
        the authorized and compatible use of a facility of the 
        Department of Defense, including the use of such a 
        facility for testing materiel or training personnel[;].
          (10) [the] The treatment and disposal of any material 
        that is not owned by the Department of Defense if the 
        Secretary of the military department concerned 
        determines that the material is required or generated 
        in connection with the authorized and compatible use of 
        a facility of that military department and the 
        Secretary enters into a contract or agreement with the 
        prospective user that--
                  (A) is consistent with the best interest of 
                national defense and environmental security; 
                and
                  (B) provides for the prospective user's 
                continued financial and environmental 
                responsibility and liability with regard to the 
                material[; and].
          (11) [the] The storage of any material that is not 
        owned by the Department of Defense if the Secretary of 
        the military department concerned determines that the 
        material is required or generated in connection with 
        the use of a space launch facility located on an 
        installation of the Department of Defense or on other 
        land controlled by the United States.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2695. Acceptance of funds to cover administrative expenses 
                    relating to certain real property transactions

  (a) * * *
  (b) Covered Transactions.--Subsection (a) applies to the 
following transactions involving real property under the 
control of the Secretary of a military department:
          (1) The exchange of real property.
          (2) The grant of an easement over, in, or upon real 
        property of the United States.
          (3) The lease or license of real property of the 
        United States.
          (4) The disposal of real property of the United 
        States for which the Secretary will be the disposal 
        agent.

Sec. 2696. Screening of real property for further Federal use before 
                    conveyance

  (a) Screening Requirement.--The Secretary concerned may not 
convey real property that is authorized or required to be 
conveyed, whether for or without consideration, by any 
provision of law enacted after December 31, 1997, unless the 
Administrator of General Services has screened the property for 
further Federal use in accordance with the Federal Property and 
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.).
  (b) Time for Screening.--(1) Before the end of the 30-day 
period beginning on the date of the enactment of a provision of 
law authorizing or requiring the conveyance of a parcel of real 
property by the Secretary concerned, the Administrator of 
General Services shall complete the screening [required by 
paragraph (1)] referred to in subsection (a) with regard to the 
real property and notify the Secretary concerned of the results 
of the screening. The notice shall include--
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Excepted Conveyance Authorities.--The screening 
requirements of this section shall not apply to real property 
authorized or required to be conveyed under any of the 
following provisions of law:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) Any provision of law authorizing the closure or 
        realignment of a military installation that is enacted 
        after [the date of enactment of the National Defense 
        Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998] November 18, 
        1997.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 160--ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 2703. Environmental restoration accounts

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Budget Reports.--In proposing the budget for any fiscal 
year pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, [United States 
Code,] the President shall set forth separately the amounts 
requested for environmental restoration programs of the 
Department of Defense and of each of the military departments 
under this chapter and under any other Act.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 169--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                  SUBCHAPTER I--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Sec.
2801.  Scope of chapter; definitions.
     * * * * * * *
2814.  Special authority for development of Ford Island, Hawaii.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2806. Contributions for North Atlantic Treaty Organizations 
                    Security Investment

  (a) Within amounts authorized by law for such purpose, the 
Secretary of Defense may make contributions for the United 
States share of the cost of multilateral programs for the 
acquisition and construction of military facilities and 
installations (including international military headquarters) 
and for related expenses for the collective defense of the 
North Atlantic Treaty Area, including support for the actual 
implementation of a military operations plan approved by the 
North Atlantic Council.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2814. Special authority for development of Ford Island, Hawaii

  (a) In General.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary 
of the Navy may exercise any authority or combination of 
authorities in this section for the purpose of developing or 
facilitating the development of Ford Island, Hawaii, to the 
extent that the Secretary determines the development is 
compatible with the mission of the Navy.
  (2) The Secretary of the Navy may not exercise any authority 
under this section until--
          (A) the Secretary submits to the appropriate 
        committees of Congress a master plan for the 
        development of Ford Island, Hawaii; and
          (B) a period of 30 calendar days has elapsed 
        following the date on which the notification is 
        received by those committees.
  (b) Conveyance Authority.--(1) The Secretary of the Navy may 
convey to any public or private person or entity all right, 
title, and interest of the United States in and to any real 
property (including any improvements thereon) or personal 
property under the jurisdiction of the Secretary in the State 
of Hawaii that the Secretary determines--
          (A) is excess to the needs of the Navy and all of the 
        other armed forces; and
          (B) will promote the purpose of this section.
  (2) A conveyance under this subsection may include such terms 
and conditions as the Secretary considers appropriate to 
protect the interests of the United States.
  (c) Lease Authority.--(1) The Secretary of the Navy may lease 
to any public or private person or entity any real property or 
personal property under the jurisdiction of the Secretary in 
the State of Hawaii that the Secretary determines--
          (A) is excess to the needs of the Navy and all of the 
        other armed forces; and
          (B) will promote the purpose of this section.
  (2) A lease under this subsection shall be subject to section 
2667(b)(1) of this title and may include such others terms as 
the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of 
the United States.
  (3) A lease of real property under this subsection may 
provide that, upon termination of the lease term, the lessee 
shall have the right of first refusal to acquire the real 
property covered by the lease if the property is then conveyed 
under subsection (b).
  (4)(A) The Secretary may provide property support services to 
or for real property leased under this subsection.
  (B) To the extent provided in appropriations Acts, any 
payment made to the Secretary for services provided under this 
paragraph shall be credited to the appropriation, account, or 
fund from which the cost of providing the services was paid.
  (d) Acquisition of Leasehold Interest by Secretary.--(1) The 
Secretary of the Navy may acquire a leasehold interest in any 
facility constructed under subsection (f) as consideration for 
a transaction authorized by this section upon such terms as the 
Secretary considers appropriate to promote the purpose of this 
section.
  (2) The term of a lease under paragraph (1) may not exceed 10 
years, unless the Secretary of Defense approves a term in 
excess of 10 years for purposes of this section.
  (3) A lease under this subsection may provide that, upon 
termination of the lease term, the United States shall have the 
right of first refusal to acquire the facility covered by the 
lease.
  (4) The Secretary of the Navy may enter into a lease under 
this subsection only if the lease is specifically authorized by 
a law enacted after the date of the enactment of this section.
  (e) Requirement for Competition.--The Secretary of the Navy 
shall use competitive procedures for purposes of selecting the 
recipient of real or personal property under subsection (b) and 
the lessee of real or personal property under subsection (c).
  (f) Consideration.--(1) As consideration for the conveyance 
of real or personal property under subsection (b), or for the 
lease of real or personal property under subsection (c), the 
Secretary of the Navy shall accept cash, real property, 
personal property, or services, or any combination thereof, in 
an aggregate amount equal to not less than the fair market 
value of the real or personal property conveyed or leased.
  (2) Subject to subsection (i), the services accepted by the 
Secretary under paragraph (1) may include the following:
          (A) The construction or improvement of facilities at 
        Ford Island.
          (B) The restoration or rehabilitation of real 
        property at Ford Island.
          (C) The provision of property support services for 
        property or facilities at Ford Island.
  (g) Notice and Wait Requirements.--The Secretary of the Navy 
may not carry out a transaction authorized by this section 
until--
          (1) the Secretary submits to the appropriate 
        committees of Congress a notification of the 
        transaction, including--
                  (A) a detailed description of the 
                transaction; and
                  (B) a justification for the transaction 
                specifying the manner in which the transaction 
                will meet the purposes of this section; and
          (2) a period of 30 calendar days has elapsed 
        following the date on which the notification is 
        received by those committees.
  (h) Ford Island Improvement Account.--(1) There is 
established on the books of the Treasury an account to be known 
as the ``Ford Island Improvement Account''.
  (2) There shall be deposited into the account the following 
amounts:
          (A) Amounts authorized and appropriated to the 
        account.
          (2) Except as provided in subsection (c)(4)(B), the 
        amount of any cash payment received by the Secretary 
        for a transaction under this section.
  (i) Use of Account.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), to the 
extent provided in advance in appropriation Acts, funds in the 
Ford Island Improvement Account may be used as follows:
          (A) To carry out or facilitate the carrying out of a 
        transaction authorized by this section.
          (B) To carry out improvements of property or 
        facilities at Ford Island.
          (C) To obtain property support services for property 
        or facilities at Ford Island.
  (2) To extent that the authorities provided under subchapter 
IV of this chapter are available to the Secretary of the Navy, 
the Secretary may not use the authorities in this section to 
acquire, construct, or improve family housing units, military 
unaccompanied housing units, or ancillary supporting facilities 
related to military housing.
  (3)(A) The Secretary may transfer funds from the Ford Island 
Improvement Account to the following funds:
          (i) The Department of Defense Family Housing 
        Improvement Fund established by section 2883(a)(1) of 
        this title.
          (ii) The Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied 
        Housing Improvement Fund established by section 
        2883(a)(2) of this title.
  (B) Amounts transferred under subparagraph (A) to a fund 
referred to in that subparagraph shall be available in 
accordance with the provisions of section 2883 of this title 
for activities authorized under subchapter IV of this chapter 
at Ford Island.
  (j) Inapplicability of Certain Property Management Laws.--
Except as otherwise provided in this section, transactions 
under this section shall not be subject to the following:
          (1) Sections 2667 and 2696 of this title.
          (2) Section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless 
        Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411).
          (3) Sections 202 and 203 of the Federal Property and 
        Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 483, 
        484).
  (k) Scoring.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
waive the applicability to any lease entered into under this 
section of the budget scorekeeping guidelines used to measure 
compliance with the Balanced Budget Emergency Deficit Control 
Act of 1985.
  (l) Property Support Service Defined.--In this section, the 
term ``property support service'' means the following:
          (1) Any utility service or other service listed in 
        section 2686(a) of this title.
          (2) Any other service determined by the Secretary to 
        be a service that supports the operation and 
        maintenance of real property, personal property, or 
        facilities.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBCHAPTER II--MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2837. Limited partnerships with private developers of housing

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Account.--(1) There is hereby established on the books of 
the Treasury an account to be known as the ``Defense Housing 
Investment Account''.
  (2) There shall be deposited into the Account--
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (C) any unobligated balances which remain in the Navy 
        Housing Investment Account as of the date of the 
        enactment of [the National Defense Authorization Act 
        for Fiscal Year 1996] this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBCHAPTER IV--ALTERNATIVE AUTHORITY FOR ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT OF 
MILITARY HOUSING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec.
2871.  Definitions.
     * * * * * * *
[2875.  Investments in nongovernmental entities.]
2875.  Investments.
     * * * * * * *

Sec. 2871. Definitions

  In this subchapter:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (5) The term ``eligible entity'' means any 
        individual, corporation, firm, partnership, company, 
        State or local government, or housing authority of a 
        State or local government.
          [(5)] (6) The term ``Fund'' means the Department of 
        Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund or the 
        Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing 
        Improvement Fund established under section 2883(a) of 
        this title.
          [(6)] (7) The term ``military unaccompanied housing'' 
        means military housing intended to be occupied by 
        members of the armed forces serving a tour of duty 
        unaccompanied by dependents.
          [(7)] (8) The term ``United States'' includes the 
        Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Sec. 2872. General authority

  In addition to any other authority provided under this 
chapter for the acquisition or construction of military family 
housing or military unaccompanied housing, the Secretary 
concerned may exercise any authority or any combination of 
authorities provided under this subchapter in order to provide 
for the acquisition or construction by [private persons] 
eligible entities of the following:
          (1) Family housing units on or near military 
        installations within the United States and its 
        territories and possessions.
          (2) Military unaccompanied housing units on or near 
        such military installations.

Sec. 2873. Direct loans and loan guarantees

  (a) Direct Loans.--(1) Subject to subsection (c), the 
Secretary concerned may make direct loans to [persons in the 
private sector] an eligible entity in order to provide funds to 
[such persons] the eligible entity for the acquisition or 
construction of housing units that the Secretary determines are 
suitable for use as military family housing or as military 
unaccompanied housing.
  (2) The Secretary concerned shall establish such terms and 
conditions with respect to loans made under this subsection as 
the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of 
the United States, including the period and frequency for 
repayment of such loans and the obligations of the obligors on 
such loans upon default.
  (b) Loan Guarantees.--(1) Subject to subsection (c), the 
Secretary concerned may guarantee a loan made to [any person in 
the private sector] an eligible entity if the proceeds of the 
loan are to be used by [the person] the eligible entity to 
acquire, or construct housing units that the Secretary 
determines are suitable for use as military family housing or 
as military unaccompanied housing.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[Sec. 2875. Investments in nongovernmental entities]

Sec. 2875. Investments

  (a) Investments Authorized.--The Secretary concerned may make 
investments in [nongovernmental entities] an eligible entity 
carrying out projects for the acquisition or construction of 
housing units suitable for use as military family housing or as 
military unaccompanied housing.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Limitation on Value of Investment.--(1) The cash amount 
of an investment under this section in [a nongovernmental 
entity] an eligible entity may not exceed an amount equal to 
33\1/3\ percent of the capital cost (as determined by the 
Secretary concerned) of the project or projects that [the 
entity] the eligible entity proposes to carry out under this 
section with the investment.
  (2) If the Secretary concerned conveys land or facilities to 
[a nongovernmental entity] an eligible entity as all or part of 
an investment in [the entity] the eligible entity under this 
section, the total value of the investment by the Secretary 
under this section may not exceed an amount equal to 45 percent 
of the capital cost (as determined by the Secretary) of the 
project or projects that [the entity] the eligible entity 
proposes to carry out under this section with the investment.
  (3) In this subsection, the term ``capital cost'', with 
respect to a project for the acquisition or construction of 
housing, means the total amount of the costs included in the 
basis of the housing for Federal income tax purposes.
  (d) Collateral Incentive Agreements.--The Secretary concerned 
shall enter into collateral incentive agreements with 
[nongovernmental] eligible entities in which the Secretary 
makes an investment under this section to ensure that a 
suitable preference will be afforded members of the armed 
forces and their dependents in the lease or purchase, as the 
case may be, of a reasonable number of the housing units 
covered by the investment.
  (e) Congressional Notification Required.--Amounts in the 
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund or the 
Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing 
Improvement Fund may be used to make a cash investment under 
this section in [a nongovernmental entity] an eligible entity 
only after the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date 
the Secretary of Defense submits written notice of, and 
justification for, the investment to the appropriate committees 
of Congress.

Sec. 2876. Rental guarantees

  The Secretary concerned may enter into agreements with 
[private persons] eligible entities that acquire or construct 
military family housing units or military unaccompanied housing 
units under this subchapter in order to assure--
          (1) the occupancy of such units at levels specified 
        in the agreements; or
          (2) rental income derived from rental of such units 
        at levels specified in the agreements.

Sec. 2877. Differential lease payments

  Pursuant to an agreement entered into by the Secretary 
concerned and a [private] lessor of military family housing or 
military unaccompanied housing to members of the armed forces, 
the Secretary may pay the lessor an amount in addition to the 
rental payments for the housing made by the members as the 
Secretary determines appropriate to encourage the lessor to 
make the housing available to members of the armed forces as 
military family housing or as military unaccompanied housing.

Sec. 2878. Conveyance or lease of existing property and facilities

  (a) Conveyance or Lease Authorized.--The Secretary concerned 
may convey or lease property or facilities (including ancillary 
supporting facilities) to [private persons] eligible entities 
for purposes of using the proceeds of such conveyance or lease 
to carry out activities under this subchapter.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2881. Ancillary supporting facilities

  (a) Authority To Acquire or Construct.--Any project for the 
acquisition or construction of military family housing units or 
military unaccompanied housing units under this subchapter may 
include the acquisition or construction of ancillary supporting 
facilities for the housing units concerned.
  (b) Restriction.--The ancillary supporting facilities 
authorized by subsection (a) may not be in direct competition 
with any resale activities provided by the Defense Commissary 
Agency or the Army and Air Force Exchange Service, the Navy 
Exchange Service Command, Marine Corps exchanges, or any other 
nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the United States under 
the jurisdiction of the armed forces which is conducted for the 
morale, welfare and recreation of members of the armed forces.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2883. Department of Defense Housing Funds

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Credits to Funds.--(1) There shall be credited to the 
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund the 
following:
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (E) Any amounts that the Secretary of the Navy transfers to 
that Fund pursuant to section 2814(i)(3) of this title, subject 
to the restrictions on the use of the transferred amounts 
specified in that section.
  (2) There shall be credited to the Department of Defense 
Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund the following:
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (E) Any amounts that the Secretary of the Navy transfers to 
that Fund pursuant to section 2814(i)(3) of this title, subject 
to the restrictions on the use of the transferred amounts 
specified in that section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle B--Army

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART II--PERSONNEL

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 353--MISCELLANEOUS RIGHTS AND BENEFITS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 3681. Presentation of United States flag upon retirement

  (a) * * *
  (b) Multiple Presentations Not Authorized.--A member is not 
eligible for a presentation of a flag under subsection (a) if 
the member has previously been presented a flag [under this 
section or section 6141 or 8681 of this title or section 516 of 
title 14.] under this section or any other provision of law 
providing for the presentation of a United States flag incident 
to release from active service for retirement.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART III--TRAINING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                    CHAPTER 401--TRAINING GENERALLY

Sec.
4301.  Members of Army: detail as students, observers, and investigators 
          at educational institutions, industrial plants, and hospitals.
     * * * * * * *
4320.  Recruit basic training: privacy.
4321.  United States Army War College: master of strategic studies 
          degree.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 4321. United States Army War College: master of strategic studies 
                    degree

  Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army, 
the Commandant of the United States Army War College, upon the 
recommendation of the faculty and dean of the college, may 
confer the degree of master of strategic studies upon graduates 
of the college who have fulfilled the requirements for that 
degree.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 403--UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 4335. Dean of Academic Board

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) While serving as Dean of the Academic Board, an officer 
of the Army who holds a grade lower than brigadier general 
shall hold the grade of brigadier general, if appointed to that 
grade by the President, by and with the advice and consent of 
the Senate. The retirement age of an officer so appointed is 
that of a permanent professor of the Academy. An officer so 
appointed is counted for purposes of the limitation in section 
526(a) of this title on general officers of the Army on active 
duty.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 4342. Cadets: appointment; numbers, territorial distribution

  (a) The authorized strength of the Corps of Cadets of the 
Academy [is as follows:] (determined for any year as of the day 
before the last day of the academic year) is 4,000. Subject to 
that limitation, cadets are selected as follows:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (i) For purposes of the limitation under subsection (a), the 
last day of an academic year is graduation day.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 4344. Selection of persons from foreign countries

  (a) * * *
  (b)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3) The amount of reimbursement waived under paragraph (2) 
may not exceed [35] 50 percent of the per-person reimbursement 
amount otherwise required to be paid by a foreign country under 
such paragraph, except in the case of not more than [five] 20 
persons receiving instruction at the Academy under this section 
at any one time.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle C--Navy and Marine Corps

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART II--PERSONNEL

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 561--MISCELLANEOUS RIGHTS AND BENEFITS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 6141. Presentation of United States flag upon retirement

  (a) * * *
  (b) Multiple Presentations Not Authorized.--A member is not 
eligible for a presentation of a flag under subsection (a) if 
the member has previously been presented a flag [under this 
section or section 3681 or 8681 of this title or section 516 of 
title 14.] under this section or any other provision of law 
providing for the presentation of a United States flag incident 
to release from active service for retirement.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART III--EDUCATION AND TRAINING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 603--UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec.
6951.  Location.
     * * * * * * *
[6974.  Gifts and bequests: acceptance for benefit of museum.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 6954. Midshipmen: number

  [(a) There may be at the Naval Academy at any one time 
midshipmen as follows:]
  (a) The authorized strength of the Brigade of Midshipmen 
(determined for any year as of the day before the last day of 
the academic year) is 4,000. Subject to that limitation, 
midshipmen are selected as follows:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g) For purposes of the limitation under subsection (a), the 
last day of an academic year is graduation day.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 6957. Selection of persons from foreign countries

  (a) * * *
  (b)(1) A person receiving instruction under this section is 
entitled to the pay, allowances, and emoluments of a midshipman 
appointed from the United States, and from the same 
appropriations.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3) The amount of reimbursement waived under paragraph (2) 
may not exceed [35] 50 percent of the per-person reimbursement 
amount otherwise required to be paid by a foreign country under 
such paragraph, except in the case of not more than [five] 20 
persons receiving instruction at the Naval Academy under this 
section at any one time.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 6973. Gifts and bequests: acceptance for benefit of Naval Academy

  [(a) The Secretary of the Navy may accept, hold, administer, 
and spend gifts and bequests of personal property made on the 
condition that it be used for the benefit of, or for use in 
connection with, the Naval Academy. Gifts and bequests of money 
and the proceeds from the sales of property received as gifts 
shall be deposited in the Treasury in the fund called ``United 
States Naval Academy general gift fund''. The Secretary may 
disburse funds deposited under this subsection for the benefit 
or use of the Naval Academy subject to the terms of the gift or 
bequest.]
  (a)(1) The Secretary of the Navy may accept, hold, 
administer, and spend gifts and bequests of personal property, 
and loans of personal property other than money, made on the 
condition that the personal property be used for the benefit 
of, or in connection with, the Naval Academy or the Naval 
Academy Museum, its collection, or its services.
  (2) Gifts or bequests of money, and the proceeds from the 
sales of property received as a gift or bequest, shall be 
deposited in the Treasury in the fund called ``United States 
Naval Academy Gift and Museum Fund''. The Secretary may 
disburse funds deposited under this paragraph for the benefit 
or use of the Naval Academy or the Naval Academy Museum subject 
to the terms of the gift or bequest.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Upon the request of the Secretary of the Navy, the 
Secretary of the Treasury may invest, reinvest, or retain 
investments of money or securities comprising any part of the 
[United States Naval Academy general gift fund] United States 
Naval Academy Gift and Museum Fund in securities of the United 
States or in securities guaranteed as to principal and interest 
by the United States. The interest and benefits accruing from 
those securities shall be deposited to the credit of the 
[United States Naval Academy general gift fund] United States 
Naval Academy Gift and Museum Fund and may be disbursed as 
provided in this section.
  (d) The Secretary shall develop written guidelines to be used 
in determining whether the acceptance of money, personal 
property, or loans of personal property under subsection (a) 
would--
          (1) reflect unfavorably upon the ability of the 
        Department of the Navy to carry out its 
        responsibilities in a fair and objective manner;
          (2) reflect unfavorably upon the ability of any 
        employee of the Department of the Navy to carry out the 
        employee's official duties in a fair and objective 
        manner; or
          (3) compromise the integrity, or the appearance of 
        the integrity, of Navy programs or any employee 
        involved in such programs.

[Sec. 6974. Gifts and bequests: acceptance for benefit of museum

  [(a) The Secretary of the Navy may accept, hold, administer, 
and spend gifts and bequests of personal property, and loans of 
personal property other than money, for the benefit of the 
Naval Academy Museum, its collection, or its services. Gifts or 
bequests of money shall be deposited in the Treasury in the 
fund called ``United States Naval Academy Museum Fund''. The 
Secretary may disburse funds so deposited for the purposes 
specified in this section.
  [(b) For the purpose of Federal income, estate, and gift 
taxes, property that is accepted under this section is 
considered as a gift or bequest to or for the use of the United 
States.
  [(c) Upon the request of the Secretary of the Navy, the 
Secretary of the Treasury may invest, reinvest, or retain 
investments of the money or securities comprising any part of 
the United States Naval Academy Museum Fund in securities of 
the United States or in securities guaranteed as to principal 
and interest by the United States. The interest and benefits 
accruing from those securities shall be deposited to the credit 
of the United States Naval Academy Museum Fund and may be 
disbursed as provided in this section.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART IV--GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  CHAPTER 631--SECRETARY OF THE NAVY: MISCELLANEOUS POWERS AND DUTIES

Sec.
7204.  Schools near naval activities: financial aid.
     * * * * * * *
[7222.  Naval Historical Center Fund.]
     * * * * * * *
7233.  Auxiliary vessels: extended lease authority.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[Sec. 7222. Naval Historical Center Fund

  [(a) The Secretary of the Navy may accept, hold, and 
administer gifts and bequests of personal property, and loans 
of personal property other than money, for the benefit of the 
Naval Historical Center, its collection, or its services. Gifts 
or bequests of money shall be deposited in the Treasury in a 
trust fund called ``Naval Historical Center Fund.''
  [(b) For the purpose of Federal income, estate, and gift 
taxes, property that is accepted under this section is 
considered as a gift or bequest to or for the use of the United 
States.
  [(c) Upon the request of the Secretary of the Navy, the 
Secretary of the Treasury may invest or reinvest all or any 
part of the funds deposited under this section in securities of 
the United States or in securities guaranteed by the United 
States. The interest accruing from these securities shall be 
deposited to the credit of the Naval Historical Center Fund.]

Sec. 7233. Auxiliary vessels: extended lease authority

  (a) Authorized Contracts.--After September 30, 1999, the 
Secretary of the Navy, subject to subsection (b), may enter 
into contracts with private United States shipyards for the 
construction of new surface vessels to be long-term leased by 
the United States from the shipyard or other private person for 
any of the following:
          (1) The combat logistics force of the Navy.
          (2) The strategic sealift force of the Navy.
          (3) Other auxiliary support vessels for the 
        Department of Defense.
  (b) Contracts Required To Be Authorized by Law.--A contract 
may be entered into under subsection (a) with respect to a 
specific vessel only if the Secretary is specifically 
authorized by law to enter into such a contract with respect to 
that vessel.
  (c) Funds for Contract Payments.--The Secretary may make 
payments for contracts entered into under subsection (a) and 
under subsection (g) using funds available for obligation from 
operation and maintenance accounts during the fiscal year for 
which the payments are required to be made. Any such contract 
shall provide that the United States is not required to make a 
payment under the contract (other than a termination payment, 
if required) before October 1, 2001.
  (d) Term of Contract.--In this section, the term ``long-term 
lease'' means a lease, bareboat charter, or conditional sale 
agreement with respect to a vessel the term of which (including 
any option period) is for a period of 20 years or more.
  (e) Option To Buy.--A contract entered into under subsection 
(a) may include options for the United States to purchase one 
or more of the vessels covered by the contract at any time 
during, or at the end of, the contract period (including any 
option period) upon payment of an amount equal to the lesser of 
(1) the unamortized portion of the cost of the vessel plus 
amounts incurred in connection with the termination of the 
financing arrangements associated with the vessel, or (2) the 
fair market value of the vessel.
  (f) Domestic Construction.--The Secretary shall require in 
any contract entered into under this section that each vessel 
to which the contract applies--
          (1) shall have been constructed in a shipyard within 
        the United States; and
          (2) upon delivery, shall be documented under the laws 
        of the United States.
  (g) Vessel Operation.--(1) The Secretary shall operate a 
vessel held by the Secretary under a long-term lease under this 
section through a contract with a United States domiciled 
corporation with experience in the operation of vessels for the 
United States. Any such contract shall be for a term as 
determined by the Secretary.
  (2) The Secretary may provide a crew for any such vessel 
using civil service mariners only after an evaluation and 
competition taking into account--
          (A) the fully burdened cost of a civil service crew 
        over the expected useful life of the vessel;
          (B) the effect on the private sector manpower pool; 
        and
          (C) the operational requirements of the Department of 
        the Navy.
  (h) Contingent Waiver of Other Provisions of Law.--A contract 
authorized by this section may be entered into without regard 
to section 2401 or 2401a of this title if the Secretary of 
Defense makes the following findings with respect to that 
contract:
          (1) The need for the vessels or services to be 
        provided under the contract is expected to remain 
        substantially unchanged during the contemplated 
        contract or option period.
          (2) There is a reasonable expectation that throughout 
        the contemplated contract or option period the 
        Secretary of the Navy (or, if the contract is for 
        services to be provided to, and funded by, another 
        military department, the Secretary of that military 
        department) will request funding for the contract at 
        the level required to avoid contract cancellation.
          (3) The use of such contract or the exercise of such 
        option is in the interest of the national defense.
  (i) Source of Funds for Termination Liability.--If a contract 
entered into under this section is terminated, the costs of 
such termination may be paid from--
          (1) amounts originally made available for performance 
        of the contract;
          (2) amounts currently available for operation and 
        maintenance of the type of vessels or services 
        concerned and not otherwise obligated; or
          (3) funds appropriated for those costs.

CHAPTER 633--NAVAL VESSELS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 7306. Vessels stricken from Naval Vessel Register; captured 
                    vessels: transfer by gift or otherwise

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(d) Notice to Congress.--(1) No transfer under this section 
takes effect unless--
          [(A) notice of the proposal to make the transfer is 
        sent to Congress; and
          [(B) 60 days of continuous session of Congress have 
        expired following the date on which such notice is sent 
        to Congress.
  [(2) For purposes of paragraph (1)(B), the continuity of a 
session of Congress is broken only by an adjournment of the 
Congress sine die, and the days on which either House is not in 
session because of an adjournment of more than 3 days to a day 
certain are excluded in the computation of such 60-day period.]
  (d) Congressional Notice-and-Wait Period.--(1) A transfer 
under this section may not take effect until--
          (A) the Secretary submits to Congress notice of the 
        proposed transfer; and
          (B) 30 days of session of Congress have expired 
        following the date on which the notice is sent to 
        Congress.
  (2) For purposes of paragraph (1)(B)--
          (A) the period of a session of Congress is broken 
        only by an adjournment of Congress sine die at the end 
        of the final session of a Congress; and
          (B) any day on which either House of Congress is not 
        in session because of an adjournment of more than 3 
        days to a day certain, or because of an adjournment 
        sine die at the end of the first session of a Congress, 
        shall be excluded in the computation of such 30-day 
        period.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 7315. Preservation of Navy shipbuilding capability

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Applicability.--(1) * * *
  (2) In a shipbuilding capability preservation agreement 
applicable to a shipbuilder, the Secretary may agree to apply 
the cost reimbursement rules set forth in subsection (b) to 
allocations of indirect costs to private sector work performed 
by the shipbuilder only with respect to costs that the 
shipbuilder incurred on or after [the date of the enactment of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998] 
November 18, 1997, under a contract between the shipbuilder and 
a private sector customer of the shipbuilder that became 
effective on or after January 26, 1996.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 665--NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 7902. National Ocean Research Leadership Council

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Annual Report.--Not later than March 1 of each year, the 
Council shall submit to Congress a report on the National 
Oceanographic Partnership Program. The report shall contain the 
following:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (5) The amounts requested, in the budget submitted to 
        Congress pursuant to section 1105(a) of title 31[, 
        United States Code,] for the fiscal year following the 
        fiscal year in which the report is prepared, for the 
        programs, projects, and activities of the program and 
        the estimated expenditures under such programs, 
        projects, and activities during such following fiscal 
        year.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle D--Air Force

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART II--PERSONNEL

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 853--MISCELLANEOUS RIGHTS AND BENEFITS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 8681. Presentation of United States flag upon retirement

  (a) * * *
  (b) Multiple Presentations Not Authorized.--A member is not 
eligible for a presentation of a flag under subsection (a) if 
the member has previously been presented a flag [under this 
section or section 3681 or 6141 of this title or section 516 of 
title 14.] under this section or any other provision of law 
providing for the presentation of a United States flag incident 
to release from active service for retirement.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART III--TRAINING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                    CHAPTER 901--TRAINING GENERALLY

Sec.
9301.  Members of Air Force: detail as students, observers, and 
          investigators at educational institutions, industrial plants, 
          and hospitals.
     * * * * * * *
[9317.  Air University: master of airpower art and science.]
9317.  Air University: graduate-level degrees.
     * * * * * * *

[Sec. 9317. Air University: master of airpower art and science

  [(a) Authority.--Upon the recommendation of the faculty of 
the School of Advanced Airpower Studies of the Air University, 
the Commander of the university may confer the degree of master 
of airpower art and science upon graduates of the school who 
fulfill the requirements for the degree.]

Sec. 9317. Air University: graduate-level degrees

  (a) Authority.--Upon recommendation of the faculty of the 
appropriate school, the commander of the Air University may 
confer--
          (1) the degree of master of strategic studies upon 
        graduates of the Air War College who fulfill the 
        requirements for that degree;
          (2) the degree of master of military operational art 
        and science upon graduates of the Air Command and Staff 
        College who fulfill the requirements for that degree; 
        and
          (3) the degree of master of airpower art and science 
        upon graduates of the School of Advanced Air power 
        Studies who fulfill the requirements for that degree.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


              CHAPTER 903--UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY

Sec. 9335. Dean of the Faculty

  (a) The Dean of the Faculty shall be appointed as an 
additional permanent professor from the permanent professors 
who have served as heads of departments of instruction at the 
Academy.
  (b) While serving as Dean of the Faculty, an officer of the 
Air Force who holds a grade lower than brigadier general shall 
hold the grade of brigadier general, if appointed to that grade 
by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the 
Senate. The retirement age of an officer so appointed is that 
of a permanent professor of the Academy An officer so appointed 
is counted for purposes of the limitation in section 526(a) of 
this title on general officers of the Air Force on active duty.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 9342. Cadets: appointment; numbers, territorial distribution 

  (a) The authorized strength of Air Force Cadets of the 
Academy [is as follows:] (determined for any year as of the day 
before the last day of the academic year) is 4,000. Subject to 
that limitation, Air Force Cadets are selected as follows:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (i) For purposes of the limitation under subsection (a), the 
last day of an academic year is graduation day.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 9344. Selection of persons from foreign countries

  (a) * * *
  (b)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3) The amount of reimbursement waived under paragraph (2) 
may not exceed [35] 50 percent of the per-person reimbursement 
amount otherwise required to be paid by a foreign country under 
such paragraph, except in the case of not more than [five] 20 
persons receiving instruction at the Air Force Academy under 
this section at any one time.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle E--Reserve Components

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART I--ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


           CHAPTER 1007--ADMINISTRATION OF RESERVE COMPONENTS

Sec.
10201.  Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs.
     * * * * * * *
10217.  Non-dual status [military] technicians.
10218.  Army and Air Force Reserve Technicians: conditions for 
          retention; mandatory retirement under civil service laws.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 10216. Military technicians (dual status)

  (a) In General.--(1) For purposes of this section and any 
other provision of law, a military technician (dual status) is 
a Federal civilian employee who--
          (A) is employed under section 3101 of title 5 or 
        section [709] 709(b) of title 32;
          (B) is required as a condition of that employment to 
        maintain membership in the Selected Reserve; and
          (C) is assigned to a civilian position as a 
        technician in the administration and training of the 
        Selected Reserve or in the maintenance and repair of 
        supplies or equipment issued to the Selected Reserve or 
        the armed forces.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Dual Status Requirement.--(1) Funds appropriated for the 
Department of Defense may not (except as provided in paragraph 
(2)) be used for compensation as a military technician of any 
individual hired as a military technician (dual status) after 
February 10, 1996, who is no longer a member of the Selected 
Reserve.
  (2) [The Secretary] Except as otherwise provided by law, the 
Secretary concerned may pay compensation described in paragraph 
(1) to an individual described in that paragraph who is no 
longer a member of the Selected Reserve for a period not to 
exceed [six months] up to 12 months following the individual's 
loss of membership in the Selected Reserve if the Secretary 
determines that such loss of membership was not due to the 
failure of that individual to meet military standards.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 10217. Non-dual status [military] technicians

  (a) Definition.--For the purposes of this section and any 
other provision of law, a non-dual status [military] technician 
is a civilian employee of the Department of Defense serving in 
a military technician position who--
          [(1) was hired as a military technician before the 
        date of the enactment of the National Defense 
        Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 under any of the 
        authorities specified in subsection (c); and
          [(2) as of the date of the enactment of that Act is 
        not a member of the Selected Reserve or after such date 
        ceased to be a member of the Selected Reserve.]
          (1) was hired as a technician before November 18, 
        1997, under any of the authorities specified in 
        subsection (b) and as of that date is not a member of 
        the Selected Reserve or after such date has ceased to 
        be a member of the Selected Reserve; or
          (2) is employed under section 709 of title 32 in a 
        position designated under subsection (c) of that 
        section and when hired was not required to maintain 
        membership in the Selected Reserve.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Permanent Limitations on Number.--(1) Effective October 
1, 2007, the total number of non-dual status technicians 
employed by the Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve may not 
exceed 175. If at any time after the preceding sentence takes 
effect the number of non-dual status technicians employed by 
the Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve exceeds the number 
specified in the limitation in the preceding sentence, the 
Secretary of Defense shall require that the Secretary of the 
Army or the Secretary of the Air Force, or both, take immediate 
steps to reduce the number of such technicians in order to 
comply with such limitation.
  (2) Effective October 1, 2001, the total number of non-dual 
status technicians employed by the National Guard may not 
exceed 1,950. If at any time after the preceding sentence takes 
effect the number of non-dual status technicians employed by 
the National Guard exceeds the number specified in the 
limitation in the preceding sentence, the Secretary of Defense 
shall require that the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary 
of the Air Force, or both, take immediate steps to reduce the 
number of such technicians in order to comply with such 
limitation.

Sec. 10218. Army and Air Force Reserve Technicians: conditions for 
                    retention; mandatory retirement under civil service 
                    laws

  (a) Separation and Retirement of Military Technicians (Dual 
Status).--(1) An individual employed by the Army Reserve or the 
Air Force Reserve as a military technician (dual status) who 
after the date of the enactment of this section loses dual 
status is subject to paragraph (2) or (3), as the case may be.
  (2) If a technician described in paragraph (1) is eligible at 
the time dual status is lost for an unreduced annuity, the 
technician shall be separated, subject to subsection (e), not 
later than 30 days after the date on which dual status is lost.
  (3)(A) If a technician described in paragraph (1) is not 
eligible at the time dual status is lost for an unreduced 
annuity, the technician shall be offered the opportunity to--
          (i) reapply for, and if qualified be appointed to, a 
        position as a military technician (dual status); or
          (ii) apply for a civil service position that is not a 
        technician position.
  (B) If such a technician continues employment with the Army 
Reserve or the Air Force Reserve as a non-dual status 
technician, the technician--
          (i) shall not be permitted, after the end of the one-
        year period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
        this subsection, to apply for any voluntary personnel 
        action; and
          (ii) shall, subject to subsection (e), be separated 
        or retired--
                  (I) in the case of a technician first hired 
                as a military technician (dual status) on or 
                before February 10, 1996, not later than 30 
                days after becoming eligible for an unreduced 
                annuity; and
                  (II) in the case of a technician first hired 
                as a military technician (dual status) after 
                February 10, 1996, not later than one year 
                after the date on which dual status is lost.
  (4) For purposes of this subsection, a military technician is 
considered to lose dual status upon--
          (A) being separated from the Selected Reserve; or
          (B) ceasing to hold the military grade specified by 
        the Secretary concerned for the position held by the 
        technician.
  (b) Non-Dual Status Technicians.--(1) An individual who on 
the date of the enactment of this section is employed by the 
Army Reserve or the Air Force Reserve as a non-dual status 
technician and who on that date is eligible for an unreduced 
annuity shall, subject to subsection (e), be separated not 
later than six months after the date of the enactment of this 
section.
  (2)(A) An individual who on the date of the enactment of this 
section is employed by the Army Reserve or the Air Force 
Reserve as a non-dual status technician and who on that date is 
not eligible for an unreduced annuity shall be offered the 
opportunity to--
          (i) reapply for, and if qualified be appointed to, a 
        position as a military technician (dual status); or
          (ii) apply for a civil service position that is not a 
        technician position.
  (B) If such a technician continues employment with the Army 
Reserve or the Air Force Reserve as a non-dual status 
technician, the technician--
          (i) shall not be permitted, after the end of the one-
        year period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
        this subsection, to apply for any voluntary personnel 
        action; and
          (ii) shall, subject to subsection (e), be separated 
        or retired--
                  (I) in the case of a technician first hired 
                as a technician on or before February 10, 1996, 
                and who on the date of the enactment of this 
                section is a non-dual status technician, not 
                later than 30 days after becoming eligible for 
                an unreduced annuity; and
                  (II) in the case of a technician first hired 
                as a technician after February 10, 1996, and 
                who on the date of the enactment of this 
                section is a non-dual status technician, not 
                later than one year after the date on which 
                dual status is lost.
  (3) An individual employed by the Army Reserve or the Air 
Force Reserve as a non-dual status technician who is ineligible 
for appointment to a military technician (dual status) 
position, or who decides not to apply for appointment to such a 
position, or who, within six months of the date of the 
enactment of this section is not appointed to such a position, 
shall for reduction-in-force purposes be in a separate 
competitive category from employees who are military 
technicians (dual status).
  (c) Unreduced Annuity Defined.--For purposes of this section, 
a technician shall be considered to be eligible for an 
unreduced annuity if the technician is eligible for an annuity 
under section 8336, 8412, or 8414 of title 5 that is not 
subject to a reduction by reason of the age or years of service 
of the technician.
  (d) Voluntary Personnel Action Defined.--In this section, the 
term ``voluntary personnel action'', with respect to a non-dual 
status technician, means any of the following:
          (1) The hiring, entry, appointment, reassignment, 
        promotion, or transfer of the technician into a 
        position for which the Secretary concerned has 
        established a requirement that the person occupying the 
        position be a military technician (dual status).
          (2) Promotion to a higher grade if the technician is 
        in a position for which the Secretary concerned has 
        established a requirement that the person occupying the 
        position be a military technician (dual status).
  (e) Annual Limitation on Mandatory Retirements.--Until 
October 1, 2004, the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of 
the Air Force may not during any fiscal year approve a total of 
more than 25 mandatory retirements under this section. A 
technician who is subject to mandatory separation under this 
section in any fiscal year and who, but for this subsection, 
would be eligible to be retired with an unreduced annuity 
shall, if not sooner separated under some other provision of 
law, be eligible to be retained in service until mandatorily 
retired consistent with the limitation in this subsection.

PART II--PERSONNEL GENERALLY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


      CHAPTER 1201--AUTHORIZED STRENGTHS AND DISTRIBUTION IN GRADE

Sec.
12001.  Authorized strengths: reserve components.
     * * * * * * *
12003.  Authorized strengths: commissioned officers in an active status.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 12011. Authorized strengths: reserve officers on active duty or on 
                    full-time National Guard duty for administration of 
                    the reserves or the National Guard

  (a) The number of reserve officers of the Army, Air Force, 
and Marine Corps who may be on active duty or full-time 
National Guard duty in each of the grades of major, lieutenant 
colonel, and colonel, and of the Navy who may be on active duty 
in each of the grades of lieutenant commander, commander, and 
captain, as of the end of any fiscal year for duty described in 
subclauses (B) and (C) of section 523(b)(1) of this title or 
full-time National Guard duty (other than for training) under 
section 502(f) of title 32 may not exceed the number for that 
grade and armed force in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Air     Marine
               [Grade                   Army     Navy    Force    Corps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major or Lieutenant Commander.......    3,219   1,071     791      140
Lieutenant Colonel or Commander.....    1,524     520     713       90
Colonel or Navy Captain.............      438     188     297       30]
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Air     Marine
                 Grade                  Army     Navy    Force    Corps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major or Lieutenant Commander.......    3,219    1,071      843      140
Lieutenant Colonel or Commander.....    1,595      520      746       90
Colonel or Navy Captain.............      471      188      297       30
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                 

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 12012. Authorized strengths: senior enlisted members on active 
                    duty or on full-time National Guard duty for 
                    administration of the reserves or the National 
                    Guard

  (a) The number of enlisted members in pay grades E-8 and E-9 
who may be on active duty (other than for training) or on full-
time National Guard duty under the authority of section 502(f) 
of title 32 (other than for training) as of the end of any 
fiscal year in connection with organizing, administering, 
recruiting, instructing, or training the reserve components or 
the National Guard may not exceed the number for that grade and 
armed force in the following table:
      

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Air     Marine
               [Grade                   Army     Navy    Force    Corps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-9.................................     623     202      395       20
E-8.................................   2,585     429      997      94]
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Air     Marine
                 Grade                  Army     Navy    Force    Corps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-9.................................      645      202      403       20
E-8.................................    2,585      429    1,029       94
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  (b) Whenever the number of members serving in pay grade E-9 
for duty described in subsection (a) is less than the number 
authorized for that grade under subsection (a), the difference 
between the two numbers may be applied to increase the number 
authorized under such subsection for pay grade E-8.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


             CHAPTER 1205--APPOINTMENT OF RESERVE OFFICERS

Sec.
12201.  Reserve officers: qualifications for appointment.
     * * * * * * *
12216.  Financial assistance for members of the Marine Corps platoon 
          leader's class program.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 12216. Financial assistance for members of the Marine Corps 
                    platoon leader's class program

  (a) Program Authority.--The Secretary of the Navy may provide 
payment of not more than $5,200 per year for a period not to 
exceed three consecutive years of educational expenses 
(including tuition, fees, books, and laboratory expenses) to an 
eligible enlisted member of the Marine Corps Reserve for 
completion of--
          (1) baccalaureate degree requirements in an approved 
        academic program that requires less than five academic 
        years to complete; or
          (2) doctor of jurisprudence or bachelor of laws 
        degree requirements in an approved academic program 
        which requires not more than three years to complete.
  (b) Eligible Reservists.--To be eligible for receipt of 
educational expenses as authorized by subsection (a), an 
enlisted member of the Marine Corps Reserve must--
          (1) either--
                  (A) be under 27 years of age on June 30 of 
                the calendar year in which the member is 
                eligible for appointment as a second lieutenant 
                in the Marine Corps for such persons in a 
                baccalaureate degree program described in 
                subsection (a)(1), except that any such member 
                who has served on active duty in the armed 
                forces may exceed such age limitation on such 
                date by a period equal to the period such 
                member served on active duty, but only if such 
                member will be under 30 years of age on such 
                date; or
                  (B) be under 31 years of age on June 30 of 
                the calendar year in which the member is 
                eligible for appointment as a second lieutenant 
                in the Marine Corps for such persons in a 
                doctor of jurisprudence or bachelor of laws 
                degree program described in subsection (a)(2), 
                except that any such member who has served on 
                active duty in the armed forces may exceed such 
                age limitation on such date by a period equal 
                to the period such member served on active 
                duty, but only if such member will be under 35 
                years of age on such date;
          (2) be satisfactorily enrolled at any accredited 
        civilian educational institution authorized to grant 
        baccalaureate, doctor of jurisprudence or bachelor of 
        law degrees;
          (3) be selected as an officer candidate in the Marine 
        Corps Platoon Leader's Class Program and successfully 
        complete one increment of military training of not less 
        than six weeks' duration; and
          (4) agree in writing--
                  (A) to accept an appointment as a 
                commissioned officer in the Marine Corps, if 
                tendered by the President;
                  (B) to serve on active duty for a minimum of 
                five years; and
                  (C) under such terms and conditions as shall 
                be prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy, to 
                serve in the Marine Corps Reserve until the 
                eighth anniversary of the receipt of such 
                appointment.
  (c) Appointment.--Upon satisfactorily completing the academic 
and military requirements of the Marine Corps Platoon Leaders 
Class Program, an officer candidate may be appointed by the 
President as a Reserve officer in the Marine Corps in the grade 
of second lieutenant.
  (d) Limitation on Number.--Not more than 1,200 officer 
candidates may participate in the financial assistance program 
authorized by this section at any one time.
  (e) Remedial Authority of Secretary.--An officer candidate 
may be ordered to active duty in the Marine Corps by the 
Secretary of the Navy to serve in an appropriate enlisted grade 
for such period of time as the Secretary prescribes, but not 
for more than four years, when such person--
          (1) accepted financial assistance under this section; 
        and
          (2) either--
                  (A) completes the military and academic 
                requirements of the Marine Corps Platoon 
                Leaders Class Program and refuses to accept a 
                commission when offered;
                  (B) fails to complete the military or 
                academic requirements of the Marine Corps 
                Platoon Leaders Class Program; or
                  (C) is disenrolled from the Marine Corps 
                Platoon Leaders Class Program for failure to 
                maintain eligibility for an original 
                appointment as a commissioned officer under 
                section 532 of this title.
  (d) Persons Not Qualified for Appointment.--Except under 
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy, a person 
who is not physically qualified for appointment under section 
532 of this title and subsequently is determined by the 
Secretary of the Navy under section 505 of this title to be 
unqualified for service as an enlisted member of the Marine 
Corps due to a physical or medical condition that was not the 
result of misconduct or grossly negligent conduct may request a 
waiver of obligated service of such financial assistance.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                       CHAPTER 1209--ACTIVE DUTY

Sec.
12301.  Reserve components generally.
     * * * * * * *
12323.  Space-required travel for Reserves.
     * * * * * * *

Sec. 12301. Reserve components generally

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (h)(1) When authorized by the Secretary of Defense, the 
Secretary of the military department concerned may order a 
member of a reserve component to active duty, with the consent 
of that member, to receive authorized medical care, to be 
medically evaluated for disability or other purposes, or to 
complete a required Department of Defense health care study, 
which may include an associated medical evaluation of the 
member.
  (2) A member ordered to active duty under this subsection may 
be retained with the member's consent, when the Secretary 
concerned considers it appropriate, for medical treatment for a 
condition associated with the study or evaluation, if that 
treatment of the member otherwise is authorized by law.
  (3) A member of the Army National Guard of the United States 
or the Air National Guard of the United States may not be 
ordered to active duty under this subsection without the 
consent of the Governor or other appropriate authority of the 
State concerned.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 12323. Space-required travel for Reserves

  A member of a reserve component is authorized to travel in a 
space-required status on aircraft of the armed forces between 
home and place of inactive duty training, or place of duty in 
lieu of unit training assembly, when there is no road or 
railroad transportation (or combination of road and railroad 
transportation) between those locations. A member traveling in 
that status on a military aircraft pursuant to the authority 
provided in this section is not authorized to receive travel, 
transportation, or per diem allowances in connection with that 
travel.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  CHAPTER 1213--SPECIAL APPOINTMENTS, ASSIGNMENTS, DETAILS, AND DUTIES

Sec.
12501.  Reserve components: detail of members of regular and reserve 
          components to assist.
12502.  Chief and assistant chief of staff of National Guard divisions 
          and wings in Federal service: detail.
12503.  Ready Reserve: funeral honors duty.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 12503. Ready Reserve: funeral honors duty

  (a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, 
a member of the Ready Reserve may be ordered to funeral honors 
duty, with the consent of the member, in preparation for or to 
perform funeral honors functions at the funeral of a veteran 
(as defined in section 1491 of this title). However, a member 
of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air 
National Guard of the United States may not be ordered to 
perform funeral honors functions under this section without the 
consent of the Governor or other appropriate authority of the 
State concerned.
  (b) A member ordered to funeral honors duty under this 
section shall be required to perform a minimum of two hours of 
such duty in order to receive service credit under section 
12732(a)(2)(E) of this title and compensation under section 435 
of title 37 if authorized by the Secretary concerned.
  (c) Funeral honors duty (and travel directly to and from that 
duty) under this section shall be treated as the equivalent of 
inactive-duty training (and travel directly to and from that 
training) for the purposes of this title, title 37, and title 
38, including provisions relating to the determination of 
eligibility for and receipt of benefits and entitlements 
provided under those titles for Reserves performing inactive-
duty training and for their dependents and survivors, except 
that a member is not entitled by reason of performance of 
funeral honors duty to any pay, allowances, or other 
compensation provided for in title 37 other than that provided 
in section 435 of that title and in subsection (d).
  (d) A member who performs funeral honors duty under this 
section is entitled to reimbursement for travel and 
transportation expenses incurred in conjunction with such duty 
as authorized under chapter 7 of title 37, if such duty is 
performed at a location 50 miles or more from the member's 
residence.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


         CHAPTER 1215--MISCELLANEOUS PROHIBITIONS AND PENALTIES

Sec.
12551.  Prohibition of use of Air Force Reserve AGR personnel for Air 
          Force base security functions.
[12552.  Funeral honor guard functions: prohibition of treatment as 
          drill or training.]
12552.  Funeral honors functions at funerals for veterans.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[Sec. 12552. Funeral honor guard functions: prohibition of treatment as 
                    drill or training

  [Performance by a Reserve of honor guard functions at the 
funeral of a veteran may not be considered to be a period of 
drill or training otherwise required.]

Sec. 12552. Funeral honors functions at funerals for veterans

  Performance by a Reserve of funeral honors functions at the 
funeral of a veteran (as defined in section 1491 of this title) 
may not be considered to be a period of drill or training, but 
may be performed as funeral honors duty under section 12503 of 
this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


            CHAPTER 1217--MISCELLANEOUS RIGHTS AND BENEFITS

Sec.
12601.  Compensation: Reserve on active duty accepting from any person.
     * * * * * * *
12602.  Members of Army National Guard of United States and Air National 
          Guard of United States: credit for service as members of 
          National Guard.
12603.  Attendance at inactive-duty training assemblies: commercial 
          travel at Federal supply schedule rates.
12605.  Presentation of United States flag: members transferred from an 
          active status or discharged after completion of eligibility 
          for retired pay.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 12605. Presentation of United States flag: members transferred 
                    from an active status or discharged after 
                    completion of eligibility for retired pay

  (a) Presentation of Flag.--Upon the transfer from an active 
status or discharge of a Reserve who has completed the years of 
service required for eligibility for retired pay under chapter 
1223 of this title, the Secretary concerned shall present a 
United States flag to the member.
  (b) Multiple Presentations Not Authorized.--A member is not 
eligible for presentation of a flag under subsection (a) if the 
member has previously been presented a flag under this section 
or any provision of law providing for the presentation of a 
United States flag incident to release from active service for 
retirement.
  (c) No Cost to Recipient.--The presentation of a flag under 
this section shall be at no cost to the recipient.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 1223--RETIRED PAY FOR NON-REGULAR SERVICE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 12732. Entitlement to retired pay: computation of years of service

  (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), for the purpose of 
determining whether a person is entitled to retired pay under 
section 12731 of this title, the person's years of service are 
computed by adding the following:
          (1) * * *
          (2) Each one-year period, after July 1, 1949, in 
        which the person has been credited with at least 50 
        points on the following basis:
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (E) One point for each day in which funeral 
                honors functions were performed under section 
                12503 of this title or section 115 of title 32.
        For the purpose of clauses (A), (B), (C), [and (D)] 
        (D), and (E), service in the National Guard shall be 
        treated as if it were service in a reserve component, 
        if the person concerned was later appointed in the 
        National Guard of the United States, the Army National 
        Guard of the United States, the Air National Guard of 
        the United States, or as a Reserve of the Army or the 
        Air Force, and served continuously in the National 
        Guard from the date of his Federal recognition to the 
        date of that appointment.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  PART III--PROMOTION AND RETENTION OF OFFICERS ON THE RESERVE ACTIVE-
STATUS LIST

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 1405--PROMOTIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 14301. Eligibility for consideration for promotion: general rules

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g) A reserve component brigadier general of the Army or the 
Air Force who is in an inactive status is eligible 
(notwithstanding subsection (a)) for consideration for 
promotion to major general by a promotion board convened under 
section 14101(a) of this title if the officer--
          (1) has been in an inactive status for less than [1] 
        one year as of the date of the convening of the 
        promotion board; and
          (2) had continuously served for at least [1] one year 
        on the reserve active status list or the active duty 
        list (or a combination of both) immediately before the 
        officer's most recent transfer to an inactive status.
  (h) Officers on Educational Delay.--A Reserve officer who is 
in an educational delay status for the purpose of attending an 
approved institution of higher education for advanced training, 
subsidized by the military department concerned in the form of 
a scholarship or stipend, is ineligible for consideration for 
promotion while in that status. The officer shall remain on the 
Reserve active status list while in such an educational delay 
status.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


   CHAPTER 1407--FAILURE OF SELECTION FOR PROMOTION AND INVOLUNTARY 
                               SEPARATION

Sec.
14501.  Failure of selection for promotion.
     * * * * * * *
14518.  Continuation on reserve active status list to complete 
          disciplinary action.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 14506. Effect of failure of selection for promotion: reserve 
                    majors of the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps and 
                    reserve lieutenant commanders of the Navy

  Unless retained as provided in section 12646, 12686, 14701, 
or 14702 of this title, each reserve officer of the Army, Navy, 
Air Force, or Marine Corps who holds the grade of major or 
lieutenant commander who has failed of selection to the next 
higher grade for the second time and whose name is not on a 
list of officers recommended for promotion to the next higher 
grade shall, if not earlier removed from the reserve active-
status list, be removed from that list in accordance with 
section [14513 of this title on the first day of the month 
after the month in which the officer completes 20 years of 
commissioned service.] section 14513 of this title on the later 
of--
          (1) the first day of the month after the month in 
        which the officer completes 20 years of commissioned 
        service; or
          (2) the first day of the seventh month after the 
        month in which the President approves the report of the 
        board which considered the officer for the second time.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 14518. Continuation on reserve active status list to complete 
                    disciplinary action

  When an action is commenced against a Reserve officer with a 
view to trying the officer by court-martial, as authorized by 
section 802(d) of this title, the Secretary concerned may delay 
the separation or retirement of the officer under this chapter 
until the completion of the disciplinary action under chapter 
47 of this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  CHAPTER 1409--CONTINUATION OF OFFICERS ON THE RESERVE ACTIVE-STATUS 
LIST AND SELECTIVE EARLY REMOVAL

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 14703. Authority to retain chaplains and officers in medical 
                    specialties until specified age

  (a) * * *
  (b) Separation at Specified Age.--An officer may not be 
retained in active status under this section later than the 
date on which the officer becomes 67 years of age [(or, in the 
case of a reserve officer of the Army in the Chaplains or a 
reserve officer of the Air Force designated as a chaplain, 60 
years of age)].

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 14706. Computation of total years of service

  [For the purpose of this chapter and chapter 1407 of this 
title, a reserve officer's years of service include all 
service, other than constructive service, of the officer as a 
commissioned officer of any uniformed service (other than 
service as a warrant officer).]
  (a) For the purpose of this chapter and chapter 1407 of this 
title, a Reserve officer's years of service include all service 
of the officer as a commissioned officer of a uniformed service 
other than--
          (1) service as a warrant officer;
          (2) constructive service; and
          (3) service after appointment as a commissioned 
        officer of a reserve component while in a program of 
        advanced education to obtain the first professional 
        degree required for appointment, designation, or 
        assignment as an officer in the Medical Corps, the 
        Dental Corps, the Veterinary Corps, the Medical Service 
        Corps, the Nurse Corps, the Army Medical Specialists 
        Corps, or as an officer designated as a chaplain or 
        judge advocate, provided such service occurs before the 
        officer commences initial service on active duty or 
        initial service in the Ready Reserve in the specialty 
        that results from such a degree.
  (b) The exclusion under subsection (a)(3) does not apply to 
service performed by an officer who previously served on active 
duty or participated as a member of the Ready Reserve in other 
than a student status for the period of service preceding the 
member's service in a student status.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  PART IV--TRAINING FOR RESERVE COMPONENTS AND EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE 
PROGRAMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


   CHAPTER 1606--EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR MEMBERS OF THE SELECTED 
                                RESERVE

Sec.
16131.  Educational assistance program: establishment; amount.
     * * * * * * *
[16137.  Reports to Congress.]
16137.  Biennial report to Congress.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 16131. Educational assistance program: establishment; amount

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (b)(1) Except as provided in subsections (d) through (f), 
each educational assistance program established under 
subsection (a) shall provide for payment by the Secretary 
concerned, through the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to each 
person entitled to educational assistance under this chapter 
who is pursuing a program of education of an educational 
assistance allowance at the following rates:

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[Sec. 16137. Report to Congress

  [The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Congress a 
report not later than March 1 of each year concerning the 
operation of the educational assistance program established by 
this chapter during the preceding fiscal year. Each such report 
shall include the number of members of the Selected Reserve of 
the Ready Reserve of each armed force receiving, and the number 
entitled to receive, educational assistance under this chapter 
during the preceding fiscal year.]

Sec. 16137. Biennial report to Congress

  The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report 
not later than March 1 of each odd-numbered year concerning the 
operation of the educational assistance program established by 
this chapter during the preceding two fiscal years. Each such 
report shall include the number of members of the Selected 
Reserve of the Ready Reserve of each armed force receiving, and 
the number entitled to receive, educational assistance under 
this chapter during those fiscal years.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 1609--EDUCATION LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 16302. Education loan repayment program: health professions 
                    officers serving in Selected Reserve with wartime 
                    critical medical skill shortages

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) The authority provided in this section shall apply only 
in the case of a person first appointed as a commissioned 
officer before January 1, [2000] 2001.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART V--SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 1803--FACILITIES FOR RESERVE COMPONENTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 18233. Acquisition

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f)(1) Authority provided by law to construct, expand, 
rehabilitate, convert, or equip any facility under this section 
includes authority to expend funds for surveys, administration, 
overhead, planning, design, and supervision incident to any 
such activity.

Sec. 18233a. Limitation on certain projects; authority to carry out 
                    small projects with operation and maintenance funds

  (a)(1) * * *
  (2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to expenditures or 
contributions for the following:
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (C) An unspecified minor construction project 
        intended solely to correct a deficiency that is life-
        threatening, health-threatening, or safety-threatening, 
        except that the expenditure or contribution for the 
        project may not exceed $3,000,000.
  (b) Under such regulations as the Secretary of Defense may 
prescribe, a project authorized under section 18233(a) of this 
title that costs $500,000 or less (or $1,000,000 or less if the 
project is intended solely to correct a deficiency that is 
life-threatening, health-threatening, or safety-threatening), 
may be carried out with funds available for operations and 
maintenance.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


 SECTION 386 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                                  1993

TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle G--Other Matters

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 386.  ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES THAT BENEFIT 
                    DEPENDENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND 
                    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES.

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Eligible Local Educational Agencies.--A local educational 
agency is eligible for assistance under subsection (b) for a 
fiscal year if--
          (1) at least 20 percent (as rounded to the nearest 
        whole percent) of the students in average daily 
        attendance in the schools of that agency [in that 
        fiscal year are] during the preceding school year were 
        military dependent students counted under section 
        8003(a)(1) of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
        Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(a)(1));

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


DEFENSE DEPENDENTS' EDUCATION ACT OF 1978

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


         establishment of defense dependents' education system

  Sec. 1402. (a)  * * *
  (b)(1) The Secretary shall ensure that individuals eligible 
to receive a free public education under subsection (a) 
[recieve] receive an education of high quality.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                    [office of dependents' education

  Sec. [1403. (a)(1) There is established within the Department 
of Defense an office to be known as the Office of Dependents' 
Education.
  [(2) The Office of Dependents' Education shall be headed by a 
Director of Dependents' Education (hereinafter in this title 
referred to as the ``Director''), who shall be a civilian and 
who shall be selected by the Secretary of Defense and shall 
report to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower, 
Reserve Affairs, and Logistics.]


         administration of defense dependents' education system


  Sec. 1403. (a) The defense dependents' education system is 
operated through the field activity of the Department of 
Defense known as the Department of Defense Education Activity. 
That activity is headed by a Director, who is a civilian and is 
selected by the Secretary of Defense. The Director reports to 
an Assistant Secretary of Defense designated by the Secretary 
of Defense for purposes of this title.
  (b) Except with respect to the authority to prescribe 
regulations, the Secretary of Defense may carry out his 
functions under [this Act] this title through the Director.
  (c) The Director shall--
          (1) establish personnel policies, consistent with the 
        Defense Department Overseas Teachers Pay and Personnel 
        Practices Act (20 U.S.C. 901 et seq.), for employees in 
        the defense dependents' education system,
          (2) have authority to transfer professional employees 
        in the defense dependents' education system from one 
        position to another[.],

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (6) perform such other functions as may be required 
        or delegated by the Secretary of Defense or the 
        [Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower, Reserve 
        Affairs, and Logistics] the Assistant Secretary of 
        Defense designated under subsection (a).
  (d)(1) The Director shall establish appropriate regional or 
area offices [for the Office of Dependents' Education] in order 
to provide for thorough and efficient administration of the 
defense dependents' education system.
  (2) [Not later than six months after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to 
the Congress a report (A) describing the organization of the 
Office of Dependents' Education in accordance with paragraph 
(1), (B) describing the assignment of personnel to the central 
office of the Office of Dependents' Education and to such 
regional or area offices as are established pursuant to 
paragraph (1), and (C) detailing the personnel requirements of 
the defense dependents' education system.] [Whenever the Office 
of Dependents' Education] Whenever the Department of Defense 
Education Activity is reorganized [after the submission of the 
report required under the preceding sentence] in a manner that 
affects the defense dependents' education system, the Secretary 
of Defense shall submit [an additional report] a report to the 
Congress describing the reorganization.
  (3) Subject to the approval of the Secretary of Defense, [the 
Office of Dependents' Education] the Department of Defense 
Education Activity is authorized an appropriate number of 
civilian employees in its central office and such regional or 
area office as are established pursuant to paragraph (1).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                           allotment formula

  Sec. 1409. (a)  * * *
  (b) Any regulation under subsection (a) shall be issued, and 
shall become effective, in accordance with the procedures 
applicable to regulations required to be issued by the 
[Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in accordance 
with section 431 of the General Education Provisions Act] 
Secretary of Education in accordance with section 437 of the 
General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232).
  (c) Applicability of Certain Provisions.--
          (1) Children with disabilities.--Notwithstanding the 
        provisions of section 1402(b)(3), the provisions of 
        part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
        Act, other than the funding and reporting provisions, 
        shall apply to all schools operated by the Department 
        of Defense under this title, including the requirement 
        that children with disabilities, aged 3 to 5, 
        inclusive, receive a free appropriate public education 
        [by academic year 1993-1994].

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) [Implementation timelines.--In carrying out the 
        provisions of paragraph (2), the Secretary shall--
                  [(A) in academic year 1991-1992 and the 2 
                succeeding academic years, plan and develop a 
                comprehensive] Implementation.--In carrying out 
                paragraph (2), the Secretary shall have in 
                effect a comprehensive, coordinated, 
                multidisciplinary program of early intervention 
                services for infants and toddlers with 
                disabilities among Department of Defense 
                entities involved in the provision of such 
                services to such individuals[;].
                  [(B) in academic year 1994-1995, implement 
                the program described in subparagraph (A), 
                except the Secretary need only conduct 
                multidisciplinary assessments, develop 
                individualized family service plans, and make 
                available case management services; and
                  [(C) in academic year 1995-1996 and 
                succeeding academic years, have in effect the 
                program described in subparagraph (A).]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


               advisory council on dependents' education

  Sec. 1411. (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Members of the Council who are not in the regular full-
time employ of the United States shall, while attending 
meetings or conferences of the Council or otherwise engaged in 
the business of the Council, be entitled to receive 
compensation at the daily equivalent of the rate specified at 
the time of such service for [grade GS-18 in section 5332 of 
title 5, United States Code] level IV of the Executive Schedule 
under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, including 
traveltime, and while so serving on the business of the Council 
away from their homes or regular places of business, they may 
be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United 
States Code, for persons employed intermittently in the 
Government service.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


             study of defense dependents' education system

  Sec. 1412. (a)(1) [As soon as practicable after the date of 
the enactment of this Act [Nov. 1, 1978], the Director shall 
provide for] The Director may from time to time, but not more 
frequently than once a year, provide for a comprehensive study 
of the entire defense dependents' education [system, which] 
system. Any such study shall include a detailed analysis of the 
education programs and the facilities of the system.
  (2) [The study required by this subsection] Any study under 
paragraph (1) shall be conducted by a contractor selected by 
the Director after an open competition. After conducting such 
study, the contractor shall submit a report to the Director 
[not later than two years after the effective date of this 
title] describing the results of the study and giving its 
assessment of the defense dependents' education system.
  (b) In designing the specifications for [the] any study to be 
conducted pursuant to subsection (a)(1), and in selecting a 
contractor to conduct such study under subsection (a)(2), the 
Director shall consult with the Advisory Council on Dependents' 
Education established under section 1411 of this title.
  (c) The Director shall submit to the Congress [not later than 
one year after the effective date of this title the report] any 
report submitted to him under subsection (a)(2) describing the 
results of [the study] a study carried out pursuant to 
subsection (a)(1), together with the recommendations, if any, 
of the contractor for legislation or any increase in funding 
needed to improve the defense dependents' education system. 
Notwithstanding any law, rule, or regulation to the contrary, 
such report shall not be submitted to any review before its 
transmittal to the Congress, but the Secretary of Defense 
shall, at the time of the transmittal of such report, submit to 
the Congress such recommendations as he may have with respect 
to legislation or any increase in funding needed to improve the 
defense dependents' education system.
  [(d) The Director may provide for additional studies of the 
defense dependents' education system to be conducted in 
accordance with the provisions of this section, but such 
studies shall not be conducted more frequently than once a 
year. A report of each study shall be submitted to the Congress 
in accordance with subsection (c), and the second sentence of 
such subsection shall apply with respect to the transmission of 
each such report.]

                              regulations

  Sec. 1413. [Not later than 180 days after the effective date 
of this title, the] The Secretary of Defense shall issue 
regulations to carry out this title. Such regulations shall--
          (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                              definitions

  Sec. 1414. For purposes of this title:
          (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (6) The term ``Director'' means the Director of the 
        Department of Defense Education Activity.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


              SECTION 3342 OF TITLE 31, UNITED STATES CODE


Sec. 3342. Check cashing and exchange transactions

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) With respect to automated teller machines on naval 
vessels of the Navy, the authority of a disbursing official of 
the United States Government under subsection (a) also includes 
the following:
          (1) The authority to provide operating funds to the 
        automated teller machines.
          (2) The authority to accept, for safekeeping, 
        deposits and transfers of funds made through the 
        automated teller machines.
                              ----------                              


      SECTION 1523 OF THE ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME ACT OF 1991

SEC. 1523. PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS AT UNITED 
                    STATES SOLDIERS' AND AIRMEN'S HOME.

  (a) Historic Nature of Facility.--Congress finds the 
following:
          (1) Four buildings located on six acres of the 
        establishment of the Retirement Home known as the 
        United States Soldiers' and Airmen's Home are included 
        on the National Register of Historic Places maintained 
        by the Secretary of the Interior.
          (2) Amounts in the Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust 
        Fund, which consists primarily of deductions from the 
        pay of members of the Armed Forces, are insufficient to 
        both maintain and operate the Retirement Home for the 
        benefit of the residents of the Retirement Home and 
        adequately maintain, repair, and preserve these 
        historic buildings and grounds.
          (3) Other sources of funding are available to 
        contribute to the maintenance, repair, and preservation 
        of these historic buildings and grounds.
  (b) Authority To Accept Assistance.--The Chairman of the 
Retirement Home Board and the Director of the United States 
Soldiers' and Airmen's Home may apply for and accept a direct 
grant from the Secretary of the Interior under section 
101(e)(3) of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 
470a(e)(3)) for the purpose of maintaining, repairing, and 
preserving the historic buildings and grounds of the United 
States Soldiers' and Airmen's Home included on the National 
Register of Historic Places.
  (c) Requirements and Limitations.--Amounts received as a 
grant under subsection (b) shall be deposited in the Fund, but 
shall be kept separate from other amounts in the Fund. The 
amounts received may only be used for the purpose specified in 
subsection (b).
                              ----------                              


TITLE 37, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 3--BASIC PAY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 205. Computation: service creditable

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Notwithstanding subsection (a), a commissioned officer 
appointed under sections 12209 and 12216 of title 10 may not 
count in computing basic pay a period of service after January 
1, 2000, that the officer performed concurrently as a member of 
the Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class Program and the Marine 
Corps Reserve, except that service after that date that the 
officer performed before commissioning while serving as an 
enlisted member on active duty or as a member of the Selected 
Reserve may be so counted.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 209. Members of precommissioning programs

  (a) Except when on active duty, a member of the Senior 
Reserve Officers' Training Corps who is selected for advanced 
training under section 2104 of title 10 is entitled to a 
subsistence allowance of [$150] $200 a month beginning on the 
day he starts advanced training and ending upon the completion 
of his instruction under that section, but in no event shall 
any member receive such pay for more than 30 months. 
Subsistence allowance under this section may not be considered 
financial assistance requiring additional service within the 
meaning of the third sentence of section 6(d)(1) of the 
Military Selective Act (50 U.S.C App. 456(d)(1)).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                 CHAPTER 5--SPECIAL AND INCENTIVE PAYS

Sec.
301.  Incentive pay: hazardous duty.
     * * * * * * *
318.  Special pay: special warfare officers extending period of active 
          duty.
319.  Special pay: surface warfare officer continuation pay.
320.  Incentive pay: career enlisted flyers.
321.  Special pay: judge advocate continuation pay.
322.  Special pay: 15-year career status bonus for members entering 
          service on or after August 1, 1986.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 301a. Incentive pay: aviation career

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (b)(1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (4) An officer serving as an air battle manager who is 
entitled to aviation career incentive pay under this section 
and who, before becoming entitled to aviation career incentive 
pay, was entitled to incentive pay under section 301(a)(11) of 
this title, is entitled to monthly incentive pay at a rate 
equal to the greater of the following:
          (A) The rate applicable under this subsection.
          (B) The rate at which the member was receiving 
        incentive pay under section 301(c)(2)(A) of this title 
        immediately before the member's entitlement to aviation 
        career incentive pay under this section.

Sec. 301b. Special pay: aviation career officers extending period of 
                    active duty

    (a) Bonus Authorized.--An aviation officer described in 
subsection (b) who, during the period beginning on January 1, 
1989, and ending on December 31, [1999] 2000, executes a 
written agreement to remain on active duty in aviation service 
for at least one year may, upon the acceptance of the agreement 
by the Secretary concerned, be paid a retention bonus as 
provided in this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (b) Covered Officers.--An aviation officer referred to in 
subsection (a) is an officer of a uniformed service who--
          (1)  * * *
          [(2) is in an aviation specialty designated by the 
        Secretary concerned (with the approval of the Secretary 
        of Defense in the case of the Secretary of a military 
        department) as a critical aviation specialty;]
          [(3)] (2) is in a pay grade below pay [grade 0-6] 
        grade 0-7;
          [(4)] (3) is qualified to perform operational flying 
        duty; and
          [(5) has completed at least six but less than 13 
        years of aviation service; and]
          [(6)] (4) has completed any active duty service 
        commitment incurred for undergraduate aviator training.
    (c) Amount of Bonus.--The amount of a retention bonus paid 
under this section may not be more [than--
          [(1) $25,000 for each year covered by the written 
        agreement, if the officer agrees to remain on active 
        duty to complete 14 years of commissioned service; or
          [(2) $12,000 for each year covered by the written 
        agreement, if the officer agrees to remain on active 
        duty for one, two, or three years.] than $25,000 for 
        each year covered by the written agreement to remain on 
        active duty.
    (d) Proration.--The term of an agreement under subsection 
(a) and the amount of the bonus under subsection (c) may be 
prorated as long as such agreement does not extend beyond the 
date on which the officer making such agreement would complete 
[14 years of commissioned service] 25 years of aviation 
service.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (g) Repayment of Bonus.--(1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (3) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is 
entered less than 5 years after the termination of a written 
agreement entered into under subsection (a) does not discharge 
the officer signing the agreement from a debt arising under 
such agreement or under paragraph (1). [This paragraph applies 
to any case commenced under title 11 after January 1, 1989.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (i) Reports.--(1) Not later than February 15 of each year, 
the Secretaries concerned shall submit to the Secretary of 
Defense a report analyzing the effect of the provision of 
retention bonuses to aviation officers during the preceding 
fiscal year on the retention of qualified aviators. [Each 
report shall include--
          [(A) a comparison of the cost of paying bonuses to 
        officers who enter into an agreement for the period 
        referred to in subsection (c)(1) with the cost of 
        paying bonuses to officers who enter into an agreement 
        for a period referred to in subsection (c)(2); and
          [(B) a description of the increase in the retention 
        of qualified aviators as a result of the program.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (j) Definitions.--In this section:
          (1) The term ``aviation service'' means service 
        performed by an officer (except a flight surgeon or 
        other medical officer) while holding an aeronautical 
        rating or designation or while in training to receive 
        an aeronautical rating or designation.
          [(2) The term ``aviation specialty'' means a specific 
        community of pilots identified by type of aircraft or 
        weapon system or a specific community of other 
        designated aeronautical officers so identified.
          [(3) The term ``critical aviation specialty'' means 
        an aviation speciality in which there exists a shortage 
        of officers on the date of designation under subsection 
        (b).]
          [(4)] (2) The term ``operational flying duty'' has 
        the meaning given such term in section 301a(a)(6)(A) of 
        this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 302d. Special pay: accession bonus for registered nurses

    (a) Accession Bonus Authorized.--(1) A person who is a 
registered nurse and who, during the period beginning on 
November 29, 1989, and ending on December 31, [1999] 2000, 
executes a written agreement described in subsection (c) to 
accept a commission as an officer and remain on active duty for 
a period of not less than four years may, upon the acceptance 
of the agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid an 
accession bonus in an amount determined by the Secretary 
concerned.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 302e. Special pay: nurse anesthetists

    (a) Special Pay Authorized.--(1) An officer described in 
subsection (b)(1) who, during the period beginning on November 
29, 1989, and ending on December 31, [1999] 2000, executes a 
written agreement to remain on active duty for a period of one 
year or more may, upon the acceptance of the agreement by the 
Secretary concerned, be paid incentive special pay in an amount 
not to exceed $15,000 for any 12-month period.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 302g. Special pay: Selected Reserve health care professionals in 
                    critically short wartime specialties

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Termination of Agreement Authority.--No agreement under 
this section may be entered into after December 31, [1999] 
2000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 304. Special pay: diving duty

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Special pay payable under subsection (a) shall be paid at 
a rate of not more than [$200] $240 a month, in the case of an 
officer, and at a rate of not more than [$300] $340 a month, in 
the case of an enlisted member.
  [(c) A member may be paid special pay under this section and 
incentive pay under section 301 of this title for the same 
period of service only if the member is assigned by orders to a 
hazardous duty described in section 301(a) of this title in 
addition to diving duty. However, if a member is paid special 
pay under this section, the member is not entitled to more than 
one payment of incentive pay under section 301 of this title.]
  (c) If, in addition to diving duty, a member is assigned by 
orders to one or more hazardous duties described in section 301 
of this title, the member may be paid, for the same period of 
service, special pay under this section and incentive pay under 
such section 301 for each hazardous duty for which the member 
is qualified.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 308. Special pay: reenlistment bonus

  (a)(1) A member of a uniformed service who--
          (A) has completed at least [twenty-one months] 17 
        months of continuous active duty (other than for 
        training) but not more than fourteen years of active 
        duty;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (2) The bonus to be paid under paragraph (1) may not exceed 
the lesser of the following amounts:
          (A) The amount equal to the product of--
                  (i) [ten] 15 times the monthly rate of basic 
                pay to which the member was entitled at the 
                time of the discharge or release of the member; 
                and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (B) [$45,000] $60,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g) No bonus shall be paid under this section with respect to 
any reenlistment, or voluntary extension of an active-duty 
reenlistment, in the armed forces entered into after December 
31, [1999] 2000.

Sec. 308a. Special pay: enlistment bonus

  (a) Bonus Authorized; Bonus Amount.--Notwithstanding section 
514(a) of title 10 or any other law, under regulations 
prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, or by the Secretary of 
Transportation with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not 
operating as a service in the Navy, a person who enlists in an 
armed force for a period of at least four years in a skill 
designated as critical, or who extends his initial period of 
active duty in that armed force to a total of at least four 
years in a skill designated as critical, may be paid a bonus in 
an amount prescribed by the appropriate Secretary, but not more 
than [$12,000] $20,000. [The bonus shall be paid in periodic 
installments, as determined by the appropriate Secretary, 
except that the first installment may not exceed $7,000 and the 
remainder shall be paid in equal periodic installments which 
may not be paid less frequently than once every 3 months.]
  (b) Payment Methods.--A bonus under this section may be paid 
in a single lump sum, or in periodic installments, to provide 
an extra incentive for a member to successfully complete the 
training necessary for the member to be technically qualified 
in the skill for which the bonus is paid.
  [(b)] (c) Repayment of Bonus.--Under regulations prescribed 
by the Secretary of Defense, or by the Secretary of 
Transportation with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not 
operating as a service in the Navy, a person who voluntarily, 
or because of his misconduct, does not complete the term of 
enlistment for which a bonus was paid to him under this section 
or a member who is not technically qualified in the skill for 
which a bonus was paid to him under this section (other than a 
person who is not qualified because of injury, illness, or 
other impairment not the result of his own misconduct) shall 
refund that percentage of the bonus that the unexpired part of 
his enlistment is of the total enlistment period for which the 
bonus was paid.
  [(c)] (d) Termination of Authority.--No bonus shall be paid 
under this section with respect to any enlistment or extension 
of an initial period of active duty in the armed forces made 
after December 31, [1999] 2000.

Sec. 308b. Special pay: reenlistment bonus for members of the Selected 
                    Reserve

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Termination of Authority.--No bonus may be paid under 
this section to any enlisted member who, after December 31, 
[1999] 2000, reenlists or voluntarily extends his enlistment in 
a reserve component.

Sec. 308c. Special pay: bonus for enlistment in the Selected Reserve

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) No bonus may be paid under this section to any enlisted 
member who, after December 31, [1999] 2000, enlists in the 
Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve of an armed force.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 308d. Special pay: enlisted members of the Selected Reserve 
                    assigned to certain high priority units

    (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) Additional compensation may not be paid under this 
section for inactive duty performed after December 31, [1999] 
2000.

Sec. 308e. Special pay: bonus for reserve affiliation agreement

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) No bonus may be paid under this section to any person for 
a reserve obligation agreement entered into after December 31, 
[1999] 2000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 308f. Special pay: bonus for enlistment in the Army

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) No bonus may be paid under this section with respect to 
an enlistment in the Army after December 31, [1999] 2000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 308h. Special pay: bonus for reenlistment, enlistment, or 
                    voluntary extension of enlistment in elements of 
                    the Ready Reserve other than the Selected Reserve

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g) A bonus may not be paid under this section to any person 
for a reenlistment, enlistment, or voluntary extension of an 
enlistment after December 31, [1999] 2000.

Sec. 308i. Special pay: prior service enlistment bonus

  (a) Authority and Eligibility Requirements.--(1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(2) A bonus may only be paid under this section to a person 
who--
          [(A) has completed his military service obligation 
        but has less than 14 years of total military service;
          [(B) has received an honorable discharge at the 
        conclusion of military service;
          [(C) is not being released from active service for 
        the purpose of enlistment in a reserve component;
          [(D) is projected to occupy a position as a member of 
        the Selected Reserve in a specialty in which--
                  [(i) the person successfully served while a 
                member on active duty; and
                  [(ii) the person attained a level of 
                qualification while a member on active duty 
                commensurate with the grade and years of 
                service of the member; and
          [(E) has not previously been paid a bonus (except 
        under this section) for enlistment, reenlistment, or 
        extension of enlistment in a reserve component.]
  (2) A bonus may only be paid under this section to a person 
who meets each of the following requirements:
          (A) The person has completed a military service 
        obligation, but has less than 14 years of total 
        military service, and received an honorable discharge 
        at the conclusion of that military service obligation.
          (B) The person was not released, or is not being 
        released, from active service for the purpose of 
        enlistment in a reserve component.
          (C) The person is projected to occupy, or is 
        occupying, a position as a member of the Selected 
        Reserve in a specialty in which the person--
                  (i) successfully served while a member on 
                active duty and attained a level of 
                qualification while on active duty commensurate 
                with the grade and years of service of the 
                member; or
                  (ii) has completed training or retraining in 
                the specialty skill that is designated as 
                critically short and attained a level of 
                qualification in the specialty skill that is 
                commensurate with the grade and years of 
                service of the member.
          (D) The person has not previously been paid a bonus 
        (except under this section) for enlistment, 
        reenlistment, or extension of enlistment in a reserve 
        component.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Termination of Authority.--No bonus may be paid under 
this section to any person for an enlistment after December 31, 
[1999] 2000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 312. Special pay: nuclear-qualified officers extending period of 
                    active duty

  (a) Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of 
the Navy, an officer of the naval service who--
          (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

may, upon the acceptance by the Secretary or his designee of 
the written agreement, in addition to all other compensation to 
which he is entitled, be paid a sum of money not to exceed 
[$15,000] $25,000 for each year of the active-service 
agreement. The Secretary of the Navy shall determine annually 
the necessity for continuance of the special pay and the rate 
of special pay per year for such active-service agreements 
accepted within each 12-month period. Upon acceptance of the 
agreement by the Secretary or his designee, the total amount 
payable shall be paid in equal annual installments over the 
length of the contract, commencing at the expiration of any 
existing period of obligated active service. The Secretary (or 
his designee) may accept an active service agreement under this 
section not more than one year in advance of the end of an 
officer's existing period of obligated active service under 
such an agreement. In such a case, the amount of the special 
pay may be paid commencing with the date of acceptance of the 
agreement, with the number of installments being equal to the 
number of years covered by the contract plus one.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) The provisions of this section shall be effective only in 
the case of officers who, on or before December 31, [1999] 
2000, execute the required written agreement to remain in 
active service.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 312b. Special pay: nuclear career accession bonus

  (a)(1) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the 
Navy, an individual who is selected for officer naval nuclear 
power training and who executes a written agreement to 
participate in a program of training for duty in connection 
with the supervision, operation, and maintenance of naval 
nuclear propulsion plants may be paid a bonus of [$10,000] 
$20,000 upon acceptance by the Secretary of the written 
agreement. Upon acceptance of the agreement by the Secretary, 
the amounts payable upon selection for training and upon 
completion of training, respectively, as determined under 
subsection (b), shall become fixed.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) The provisions of this section shall be effective only in 
the case of officers who, on or before December 31, [1999] 
2000, have been accepted for training for duty in connection 
with the supervision, operation, and maintenance of naval 
nuclear propulsion plants.

Sec. 312c. Special pay: nuclear career annual incentive bonus

  (a)(1) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the 
Navy, an officer of the naval service who--
          (A)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

may, in addition to all other compensation to which he is 
entitled, be paid an annual bonus in an amount not to exceed 
[$12,000] $22,000 for each nuclear service year.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (b)(1) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the 
Navy, an officer of the naval service who--
          (A)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

may, in addition to all other compensation to which he is 
entitled, be paid an annual bonus in an amount not to exceed 
[$5,500] $10,000 for each nuclear service year.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) For the purposes of this section, a ``nuclear service 
year'' is any fiscal year beginning before [October 1, 1998, 
and the 15-month period beginning on that date and ending on 
December 31, 1999.] December 31, 2000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 316. Special pay: foreign language proficiency pay

  (a)  * * *
  (b) The monthly rate for special pay under subsection (a) 
shall be determined by the Secretary concerned and may not 
exceed [$100] $300.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 318. Special pay: special warfare officers extending period of 
                    active duty

  (a) Special Warfare Officer Defined.--In this section, the 
term ``special warfare officer'' means an officer of a 
uniformed service who--
          (1) is qualified for a military occupational 
        specialty or designator identified by the Secretary 
        concerned as a special warfare military occupational 
        specialty or designator; and
  (2) is serving in a position for which that specialty or 
designator is authorized.
  (b) Retention Bonus Authorized.--A special warfare officer 
who meets the eligibility requirements specified in subsection 
(c) and who executes a written agreement, on or after October 
1, 1999, to remain on active duty in special warfare service 
for at least one year may, upon the acceptance of the agreement 
by the Secretary concerned, be paid a retention bonus as 
provided in this section.
  (c) Eligible Officers.--A special warfare officer may apply 
to enter into an agreement referred to in subsection (b) if the 
officer--
          (1) is in pay grade O-3, or is in pay grade O-4 and 
        is not on a list of officers recommended for promotion, 
        at the time the officer applies to enter into the 
        agreement;
          (2) has completed at least 6, but not more than 14, 
        years of active commissioned service; and
          (3) has completed any service commitment incurred to 
        be commissioned as an officer.
  (d) Amount of Bonus.--The amount of a retention bonus paid 
under this section may not be more than $15,000 for each year 
covered by the agreement.
  (e) Proration.--The term of an agreement under subsection (b) 
and the amount of the retention bonus payable under subsection 
(d) may be prorated as long as the agreement does not extend 
beyond the date on which the officer executing the agreement 
would complete 14 years of active commissioned service.
  (f) Payment Methods.--(1) Upon acceptance of an agreement 
under subsection (b) by the Secretary concerned, the total 
amount payable pursuant to the agreement becomes fixed.
  (2) The amount of the retention bonus may be paid as follows:
          (A) At the time the agreement is accepted by the 
        Secretary concerned, the Secretary may make a lump sum 
        payment equal to half the total amount payable under 
        the agreement. The balance of the bonus amount shall be 
        paid in equal annual installments on the anniversary of 
        the acceptance of the agreement.
          (B) The Secretary concerned may make graduated annual 
        payments under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, 
        with the first payment being payable at the time the 
        agreement is accepted by the Secretary and subsequent 
        payments being payable on the anniversary of the 
        acceptance of the agreement.
  (g) Additional Pay.--A retention bonus paid under this 
section is in addition to any other pay and allowances to which 
an officer is entitled.
  (h) Repayment.--(1) If an officer who has entered into an 
agreement under subsection (b) and has received all or part of 
a retention bonus under this section fails to complete the 
total period of active duty in special warfare service as 
specified in the agreement, the Secretary concerned may require 
the officer to repay the United States, on a pro rata basis and 
to the extent that the Secretary determines conditions and 
circumstances warrant, all sums paid the officer under this 
section.
  (2) An obligation to repay the United States imposed under 
paragraph (1) is for all purposes a debt owed to the United 
States.
  (3) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is entered 
less than five years after the termination of an agreement 
entered into under subsection (a) does not discharge the 
officer signing the agreement from a debt arising under such 
agreement or under paragraph (1).
  (i) Regulations.--The Secretaries concerned shall prescribe 
regulations to carry out this section, including the definition 
of the term ``special warfare service'' for purposes of this 
section. Regulations prescribed by the Secretary of a military 
department under this section shall be subject to the approval 
of the Secretary of Defense.

Sec. 319. Special pay: surface warfare officer continuation pay

  (a) Eligible Surface Warfare Officer Defined.--In this 
section, the term ``eligible surface warfare officer'' means an 
officer of the Regular Navy or Naval Reserve on active duty 
who--
          (1) is qualified and serving as a surface warfare 
        officer;
          (2) has been selected for assignment as a department 
        head on a surface vessel; and
          (3) has completed any service commitment incurred 
        through the officer's original commissioning program.
  (b) Special Pay Authorized.--An eligible surface warfare 
officer who executes a written agreement, on or after October 
1, 1999, to remain on active duty to complete one or more tours 
of duty to which the officer may be ordered as a department 
head on a surface ship may, upon the acceptance of the 
agreement by the Secretary of the Navy, be paid an amount not 
to exceed $50,000.
  (c) Proration.--The term of the written agreement under 
subsection (b) and the amount payable under the agreement may 
be prorated.
  (d) Payment Methods.--Upon acceptance of the written 
agreement under subsection (b) by the Secretary of the Navy, 
the total amount payable pursuant to the agreement becomes 
fixed. The Secretary shall prepare an implementation plan 
specifying the amount of each installment payment under the 
agreement and the times for payment of the installments.
  (e) Additional Pay.--Any amount paid under this section is in 
addition to any other pay and allowances to which an officer is 
entitled.
  (f) Repayment.--(1) If an officer who has entered into a 
written agreement under subsection (b) and has received all or 
part of the amount payable under the agreement fails to 
complete the total period of active duty as a department head 
on a surface ship specified in the agreement, the Secretary of 
the Navy may require the officer to repay the United States, to 
the extent that the Secretary of the Navy determines conditions 
and circumstances warrant, any or all sums paid under this 
section.
  (2) An obligation to repay the United States imposed under 
paragraph (1) is for all purposes a debt owned to the United 
States.
  (3) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is entered 
less than five years after the termination of an agreement 
entered into under subsection (b) does not discharge the 
officer signing the agreement from a debt arising under such 
agreement or under paragraph (1).
  (g) Regulations.--The Secretary of the Navy shall prescribe 
regulations to carry out this section.

Sec. 320. Incentive pay: career enlisted flyers

  (a) Eligible Career Enlisted Flyer Defined.--In this section, 
the term ``eligible career enlisted flyer'' means an enlisted 
member of the armed forces who--
          (1) is entitled to basic pay under section 204 of 
        this title, or is entitled to pay under section 206 of 
        this title as described in subsection (e) of this 
        section;
          (2) holds an enlisted military occupational specialty 
        or enlisted military rating designated as a career 
        enlisted flyer specialty or rating by the Secretary 
        concerned, performs duty as a dropsonde system 
        operator, or is in training leading to qualification 
        and designation of such a specialty or rating or the 
        performance of such duty;
          (3) is qualified for aviation service under 
        regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned; and
          (4) satisfies the operational flying duty 
        requirements applicable under subsection (c).
  (b) Incentive Pay Authorized.--(1) The Secretary concerned 
may pay monthly incentive pay to an eligible career enlisted 
flyer in an amount not to exceed the monthly maximum amounts 
specified in subsection (d). The incentive pay may be paid as 
continuous monthly incentive pay or on a month-to-month basis, 
dependent upon the operational flying duty performed by the 
eligible career enlisted flyer as prescribed in subsection (c).
  (2) Continuous monthly incentive pay may not be paid to an 
eligible career enlisted flyer after the member completes 25 
years of aviation service. Thereafter, an eligible career 
enlisted flyer may still receive incentive pay on a month-to-
month basis under subsection (c)(4) for the frequent and 
regular performance of operational flying duty.
  (c) Operational Flying Duty Requirements.--(1) An eligible 
career enlisted flyer must perform operational flying duties 
for 6 of the first 10, 9 of the first 15, and 14 of the first 
20 years of aviation service, to be eligible for continuous 
monthly incentive pay under this section.
  (2) Upon completion of 10, 15, or 20 years of aviation 
service, an enlisted member who has not performed the minimum 
required operational flying duties specified in paragraph (1) 
during the prescribed period, although otherwise meeting the 
definition in subsection (a), may no longer be paid continuous 
monthly incentive pay except as provided in paragraph (3). 
Payment of continuous monthly incentive pay if the member meets 
the minimum operational flying duty requirement upon completion 
of the next established period of aviation service.
  (3) For the needs of the service, the Secretary concerned may 
permit, on a case-by-case basis, a member to continue to 
receive continuous monthly incentive pay despite the member's 
failure to perform the operational flying duty required during 
the first 10, 15, or 20 years of aviation service, but only if 
the member otherwise meets the definition in subsection (a) and 
has performed at least 5 years of operational flying duties 
during the first 10 years of aviation service, 8 years of 
operational flying duties during the first 15 years of aviation 
service, or 12 years of operational flying duty during the 
first 20 years of aviation service. The authority of the 
Secretary concerned under this paragraph may not be delegated 
below the level of the Service Personnel Chief.
  (4) If the eligibility of an eligible career enlisted flyer 
to continuous monthly incentive pay ceases under subsection 
(b)(2) or paragraph (2), the member may still receive month-to-
month incentive pay for subsequent frequent and regular 
performance of operational flying duty. The rate payable is the 
same rate authorized by the Secretary concerned under 
subsection (d) for a member of corresponding years of aviation 
service.
  (d) Monthly Maximum Incentive Pay.--The monthly rate for 
incentive pay under this section may not exceed the amounts 
specified in the following table for the applicable years of 
aviation service:
                                                                 Monthly
Years of aviation service:                                        rate  
    4 or less.................................................     $150 
    Over 4....................................................     $225 
    Over 8....................................................     $350 
    Over 14...................................................     $400 

  (e) Eligibility of Reserve Component Members When Performing 
Inactive Duty Training.--Under regulations prescribed by the 
Secretary concerned, when a member of a reserve component or 
the National Guard, who is entitled to compensation under 
section 206 of this title, meets the definition of eligible 
career enlisted flyer, the Secretary concerned may increase the 
member's compensation by an amount equal to \1/30\ of the 
monthly incentive pay authorized by the Secretary concerned 
under subsection (d) for a member of corresponding years of 
aviation service who is entitled to basic pay under section 204 
of this title. The reserve component member may receive the 
increase for as long as the member is qualified for it, for 
each regular period of instruction or period of appropriate 
duty, at which the member is engaged for at least two hours, or 
for the performance of such other equivalent training, 
instruction, duty or appropriate duties, as the Secretary may 
prescribe under section 206(a) of this title.
  (f) Relation to Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay or Diving Duty 
Special Pay.--A member receiving special pay under section 
301(a) or 304 of this title may not be paid incentive pay under 
this section for the same period of service.
  (g) Save Pay Provision.--If, immediately before a member 
receives incentive pay under this section, the member was 
entitled to incentive pay under section 301(a) of this title, 
the rate at which the member is paid incentive pay under this 
section shall be equal to the higher of the monthly amount 
applicable under subsection (d) or the rate of incentive pay 
the member was receiving under subsection (b) or (c)(2)(A) of 
section 301 of this title.
  (h) Specialty Code of Dropsonde System Operators.--Within the 
Air Force, the Secretary of the Air Force shall assign to 
members who are dropsonde system operators a specialty code 
that identifies such members as serving in a weather specialty.
  (i) Definitions.--In this section:
          (1) The term ``aviation service'' means participation 
        in aerial flight performed, under regulations 
        prescribed by the Secretary concerned, by an eligible 
        career enlisted flyer.
          (2) The term ``operational flying duty'' means flying 
        performed under competent orders while serving in 
        assignments, including an assignment as a dropsonde 
        system operator, in which basic flying skills normally 
        are maintained in the performance of assigned duties as 
        determined by the Secretary concerned, and flying duty 
        performed by members in training that leads to the 
        award of an enlisted aviation rating or military 
        occupational specialty designated as a career enlisted 
        flyer rating or specialty by the Secretary concerned.

Sec. 321. Special pay: judge advocate continuation pay

  (a) Eligible Judge Advocate Defined.--In this section, the 
term ``eligible judge advocate'' means an officer of the armed 
forces on full-time active duty who--
          (1) is qualified and serving as a judge advocate, as 
        defined in section 801 of title 10; and
          (2) has completed any service commitment incurred 
        through the officer's original commissioning program.
  (b) Special Pay Authorized.--An eligible judge advocate who 
executes a written agreement, on or after October 1, 1999, to 
remain on active duty for a period of obligated service 
specified in the agreement may, upon the acceptance of the 
agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid an amount not to 
exceed $60,000.
  (c) Proration.--The term of the written agreement under 
subsection (b) and the amount payable under the agreement may 
be prorated.
  (d) Payment Methods.--Upon acceptance of the written 
agreement under subsection (b) by the Secretary concerned, the 
total amount payable pursuant to the agreement becomes fixed. 
The Secretary shall prepare an implementation plan specifying 
the amount of each installment payment under the agreement and 
the times for payment of the installments.
  (e) Additional Pay.--Any amount paid under this section is in 
addition to any other pay and allowances to which an officer is 
entitled.
  (f) Repayment.--(1) If an officer who has entered into a 
written agreement under subsection (b) and has received all or 
part of the amount payable under the agreement fails to 
complete the total period of active duty specified in the 
agreement, the Secretary concerned may require the officer to 
repay the United States, to the extent that the Secretary 
determines conditions and circumstances warrant, any or all 
sums paid under this section.
  (2) An obligation to repay the United States imposed under 
paragraph (1) is for all purposes a debt owned to the United 
States.
  (3) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is entered 
less than five years after the termination of an agreement 
entered into under subsection (b) does not discharge the 
officer signing the agreement from a debt arising under such 
agreement or under paragraph (1).
  (g) Regulations.--The Secretary concerned shall prescribe 
regulations to carry out this section.

Sec. 322. Special pay: 15-year career status bonus for members entering 
                    service on or after August 1, 1986

  (a) Eligible Career Bonus Member Defined.--In this section, 
the term ``eligible career bonus member'' means a member of a 
uniformed service serving on active duty who--
          (1) first became a member on or after August 1, 1986; 
        and
          (2) has completed 15 years of active duty in the 
        uniformed services (or has received notification under 
        subsection (e) that the member is about to complete 
        that duty).
  (b) Availability of Bonus.--The Secretary concerned shall pay 
a bonus under this section to an eligible career bonus member 
if the member--
          (1) elects to receive the bonus under this section; 
        and
          (2) executes a written agreement (prescribed by the 
        Secretary concerned) to remain continuously on active 
        duty until the member has completed 20 years of active-
        duty service creditable under section 1405 of title 10, 
        if the member is not already obligated to remain on 
        active duty for a period that would result in at least 
        20 years of active-duty service.
  (c) Election Method.--The election under subsection (b)(1) 
shall be made in such form and within such period as the 
Secretary concerned may prescribe. An election under such 
subsection is irrevocable.
  (d) Amount of Bonus; Payment.--(1) A bonus under this section 
shall be paid in one lump sum of $30,000.
  (2) The bonus shall be paid to an eligible career bonus 
member not later than the first month that begins on or after 
the date that is 60 days after the date on which the Secretary 
concerned receives from the member the election required under 
subsection (b)(1) and the written agreement required under 
subsection (b)(2), if applicable.
  (e) Notification of Eligibility.--(1) The Secretary concerned 
shall transmit to each member who satisfies the definition of 
eligible career bonus member a written notification of the 
opportunity of the member to elect to receive a bonus under 
this section. The Secretary shall provide the notification not 
later than 180 days before the date on which the member will 
complete 15 years of active duty.
  (2) The notification shall include the following:
          (A) The procedures for electing to receive the bonus.
          (B) An explanation of the effects under sections 
        1401a, 1409, and 1410 of title 10 that such an election 
        has on the computation of any retired or retainer pay 
        that the member may become eligible to receive.
  (f) Repayment of Bonus.--(1) If a person paid a bonus under 
this section fails to complete the total period of active duty 
specified in subsection (b)(2), the person shall refund to the 
United States the amount that bears the same ratio to the 
amount of the bonus payment as the unserved part of that total 
period bears to the total period.
  (2) Subject to paragraph (3), an obligation to reimburse the 
United States imposed under paragraph (1) is for all purposes a 
debt owed to the United States.
  (3) The Secretary concerned may waive, in whole or in part, a 
refund required under paragraph (1) if the Secretary concerned 
determines that recovery would be against equity and good 
conscience or would be contrary to the best interests of the 
United States.
  (4) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is entered 
less than five years after the termination of an agreement 
under this section does not discharge the member signing such 
agreement from a debt arising under the agreement or this 
subsection.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                         CHAPTER 7--ALLOWANCES

Sec.
401.  Definitions.
     * * * * * * *
435.  Funeral honors duty: flat rate allowance.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 404. Travel and transportation allowances: general

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (i)(1) In the case of a member of a reserve component 
performing active duty for training or inactive-duty training 
who is not otherwise entitled to travel and transportation 
allowances in connection with such duty under subsection (a), 
the Secretary concerned may reimburse the member for housing 
service charge expenses incurred by the member in occupying 
transient government housing during the performance of such 
duty. If transient government housing is unavailable, the 
Secretary concerned may provide the member with lodging in kind 
in the same manner as members entitled to such allowances under 
subsection (a).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3) The Secretary may pay service charge expenses under 
paragraph (1) and expenses of providing lodging in kind under 
such paragraph out of funds appropriated for operation and 
maintenance for the reserve component concerned. Use of 
Government charge cards is authorized for payment of these 
expenses.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 404a. Travel and transportation allowances: temporary lodging 
                    expenses

  (a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretaries 
concerned, a member of a uniformed service who is ordered to 
make a change of permanent station--
          (1) from any duty station to a duty station in the 
        United States (other than Hawaii or Alaska); [or]
          (2) from a duty station in the United States (other 
        than Hawaii or Alaska) to a duty station outside the 
        United States or in Hawaii or Alaska; or
          (3) in the case of an enlisted member who is 
        reporting to the member's first permanent duty station, 
        from the member's home of record or initial technical 
        school to that first permanent duty station;
shall be paid or reimbursed for subsistence expenses actually 
incurred by the member and the member's dependents while 
occupying temporary quarters incident to that change of 
permanent station. In the case of a change of permanent station 
described in [clause (1)] paragraph (1) or (3), the period for 
which such expenses are to be paid or reimbursed may not exceed 
10 days. In the case of a change of permanent station described 
in [clause (2)] paragraph (2), the period for which such 
expenses are to be paid or reimbursed may not exceed five days 
and such payment or reimbursement may be provided only for 
expenses incurred before leaving the United States (other than 
Hawaii or Alaska).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 411d. Travel and transportation allowances: transportation 
                    incident to personal emergencies for certain 
                    members and dependents

  (a)  * * *
  (b)(1) In the case of a member stationed outside the 
continental United States and the dependents of such a member, 
transportation under this section may be provided from the 
location of the member or dependents, at the time notification 
of the personal emergency is received, or the member's 
permanent duty station (and if the member's dependents reside 
at another overseas location and receive a station allowance, 
from that location)--
          (A) to the international airport in the continental 
        United States closest to the location from which the 
        member and his dependents departed; [or]
          (B) to any airport in the continental United States 
        to which travel can be arranged at the same or a lower 
        cost as travel obtained under subparagraph (A); or
          [(B)] (C) to an airport in Alaska, Hawaii, the 
        Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the 
        United States, or any other location outside the 
        continental United States, as determined by the 
        Secretary concerned.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 435. Funeral honors duty: flat rate allowance

  (a) Allowance Authorized.--Under uniform regulations 
prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, a member of the Ready 
Reserve of an armed force may be paid an allowance of $50, at 
the discretion of the Secretary concerned, for funeral honors 
duty performed pursuant to section 12305 of title 10 or section 
115 of title 32, if the member is engaged in the performance of 
that duty for at least two hours.
  (b) Relation to Performance of Funeral Honors Duty.--The 
allowance under this section shall constitute the single, flat-
rate monetary allowance authorized for the performance of 
funeral honors duty pursuant to section 12503 of title 10 or 
section 115 of title 32 and shall constitute payment in full to 
the member, regardless of grade in which serving.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 9--LEAVE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 501. Payments for unused accrued leave

  (a) In this section, the term ``discharge'' means--
          (1) in the case of an enlisted member, separation or 
        release from active duty under honorable [conditions 
        or] conditions, appointment as an officer, or a 
        reenlistment of the member (regardless of when the 
        reenlistment occurs);

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (b)(1)  * * *
  (2) Payment may not be made under this subsection to a member 
who is discharged for the purpose of accepting an appointment 
or a warrant[, or entering into an enlistment,] in any 
uniformed service.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 19--ADMINISTRATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1002. Additional training or duty without pay: Reserves and 
                    members of National Guard

  (a)  * * *
  (b)(1) A member who performs training or other duty without 
pay under subsection (a) may, in the discretion of the 
Secretary concerned, be authorized the travel and 
transportation allowances prescribed by section 404 (a)-(d), 
and (f), of this title for travel performed to and from that 
training or duty, and, during the performance of that training 
or duty, be furnished with subsistence and quarters in kind or 
commutation thereof at a rate to be fixed by the Secretary 
concerned.
  (2) If a military technician (dual status), as described in 
section 10216 of title 10, is performing active duty without 
pay while on leave from technician employment, as authorized by 
section 6323(d) of title 5, the Secretary concerned may 
authorize the payment of a per diem allowance to the military 
technician in lieu of commutation for subsistence and quarters 
under paragraph (1).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1007. Deductions from pay

  (a)  * * *
  (b) An amount due the United States from an enlisted member 
of the Army or the Air Force for articles sold to him on credit 
under section 4621(a)(1) or 9621(a)(1) of title 10, as the case 
may be, shall be deducted from the next pay due him after the 
sale is reported. [An amount due the United States from an 
enlisted member of the Army or the Air Force for tobacco sold 
to him by the United States under section 4623 or 9623 of title 
10 shall be deducted from his pay in the manner provided for 
the settlement of clothing accounts.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1009. Adjustments of monthly basic pay

  (a) Adjustment Required.--(1) Whenever the General Schedule 
of compensation for Federal classified employees, as contained 
in section 5332 of title 5, is adjusted upward as provided in 
section 5303 of such title, the President shall immediately 
make an upward adjustment in the monthly basic pay authorized 
members of the uniformed services by section 203(a) of this 
title.
  (2) On and after April 30, 1999, the actual basic pay for 
commissioned officers in grades O-7 through O-10 may not exceed 
the rate of pay for level III of the Executive Schedule, and 
the actual basic pay for all other officers and enlisted 
members may not exceed the rate of pay for level V of the 
Executive Schedule.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(c) Equal Percentage Increase for All Members.--Subject to 
subsection (d), an adjustment under this section shall provide 
all eligible members with an increase in the monthly basic pay 
which is of the same percentage as the overall average 
percentage increase in the General Schedule rates of both basic 
pay and locality pay for civilian employees.]
  (c) Percentage Increase for All Members.--(1) Subject to 
subsection (d), an adjustment taking effect under this section 
during a fiscal year shall provide all eligible members with an 
increase in the monthly basic pay by the percentage equal to 
the sum of--
          (A) 0.5 percent; plus
          (B) the percentage calculated as provided under 
        section 5303(a) of title 5.
  (2) The calculation required by paragraph (1)(B) shall be 
made without regard to whether rates of pay under the statutory 
pay systems (as defined in section 5302 of title 5) are 
actually increased during that fiscal year under section 5303 
of such title by the percentage so calculated.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART III--EMPLOYEES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subpart D--Pay and Allowances

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 53--PAY RATES AND SYSTEMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBCHAPTER II--EXECUTIVE SCHEDULE PAY RATES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 5313. Positions at level II

  Level II of the Executive Schedule applies to the following 
positions, for which the annual rate of basic pay shall be the 
rate determined with respect to such level under chapter 11 of 
title 2, as adjusted by section 5318 of this title:
          Deputy Secretary of Defense.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
        Technology.]
          Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
        Technology, and Logistics

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 5314. Positions at level III

  Level III of the Executive Schedule applies to the following 
positions, for which the annual rate of basic pay shall be the 
rate determined with respect to such level under chapter 11 of 
title 2, as adjusted by section 5318 of this title:
          Solicitor General of the United States.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
        Technology.
          Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and 
        Material Readiness.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBCHAPTER VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 5373. Limitation on pay fixed by administrative action

  [Except as provided] (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) 
and by the Government Employees Salary Reform Act of 1964 (78 
Stat. 400) and notwithstanding the provisions of other 
statutes, the head of an Executive agency or military 
department who is authorized to fix by administrative action 
the annual rate of basic pay for a position or employee may not 
fix the rate at more than the rate for level IV of the 
Executive Schedule. This section does not impair the 
authorities provided by--
          (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (b) Subsection (a) shall not affect the authority of the 
Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of a military department 
to fix the pay of a civilian employee paid from nonappropriated 
funds, except that the annual rate of basic pay (including any 
portion of such pay attributable to comparability with private-
sector pay in a locality) of such an employee may not be fixed 
at a rate greater than the rate for level III of the Executive 
Schedule.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subpart E--Attendance and Leave

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 63--LEAVE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBCHAPTER I--ANNUAL AND SICK LEAVE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 6304. Annual leave; accumulation

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d)(1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (4)(A) For purposes of this subsection, the deployment of an 
emergency essential employee of the Department of Defense to a 
combat zone outside the United States shall be deemed an 
exigency of the public business, and any leave that is lost by 
an employee as a result of such deployment (regardless of 
whether such leave was scheduled) shall be--
          (i) restored to the employee; and
          (ii) credited and available in accordance with 
        paragraph (2).
  (B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term ``Department of 
Defense emergency essential employee''--
          (i) means a civilian employee of the Department of 
        Defense, including a nonappropriated fund 
        instrumentality employee (as defined by section 
        1587(a)(1) of title 10) whose assigned duties and 
        responsibilities would be necessary during a period 
        that follows the evacuation of nonessential personnel 
        during a declared emergency or the outbreak of combat 
        operations or war; and
          (ii) includes an employee who is hired on a temporary 
        or permanent basis.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                    SUBCHAPTER II--OTHER PAID LEAVE

Sec. 6323. Military leave; Reserves and National Guardsmen

  (a)(1) Subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, an 
employee as defined by section 2105 of this title or an 
individual employed by the government of the District of 
Columbia, permanent or temporary indefinite, is entitled to 
leave without loss in pay, time, or performance or efficiency 
rating for active duty, inactive-duty training (as defined in 
section 101 of title 37), or engaging in field or coast defense 
training under sections 502-505 of title 32 as a Reserve of the 
armed forces or member of the National Guard. Leave under this 
subsection accrues for an employee or individual at the rate of 
15 days per fiscal year and, to the extent that it is not used 
in a fiscal year, accumulates for use in the succeeding fiscal 
year until it totals 15 days at the beginning of a fiscal year.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d)(1) A military reserve technician described in section 
8401(30) is entitled at such person's request to leave without 
loss of, or reduction in, pay, leave to which such person is 
otherwise entitled, credit for time or service, or performance 
or efficiency rating for each day, not to exceed 44 workdays in 
a calendar year, in which such person is on active duty without 
pay, as authorized pursuant to section 12315 of title 10, under 
section 12301(b) or 12301(d) of title 10 (other than active 
duty during a war or national emergency declared by the 
President or Congress) for participation in [noncombat] 
operations outside the United States, its territories and 
possessions.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subpart G--Insurance and Annuities

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 83--RETIREMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                SUBCHAPTER III--CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT

Sec. 8334. Deductions, contributions, and deposits

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Each employee or Member credited with civilian service 
after July 31, 1920, for which retirement deductions or 
deposits have not been made, may deposit with interest an 
amount equal to the following percentages of his basic pay 
received for that service:


                                         Percentage of basic pay
                                                                                   Service period

Employee...............................  2\1/2\...................  August 1, 1920, to June 30, 1926.
                                         3\1/2\...................  July 1, 1926, to June 30, 1942.
                                         5........................  July 1, 1942, to June 30, 1948.
                                         6........................  July 1, 1948, to October 31, 1956.
                                         6\1/2\...................  November 1, 1956, to December 31, 1969.
                                   *      *      *      *      *      *      *
Nuclear materials courier..............  7........................  October 1, 1977 [to the day before the date
                                                                     of the enactment of the Strom Thurmond
                                                                     National Defense Authorization Act for
                                                                     Fiscal Year 1999] to October 16, 1998.
                                         7.5......................  [The date of the enactment of the Strom
                                                                     Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act
                                                                     for Fiscal Year 1999] October 17, 1998 to
                                                                     December 31, 1998.
                                         7.75.....................  January 1, 1999 to December 31, 1999.
                                         7.9......................  January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000.
                                         8........................  January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2002.
                                         7.5......................  After December 31, 2002.


Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this subsection and 
any provision of section 206(b)(3) of the Federal Employees' 
Retirement Contribution Temporary Adjustment Act of 1983, the 
percentage of basic pay required under this subsection in the 
case of an individual described in section 8402(b)(2) shall, 
with respect to any covered service (as defined by section 
203(a)(3) of such Act) performed by such individual after 
December 31, 1983, and before January 1, 1987, be equal to 1.3 
percent, and, with respect to any such service performed after 
December 31, 1986, be equal to the amount that would have been 
deducted from the employee's basic pay under subsection (k) of 
this section if the employee's pay had been subject to that 
subsection during such period.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 8337. Disability retirement

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (h)(1) As used in this subsection, the term ``technician'' 
means an individual employed under section 709(a) of title 32 
or section 10216 of title 10, who, as a condition of the 
employment, is required under section 709(b) of [such title to 
be a member of the National Guard and to hold a specified 
military grade.] title 32 or section 10216 of title 10, 
respectively, to be a member of the Selected Reserve.
  (2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B) of this 
paragraph, an individual shall be retired under this section if 
the individual--
          (i) is separated from employment as a technician 
        under section 709(e)(1) of title 32 or section 10216 of 
        title 10 by reason of a disability that disqualifies 
        the individual from membership in the [National Guard 
        or from holding the military grade required for such 
        employment] Selected Reserve;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3) Any individual applying for or receiving any annuity 
pursuant to this subsection shall, in accordance with 
regulations prescribed by the Office, be considered by any 
agency of the Government before any vacant position in the 
agency is filled if--
          (A)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (C) the position is at the same grade or equivalent 
        level as the position from which the individual was 
        separated under section 709(e)(1) of title 32 or 
        section 10216 of title 10.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 84--FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBCHAPTER II--BASIC ANNUITY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 8414. Early retirement

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(c) A military reserve technician who is separated from 
technician service, after becoming 50 years of age and 
completing 25 years of service, by reason of ceasing to satisfy 
the condition described in section 8401(30)(B) is entitled to 
an annuity.]
  (c) Permanent Limitations on Number.--(1) Effective October 
1, 2007, the total number of non-dual status technicians 
employed by the Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve may not 
exceed 175. If at any time after the preceding sentence takes 
effect the number of non-dual status technicians employed by 
the Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve exceeds the number 
specified in the limitation in the preceding sentence, the 
Secretary of Defense shall require that the Secretary of the 
Army or the Secretary of the Air Force, or both, take immediate 
steps to reduce the number of such technicians in order to 
comply with such limitation.
  (2) Effective October 1, 2001, the total number of non-dual 
status technicians employed by the National Guard may not 
exceed 1,950. If at any time after the preceding sentence takes 
effect the number of non-dual status technicians employed by 
the National Guard exceeds the number specified in the 
limitation in the preceding sentence, the Secretary of Defense 
shall require that the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary 
of the Air Force, or both, take immediate steps to reduce the 
number of such technicians in order to comply with such 
limitation.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 8422. Deductions from pay; contributions for military service

  (a)(1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3) The applicable percentage under this paragraph for 
civilian service shall be as follows:

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      

Employee................................  7......................  January 1, 1987, to December 31, 1998.
                                          7.25...................  January 1, 1999, to December 31, 1999.
                                          7.4....................  January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2000.
                                          7.5....................  January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2002.
                                          7......................  After December 31, 2002.
Nuclear materials courier...............  7......................  January 1, 1987 [to the day before the date
                                                                    of the enactment of the Strom Thurmond
                                                                    National Defense Authorization Act for
                                                                    Fiscal Year 1999.] to October 16, 1998
                                          7.5....................  [The date of the enactment of the Strom
                                                                    Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act
                                                                    for Fiscal Year 1999] October 17, 1998 to
                                                                    December 31, 1998.]
                                          7.75...................  January 1, 1999 to December 31, 1999.
                                          7.9....................  January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000.
                                          8......................  January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001.
                                          7.5....................  After December 31, 2002.


                                                                   

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                              ----------                              


TITLE 32, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                        CHAPTER 1--ORGANIZATION

Sec.
101.  Definitions.
     * * * * * * *
[114.  Honor guard functions at funerals for veterans.]
114.  Funeral honors functions at funerals for veterans.
115.  Funeral honors duty performed as a Federal function.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 113. Federal financial assistance for support of additional duties 
                    assigned to the Army National Guard

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Covered Activities.--(1)  * * *
  (2) Paragraph (1)(B) does not apply to an activity that, on 
[the date of the enactment of this subsection] October 17, 
1998, was performed for the Federal Government by employees of 
the Federal Government or employees of a State.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[Sec. 114. Honor guard functions at funerals for veterans]

Sec. 114. Funeral honors functions at funerals for veterans

  Subject to such regulations and restrictions as may be 
prescribed by the Secretary concerned, the performance of 
[honor guard] funeral honors functions by members of the 
National Guard at funerals for veterans of the armed forces may 
be treated by the Secretary concerned as a Federal function for 
which appropriated funds may be used. Any such performance of 
[honor guard] funeral honors functions at such a funeral may 
not be considered to be a period of drill or training 
[otherwise required], but may be performed as funeral honors 
duty as prescribed in section 115 of this title.

Sec. 115. Funeral honors duty performed as a Federal function

  (a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, 
a member of the Army National Guard of the United States or the 
Air National Guard of the United States may be ordered to 
funeral honors duty, with the consent of the member, to prepare 
for or perform funeral honors functions at the funeral of a 
veteran (as defined in section 1491 of title 10).
  (b) A member ordered to funeral honors duty under this 
section shall be required to perform a minimum of two hours of 
such duty in order to receive service credit under section 
1273(a)(2)(E) of title 10 and compensation under section 435 of 
title 37 if authorized by the Secretary concerned.
  (c) Funeral honors duty (and travel directly to and from that 
duty) under this section shall be treated as the equivalent of 
inactive-duty training (and travel directly to and from that 
training) for the purposes of this section and the provisions 
of title 10, title 37, and title 38, including provisions 
relating to the determination of eligibility for and the 
receipt of benefits and entitlements provided under those 
titles for Reserves performing inactive-duty training and for 
their dependents and survivors, except that a member is not 
entitled by reason of performance of funeral honors duty to any 
allowances, or other compensation provided for in title 37 
other than that provided in section 435 of that title and in 
subsection (d).
  (d) A member who performs funeral honors duty under this 
section is entitled to reimbursement for travel and 
transportation expenses incurred in conjunction with such duty 
as authorized under chapter 7 of title 37, if such duty is 
performed at a location 50 miles or more from the member's 
residence.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 5--TRAINING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 509. National Guard Challenge Program of opportunities for 
                    civilian youth

  [(a) Program Authority and Purpose.--The Secretary of 
Defense, acting through the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, 
may conduct a National Guard civilian youth opportunities 
program (to be known as the ``National Guard Challenge 
Program'') to use the National Guard to provide military-based 
training, including supervised work experience in community 
service and conservation projects, to civilian youth who cease 
to attend secondary school before graduating so as to improve 
the life skills and employment potential of such youth.]
  (a) Program Authority and Purpose.--The Secretary of Defense, 
acting through the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, may use 
the National Guard to conduct a civilian youth opportunities 
program, to be known as the ``National Guard Challenge 
Program'', which shall consist of at least a 22-week 
residential program and a 12-month post-residential mentoring 
period. The National Guard Challenge Program shall seek to 
improve life skills and employment potential of participants by 
providing military-based training and supervised work 
experience, together with the core program components of 
assisting participants to receive a high school diploma or its 
equivalent, leadership development, promoting fellowship and 
community service, developing life coping skills and job 
skills, and improving physical fitness and health and hygiene.
  (b) Conduct of the Program.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
provide for the conduct of the National Guard Challenge Program 
in such States as the Secretary considers to be appropriate, 
except that Federal expenditures under the program may not 
exceed [$50,000,000] $62,500,000 for any fiscal year.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 7--SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[Sec. 709. Technicians: employment, use, status

  [(a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the 
Army or the Secretary of the Air Force, as the case may be, and 
subject to subsection (b) of this section persons may be 
employed as technicians in--
          [(1) the administration and training of the National 
        Guard; and
          [(2) the maintenance and repair of supplies issued to 
        the National Guard or the armed forces.
  [(b) A technician employed under subsection (a) shall, while 
so employed--
          [(1) be a member of the National Guard;
          [(2) hold the military grade specified by the 
        Secretary concerned for that position; and
          [(3) wear the uniform appropriate for the member's 
        grade and component of the armed forces while 
        performing duties as a technician.
  [(c) The Secretary concerned shall designate the adjutants 
general referred to in section 314 of this title, to employ and 
administer the technicians authorized by this section.
  [(d) A technician employed under subsection (a) is an 
employee of the Department of the Army or the Department of the 
Air Force, as the case may be, and an employee of the United 
States. However, a position authorized by this section is 
outside the competitive service if the technician employed 
therein is required under subsection (b) to be a member of the 
National Guard.
  [(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and under 
regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned--
          [(1) a technician who is employed in a position in 
        which National Guard membership is required as a 
        condition of employment and who is separated from the 
        National Guard or ceases to hold the military grade 
        specified for his position by the Secretary concerned 
        shall be promptly separated from his technician 
        employment by the adjutant general of the jurisdiction 
        concerned;
          [(2) a technician who is employed in a position in 
        which National Guard membership is required as a 
        condition of employment and who fails to meet the 
        military security standards established by the 
        Secretary concerned for a member of a reserve component 
        of the armed force under his jurisdiction may be 
        separated from his employment as a technician and 
        concurrently discharged from the National Guard by the 
        adjutant general of the jurisdiction concerned;
          [(3) a technician may, at any time, be separated from 
        his technician employment for cause by the adjutant 
        general of the jurisdiction concerned;
          [(4) a reduction in force, removal, or an adverse 
        action involving discharge from technician employment, 
        suspension, furlough without pay, or reduction in rank 
        or compensation shall be accomplished by the adjutant 
        general of the jurisdiction concerned;
          [(5) a right of appeal which may exist with respect 
        to clause (1), (2), (3), or (4) shall not extend beyond 
        the adjutant general of the jurisdiction concerned; and
          [(6) a technician shall be notified in writing of the 
        termination of his employment as a technician and, 
        unless the technician is serving under a temporary 
        appointment, is serving in a trial or probationary 
        period, or has voluntarily ceased to be a member of the 
        National Guard when such membership is a condition of 
        employment, such notification shall be given at least 
        30 days before the termination date of such employment.
  [(f) Sections 2108, 3502, 7511, and 7512 of title 5 do not 
apply to any person employed under this section.
  [(g)(1) Notwithstanding sections 5544(a) and 6101(a) of title 
5 or any other provision of law, the Secretary concerned may, 
in the case of technicians assigned to perform operational 
duties at air defense sites--
          [(A) prescribe the hours of duties;
          [(B) fix the rates of basic compensation; and
          [(C) fix the rates of additional compensation;
to reflect unusual tours of duty, irregular additional duty, 
and work on days that are ordinarily nonworkdays. Additional 
compensation under this subsection may be fixed on an annual 
basis and is determined as an appropriate percentage, not in 
excess of 12 percent, of such part of the rate of basic pay for 
the position as does not exceed the minimum rate of basic pay 
for GS-10 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 
5.
  [(2) Notwithstanding sections 5544(a) and 6101(a) of title 5 
or any other provision of law, the Secretary concerned may, for 
technicians other than those described in paragraph (1), 
prescribe the hours of duty for technicians. Notwithstanding 
sections 5542 and 5543 of title 5 or any other provision of 
law, such technicians shall be granted an amount of 
compensatory time off from their scheduled tour of duty equal 
to the amount of any time spent by them in irregular or 
overtime work, and shall not be entitled to compensation for 
such work.
  [(i) The Secretary concerned may not prescribe for purposes 
of eligibility for Federal recognition under section 301 of 
this title a qualification applicable to technicians employed 
under subsection (a) that is not applicable pursuant to that 
section to the other members of the National Guard in the same 
grade, branch, position, and type of unit or organization 
involved.]

Sec. 709. Technicians: employment, use, status

  (a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army 
or the Secretary of the Air Force, as the case may be, and 
subject to subsections (b) and (c), persons may be employed as 
technicians in--
          (1) the administration and training of the National 
        Guard; and
          (2) the maintenance and repair of supplies issued to 
        the National Guard or the armed forces.
  (b) Except as authorized in subsection (c), a person employed 
under subsection (a) must meet each of the following 
requirements:
          (1) Be a military technician (dual status) as defined 
        in section 10216(a) of title 10.
          (2) Be a member of the National Guard.
          (3) Hold the military grade specified by the 
        Secretary concerned for that position.
          (4) While performing duties as a military technician 
        (dual status), wear the uniform appropriate for the 
        member's grade and component of the armed forces .
  (c)(1) A person may be employed under subsection (a) as a 
non-dual status technician (as defined by section 10217 of 
title 10) if the technician position occupied by the person has 
been designated by the Secretary concerned to be filled only by 
a non-dual status technician.
  (2) The total number of non-dual status technicians in the 
National Guard is specified in section 10217(c)(2) of title 10.
  (d) The Secretary concerned shall designate the adjutants 
general referred to in section 314 of this title to employ and 
administer the technicians authorized by this section.
  (e) A technician employed under subsection (a) is an employee 
of the Department of the Army or the Department of the Air 
Force, as the case may be, and an employee of the United 
States. However, a position authorized by this section is 
outside the competitive service if the technician employed in 
that position is required under subsection (b) to be a member 
of the National Guard.
  (f) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and under 
regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned--
          (1) a person employed under subsection (a) who is a 
        military technician (dual status) and otherwise subject 
        to the requirements of subsection (b) who--
                  (A) is separated from the National Guard or 
                ceases to hold the military grade specified by 
                the Secretary concerned for that position shall 
                be promptly separated from military technician 
                (dual status) employment by the adjutant 
                general of the jurisdiction concerned; and
                  (B) fails to meet the military security 
                standards established by the Secretary 
                concerned for a member of a reserve component 
                under his jurisdiction may be separated from 
                employment as a military technician (dual 
                status) and concurrently discharged from the 
                National Guard by the adjutant general of the 
                jurisdiction concerned;
          (2) a technician may, at any time, be separated from 
        his technician employment for cause by the adjutant 
        general of the jurisdiction concerned;
          (3) a reduction in force, removal, or an adverse 
        action involving discharge from technician employment, 
        suspension, furlough without pay, or reduction in rank 
        or compensation shall be accomplished by the adjutant 
        general of the jurisdiction concerned;
          (4) a right of appeal which may exist with respect to 
        paragraph (1), (2), or (3) shall not extend beyond the 
        adjutant general of the jurisdiction concerned; and
          (5) a technician shall be notified in writing of the 
        termination of his employment as a technician and, 
        unless the technician is serving under a temporary 
        appointment, is serving in a trial or probationary 
        period, or has voluntarily ceased to be a member of the 
        National Guard when such membership is a condition of 
        employment, such notification shall be given at least 
        30 days before the termination date of such employment.
  (g) Sections 2108, 3502, 7511, and 7512 of title 5 do not 
apply to a person employed under this section.
  (h) Notwithstanding sections 5544(a) and 6101(a) of title 5 
or any other provision of law, the Secretary concerned may 
prescribe the hours of duty for technicians. Notwithstanding 
sections 5542 and 5543 of title 5 or any other provision of 
law, such technicians shall be granted an amount of 
compensatory time off from their scheduled tour of duty equal 
to the amount of any time spent by them in irregular or 
overtime work, and shall not be entitled to compensation for 
such work.
  (i) The Secretary concerned may not prescribe for purposes of 
eligibility for Federal recognition under section 301 of this 
title a qualification applicable to technicians employed under 
subsection (a) that is not applicable pursuant to that section 
to the other members of the National Guard in the same grade, 
branch, position, and type of unit or organization involved.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS 1992 AND 1993

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Part B--Reserve Forces

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 414. [PILOT] PROGRAM FOR ACTIVE COMPONENT SUPPORT OF THE RESERVES.

  (a) [Pilot] Program Required.--The Secretary of the Army 
shall carry out a [pilot] program to provide active component 
advisers to combat units, combat support units, and combat 
service support units in the Selected Reserve of the Ready 
Reserve that have a high priority for deployment on a time-
phased troop deployment list or have another contingent high 
priority for deployment. The advisers shall be assigned to 
full-time duty in connection with organizing, administering, 
recruiting, instructing, or training such units.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Personnel To Be Assigned.--(1) The Secretary shall assign 
not less than [2,000] 5,000 active component personnel to serve 
as advisers under the program. [After September 30, 1996, the 
number under the preceding sentence shall be increased to not 
less than 5,000.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                       Part B--Service Academies

[SEC. 511. LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF CADETS AND MIDSHIPMEN AUTHORIZED 
                    TO ATTEND THE SERVICE ACADEMIES.

  [(a) Reduction in Authorized Strengths.--The authorized 
strength of the Corps of Cadets of the United States Military 
Academy, the Air Force Cadets of the United States Air Force 
Academy, and the brigade of midshipmen of the United States 
Naval Academy may not exceed 4,000 for each service academy for 
class years beginning after 1994.
  [(b) Class Reductions Not To Affect Certain Appointments.--
Any reduction in the number of appointments to the class of a 
service academy required as a result of subsection (a) may not 
be achieved by reducing the number of appointments under 
section 4342(a), 6954(a), or 9342(a) of title 10, United States 
Code, as applicable.
  [(c) GAO Report.--(1) The Comptroller General of the United 
States shall determine for each of the Army, Navy, Air Force, 
and Marine Corps the percentage for each benchmark year of the 
commissioned officers receiving an original appointment during 
that year who were graduates of a service academy. The 
Comptroller General shall also determine the average of those 
annual percentages for each of those Armed Forces.
  [(2) The Comptroller General shall select the benchmark years 
(including the number of years to be used as benchmark years) 
for purposes of paragraph (1). The Comptroller General may 
select different benchmark years for each of the Army, Navy, 
Air Force, and Marine Corps. Each year selected as a benchmark 
year shall be one for which the active duty strength of the 
Armed Force concerned was approximately the authorized end 
strength established by law for that Armed Force for members on 
active duty for fiscal year 1995.
  [(3) Not later than February 15, 1992, the Comptroller 
General shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and House of Representatives a report describing the 
results of the determinations of the Comptroller General under 
paragraph (1).
  [(d) Service Academy Defined.--For purposes of this section, 
the term ``service academy'' means the United States Military 
Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, or the United 
States Naval Academy.
  [(e) Conforming Amendment.--Section 531 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (104 Stat. 1563; 
10 U.S.C. 4342 note) is repealed.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


            DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

     * * * * * * *

                    TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

     * * * * * * *

                       Subtitle D--Other Matters

731. Chiropractic health care demonstration program.
731. Chiropractic health care.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle E--Other Matters

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[SEC. 558. MILITARY RECRUITING ON CAMPUS.

  [(a) Denial of Funds.--(1) No funds available to the 
Department of Defense or the Department of Transportation may 
be provided by grant or contract to any institution of higher 
education that has a policy of denying, or which effectively 
prevents, the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of 
Transportation from obtaining for military recruiting 
purposes--
          [(A) entry to campuses or access to students on 
        campuses; or
          [(B) access to directory information pertaining to 
        students.
  [(2) Students referred to in paragraph (1) are individuals 
who are 17 years of age or older.
  [(b) Procedures for Determination.--The Secretary of Defense, 
in consultation with the Secretary of Education and the 
Secretary of Transportation, shall prescribe regulations that 
contain procedures for determining if and when an educational 
institution has denied or prevented access to students or 
information described in subsection (a).
  [(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
``directory information'' means, with respect to a student, the 
student's name, address, telephone listing, date and place of 
birth, level of education, degrees received, and the most 
recent previous educational institution enrolled in by the 
student.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                       Subtitle D--Other Matters

SEC. 731. CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE [DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM].

  (a) Requirement for Program.--(1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (4) During fiscal year 2000, the Secretary shall continue to 
furnish the same chiropractic care in the military medical 
treatment facilities designated pursuant to paragraph (2)(A) as 
the chiropractic care furnished during the demonstration 
program.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Reporting Requirements.--(1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3) Not later than January 30, 1998, the Secretary of Defense 
shall submit to the [Committee on Armed Services of the Senate 
and the Committee on National Security of the House of 
Representatives] Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives a report that identifies the 
additional treatment facilities designated to furnish 
chiropractic care under the program that were not so designated 
before the report required by paragraph (1) was prepared, 
together with the plan for the conduct of the program at the 
additional treatment facilities.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (5) Not later than [May 1, 2000] January 31, 2000, the 
Secretary shall submit to the committees referred to in 
paragraph (3) a final report in accordance with the plan 
submitted pursuant to paragraph (2).
  (d) Oversight Advisory Committee.--(1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3) The oversight advisory committee shall assist the 
Secretary of Defense regarding--
          (A)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (C) the preparation of the reports required under 
        subsection (c); [and]
          (D) the evaluation of the program[.]; and
          (E) if the Secretary submits an implementation plan 
        pursuant to subsection (e), the preparation of such 
        plan.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (5) The Secretary shall--
          (A) make full use of the oversight advisory committee 
        in preparing--
                  (i) the final report on the demonstration 
                program conducted under this section; and
                  (ii) the implementation plan described in 
                subsection (e); and
          (B) provide opportunities for members of the 
        committee to provide views as part of such final report 
        and plan.
  (e) Implementation Plan.--If the Secretary of Defense 
recommends in the final report submitted under subsection (c) 
that chiropractic health care services should be offered in 
medical care facilities of the Armed Forces or as a health care 
service covered under the TRICARE program, the Secretary shall, 
not later than March 31, 2000, submit to the Committees on 
Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
an implementation plan for the full integration of chiropractic 
health care services into the military health care system of 
the Department of Defense, including the TRICARE program. Such 
implementation plan shall include--
          (1) a detailed analysis of the projected costs of 
        fully integrating chiropractic health care services 
        into the military health care system;
          (2) the proposed scope of practice for chiropractors 
        who would provide services to covered beneficiaries 
        under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code;
          (3) the proposed military medical treatment 
        facilities at which such services would be provided;
          (4) the military readiness requirements for 
        chiropractors who would provide services to such 
        covered beneficiaries; and
          (5) any other relevant factors that the Secretary 
        considers appropriate.
  [(e)] (f) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
base closure law'' means each of the following:
          (1) The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 
        1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 
        U.S.C. 2687 note).
          (2) Title II of the Defense Authorization Amendments 
        and Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 100-
        526; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).
          (3) Section 2687 of title 10, United States Code.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


SECTION 514 OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND 
        EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

    [Sec. 514. (a) Denial of Funds for Preventing ROTC Access 
to Campus.--None of the funds made available in this or any 
other Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for any 
fiscal year may be provided by contract or by grant (including 
a grant of funds to be available for student aid) to a covered 
educational entity if the Secretary of Defense determines that 
the covered educational entity has a policy or practice 
(regardless of when implemented) that either prohibits, or in 
effect prevents--
          [(1) the maintaining, establishing, or operation of a 
        unit of the Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps (in 
        accordance with section 654 of title 10, United States 
        Code, and other applicable Federal laws) at the covered 
        educational entity; or
          [(2) a student at the covered educational entity from 
        enrolling in a unit of the Senior Reserve Officer 
        Training Corps at another institution of higher 
        education.
    [(b) Denial of Funds for Preventing Federal Military 
Recruiting on Campus.--None of the funds made available in this 
or any other Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, 
and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for any 
fiscal year may be provided by contract or by grant (including 
a grant of funds to be available for student aid) to a covered 
educational entity if the Secretary of Defense determines that 
the covered educational entity has a policy or practice 
(regardless of when implemented) that either prohibits, or in 
effect prevents--
          [(1) entry to campuses, or access to students (who 
        are 17 years of age or older) on campuses, for purposes 
        of Federal military recruiting; or
          [(2) access by military recruiters for purposes of 
        Federal military recruiting to the following 
        information pertaining to students (who are 17 years of 
        age or older) enrolled at the covered educational 
        entity:
                  [(A) student names, addresses, and telephone 
                listings; and
                  [(B) if known, student ages, levels of 
                education, and majors.
    [(c) Exceptions.--The limitation established in subsection 
(a) or (b) shall not apply to a covered educational entity if 
the Secretary of Defense determines that--
          [(1) the covered educational entity has ceased the 
        policy or practice described in such subsection;
          [(2) the institution of higher education involved has 
        a longstanding policy of pacifism based on historical 
        religious affiliation; or
          [(3) the institution of higher education involved is 
        prohibited by the law of any State, or by the order of 
        any State court, from allowing Senior Reserve Officer 
        Training Corps activities or Federal military 
        recruiting on campus, except that this paragraph shall 
        apply only during the one-year period beginning on the 
        effective date of this section.
    [(d) Notice of Determinations.--Whenever the Secretary of 
Defense makes a determination under subsection (a), (b), or 
(c), the Secretary--
          [(1) shall transmit a notice of the determination to 
        the Secretary of Education and to the Congress; and
          [(2) shall publish in the Federal Register a notice 
        of the determination and the effect of the 
        determination on the eligibility of the covered 
        educational entity for contracts and grants.
    [(e) Semiannual Notice in Federal Register.--The Secretary 
of Defense shall publish in the Federal Register once every 6 
months a list of each covered educational entity that is 
currently ineligible for contracts and grants by reason of a 
determination of the Secretary under subsection (a) or (b).
    [(f) Covered Educational Entity.--For purposes of this 
section, the term ``covered educational entity'' means an 
institution of higher education, or a subelement of an 
institution of higher education.
    [(g) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect upon 
the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on the date of 
the enactment of this Act, by which date the Secretary of 
Defense shall have published final regulations in consultation 
with the Secretary of Education to carry out this section.]
                              ----------                              


              SECTION 213 OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT


           presentation of united states flag upon retirement


  Sec. 213. (a) Upon the release of an officer of the 
commissioned corps of the Service from active commissioned 
service for retirement, the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services shall present a United States flag to the officer.
  (b) Multiple Presentations Not Authorized.--An officer is not 
eligible for presentation of a flag under subsection (a) if the 
officer has previously been presented a flag under this section 
or any other provision of law providing for the presentation of 
a United States flag incident to release from active service 
for retirement.
  (c) No Cost to Recipient.--The presentation of a flag under 
this section shall be at no cost to the recipient.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


SECTION 25 OF THE COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY COMMISSIONED OFFICERS' ACT 
                                OF 1948

  Sec. 25. (a) Upon the release of a commissioned officer from 
active commissioned service for retirement, the Secretary of 
Commerce shall present a United States flag to the officer.
  (b) Multiple Presentations Not Authorized.--An officer is not 
eligible for presentation of a flag under subsection (a) if the 
officer has previously been presented a flag under this section 
or any other provision of law providing for the presentation of 
a United States flag incident to release from active service 
for retirement.
  (c) No Cost to Recipient.--The presentation of a flag under 
this section shall be at no cost to the recipient.
                              ----------                              


              SECTION 516 OF TITLE 14, UNITED STATES CODE

Sec. 516. Presentation of United States flag upon retirement

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Multiple Presentations Not Authorized.--A member is not 
eligible for a presentation of a flag under subsection (a) if 
the member has previously been presented a flag [under this 
section or section 3681, 6141, and 8681 of title 10.] under 
this section or any other provision of law providing for the 
presentation of a United States flag incident to release from 
active service for retirement.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


             SECTION 17 OF THE CHILD NUTRITION ACT OF 1966

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN

  Sec. 17. (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (q) The Secretary of Agriculture shall provide technical 
assistance to the Secretary of Defense, if so requested by the 
Secretary of Defense, for the purpose of carrying out the 
overseas special supplemental food program established under 
section 1060a(a) of title 10, United States Code.
                              ----------                              


             SECTION 4202 OF THE CLINGER-COHEN ACT OF 1996

SEC. 4202. APPLICATION OF SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURES TO CERTAIN COMMERCIAL 
                    ITEMS.

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Effective Date.--The authority to issue solicitations for 
purchases of commercial items in excess of the simplified 
acquisition threshold pursuant to the special simplified 
procedures authorized by section 2304(g)(1) of title 10, United 
States Code, section 303(g)(1) of the Federal Property and 
Administrative Services Act of 1949, and section 31(a) of the 
Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, as amended by this 
section, shall expire [three years after the date on which such 
amendments take effect pursuant to section 4401(b)] January 1, 
2002. Contracts may be awarded pursuant to solicitations that 
have been issued.
                              ----------                              


SECTION 834 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS 
                             1990 AND 1991

SEC. 834. TEST PROGRAM FOR NEGOTIATION OF COMPREHENSIVE SMALL BUSINESS 
                    SUBCONTRACTING PLANS

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Test Program Period.--The test program authorized by 
subsection (a) shall begin on October 1, 1990, unless Congress 
adopts a resolution disapproving the test program. The test 
program shall terminate on September 30, [2000.] 2003.
                              ----------                              


 SECTION 845 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                                  1994

SEC. 845. AUTHORITY OF THE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY TO CARRY 
                    OUT CERTAIN PROTOTYPE PROJECTS.

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Exercise of Authority.--(1) Subsections [(e)(2) and 
(e)(3) of such section 2371] (e)(1)(B) and (e)(2) of such 
section 2371 shall not apply to projects carried out under 
subsection (a).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


  SECTION 1505 OF THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION CONTROL ACT OF 1992

SEC. 1505. INTERNATIONAL NONPROLIFERATION INITIATIVE.

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Termination of Authority.--The authority of the Secretary 
of Defense to provide assistance under this section terminates 
at the close of fiscal year [1999] 2000.
                              ----------                              


MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                      TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES

SEC. 2401. AUTHORIZED DEFENSE AGENCIES CONSTRUCTION AND LAND 
                    ACQUISITION PROJECTS.

  (a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated 
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 
2406(a)(1), and, in the case of the projects described in 
paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 2406(b), other amounts 
appropriated pursuant to authorizations enacted after this Act 
for the projects, the Secretary of Defense may acquire real 
property and carry out military construction projects for the 
installations and locations inside the United States, and in 
the amounts, set forth in the following table:

               Defense Agencies: Inside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Installation or
            Agency                     location              Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Demilitarization       Pueblo Chemical           [$179,000,000]
 Program......................   Activity, Colorado...      $203,500,000
Defense Finance & Accounting    Charleston, South             $6,200,000
 Service......................   Carolina.............
                                                       -----------------
                                  Total:..............    [$525,454,000]
                                                            $549,954,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                        

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SEC. 2406. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, DEFENSE AGENCIES.

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Limitation on Total Cost of Construction Projects.--
Notwithstanding the cost variation authorized by section 2853 
of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost variations 
authorized by law, the total cost of all projects carried out 
under section 2401 of this Act may not exceed--
          (1)  * * *
          (2) [$179,000,000] $203,500,000 (the balance of the 
        amount authorized under section 2401(a) of this Act for 
        the construction of a chemical demilitarization 
        facility at Pueblo Army Depot, Colorado); and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


  SECTION 2906 OF THE DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT ACT OF 1990

SEC. 2906. ACCOUNT

  (a) In General.--(1)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (3) The Account shall be closed at the time and in the manner 
provided for appropriation accounts under section 1555 of title 
31, United States Code. Unobligated funds which remain in the 
Account upon closure shall be held by the Secretary of the 
Treasury until transferred by law after the congressional 
defense committees receive the final report transmitted under 
subsection (c)(2).
  (b) Use of Funds.--(1) The Secretary may use the funds in the 
Account only for the purposes described in section 2905 or, 
after September 30, 1995, for environmental restoration and 
property management and disposal at installations closed or 
realigned under title II of the Defense Authorization 
Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 
100-526; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note). After July 13, 2001, the Account 
shall be the sole source of Federal funds for environmental 
restoration, property management, and other caretaker costs 
associated with any real property at military installations 
closed or realigned under this part or such title II.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Reports.--(1)(A)  * * *
  [(2) Unobligated funds which remain in the Account after the 
termination of the authority of the Secretary to carry out a 
closure or realignment under this part shall be held in the 
Account until transferred by law after the congressional 
defense committees receive the report transmitted under 
paragraph (3).]
  [(3)] (2) No later than 60 days after the termination of the 
authority of the Secretary to carry out a closure or 
realignment under this part and no later than 60 days after the 
closure of the Account under subsection (a)(3), the Secretary 
shall transmit to the congressional defense committees a report 
containing an accounting of--
          (A)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Account Exclusive Source of Funds for Environmental 
Restoration Projects.--Except for funds deposited into the 
Account under subsection (a), funds appropriated to the 
Department of Defense may not be used for purposes described in 
section 2905(a)(1)(C). The prohibition in this subsection shall 
expire upon [the termination of the authority of the Secretary 
to carry out a closure or realignment under this part] the 
closure of the Account under subsection (a)(3).
                              ----------                              


SECTION 2922 OF THE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL 
                               YEAR 1996

SEC. 2922. CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AT ARSENAL FOR A COUNTY 
                    LANDFILL.

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Condition on Conveyance.--(1) The conveyance shall be 
subject to the condition that the Department of the Army, the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Department of 
Agriculture (or their agents or assigns) may use the landfill 
established on the real property conveyed under subsection (a) 
for the disposal of construction debris, refuse, and other 
materials related to any restoration and cleanup of Arsenal 
property. Such use shall be subject to applicable environmental 
laws and at no cost to the Federal Government.
  (2) The landfill established on the real property conveyed 
under subsection (a) may contain only waste generated in the 
county in which the landfill is established and waste generated 
in municipalities located at least in part in that county. The 
landfill shall be closed and capped after 23 years of 
operation.
                              ----------                              


MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                      TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES

SEC. 2401. AUTHORIZED DEFENSE AGENCIES CONSTRUCTION AND LAND 
                    ACQUISITION PROJECTS.

  (a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated 
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 
2406(a)(1), and, in the case of the projects described in 
paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 2406(b), other amounts 
appropriated pursuant to authorizations enacted after this Act 
for the projects, the Secretary of Defense may acquire real 
property and carry out military construction projects for the 
installations and locations inside the United States, and in 
the amounts, set forth in the following table:


               Defense Agencies: Inside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Installation or
            Agency                     location              Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Demilitarization       Pueblo Chemical           [$179,000,000]
 Program......................   Activity, Colorado...      $203,500,000
Defense Finance & Accounting    Charleston, South             $6,200,000
 Service......................   Carolina.............

                 *      *      *      *      *      *      *
                                                       -----------------
                                  Total:..............    [$525,454,000]
                                                            $549,954,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                        

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SEC. 2406. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, DEFENSE AGENCIES.

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Limitation on Total Cost of Construction Projects.--
Notwithstanding the cost variation authorized by section 2853 
of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost variations 
authorized by law, the total cost of all projects carried out 
under section 2401 of this Act may not exceed--
          (1)  * * *
          (2) [$179,000,000] $203,500,000 (the balance of the 
        amount authorized under section 2401(a) of this Act for 
        the construction of a chemical demilitarization 
        facility at Pueblo Army Depot, Colorado); and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


SECTION 3132 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                                  1991

SEC. 3132. LABORATORY-DIRECTED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Funding.--Of the funds provided by the Department of 
Energy to such laboratories for national security activities, 
the Secretary shall provide a specific amount, not to exceed [6 
percent] 3 percent of such funds, to be used by such 
laboratories for laboratory-directed research and development.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


 DIVISION C OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                                  1996


 DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 
                          OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 3140. FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SKILLS CRITICAL TO THE 
                    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NUCLEAR WEAPONS COMPLEX.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary of Energy shall conduct a 
fellowship program for the development of skills critical to 
the ongoing mission of the Department of Energy nuclear weapons 
complex. Under the fellowship program, [the Secretary shall--
          [(1) provide educational assistance] the Secretary 
        shall provide educational assistance and research 
        assistance to eligible individuals to facilitate the 
        development by such individuals of skills critical to 
        maintaining the ongoing mission of the Department of 
        Energy nuclear weapons complex[;].
          [(2) employ eligible individuals at the facilities 
        described in subsection (c) in order to facilitate the 
        development of such skills by these individuals; or
          [(3) provide eligible individuals with the assistance 
        and the employment.]
  (b) Eligible Individuals.--Individuals eligible for 
participation in the fellowship program are United States 
citizens who are the following:
          (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Covered Facilities.--The Secretary shall carry out the 
fellowship program at or in connection with the following 
facilities:
          (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (5) The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 
        Livermore, California.
          (6) The Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, 
        New Mexico.
          (7) The Sandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque, New 
        Mexico.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(f) Funding.--Of the funds authorized to be appropriated to 
the Department of Energy for fiscal year 1996 under section 
3101(b), $10,000,000 may be used for the purpose of carrying 
out the fellowship program under this section.]
  (f) Agreement.--(1) The Secretary may allow an individual to 
participate in the program only if the individual signs an 
agreement described in paragraph (2).
  (2) An agreement referred to in paragraph (1) shall be in 
writing, shall be signed by the participant, and shall include 
the participant's agreement to serve, after completion of the 
course of study for which the assistance was provided, as a 
full-time employee in a position in the Department of Energy 
for a period of time to be established by the Secretary of 
Energy of not less than one year, if such a position is offered 
to the participant.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE

Subtitle A--Authorization of Disposals and Use of Funds

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[SEC. 3303. DISPOSAL OF CHROMITE AND MANGANESE ORES AND CHROMIUM FERRO 
                    AND MANGANESE METAL ELECTROLYTIC.

  [(a) Domestic Upgrading.--In offering to enter into 
agreements pursuant to any provision of law for the disposal 
from the National Defense Stockpile of chromite and manganese 
ores or chromium ferro and manganese metal electrolytic, the 
President shall give a right of first refusal on all such 
offers to domestic ferroalloy upgraders.
  [(b) Domestic Ferroalloy Upgrader Defined.--For purposes of 
this section, the term ``domestic ferroalloy upgrader'' means a 
company or other business entity that, as determined by the 
President--
          [(1) is engaged in operations to upgrade chromite or 
        manganese ores of metallurgical grade or chromium ferro 
        and manganese metal electrolytic; and
          [(2) conducts a significant level of its research, 
        development, engineering, and upgrading operations in 
        the United States.

[SEC. 3304. RESTRICTIONS ON DISPOSAL OF MANGANESE FERRO.

  [(a) Disposal of Lower Grade Material First.--The President 
may not dispose of high carbon manganese ferro in the National 
Defense Stockpile that meets the National Defense Stockpile 
classification of Grade One, Specification 30(a), as revised on 
May 22, 1992, until completing the disposal of all manganese 
ferro in the National Defense Stockpile that does not meet such 
classification. The President may not reclassify manganese 
ferro in the National Defense Stockpile after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
  [(b) Requirement for Remelting by Domestic Ferroalloy 
Producers.--Manganese ferro in the National Defense Stockpile 
that does not meet the classification specified in subsection 
(a) may be sold only for remelting by a domestic ferroalloy 
producer unless the President determines that a domestic 
ferroalloy producer is not available to acquire the material.
  [(c) Domestic Ferroalloy Producer Defined.--For purposes of 
this section, the term ``domestic ferroalloy producer'' means a 
company or other business entity that, as determined by the 
President--
          [(1) is engaged in operations to upgrade manganese 
        ores of metallurgical grade or manganese ferro; and
          [(2) conducts a significant level of its research, 
        development, engineering, and upgrading operations in 
        the United States.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                       MERCHANT MARINE ACT, 1936

TITLE XI--FEDERAL SHIP MORTGAGE INSURANCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  Sec. 1108. [(a) If the proceeds of an obligation guaranteed 
under this title are to be used to finance the construction, 
reconstruction, or reconditioning of a vessel or vessels which 
will serve as security for the guarantee of the Secretary, the 
Secretary is authorized to accept and hold, in escrow under an 
escrow agreement with the obligor, a portion of the proceeds of 
all obligations guaranteed under this title whose proceeds are 
to be so used which is equal to: (i) the excess of the 
principal amount of all obligations whose proceeds are to be so 
used over 75 per centum, or 87\1/2\ per centum, whichever is 
applicable under section 1104 of this title, of the amount paid 
by or for the account of the obligor for the construction, 
reconstruction, or reconditioning of the vessel or vessels; 
(ii) with such interest thereon, if any, as the Secretary may 
require: Provided, That in the event the security for the] 
  (a) Authority To Hold Obligation Proceeds in Escrow.--(1) If 
the proceeds of an obligation guaranteed under this title are 
to be used to finance the construction, reconstruction, or 
reconditioning of a vessel that will serve as security for the 
guarantee, the Secretary may accept and hold, in escrow under 
an escrow agreement with the obligor--
          (A) the proceeds of that obligation, including such 
        interest as may be earned thereon; and
          (B) if required by the Secretary, an amount equal to 
        6 month's interest on the obligation.
  (2) The Secretary may release funds held in escrow under 
paragraph (1) only if the Secretary determines that--
          (A) the obligor has paid its portion of the actual 
        cost of construction, reconstruction, or 
        reconditioning; and
          (B) the funds released are needed--
                  (i) to pay, or make reimbursements in 
                connection with payments previously made for 
                work performed in that construction, 
                reconstruction, or reconditioning; or
                  (ii) to pay for other costs approved by the 
                Secretary, with respect to the vessel or 
                vessels.
  (3) If the security for the guarantee of an obligation by the 
Secretary relates both to a vessel or vessels to be 
constructed, reconstructed or reconditioned and to a delivered 
vessel or vessels, the principal amount of such obligation 
shall be prorated for purposes of this subsection (a) under 
regulations prescribed by the Secretary.

SEC. 1109. DEPOSIT FUND.

  (a) Establishment of Deposit Fund.--There is established in 
the Treasury a deposit fund for purposes of this section. The 
Secretary may, in accordance with an agreement under subsection 
(b), deposit into and hold in the deposit fund cash belonging 
to an obligor to serve as collateral for a guarantee under this 
title made with respect to the obligor.
  (b) Agreement.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary and an obligor shall 
        enter into a reserve fund or other collateral account 
        agreement to govern the deposit, withdrawal, retention, 
        use, and reinvestment of cash of the obligor held in 
        the deposit fund established by subsection (a).
          (2) Terms.--The agreement shall contain such terms 
        and conditions as are required under this section and 
        such additional terms as are considered by the 
        Secretary to be necessary to protect fully the 
        interests of the United States.
          (3) Security interest of united states.--The 
        agreement shall include terms that grant to the United 
        States a security interest in all amounts deposited 
        into the deposit fund.
  (c) Investment.--The Secretary may invest and reinvest any 
part of the amounts in the deposit fund established by 
subsection (a) in obligations of the United States with such 
maturities as ensure that amounts in the deposit fund will be 
available as required for purposes of agreements under 
subsection (b). Cash balances of the deposit fund in excess of 
current requirements shall be maintained in a form of 
uninvested funds and the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay 
interest on these funds.
  (d) Withdrawals.--
          (1) In general.--The cash deposited into the deposit 
        fund established by subsection (a) may not be withdrawn 
        without the consent of the Secretary.
          (2) Use of income.--Subject to paragraph (3), the 
        Secretary may pay any income earned on cash of an 
        obligor deposited into the deposit fund in accordance 
        with the terms of the agreement with the obligor under 
        subsection (b).
          (3) Retention against default.--The Secretary may 
        retain and offset any or all of the cash of an obligor 
        in the deposit fund, and any income realized thereon, 
        as part of the Secretary's recovery against the obligor 
        in case of a default by the obligor on an obligation.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE XII--WAR RISK INSURANCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  Sec. 1214. The authority of the Secretary to provide 
insurance and reinsurance under this title shall expire June 
30, [2000] 2005.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


              SECTION 3302 OF TITLE 46, UNITED STATES CODE

Sec. 3302. Exemptions

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (l)(1) The Secretary may issue a permit exempting the 
following vessels from the requirements of this part for 
passenger vessels so long as the vessels are owned by nonprofit 
organizations and operated as nonprofit memorials to merchant 
mariners:
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (C) The steamship Jeremiah O'Brien (United States 
        official number 243622), [owned by the United States 
        Maritime Administration.] owned by the National Liberty 
        Ship Memorial, Inc.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


              SECTION 1305 OF THE PANAMA CANAL ACT OF 1979

                       dissolution of commission

  Sec. 1305. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (5)(A) Amounts in the Fund may not be obligated or expended 
in any fiscal year unless the obligation or expenditure is 
specifically authorized by law.
  (B) The office established by subsection (b) is authorized to 
expend or obligate funds from the Fund for the purposes 
enumerated in clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (2)(A) until 
October 1, 2004.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  Additional Views of Roscoe Bartlett, Gene Taylor and Joseph R. Pitts

    We strongly support the committee's action to improve 
modernization, quality of life and readiness deficiencies that 
are so desperately needed. There are however, two issues which 
we believe deserve special attention.
    First, the committee rejected an amendment that would have 
stricken the section of the bill that permits the use of 
taxpayer dollars for the purpose of killing preborn babies 
conceived through rape or incest.
    Abortion services are already available to Servicewomen and 
dependents at military hospitals. However, the Department of 
Defense has had a long standing policy of only using taxpayer 
dollars to finance an abortion if the life of the mother was in 
danger. This policy has been in effect since 1984 and no one 
has asked that it be changed, not the President, not the Under 
Secretary for health affairs, not the Senate, no one. The 
policy has worked well and their is no need for change.
    There are also cost concerns. We have no idea what the cost 
implications of this are. We do know that each dollar spent on 
aborting unborn babies is a dollar not spent on quality of 
life, health care, modernization or other funding priorities 
for our troops. We made a commitment to our veterans that they 
would have health care for life. Now we are telling those 
veterans who are over 65 that we can not help them. It is just 
too expensive. What message does this send to them? You were 
willing to fight and die for your country and we have no money 
for you, but we do have plenty of money to kill preborn 
children. In fact, under this new policy Department of Defense 
dollars can even be used to perform partial birth abortions but 
not to keep our promise to America's veterans.
    Babies conceived in rape or incest are babies nonetheless. 
They should not be executed because of the crime of a parent 
and taxpayers should not be forced to pay for a service that 
they find morally repugnant. Furthermore, there is no 
demonstrated need for taxpayer funded abortion in cases of rape 
or incest. The public has long supported the use of taxpayer 
dollars for abortion only in life-endangerment cases. This 
section of the bill must be stricken during the House/Senate 
Conference committee.
    Secondly, we are pleased that the committee authorized the 
National Guard Youth Challenge program at the level requested 
by the President. During the FY99 Defense Authorization bill 
the committee hastily placed a $50 million cap on the program. 
The amount requested for Challenge this year was $62.5 million. 
The committee wisely increased the cap on the program to that 
$62.5 million figure. It is our sincere hope that the House/
Senate conference committee will authorize Challenge at the $62 
million without any restrictions on future funding.
    The Challenge program is designed to improve the life 
skills and employment potential of high school dropouts. 
Challenge is a 22 week program that is conducted in a 
disciplined and quasi-military environment. In its six years 
since the program began, the Challenge program has yielded 
tremendous success. Challenge participants perform an average 
of 78 hours of community service while in the program. The 
average Challenge participant experienced a 1.1 grade level 
increase in reading and a 1.65 increase in math grade level. 
The retention rate for the Challenge program is higher than the 
national high school retention rate. And finally, at graduation 
from the Challenge program 24% of the participants were placed 
in jobs, 23% were going to post secondary education programs, 
10% had enlisted in the military, 6% were heading to VOTECH 
program and 26% were pending notification of acceptance from 
employers, the military and education institutions. Taken 
together, 96% of graduates had made positive steps to overcome 
the potential hardships they were facing as high school 
dropouts.
    The Challenge program is a very important program that 
continues to be an investment in young people with positive 
potential to continue to return dividends over the long term. 
It is a great example of how the military can have a positive 
effect over the community. The Challenge program currently 
operates in 26 states and seven additional states have applied 
to participate in the program next year. Those states are 
Indiana, Nebraska, Florida, South Dakota, Kansas, Washington 
and New Mexico. In order to allow these states to participate 
in the successes of Challenge, we can not allow a funding cap 
to remain in place.

                                   Roscoe Bartlett.
                                   Gene Taylor.
                                   Joseph Pitts.

                 Additional Views of Patrick J. Kennedy

    The Joint Tactical Combat Training System (JTCTS), is a 
joint U.S Navy and Air Force program that will provide 
worldwide, real time coordinated combat readiness/proficiency 
training of all air and sea-based forces using a combination of 
simulated and real targets.
    I view with grave concern the consequences of any action 
taken that causes unnecessary taxpayer expenditures and further 
disrupts the deployment of JTCTS training capability to the 
warfighter. The JTCTS program was funded as requested in the 
President's Budget, however I supported the requirement to add 
$14.0 million to the FY2000 budget.
    It is imperative that an increase of $6.0 million for 
research and devlopment is provided to accelerate the overall 
fielding schedule for fixed ranges and battle group exercises. 
Likewise, $8.0 million is required to support production 
specifically to manufacture one additional JTCTS mobile system.
    As HR 1401 continues on its legislative course, I hope the 
JTCTS is funded to accelerate the overall fielding schedule for 
fixed ranges and battle group exercises in the FY00 budget. 
Production charges will also assist getting the JTCTS to the 
warfighters in the Navy and Air Force.

                                        Patrick J. Kennedy,
                                                Member of Congress.

       Additional Views on the FY 2000 Defense Authorization Bill

    We regret the Committee's failure to follow the 
recommendation of the Military Personnel Subcommittee to repeal 
the statutory prohibition on abortions in overseas military 
hospitals and restore the law to what it was for many years. If 
enacted, women stationed overseas would be permitted to use 
their own funds to obtain abortion services. No federal funds 
would have been used and health care professionals who are 
opposed to performing abortions as a matter of conscience or 
moral principle would not be required to do so.
    This is an issue of fundamental fairness. Servicewomen and 
military dependents stationed abroad do not expect special 
treatment, only the right to receive the same legally protected 
medical services that women in the United States receive. We 
had the opportunity to finally put a stop to the misguided law 
that has endangered our servicewomen's lives for far too long. 
It is unfortunate that the full committee did not follow the 
subcommittee's direction.
    The Department of Defense, American Public Health 
Association, the American Medical Women's Association, the 
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the 
Planned Parenthood Federation of America have all indicated 
their support for the subcommittee's decision.
    If we are to attract the best and brightest of our nation's 
young people to our Armed Forces we must act to restore this 
fundamental right. We cannot expect to attain our readiness and 
recruitment goals when potential soldiers know they will not 
have the same right to access to health care when they are 
stationed overseas.
    It is our responsibility to restore the right of freedom of 
choice to women serving overseas in our nation's Armed Forces. 
Members of the military and their families already give up many 
freedoms and risk their lives to defend our country. They 
should not have to sacrifice their privacy, their health or 
their basic constitutional rights because of a policy with no 
valid military purpose.

                                   Loretta Sanchez.
                                   Lane Evans.
                                   Robert A. Brady.
                                   Thomas H. Allen.
                                   Ellen O. Tauscher.
                                   Neil Abercrombie.
                                   Mike Thompson.
                                   Patrick J. Kennedy.
                                   Rod R. Blagojevich.

              Additional Views of Congressman Ike Skelton

    H.R. 1401, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2000, is an excellent bill which deserves the 
support of the Members of the House. I want to commend Chairman 
Floyd Spence and the Subcommittee Chairman and Ranking Members 
for their leadership and diligence in putting this legislation 
together. The overwhelming 55-1 vote of approval for this bill 
in Committee demonstrates that they were successful in their 
efforts to draft a truly bipartisan measure reflecting the 
consensus among Members of both parties for an increase in 
defense spending.
    H.R. 1401 is a very strong bill for U.S. national security, 
which builds upon the President's proposal to increase defense 
spending by $112 billion over the next six years--a good 
starting point for a much needed long-term increase in defense 
spending. It makes vital readiness and modernization 
improvements which will keep our forces the best trained and 
the best equipped in the world. But most important, the bill 
addresses quality of life issues that are at the top of the 
agenda for service members and their families.
    For some time now, I have been saying that we must make 
this the ``Year of the Troops.'' This bill goes a long way 
toward showing the men and women in our military that we are 
committed to taking care of them and taking care of their 
families. The compensation package, which includes a 4.8 
percent pay raise, pay table reform to further increase pay for 
mid-grade officers and NCOs, and reform of the retirement 
system, will help address problems our Armed Forces have been 
experiencing in recruiting and retention. The bill's provisions 
extending current pay and bonus authorities and expanding 
recruiting and retention bonus and special pay authorities for 
specific skills will also help in this area, as will other 
much-needed quality of life provisions in the bill, including 
improvements in the TRICARE military health care system, and an 
increase in funding for military family housing. These pay 
increases and quality of life improvements are essential to 
ensuring a decent standard of living for our military personnel 
and their families.
    In addition to the quality of life improvements, I am 
pleased that H.R. 1401 includes increases in funding for the 
procurement of weapons, ammunition, and equipment, for research 
and development, and for operations and maintenance, so that we 
can modernize our forces while maintaining a high level of 
readiness and training. In the procurement area, precision 
weapons and munitions were appropriately emphasized.
    My only reservation about H.R. 1401 concerns the 
Committee's provision relating to operations in the Federal 
Republic of Yugoslavia. I will address this issue, along with a 
number of my colleagues, in separate Additional Views.

                                   Ike Skelton.

   Additional Views on FY 2000 Defense Authorization Bill, H.R. 1401

    We regret that the committee included section 1006. We 
understand and agree with the fundamental intent of the 
provision, to protect the FY 2000 defense budget, especially 
individual service readiness accounts, from another unfunded 
contingency. The current combat operations in Yugoslavia were 
not contemplated late last year when the Department of Defense 
was putting together its budget submission which it sent to the 
Congress early this year. Paragraph (b) of section 1006 
requires the President to submit a supplemental appropriations 
request to pay for any such operation in FY 2000.
    Our concern is with paragraph (a), which prohibits the use 
of funds in FY 2000 for the purpose of conducting combat or 
peacekeeping operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. 
We believe it sends the wrong message to Slobodan Milosevic and 
to our forces now engaged in combat operations.
    The May 20th edition of the Washington Post described our 
work by saying, ``The House Armed Services Committee voted to 
impose new spending restrictions on President Clinton's conduct 
of the military operation in Yugoslovia.'' Milosevic may get 
the impression that he merely has to wait until October 1, 1999 
and that U.S. participation in military operations over 
Yugoslavia will end at that time. Our personnel engaged in 
military operations may wonder about the mixed signals that 
Congress is sending once again.
    Our colleague, Gene Taylor, offered an amendment during 
full committee mark up. He did so with the intent to protect 
the defense budget. The amendment eliminated paragraph (a) and 
required the President to submit to the Congress, not later 
than October 1, 1999, a supplemental appropriations request for 
``such amounts as necessary for the costs during fiscal year 
2000 of any combat or peacekeeping operation in the Federal 
Republic of Yugoslavia.'' There would be no message here for 
Slobodan Milosevic to misinterpret.
    As H.R. 1401 continues on its legislative course, we hope 
that section 1006 can be improved to address the concerns we 
have with the current provision.

                                   Ike Skelton.
                                   Norman Sisisky.
                                   John M. Spratt, Jr.
                                   Solomon P. Ortiz.
                                   Owen Pickett.
                                   Lane Evans.
                                   Gene Taylor.
                                   Neil Abercrombie.
                                   Martin T. Meehan.
                                   Robert A. Underwood.
                                   Patrick J. Kennedy.
                                   Rod R. Blagojevich.
                                   Silvestre Reyes.
                                   Thomas H. Allen.
                                   Jim Turner.
                                   Adam Smith.
                                   Loretta Sanchez.
                                   James H. Maloney.
                                   Ellen O. Tauscher.
                                   Robert A. Brady.
                                   Robert E. Andrews.
                                   Baron P. Hill.
                                   Mike Thompson.
                                   John B. Larson.

                  Additional Views of James M. Talent

                      army logistics modernization

    Over the past nearly two years, the Army has attempted to 
develop a plan for how to comprehensively modernize its 
logistics system, the process by which it supports its 
installations and, more importantly, its deployed forces. As I 
have stated previously, no one should dispute the need to 
undertake this important action. The proper question is not 
whether to modernize. To the contrary, the central question 
should be what level of risk is acceptable during that eight to 
ten year process.
    A central focus of the larger effort centers on two small 
agencies, the Logistics Systems Support Center (LSSC), located 
in St. Louis, and the Industrial Logistics Systems Center 
(ILSC), located in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. Together, LSSC 
and ILSC are each responsible for designing, maintaining and 
upgrading major business and logistics software operating 
systems that support the Army Materiel Command (AMC), the Army, 
and DoD.
    LSSC maintains the Command Commodity Standard System 
(CCSS), while ILSC maintains the Standard Depot System (SDS). 
Collectively, these two systems underpin the Army's 24-hour-
per-day logistics efforts both stateside and overseas. In 
principle, their function is not unlike that of the software 
system that automatically requisitions, for example, retail 
stock for stores within the Wal-Mart chain. As items are 
purchased, or as supplies are expended, the system tabulates 
these facts and automatically reorders. The successful 
operation of these systems, from anyone's standpoint, is 
central to the Army's day-to-day operations and, to a lesser 
extent, the other services. If CCSS and SDS do not operate as 
required, the Army doesn't either.
    Neither system utilizes the up-to-date features and 
logistics processes that today's modern, private-sector support 
systems employ. The Army describes CCSS and SDS as ``complex, 
tightly integrated systems that are unique to the Army and 
difficult to maintain.'' That description is certainly 
appropriate. CCSS alone is one of the largest operating system 
in the world, containing over 10 million lines of computer 
code, most of it written in COBOL 74. In addition, it has 
external interfaces, or bridges, to the computer systems of 
nearly 70 separate DoD agencies. SDS contains over 12 million 
lines of code and interfaces with two dozen DoD agencies. Both 
systems are 30 years old, and even though they have been 
substantially enhanced over that period, they must be 
modernized.
    Yet any modernization effort must first and foremost take 
into account the complexity of the task.
    In short, (1) these two systems play a central role in the 
Army's logistics operations in peace and war, (2) they are 
extraordinarily complex systems, (3) they must be modernized, 
(4) modernization will require almost a decade by the Army's 
own determination, and (5) that modernization these systems 
entails great risk.
    The real question is not whether CCSS and SDS should or 
should not be modernized. The answer to that question is very 
clear. The question we must ask is how to mitigate risk 
throughout the process in order to protect readiness.
    The Army proposes to modernize CCSS and SDS by turning the 
effort over to a private-sector contractor. Everyone involved 
concedes that the Army lacks the technical expertise to design 
its own system. Unfortunately, it is also clear that after 
nearly two years of study the Army lacks even a clear 
conceptual framework of what logistics processes will best 
support Force XXI or the Army After Next. In brief, the service 
intends to turn over to a contractor (1) the responsibility of 
analyzing and determining its logistics requirements, (2) 
developing new logistics processes that take advantage of cost-
saving commercial practices, (3) designing an upgraded CCSS 
system, and then (4) integrating that new system into the 
Army's day-to-day operations. This process, using the Army's 
own analysis, is expected to take as long as ten years.
    My primary concern is readiness. Under any scenario, 
logistics modernization as it relates to CCSS and SDS will be 
divided into three overlapping phases: (1) sustaining the old 
system, (2) development of a new operating system, and (3) 
transitioning from the old system to the new. Throughout most 
of this process, given the central role of both systems to Army 
readiness, it is essential that the system remain fully 
operational until some replacement is defined, developed and 
running properly.
    Under the Army plan, the same information technology 
specialists and logisticians who have maintained CCSS for 30 
years are to be released one year after a prime contractor 
takes over the LSSC and ILSC centers next May. Most of these 
same people will undoubtedly find private-sector employment. 
COBOL programmers in St. Louis can readily find employment. And 
that is the problem: how can we operate CCSS, and by extension 
support soldier readiness when these key personnel are gone? As 
the Army has stated, the only people who have the expertise to 
maintain CCSS are the very people performing that mission 
today. The Army is counting on them being hired by the 
contractor, but there is no guarantee or agreement to that 
effect. Many will go to work in the private sector. A good 
number of employees are simply tired of how they have been 
treated throughout this process. Some workers will retire. 
Still others will transfer through priority placement to other 
federal agencies in order to retain their pension benefits.
    My amendment directs the Secretary of the Army to provide 
LSSC and ILSC with the opportunity to reduce their respective 
centers to their ``most efficient organizations'' or MEOs. I 
expect that in St. Louis this would involve the loss of 
approximately 100 of 300 positions. Each MEO would then partner 
with the eventual log mod prime contractor and work with them--
as a team--through the sustainment and transition phases of 
CCSS and SDS modernization, gradually reducing their numbers 
proportionate to what percentage of the old system was still 
being utilized. In this manner the MEO will ``sunset'' as their 
mission is eclipsed by the prime's newer logistics system.
    Using this approach, we provide the Army with the necessary 
readiness 'safety net.' Given the complexity of the current, or 
legacy, systems, and the difficulties experienced during 
previous projects of a similar nature, it is entirely likely 
that any prime contractor will not go smoothly. Through this 
approach, we will still have on hand the Army's only subject 
matter experts in sufficient numbers to keep the system running 
and, more importantly, to support our soldiers. My amendment in 
no way impedes the Army's efforts to privatize this function. 
Nor would it delay the effort. It does, however, retain at 
least a safety net for these two centers so that readiness is 
protected.

                                   James M. Talent.

                  Additional Views of James M. Talent

                   the navy's f/a-18e/f super hornet

    The House Armed Services Committee has reviewed the F/A-
18E/F Super Hornet program in some considerable level of detail 
as it has progressed through each phase of Engineering and 
Manufacturing Development (EMD). In each of the previous three 
conference reports the Committee has fully supported Navy's 
requests for low-rate initial production of 12, 20 and 30 
aircraft, respectively. In their Fiscal Year 2000 budget 
submission, the Navy requested 36 E/Fs and authorization for a 
five-year, multi-year procurement.
    The Navy's request makes good sense across the board. 
First, with literally 99 percent of an exhaustive developmental 
test program completed as of mid May, ``We know,'' as one test 
pilot observed in the OT-IIA (operational test) debrief, ``more 
accurate information about how the F/A-18E/F performs in two 
years than we know about most other aircraft after 20 years of 
service.'' Clearly, by any objective measure, flight testing 
have been intensive--and very successful.
    More importantly, regarding the E/F's operational 
capabilities, Secretary Danzig and the CNO wrote in a recent 
letter that the Super Hornet ``is the aircraft the Navy wants 
and needs because it gives our warfighters the capability, when 
compared with current aircraft, to strike twice the number of 
targets in half the time, while substantially reducing expected 
losses.'' And in recent testimony before the Committee, Rear 
Admiral Nathman, Director, Air Warfare, was unequivocal in his 
support for the aircraft and for multi-year procurement. In 
terms of the fleet--where it matters most--these statements, 
and the facts that back them up, effectively say all that need 
be said.
    Finally, the Super Hornet EMD program is one of only a very 
few such programs in recent memory to remain below its 
congressionally mandated cost caps while at the same time 
meeting schedule, weight and the performance requirements of 
the service.
    The Committee's decision to approve the Navy's Fiscal Year 
2000 procurement of 36 aircraft continues a very feasible ramp-
up in production. Its further authorization of multi-year 
procurement pending successful completion of OpEval and 
achievement of milestone III/recommendation for full-rate 
production, and the Secretary's assurance of identified savings 
through multi-year procurement, ensures good value to the 
American taxpayer and makes for sound defense policy.

                                   James M. Talent.

  Additional Views of Gene Taylor on H.R. 1401, The National Defense 
                     Authorization Act for FY 2000

    The bill reported from committee is, in my estimation, 
worthy of support, and I voted for final passage. It is an 
important piece of legislation that will contribute to the 
defense of our nation. Also, in the words of our committee 
ranking member, Ike Skelton, the measure will go a long way 
toward making this the ``year of the troops.'' I feel 
additionally that the military construction titles of this bill 
were prepared in such a way that this important aspect of 
defense spending will have avoided a serious catastrophe as 
represented in the underfunded Presidential budget request.
    However, I feel compelled to express my extreme 
disappointment with one section of the bill. I tried to offer 
an amendment to remove Section 1006 from the bill. I believe 
this provision will send the wrong message to both our 
adversary in Serbia and to our own troops who have been sent to 
the Balkans. Perhaps an unintended consequence of this section 
is that it will set a date certain for the removal of American 
military presence.
    In essence, paragraph (a) of this section would tell 
President Milosevic to hang on until October 1, 1999, and no 
funds would be available for US military operations in 
Yugoslavia after that date. Nothing can be more harmful to our 
negotiating position, our military strategy, or the morale of 
our troops than to send this sort of message.
    Paragraph (b), in my opinion, says that Congress refuses to 
fulfill its duty to provide for our troops as stated in Article 
1, section 8, of the Constitution. With the enactment of this 
section, we will have instead delegated that responsibility to 
the President of the United States. This is an abdication of 
our responsibilities as members of Congress, and does further 
harm to this institution by continuing to add further precedent 
to the notion that the President, not the Congress, has the 
right and responsibility to declare war.
    My amendment was straightforward. It would have required 
the President to submit to the Congress, not later than October 
1, 1999, a supplemental appropriations request for ``such 
amounts as necessary for the costs during fiscal year 2000 of 
any combat or peacekeeping operation in the Federal Republic of 
Yugoslavia.'' Under my amendment, Congress would still retain 
the authority to determine when and where to commit our forces, 
and no one would have questions about our nation's resolve or 
its support for our troops.
    During the debate on my amendment, I warned that the press 
would ignore all of the good contained in this important 
legislation and report only that Congress had cut funds for 
troops in the field. Unfortunately, as I feared, the May 20, 
1999, Washington Post contained an article titled ``Lawmakers 
Vote to Limit War Powers.'' The lead sentence of the article 
reads, ``The House Armed Services Committee voted to impose new 
spending restrictions on President Clinton's conduct of the 
military operation in Yugoslavia.''
    While I disagree with the committee's decision to retain 
section 1006, I sincerely hope that the provision may be 
improved to address the real concerns I have referenced above.

                                   Gene Taylor.

  Additional Views of Robert A. Underwood on Re-establishing The 54th 
                Weather Reconnaissance Squadron in Guam

    The 54th Weather Reconnaissance Squadron (WRS) was once 
based out of Andersen, AFB, Guam. The group was famed for its 
squadron of ``Typhoon Chasers'' that flew into emerging and 
verified Pacific typhoons. Sharing this responsibility for a 
time, there was also a Navy Airborne Early Warning Squadron 
based at the Naval Air Station, Agana, Guam flying the Navy's 
weather reconnaissance aircraft. This valuable and brave team 
of pilots, aviators, airmen and technicians provided accurate 
early-warnings for Guam, Hawaii and neighboring Pacific nations 
of impending typhoons.
    In the late 1980s, these units were inactivated when it was 
deemed too costly to justify. The underlying decision was based 
on the deactivation of several air force wings at Andersen, 
AFB, the WRS was no longer needed. Defense officials claimed 
that since there were no aircraft assets permanently stationed 
there its mission could not be justified. Furthermore, it was 
maintained that improved weather imagery reconnaissance 
satellites would be adequate to protect the remaining military 
assets and the civilian population.
    There is today, one squadron--the 53rd WRS (an air force 
reserve unit) located at Keesler, AFB--performing the vital 
function of flying into and tracking hurricanes on America's 
eastern seaboard, the gulf coast, Hawaii, and areas east of the 
international dateline. Members of Congress have found it 
desirable to continue to fund and maintain this squadron to 
supplement the weather satellites, which have limited 
capabilities. However, in the Western Pacific there is 
currently no such capability.
    Guam is geographically located in an area known to 
meteorologists as ``typhoon alley.'' Guam depends on 
information and typhoon warning from the Navy's Joint Typhoon 
Warning Center (JTWC) and the National Weather Service (NWS), 
along with satellite information to warn its population of an 
on-coming storm. The JTWC, once located on Guam, is now located 
in Hawaii.
    The data that is collected by the ``typhoon hunters'' is 
invaluable. It is very accurate as it provides exact location, 
temperature, barometric pressure and windspeed of the typhoon 
or hurricane. The collective information the WRS WC-130's 
provide, improves the accuracy of computer models. Used in 
conjunction with weather satellites, the data can save 
thousands of lives and millions of dollars in property damage. 
In the case of an island, accurate notice of a typhoon can make 
all the difference. Often a severe typhoon devastates an 
island's port facilities, thus hampering recovery as a port is 
an island's economic and transportation lifeline.
    Nationwide 1500 people a day relocate to coastal areas, 
thus making accurate storm forecasting all the more vital. We 
in Congress have a responsibility to ensure that every means 
necessary be employed to protect our coastal and island 
citizens. There are countless numbers of Americans living in 
the Western Pacific who today do not enjoy the security and 
science afforded by a WRS, while the remainder of the nation 
does. The Air Force and the JTWC should study this inequity. I 
strongly urge the reactivation of a Weather Reconnaissance 
Squadron in the Western Pacific.

                                   Robert A. Underwood.

 Additional Views of Robert A. Underwood, Lane Evans, Norman Sisisky, 
Thomas H. Allen, Solomon P. Ortiz, & Neil Abercrombie on the Department 
                    of Defense and OMB Circular A-76

    It has long been a concern of ours that the Department of 
Defense (DoD) has placed so high a stake in the outsourcing and 
privatization process known as OMB Circular A-76. This year DoD 
has announced that by FY05 over 230,000 positions will have 
been studied for possible outsourcing. The department estimates 
that they will have saved some $11.2 billion and achieve a 
steady state savings rate, beginning in FY05, of approximately 
$3.4 billion annually. The problem with touting numbers such as 
these are the are based on too many assumptions. Indeed the 
individual services often do not account for the cost of 
performing the study, especially when they extol their 
anticipated savings. These costs can include the paying of the 
cost-comparison study itself as well as associated costs for 
voluntary separation incentive pay, early retirement benefits, 
and general reductions in forces (RiFs).
    Utilizing the Quadrennial Defense Review as the progenitor, 
DoD is conveniently provided with a mandate to plow the 
anticipated savings back into modernization projects. The 
department is fond of claiming that through the synthesis of 
private sector innovations into government operational 
practices they will be able to mete out ``the best value'' for 
the taxpayer. Interestingly, best value is not necessarily the 
lowest cost.
    To be fair, the department claims that the entire point of 
a commercial activities study is to determine if the function 
will be performed ``in-house'', by government employees, or 
outsourced to private contractors. Should it be determined that 
the best value requires a function to remain ``in-house'' there 
it shall remain for a while--it can be re-studied a few years 
later. Indeed the department claims the study will wrest out 
savings regardless because the ``in-house'' team will have had 
to become more effective in order to compete with the private 
sector.
    This point harkens the DoD initiative called Defense Reform 
Initiative Directive #20 (DRID #20). This initiative created 
the complete inventory review of each military service's 
functions, to determine what positions are classified as 
inherently governmental, and thus be available for possible 
outsourcing. DRID #20 determined that 228,000 military 
positions were non-inherently governmental and therefore could 
be studied. Yet in what amounts to a mixed signal by DoD, an 
order was made to re-examine several of the areas previously 
slated as non-inherently governmental. DoD's apparent 
apprehension was caused by the fear that this drastic measure 
may be undercutting vital support and combat service functions 
in the name of savings. This, ironically, is the same argument 
that many members of Congress have been making for years.
    Finally, our beleaguered civil servants are beginning to 
emerge as an endangered species. As times and practices change, 
they too, will have to adapt in order to remain relevant in the 
national defense arena. In spite of this they should not have 
to endure negative fallout as a result of the DoD's panacea 
called outsourcing, notwithstanding their own admitted 
skepticism. The DoD must do better in bridging the benefits gap 
to alleviate displaced employees especially when, inevitably, 
many will lose their livelihoods.
    In the end, all that DoD may be left with is reduced 
readiness, a degraded military capability, and an exiled civil-
service workforce that collectively contributes to the 
weakening of America's national security policy.

                                   Neil Abercrombie.
                                   Norman Sisisky.
                                   Lane Evans.
                                   Solomon P. Ortiz.
                                   Thomas H. Allen.
                                   Robert A. Underwood.

          Supplemental Views of Congressman Ciro D. Rodriguez

    I am deeply concerned with the language added by amendment 
in committee to the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 
2000 requiring the Air Force to prematurely identify the core 
logistics capability requirements for maintenance and repair of 
the C-17 aircraft. This myopic provision would force the Air 
Force to make a hasty decision on the long-term maintenance of 
the C-17 possibly resulting in an incorrect and costly 
maintenance concept.
    Similar language requiring an Air Force report was included 
in last year's authorization bill. The Air Force provided the 
required report on the C-17 outlining the service's plan to 
establish core capabilities for the aircraft. As part of that 
plan, the Air Force will review the current contract 
maintenance strategy (Flexible Sustainment) in 2003 to make the 
long-term support decision. Since initial production of the C-
17 is scheduled through fiscal year 2005 with continuing 
improvements to the plane, now is not the time to make a final, 
and possibly wasteful, organic capabilities decision based upon 
an evolving aircraft.
    Contrary to the language in question, the Air Force is in 
compliance regarding the C-17 with Title 10 United States Code 
2464 provisions necessitating an organic core logistics 
capability. The Air Force determines core capabilities on 
commodities rather than weapon systems, e.g., a landing gear 
versus the entire C-17 aircraft. In the report required by last 
year's authorization bill, the Air Force clearly stated its 
organic capability to maintain the commodities of the C-17 due 
to the capability to support other large military transports, 
such as the C-141, C-135, and C-130.
    Currently, the C-17 is provided maintenance support under 
an interim contract between the Air Force and the Boeing 
Company, the plane's manufacturer. By every measure the current 
Flexible Sustainment maintenance contract of the C-17 is an 
overwhelming success. Last year, the Air Force saved tens of 
millions of dollars in either cost avoidance or reduced 
expenses when compared to the budget allocated for C-17 
support. The contractor continues to perform at less than 
negotiated contract cost.
    Current C-17 logistics performance is setting a new 
standard for airlifters. The C-17 is the airlifter of choice 
because it is ready when needed and reliable when called upon. 
In the current Balkans operations the C-17 has a 96% mission 
capable rate. This extremely high rate is in spite of flying 
150% of the missions of the C-141, C-5, and C-130 combined. In 
addition, despite the sudden surge of activity due to the 
Kosovo operations, the contractor has responded whenever 
needed, including oversees deployments with the C-17.
    I am deeply concerned the language requiring the Air Force 
to identify, by February 1, 2000, the core logistics capability 
requirements for maintenance and repair of the C-17 aircraft 
would impose a hasty decision upon the Air Force and preclude 
the service from making the best long-term maintenance decision 
on the C-17.

                                   Ciro D. Rodriguez.

                Dissenting Views of Cynthia A. McKinney

    With some reservation I oppose reporting this bill out of 
committee. To be sure, the chairman's mark contains provision 
that I strongly support, including the cooperative threat 
reduction programs with the states of the former Soviet Union, 
increased pay for members of the uniformed services and 
increases in benefits for veterans.
    Although I oppose this bill, I want to acknowledge and 
commend the hard work of my colleagues and the committee staff 
for their sincere efforts to provide for the common defense.
    I also acknowledge that not all of the excesses in military 
spending in this bill are the fault of the committee. The House 
Armed Services Committee is charged with the responsibility to 
provide the armed forces with the resources to achieve their 
mission. That mission calls on the military to be prepared to 
fight two significant wars at the same time, without allies and 
while maintaining a credible reserve. In effect, the mission 
calls upon us to maintain a cold-war era military and its 
incumbent cost irrespective of any realistic assessment of 
threat. We also maintain, at tremendous expense, a cold war 
nuclear arsenal.
    I strongly believe we must leave behind the military 
structure and devices that we depended upon to win the cold 
war. Yet this years budget includes the Presidents request for 
the largest increase in military spending since the end of the 
cold war. On top of that, we have added an emergency 
supplemental appropriation loaded with pork that takes funds 
from social security, low-income housing and nutrition 
programs. Frankly, I find that appalling.
    In my dissent of the National Defense Authorization Act of 
1999, I wrote: ``. . . this authorization is only part of the 
defense spending. The Congress just passed the supplemental 
emergency appropriation that provides additional spending for 
our forces in Bosnia and the Persian Gulf. As well, the 
emergency appropriation bill became a vehicle by which a new 
ballistic missile system was paid for. This additional spending 
of 2.9 billion not only fills out of the budget agreement, but 
important domestic programs were cut in order to pay for it. I 
am deeply disturbed that this might become our practice for 
supporting out military activities.''
    Obviously, my concerns were well founded. I remain deeply 
concerned that the supplementals are becoming the budget 
gimmick of choice for loading political pork into the military 
budget.
    It is clear to me that our national security cannot be 
measured in bombers alone. I believe out national security 
depends equally on our domestic programs and on constructive 
foreign policy initiatives.
    We can no longer continue to spend nearly half of all 
federal discretionary dollars on military programs. This 
misplaced priority compromises our national security by 
shortchanging our investments in programs that make for real 
security--a healthy, well-educated, properly housed citizenry.
    My good friend Joe Volk, Executive Secretary of the Friends 
Committee on National Legislation is right on the mark in his 
May 21 letter thanking me for opposing Committee's version of 
the FY2000 Defense Authorization bill. He wrote:
    Dear Cynthia: We at the Friends Committee on National 
Legislation (FCNL) recognize you as one of the only members who 
has critically examined this new tide of increased military 
spending, and one of the only members who acknowledges existing 
opportunities to achieve both increased security and 
significant savings in the current military budget through 
changes in U.S. foreign and military policies and spending 
choices.
    As the sole member of the Armed Services Committee to vote 
against the bill, you alone have addressed the important 
questions about U.S. military and security policy.
    Does the U.S. really need a military that is big enough to 
simultaneously fight two major regional wars alone? In 
practice, most threats to international security today are 
handled through cooperative efforts by regional alliances or 
through the UN Security Council--not unilateral action.
    Why does the U.S. need to continue to station 100,000 
troops in Europe? The cold war is over, and Europe is quite 
capable of defending itself.
    Why is the U.S. spending $35 billion per year maintaining 
over 6,000 nuclear weapons on high alert against an enemy that 
no longer exists?
    Why should the U.S. spend another $11 billion on a missile 
``defense'' system that is technologically infeasible and 
strategically destabilizing? Investing a fraction of this on 
arms control and disarmament initiatives could do far more to 
preserve U.S. security.
    Why not close the military bases that the Department of 
Defense (DOD) no longer needs and support converting them into 
profitable commercial and industrial centers?
    Why should the DOD get more money when it cannot match over 
$22 billion in expenditures with obligations, it cannot find 
over $9 billion worth of inventory, and it continues to give 
away millions in overpayments to contractors? More money is not 
the answer to Pentagon waste.
    Courageous leadership will one day change key U.S. foreign 
and military policies. Then, many of the current excuses for 
increasing military spending will disappear and significant 
budgetary savings can be achieved.
    End the obsolete and provocative U.S. cold war military 
strategy and reduce U.S. forces in Europe and elsewhere 
accordingly. Invest instead in developing multilateral civil 
institutions such as the Organization for Cooperation and 
Security in Europe (OSCE).
    Begin immediately to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal to 
START II levels, take these weapons of mass destruction off of 
high alert, and support programs that assist the Russians in 
safely dismantling their nuclear weapons systems.
    Stop bombing Serbia and Kosovo. Bombing has failed to stop 
the genocide. In fact, the bombing has fueled the fire and made 
the task of finding a just, lasting, political solution more 
difficult and costly for all who live there.
    Stop exporting advanced weapons systems and production 
facilities to other countries. Then the U.S. will no longer be 
compelled to compete against its own advanced weapons abroad.
    Control and reduce the international supply of military 
weapons. Weapons transfers by the U.S. and other countries have 
fueled violent conflicts around the world, creating 
humanitarian tragedies and causing a boomerang effect against 
U.S. military personnel and UN peacekeepers.
    Pay U.S. arrears and dues to the UN in full and on time, 
and strengthen and reform the UN system so that it can play a 
more effective role in preventing violent conflicts.
    These steps would reduce costs to the U.S. government by 
more than $40 billion per year and greatly enhance U.S. and 
global security. Also, other governments will likely respond 
positively in kind to such initiatives, reducing their own 
military spending. More money would go to basic human needs and 
economic trade and development. Perhaps most importantly, many 
of these actions would reduce tensions with the Russian and 
Chinese governments.
    Congress and the President would do well to listen to your 
``voice in the wilderness'' before they launch what could 
become another, more dangerous and destabilizing global arms 
race. True, sustainable human security can be achieved at much 
less cost by redirecting military spending to meeting human 
needs at home and abroad and by investing and participating in 
cooperative international institutions and processes that 
protect human rights and prevent violent conflicts. Thank you 
for your conscientious stand for real security at home and 
abroad. Sincerely, Joe Volk.
    I would like to thank my friends at FCNL and the many other 
non-government organizations that work with me to bring about 
sensible budget priorities and real security through my work on 
the House Armed Services Committee. Peace.

                                   Cynthia McKinney.

                                  
