S. Rpt. 104-112. NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 REPORT

From the Senate Reports Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
104th Congress 1st
Session SENATE Report
104-112
_______________________________________________________________________
Calendar No. 145
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
REPORT
[to accompany s. 1026]
on
AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR
DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL
STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
together with
ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS
----------
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
July 12 (legislative day, July 10), 1995.--Ordered to be printed

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
104th Congress 1st SENATE Report
Session
104-112
_______________________________________________________________________
Calendar No. 145
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
REPORT
[to accompany s. 1026]
on
AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR
DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL
STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
together with
ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS
__________
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
July 12 (legislative day, July 10), 1995.--Ordered to be printed
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
(104th Congress, 1st Session)
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina,
Chairman
SAM NUNN, Georgia JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
J. JAMES EXON, Nebraska WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine
CARL LEVIN, Michigan JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico DAN COATS, Indiana
JOHN GLENN, Ohio BOB SMITH, New Hampshire
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho
CHARLES S. ROBB, Virginia KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania
Richard L. Reynard, Staff Director
Arnold L. Punaro, Staff Director
for the Minority
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Purpose of the bill.............................................. 1
Committee overview and recommendations........................... 2
Explanation of funding summary................................... 3
Division A--Department of Defense Authorizations
Title I--Procurement............................................. 11
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 12
Section 107. Chemical demilitarization program............... 12
Use of unobligated fiscal year 1994 and 1995 funds... 13
Transportation of the unitary stockpile.............. 13
Subtitle B--Army Programs.................................... 14
Section 111. AH-64D Longbow Apache attack helicopter..... 26
Section 112. OH-58D AHIP Scout helicopter................ 26
Section 113. Hydra 70 rocket............................. 26
Other Army Programs.......................................... 27
Army aircraft............................................ 27
C-XX mid-range turbofan aircraft..................... 27
UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter.......................... 27
Army Missile............................................. 27
Hellfire missile..................................... 27
Javelin medium anti-tank weapon...................... 27
TOW missile.......................................... 28
Multiple launch rocket system (MLRS)................. 28
Army tactical missile system (ATACMS)................ 28
Stinger missile modifications........................ 29
Weapons and tracked combat vehicles...................... 29
M113 family of vehicles (FOV)........................ 29
Bradley fighting vehicle............................. 29
Improved recovery vehicle (IRV)...................... 30
M1A2 tank upgrades................................... 30
Small arms programs.................................. 31
7.62 millimeter medium machine gun................... 31
Army ammunition.......................................... 31
Army ammunition...................................... 31
Selectable lightweight attack munition XM94.......... 32
Procurement of M-795 artillery projectile............ 32
Armament retooling and manufacturing support (ARMS).. 32
Other Army procurement................................... 32
High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV)... 32
Family of medium tactical vehicles (FMTV)............ 33
Family of heavy tactical vehicles (FHTV)............. 33
Medium truck extended service program (ESP).......... 34
Communications and intelligence systems.............. 35
Army data distribution system (ADDS)................. 35
Single channel ground and airborne radio system
(SINCGARS)......................................... 35
Commanders tactical terminal......................... 35
Forward area air defense-ground based sensor (FAAD-
GBS)............................................... 35
Night vision devices................................. 36
Tactical quiet generators............................ 36
Subtitle C--Navy Programs.................................... 37
Section 121. Seawolf and new attack submarine programs... 55
Section 124. Split funding for construction of naval
vessels................................................ 59
Other Navy Programs.......................................... 61
Navy aircraft............................................ 61
AV-8B remanufacture.................................. 61
Additional F/A-18C/D strike fighters................. 61
CH-53E helicopters................................... 62
F-14 Forward looking infrared (FLIR)/Laser........... 62
Thermal imaging modifications for USMC aircraft...... 62
AN/APR-39A(V)-2 radar warning receiver............... 63
Undergraduate NFO training........................... 63
Navy weapons............................................. 63
Tomahawk missile..................................... 63
Direct broadcast service............................. 63
Navy shipbuilding and conversion......................... 64
Amphibious lift...................................... 64
LCAC service life extension program.................. 65
Shipbuilding contract retentions..................... 65
Other Navy procurement................................... 66
Submarine navigation sets............................ 66
AN/SLQ-32 electronic warfare system.................. 66
Integrated communications for aircraft carriers...... 67
Challenge Athena..................................... 67
Sonobuoy procurement................................. 68
Electro-optical sight/weapons director............... 68
Vertical launch system............................... 69
Forklift trucks...................................... 69
Marine Corps ammunition.................................. 69
Marine Corps ammunition.............................. 69
Marine Corps............................................. 69
M1A1 tank modifications.............................. 69
Operational enhancements............................. 70
PSC-5 radios......................................... 70
Advanced field artillery tactical data systems
(AFATDS)........................................... 70
Night vision devices (NVD)........................... 70
Computer upgrades.................................... 71
Trailers............................................. 71
Water purification and support equipment............. 71
Training simulators.................................. 71
Air Force programs........................................... 72
Air Force aircraft....................................... 84
Strategic airlift.................................... 84
C-17 Spares.......................................... 84
Air Force ammunition..................................... 84
Air Force ammunition................................. 84
Air Force missile........................................ 84
Defense support program procurement.................. 84
Minuteman guidance replacement program............... 84
Global positioning system block IIF advanced
procurement........................................ 85
Space boosters....................................... 85
Defense satellite communications system.............. 85
Other Air Force procurement.............................. 85
Avionics support equipment........................... 85
Subtitle D--Other programs................................... 86
Section 131. Tier II predator unmanned aerial vehicle
program................................................ 86
Section 132. Pioneer unmanned aerial vehicle program..... 86
Defense-Wide procurement................................. 88
Mark V special operations craft...................... 92
Rigid hull inflatable boat (RHIB).................... 92
National Guard and Reserve equipment..................... 92
National Guard artillery modernization............... 93
High capacity air ambulances......................... 94
Naval Reserve C-9B aircraft.......................... 94
Title II--Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E)..... 95
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 95
Section 211. A/F117X long-range, medium attack aircraft.. 95
Risk reduction--current program...................... 96
Risk reduction--additional program scope............. 96
Section 212. Navy mine countermeasures program........... 97
Section 213. Marine Corps shore fire support............. 98
Section 214. Space and missile tracking system program... 99
Section 215. Precision guided munitions.................. 101
Interim PGM.......................................... 101
Section 216. Defense Nuclear Agency programs............. 102
DNA mission.......................................... 102
DNA budget request................................... 103
Electro-thermal chemical (ETC) gun program........... 103
Thermionics.......................................... 104
Section 217. Counterproliferation support program........ 104
Biological detection................................. 105
Special Operations Forces............................ 105
Underground and deep underground structures.......... 105
Cruise Missile proliferation......................... 106
Proliferation of space technology.................... 106
Emergency preparedness and response.................. 107
Transfer authority................................... 107
Report to Congress................................... 107
Section 218. Nonlethal weapons program................... 108
Section 219. Federally funded research and development
centers................................................ 109
Section 220. States eligible for assistance under Defense
Experimental Program To Stimulate Competitive Research. 109
Section 221. National defense technology and industrial
base, defense reinvestment, and conversion............. 110
Section 222. Revisions of manufacturing of science and
technology programs.................................... 111
Section 223. Preparedness of the Department of Defense to
respond to military and civil defense emergencies
resulting from a chemical, biological, radiological, or
nuclear attack......................................... 112
Subtitle C--Missile Defense.................................. 113
Sections 231 through 241................................. 113
Missile Defense Act of 1995.............................. 113
Theater missile defense architecture................. 113
National missile defense architecture................ 117
Cruise missile defense initiative.................... 119
Policy regarding the ABM Treaty...................... 119
Development, testing and deployment of non-ABM
systems............................................ 120
Ballistic Missile Defense Program elements........... 121
Ballistic missile defense funding........................ 121
Core theater missile defense programs................ 122
Other theater missile defense activities............. 122
National missile defense............................. 123
Support technologies................................. 124
Cruise missile defense funding........................... 124
Other Programs............................................... 126
Army..................................................... 126
High modulus polycrylonitrile (PAN) carbon fiber..... 131
Army technology base programs........................ 131
Environmental Policy Simulation Laboratory (EPSL).... 131
Funding for medical total access programs
(telemedicine)..................................... 132
Wave net technology.................................. 132
Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)........... 133
Multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) enhancements.... 133
Objective individual combat weapon (OICW)............ 133
Advanced artillery propellant development............ 133
Armored systems modernization (ASM).................. 134
Small arms common module fire control system (SACMFS) 134
Command and control centers.......................... 134
Comanche helicopter.................................. 134
Medium tactical truck extended service program (ESP). 135
Heavy tactical vehicles.............................. 135
High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV)... 135
Laser warning component-suite of survivability
enhancements....................................... 136
Mark-19 universal bracket............................ 136
High energy laser systems test facility.............. 136
Nautilus/Tactical High Energy Laser Program.......... 136
Army field artillery tactical data system (AFATDS)... 137
Stinger missile modifications........................ 137
Communications enhancements.......................... 137
Navy..................................................... 138
Defense research sciences (Navy)..................... 143
Power electronics building block..................... 143
Parametric airborne dipping sonar.................... 143
Air Systems and Weapons Advanced Technology.......... 144
Intercooled recuperated gas turbine.................. 144
Remote minehunting vehicle........................... 144
Advanced armored amphibious vehicle (AAAV)........... 144
Lightweight 155mm howitzer........................... 145
Cooperative engagement capability.................... 145
Naval surface fire support........................... 145
S-3B Project Gray Wolf............................... 146
V-22 Osprey.......................................... 147
Airborne electronic warfare.......................... 147
Infrared search and track............................ 149
BARAK 1--ship self defense........................... 149
Medium tactical vehicle remanufacture (MTVR)......... 150
Crash attenuating seats for helicopters.............. 150
Plasma Electric Waste Converter Program.............. 150
Air Force................................................ 151
Adaptive optics...................................... 157
Defense research sciences (Air Force)................ 157
Human systems technology............................. 157
Thermally stable jet fuels........................... 157
Range tracking and safety............................ 157
Micro-satellite development program.................. 157
Polar satellite communications....................... 157
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental
Satellite System................................... 158
Reentry vehicle applications......................... 158
Interim precision guided munitions (PGM)............. 158
F-22 Program......................................... 159
Sensor Fuzed Weapon Improvement Program.............. 161
Ultra-high frequency satellite communications........ 162
RC-135 Re-engining................................... 162
Joint air-to-surface standoff missile (JASSM)........ 162
Standoff land attack missile extended response... 162
Rivet Joint technology transfer program............. 162
Information systems security......................... 163
Defense Support Program.............................. 163
Fighter data links................................... 163
Defense-Wide............................................. 165
Combat readiness research............................ 169
DODDS Director's fund for science, mathematics, and
engineering........................................ 169
University research initiatives...................... 170
Medical Free Electron Laser Program.................. 170
Software reuse....................................... 170
Tactical landing system.............................. 170
Diamond substrates................................... 170
High temperature superconductivity................... 171
Pulsed fast neutron analysis (PFNA) technology....... 171
Thermophotovoltaics.................................. 171
Large millimeter wave telescope...................... 172
Rapid acquisition of manufactured parts.............. 172
Advanced electronics technologies.................... 172
Semiconductor manufacturing technology (SEMATECH).... 172
ATD-111 non-acoustic sensor technology............... 173
NATO research and development program................ 173
Fuel cells........................................... 174
Special Operations Forces counterproliferation
support............................................ 174
Technical studies, support and analysis.............. 174
Technical assistance and SBIR administration......... 174
U-2 Signals intelligence (SIGINT) sensor upgrades.... 174
U-2 defensive system upgrade......................... 175
Maritime unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)............... 175
Advanced SEAL delivery system (ASDS)................. 175
Rigid hull inflatable boat (RHIB).................... 176
Expertise on defense trade and international
technology......................................... 176
RDT&E infrastructure................................. 176
Individual lift vehicle development.................. 177
Defense developmental test and evaluation................ 177
Environmental technology............................. 177
Title III--Operation and Maintenance............................. 179
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 209
Section 303. Armed Forces retirement home................ 209
Section 304. Transfer from National Defense Stockpile
Transaction Fund....................................... 209
Subtitle B--Depot-level Maintenance and Repair............... 209
Section 311. Policy regarding performance of depot-level
maintenance and repair for the Department of Defense... 209
Section 312. Extension of authority for aviation depots
and naval shipyards to engage in defense-related
production and services................................ 210
Subtitle C--Environmental Provisions......................... 210
Section 321. Revision of requirements for agreements for
services under environmental restoration program....... 210
Section 322. Discharges from vessels of the Armed Forces. 211
Section 323. Revision of authorities relating to
restoration advisory boards............................ 211
Subtitle D--Civilian Employees............................... 212
Section 331. Minimum number of military reserve
technicians............................................ 212
Section 332. Exemption of Department of Defense from
personnel ceilings for civilian personnel.............. 212
Section 333. Wearing of uniform by National Guard
technicians............................................ 213
Section 334. Extension of temporary authority to pay
civilian employees with respect to the evacuation from
Guantanamo, Cuba....................................... 213
Section 335. Sharing of personnel of Department of
Defense domestic dependent schools and Defense
Dependents' Education System........................... 214
Section 336. Revision of authority for appointments of
involuntarily separated military reserve technicians... 214
Section 337. Cost of continuing health insurance coverage
for employees voluntarily separated from positions to
be eliminated in a reduction in force.................. 214
Section 338. Elimination of 120-day limitation on details
of certain employees................................... 214
Section 339. Repeal of requirement for part-time career
opportunity employment reports......................... 214
Section 340. Authority of civilian employees of
Department of Defense to participate voluntarily in
reductions in force.................................... 215
Section 341. Authority to pay severance payments in lump
sums................................................... 215
Section 342. Holidays for employees whose basic workweek
is other than Monday through Friday.................... 215
Section 343. Coverage of nonappropriated fund employees
under authority for flexible and compressed work
schedules.............................................. 215
Subtitle E--Defense Financial Management..................... 215
Section 351. Financial management training............... 215
Section 352. Limitation on opening of new centers for
Defense Finance and Accounting Service................. 216
Subtitle F--Miscellaneous Assistance......................... 216
Section 361. Department of Defense funding for National
Guard participation in joint disaster and emergency
assistance exercises................................... 216
Section 362. Office of Civil-Military Programs........... 216
Section 363. Revision of authority for Civil-Military
Cooperative Action Program............................. 216
Section 364. Office of Humanitarian and Refugee Affairs.. 216
Subtitle G--Operation of Morale, Welfare, and Recreation
Funds...................................................... 217
Section 371. Disposition of excess morale, welfare, and
recreation funds....................................... 217
Section 372. Elimination of certain restrictions on
purchases and sales of items by exchange stores and
other morale, welfare, and recreation facilities....... 217
Section 373. Repeal of requirement to convert ships'
stores to nonappropriated fund instrumentalities....... 217
Subtitle H--Other Matters.................................... 217
Section 381. National Defense Sealift Fund: availability
for Ready Reserve component of the Ready Reserve Fleet. 217
Section 382. Limitation on contracting with same
contractor for construction of additional new sealift
ships.................................................. 217
Section 383. Availability of recovered losses resulting
from contractor fraud.................................. 218
Section 384. Permanent authority for use of proceeds from
the sale of certain lost, abandoned, or unclaimed
property............................................... 218
Section 385. Sale of military clothing and subsistence
and other supplies of the Navy and Marine Corps........ 219
Section 386. Conversion of Civilian Marksmanship Program
to nonappropriated fund instrumentality and activities
under program.......................................... 219
Section 387. Report on contracting out certain functions
of Department of Defense............................... 219
Section 390. Impact aid.................................. 219
Other items of interest...................................... 219
Army..................................................... 219
Army reimbursable positions.......................... 219
Historically black colleges and universities
fellowships........................................ 219
National Science Center.............................. 220
Navy..................................................... 220
Nimitz Center........................................ 220
Active and Reserve P-3 squadrons..................... 220
Yard tugboat service................................. 221
Marine Corps............................................. 221
Marine Corps extended cold weather clothing system
(ECWCS)............................................ 221
Air Force................................................ 221
Civil Air Patrol..................................... 221
Civilian personnel policy................................ 222
Modernization and regionalization of civilian
personnel management functions..................... 222
Defense-Wide............................................. 222
Multi-technology automated reader card (MARC)........ 222
SR-71................................................ 223
Museums.............................................. 223
Spending for non-military missions................... 223
International peacekeeping........................... 224
Humanitarian assistance and foreign disaster
assistance......................................... 224
Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps................ 224
Civilian personnel levels............................ 225
Federal Energy Management Program.................... 225
Homeless support initiative.......................... 225
Civil-military/youth outreach programs............... 225
United Services Organization......................... 226
Revolving funds.......................................... 226
National defense features............................ 226
Maritime prepositioning ship leases.................. 227
Maritime prepositioning ship enhancement............. 228
Defense environment...................................... 229
Defense environmental compliance..................... 229
Legacy resource management program................... 229
Environmental management............................. 230
Cleanup of National Presto Industries Plant, Eau
Claire, Wisconsin.................................. 230
Title IV--Military Personnel Authorizations...................... 231
Subtitle A--Active Forces.................................... 231
Section 401. End strengths for active forces............. 231
Section 402. Temporary variation in DOPMA authorized end
strength limitations for active duty Air Force and Navy
officers in certain grades............................. 232
Section 403. Certain general and flag officers awaiting
retirement not to be counted........................... 233
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces................................... 233
Section 411. End strengths for Selected Reserve.......... 233
Section 412. End strengths for reserves on active duty in
support of the reserves................................ 234
Section 414. Reserves on active duty in support of
cooperative threat reduction programs not to be counted 235
Section 415. Reserves on active duty for military-to-
military contacts and comparable activities not to be
counted................................................ 236
Subtitle C--Military Training Student Loads.................. 236
Section 421. Authorization of training student loads..... 236
Title V--Military Personnel Policy............................... 237
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy......................... 237
Section 501. Joint officer management.................... 237
Section 502. Revision of service obligation for graduates
of the service academies............................... 238
Section 503. Qualifications for appointment as Surgeon
General of an Armed Force.............................. 238
Section 504. Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Air
Force.................................................. 238
Section 505. Retiring general and flag officers:
applicability of uniform criteria and procedures for
retiring in highest grade in which served.............. 238
Section 506. Extension of certain reserve officer
management authorities................................. 239
Section 507. Restrictions on wearing insignia for higher
grade before promotion................................. 239
Section 508. Director of Admissions, United States
Military Academy: retirement for years of service...... 240
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Reserve Components........... 240
Section 511. Mobilization income insurance program for
members of Ready Reserve............................... 240
Section 512. Eligibility of dentists to receive
assistance under the financial assistance program for
health care professionals in reserve components........ 241
Section 513. Leave for members of reserve components
performing public safety duty.......................... 241
Subtitle C--Uniform Code of Military Justice................. 241
Section 522. Definitions................................. 241
Section 523. Article 32 investigations................... 241
Section 524. Refusal to testify before court-martial..... 241
Section 525. Commitment of accused to treatment facility
by reason of lack of mental capacity or mental
responsibility......................................... 242
Section 527. Deferment of confinement.................... 242
Section 528. Submission of matters to the convening
authority for consideration............................ 242
Section 529. Proceedings in revision..................... 243
Section 530. Appeal by the United States................. 243
Section 531. Flight from apprehension.................... 243
Section 532. Carnal knowledge............................ 243
Section 533. Time after accession for initial instruction
in the Uniform Code of Military Justice................ 243
Section 535. Permanent authority concerning temporary
vacancies on the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. 244
Section 536. Advisory panel on UCMJ jurisdiction over
civilians accompanying the Armed Forces in time of
armed conflict......................................... 244
Subtitle D--Decorations and Awards........................... 244
Section 541. Award of Purple Heart to certain former
prisoners of war....................................... 244
Section 542. Meritorious and valorous service during
Vietnam era: review and awards......................... 245
Section 543. Military intelligence personnel prevented by
secrecy from being considered for decorations and
awards................................................. 245
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 245
Section 551. Determination of whereabouts and status of
missing persons........................................ 245
Section 552. Service not creditable for periods of
unavailability or incapacity due to misconduct......... 245
Section 553. Separation in cases involving extended
confinement............................................ 245
Section 526. Forfeiture of pay and allowances and
reduction in grade..................................... 245
Section 554. Duration of field training or practice
cruise required under the Senior Reserve Officers'
Training Corps program................................. 246
Section 555. Correction of military records.............. 246
Section 556. Limitation on reductions in medical
personnel.............................................. 247
Section 557. Repeal of requirement for athletic director
and nonappropriated fund account for the athletics
programs at the service academies...................... 247
Section 558. Prohibition on use of funds for service
academy preparatory school test program................ 247
Section 559. Centralized judicial review of Department of
Defense personnel actions.............................. 247
Other Items of Interest...................................... 248
Capstone course for new general and flag officers........ 248
Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act (ROPMA)......... 248
Reserve officers not on the active duty list............. 249
Service academy directives............................... 249
Tuition assistance program............................... 250
Quality of life while on independent duty................ 250
Recoupment............................................... 251
Title VI--Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits.............. 253
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances............................... 253
Section 601. Military pay raise for fiscal year 1996..... 253
Section 602. Election of basic allowance for quarters
instead of assignment to inadequate quarters........... 253
Section 603. Payment of basic allowance for quarters to
members of the uniformed services in pay grade E-6 who
are assigned to sea duty............................... 253
Section 604. Limitation on reduction of variable housing
allowance for certain members.......................... 254
Section 605. Clarification of limitation on eligibility
for family separation allowance........................ 254
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays........... 254
Section 611. Extension of certain bonuses for reserve
forces................................................. 254
Section 612. Extension of certain bonuses and special pay
for nurse officer candidates, registered nurses, and
nurse anesthetists..................................... 254
Section 613. Extension of authority relating to payment
of other bonuses and special pays...................... 254
Section 614. Hazardous duty incentive pay for warrant
officers and enlisted members serving as air weapons
controllers............................................ 255
Section 615. Aviation career incentive pay............... 255
Section 616. Clarification of authority to provide
special pay for nurses................................. 255
Section 617. Continuous entitlement to career sea pay for
crew members of ships designated as tenders............ 256
Section 618. Increase in maximum rate of special duty
assignment pay for enlisted members serving as
recruiters............................................. 256
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances.............
Section 621. Calculation on basis of mileage tables of
Secretary of Defense: repeal........................... 256
Section 622. Departure allowances........................ 256
Section 623. Dislocation allowance for moves resulting
from a base closure or realignment..................... 256
Section 624. Transportation of nondependent child from
sponsor's station overseas after loss of dependent
status while overseas.................................. 256
Subtitle D--Commissaries and Nonappropriated Fund
Instrumentalities.......................................... 257
Section 631. Use of commissary stores by members of the
Ready Reserve.......................................... 257
Section 632. Use of commissary stores by retired Reserves
under age 60 and their survivors....................... 257
Section 633. Use of morale, welfare, and recreation
facilities by members of reserve components and
dependents: clarification of entitlement............... 257
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 257
Section 641. Cost-of-living increases for retired pay.... 257
Section 642. Eligibility for retired pay for non-regular
service denied for members receiving certain sentences
in courts-martial...................................... 257
Section 643. Recoupment of administrative expenses in
garnishment actions.................................... 257
Section 644. Automatic maximum coverage under
Servicemen's Group Life Insurance...................... 258
Section 645. Termination of Servicemen's Group Life
Insurance for members of the Ready Reserve who fail to
pay premiums........................................... 258
Section 646. Report on extending to junior
noncommissioned officers privileges provided for senior
noncommissioned officers............................... 258
Section 647. Payment to survivors of deceased members of
the uniformed services for all leave accrued........... 258
Section 648. Annuities for certain military surviving
spouses................................................ 258
Section 649. Transitional compensation for dependents of
members of the Armed Forces separated for dependent
abuse: clarification of entitlement.................... 259
Other Item of Interest....................................... 259
Title VII--Health Care........................................... 261
Tricare...................................................... 261
Subtitle A--Health Care Services............................. 264
Section 701. Medical care for surviving dependents of
retired Reserves who die before age 60................. 264
Section 702. Dental insurance for members of the Selected
Reserve................................................ 264
Section 703. Modification of requirements regarding
routine physical examinations and immunizations under
CHAMPUS................................................ 264
Section 704. Permanent authority to carry out specialized
treatment facility program............................. 265
Section 705. Waiver of medicare part B late enrollment
penalty and establishment of special enrollment period
for certain military retirees and dependents........... 265
Subtitle B--Tricare Program.................................. 265
Section 712. Provision of TRICARE uniform benefits by
uniformed services treatment facilities................ 265
Section 713. Sense of Senate on access of medicare
eligible beneficiaries of CHAMPUS to health care under
TRICARE................................................ 265
Section 714. Pilot program of individualized residential
mental health services................................. 265
Subtitle C--Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities.......... 266
Section 721. Delay of termination of status of certain
facilities as uniformed services treatment facilities.. 266
Section 722. Applicability of Federal Acquisition
Regulation to participation agreements with uniformed
services treatment facilities.......................... 266
Section 723. Amount payable by uniformed services
treatment facilities for health care services provided
outside the catchment areas of the facilities.......... 266
Subtitle D--Other Changes to Existing Laws Regarding Health
Care Management............................................ 266
Section 731. Investment incentive for managed health care
in medical treatment facilities........................ 266
Section 732. Revision and codification of limitations on
physician payments under CHAMPUS....................... 267
Section 733. Personal services contracts for medical
treatment facilities of the Coast Guard................ 267
Section 734. Disclosure of information in Medicare and
Medicaid coverage data bank to improve collection from
responsible parties for health care services furnished
under CHAMPUS.......................................... 267
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 267
Section 741. TriService nursing research................. 267
Section 742. Fisher House trust funds.................... 267
Section 744. Applicability of limitation on prices of
pharmaceuticals procured for Coast Guard............... 267
Other Item of Interest........................................... 268
Telemedicine............................................. 268
Title VIII--Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and
Related Matters................................................ 269
Subtitle A--Acquisition Reform............................... 269
Section 801. Waivers from cancellation of funds.......... 269
Section 802. Procurement notice posting thresholds....... 269
Section 803. Prompt resolution of audit recommendations.. 269
Section 804. Test program for negotiation of
comprehensive subcontracting plans..................... 269
Section 805. Naval salvage facilities.................... 270
Section 806. Authority to delegate contracting authority. 270
Section 807. Coordination and communication of defense
research activities.................................... 270
Section 808. Procurement of items for experimental or
test purposes.......................................... 270
Section 809. Quality control in procurements of critical
aircraft and ship spare parts.......................... 270
Section 810. Use of funds for acquisition of rights to
use designs, processes, technical data and computer
software............................................... 270
Section 811. Independent cost estimates for major defense
acquisition programs................................... 270
Section 812. Fees for certain testing services........... 271
Section 813. Construction, repair, alteration,
furnishing, and equipping of naval vessels............. 271
Section 814. Civil Reserve Air Fleet..................... 271
Subtitle B--Other Matters.................................... 271
Section 821. Procurement technical assistance programs... 271
Section 822. Treatment of Department of Defense cable
television franchise agreements........................ 271
Other Items of Interest...................................... 271
Ship propellers.......................................... 271
Worker's compensation coverage on overseas contracts..... 272
Title IX--Department of Defense Organization and Management...... 275
Section 901. Redesignation of the position of Assistant
to the Secretary of Defense for Atomic Energy.......... 275
Other Matters................................................ 275
Joint Exercise, Training, and Doctrine Command........... 275
Reorganization of the Office of the Secretary of Defense. 275
Title X--General Provisions...................................... 279
Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................ 279
Section 1002. Disbursing and certifying officials........ 279
Section 1003. Defense modernization account.............. 279
Section 1004. Authorization of prior emergency
supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1995....... 280
Section 1005. Limitation on use of authority to pay for
emergency and extraordinary expenses................... 280
Section 1006. Transfer authority regarding funds
available for foreign currency fluctuations............ 280
Section 1007. Report on budget submission regarding
reserve components..................................... 281
Subtitle B--Naval Vessels.................................... 281
Section 1011. Iowa class battleships..................... 281
Section 1012. Transfer of naval vessels to certain
foreign countries...................................... 281
Subtitle C--Counter-Drug Activities.......................... 282
Section 1021. Revision and clarification of authority for
Federal support of drug interdiction and counter-drug
activities of the National Guard....................... 282
Section 1022. National Drug Intelligence Center.......... 282
Section 1023. Assistance to Customs Service.............. 282
Subtitle D--Department of Defense Education Programs......... 284
Section 1031. Continuation of the Uniformed Services
University of the Health Sciences...................... 284
Section 1032. Additional graduate schools and programs at
the Uniformed Services University of the Health
Sciences............................................... 284
Section 1033. Funding for basic adult education programs
for military personnel and dependents outside the
United States.......................................... 284
Section 1034. Scope of education programs of Community
College of the Air Force............................... 284
Section 1035. Date for annual report on Selected Reserve
Educational Assistance Program......................... 284
Subtitle E--Cooperative Threat Reduction With States of the
Former Soviet Union........................................ 284
Section 1041. Cooperative threat reduction programs
defined................................................ 284
Section 1042. Funding matters............................ 284
Section 1043. Limitation relating to offensive biological
warfare program of Russia.............................. 284
Subtitle F--Matters Relating to Other Nations................ 285
Section 1051. Cooperative research and development
agreements with NATO organizations..................... 285
Section 1052. National security implications of United
States export control policy........................... 285
Review of export licenses for biological pathogens... 286
Section 1053. Defense export loan guarantees............. 286
Section 1054. Landmine clearing assistance program....... 287
Landmine Convention.................................. 287
Section 1055. Strategic cooperation between the United
States and Israel...................................... 288
Section 1056. Support services for the Navy at the Port
of Haifa, Israel....................................... 288
Section 1057. Prohibition on assistance to terrorist
countries.............................................. 289
Section 1058. International military education and
training............................................... 289
Section 1060. Implementation of arms control agreements.. 289
Section 1061. Sense of Congress on limiting the placing
of United States forces under United Nations Command or
Control................................................ 290
Subtitle G--Repeal of Certain Reporting Requirements......... 291
Reduction of reporting requirements...................... 291
Subtitle H--Other Matters.................................... 291
Section 1081. Global positioning system.................. 291
Section 1082. Limitation on retirement or dismantlement
of strategic nuclear delivery systems.................. 292
Section 1083. National Guard Civilian Youth Opportunities
Pilot Program.......................................... 294
Section 1084. Report on Department of Defense boards and
commissions............................................ 294
Section 1085. Revision of authority for providing Army
support for the National Science Center for
Communications and Electronics......................... 295
Section 1086. Authority to suspend or terminate
collection actions against deceased members............ 295
Section 1087. Damage or loss to personal property due to
emergency evacuation or extraordinary circumstances.... 295
Section 1088. Check cashing and exchange transactions for
dependents of United States Government personnel....... 295
Section 1089. Travel of disabled veterans on military
aircraft............................................... 296
Section 1090. Transportation of crippled children in
Pacific rim region to Hawaii for medical care.......... 296
Section 1091. Student information for recruiting purposes 296
Section 1092. State recognition of military advance
medical directives..................................... 296
Section 1093. Report on personnel requirements for
control of transfer of certain weapons................. 297
Section 1094. Extension of period of Vietnam era......... 297
Other Items of Interest...................................... 297
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)............... 297
Department of Defense space management and organization.. 297
Joint military intelligence program...................... 298
Reusable launch vehicles................................. 299
Chinese military developments............................ 300
Private contracting for military assistance to Newly
Independent Democracies of Eastern Europe.............. 300
Division B--Military Construction Authorizations
Committee Action................................................. 301
Base closure and realignment accounts............................ 317
Title XXII--Navy................................................. 323
Section 2205. Authorization of appropriations............ 323
Section 2206. Authority to carry out land acquisition
project, Norfolk Naval Base, Virginia.................. 323
Section 2207. Acquisition of land, Henderson Hall,
Arlington, Virginia.................................... 323
Title XXIV--Defense Agencies..................................... 325
Chemical munitions disposal facilities................... 325
Title XXVIII--General Provisions................................. 327
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family
Housing.................................................... 327
Section 2801. Special threshold for unspecified minor
construction projects to correct life, health, or
safety deficiencies.................................... 327
Section 2802. Clarification of scope of unspecified minor
construction authority................................. 327
Section 2803. Temporary waiver of net floor area
limitation for family housing acquired in lieu of
construction........................................... 327
Section 2804. Reestablishment of authority to waive net
floor area limitation on acquisition by purchase of
certain military family housing........................ 327
Section 2805. Temporary waiver of limitations on space by
pay grade for military family housing units............ 327
Section 2806. Increase in number of family housing units
subject to foreign country maximum lease amount........ 328
Section 2807. Expansion of authority for limited
partnerships for development of military family housing 328
Section 2809. Authority to convey damaged or deteriorated
military family housing................................ 328
Section 2810. Energy and water conservation savings for
the Department of Defense.............................. 328
Section 2811. Alternative authority for construction and
improvement of military housing........................ 328
Section 2812. Permanent authority to enter into leases of
land for special operations activities................. 329
Section 2813. Authority to use funds for certain
educational purposes................................... 329
Subtitle B--Defense Base Closure and Realignment............. 329
Section 2821. In-kind consideration for leases at
installations to be closed or realigned................ 329
Section 2822. Clarification of authority regarding
contracts for community services at installations being
closed................................................. 330
Section 2823. Clarification of funding for environmental
restoration at installations approved for closure or
realignment in 1995.................................... 330
Section 2824. Authority to lease property requiring
environmental remediation at installations approved for
closure................................................ 330
Subtitle C--Land Conveyances................................. 330
Section 2831. Land acquisition or exchange, Shaw Air
Force Base, South Carolina............................. 330
Section 2832. Authority for Port Authority of State of
Mississippi to use certain Navy property in Gulfport,
Mississippi............................................ 330
Section 2833. Conveyance of resource recovery facility,
Fort Dix, New Jersey................................... 331
Section 2834. Conveyance of water and wastewater
treatment plants, Fort Gordon, Georgia................. 331
Section 2835. Conveyance of water treatment plant, Fort
Pickett, Virginia...................................... 331
Section 2836. Conveyance of electric power distribution
system, Fort Irwin, California......................... 331
Section 2837. Land exchange, Fort Lewis, Washington...... 331
Subtitle D--Transfer of Jurisdiction and Establishment of
MIDEWIN National Tallgrass Prairie......................... 332
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 332
Section 2861. Department of Defense laboratory
revitalization demonstration program................... 332
Section 2862. Prohibition on joint civil aviation use of
Miramar Naval Air Station, California.................. 333
Section 2863. Report on agreement relating to conveyance
of land, Fort Belvoir, Virginia........................ 333
Other Items of Interest...................................... 333
Planning and design...................................... 334
Joint Armed Forces Reserve Center, Fort Lawton,
Washington............................................. 334
Fire fighting training system, Department of the Army.... 334
Repair of unsafe bridges................................. 334
Division C--Department of Energy National Security Authorizations and
Other Authorizations
Title XXXI--Department of Energy National Security Programs...... 335
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations........ 368
Section 3101. Weapons activities......................... 368
Congressional Guidance on Stockpile Stewardship...... 368
Stockpile Confidence Concerns........................ 368
Stockpile Confidence Strategy........................ 369
Stockpile Confidence: Testing Strategy............... 369
Maintaining Integrity of Test Readiness Capability... 369
Reemphasis on Maintaining the Stockpile is Required.. 369
Conclusion from the Nuclear Posture Review........... 370
Tritium Production Strategy.......................... 370
Human Resources for the Weapons Activity Mission..... 370
Technology Partnerships.............................. 370
Inertial Confinement Fusion.......................... 371
National Ignition Facility........................... 371
Stockpile Management................................. 372
Section 3102. Environmental restoration and waste
management............................................. 373
Assessment of Environmental Waste Management Program. 373
Providing the Tools for a Solution................... 373
Section 3103. Other defense activities................... 374
Section 3142. Authority to reprogram funds for
disposition of certain spent nuclear fuel.............. 374
Korean reactor reprogramming......................... 374
Arms Control......................................... 374
Nonproliferation and Verification Research and
Development........................................ 375
Section 3104. Defense nuclear waste disposal............. 375
Section 3105. Payment of penalties assessed against Rocky
Flats Site............................................. 375
Subtitle B--Recurring General Provisions..................... 375
Section 3121. Reprogramming.............................. 375
Section 3122. Limits on general plant projects........... 376
Section 3123. Limits on construction projects............ 376
Section 3124. Fund transfer authority.................... 376
Section 3125. Authority for conceptual and construction
design................................................. 376
Section 3126. Authority for emergency planning, design,
and construction activities............................ 377
Section 3127. Funds available for all national security
programs of the Department of Energy................... 377
Section 3128. Availability of funds...................... 377
Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 377
Section 3131. Tritium production......................... 377
Section 3132. Plutonium disposition...................... 377
Section 3133. Tritium recycling.......................... 378
Section 3134. Manufacturing infrastructure for
refabrication and certification of enduring nuclear
weapons stockpile...................................... 378
Weapons refabrication strategy....................... 378
Defense Programs Planning Council.................... 379
Integrated Weapons Refabrication Plan................ 379
Section 3135. Hydronuclear experiments................... 379
Section 3136. Fellowship program for development of
skills critical to the Department of Energy nuclear
weapons complex........................................ 379
Section 3137. Effect of issuance of environmental impact
statements on use of funds for certain Department of
Energy facilities...................................... 380
Section 3138. Dual-axis Radiographic Hydrotest Facility.. 381
Section 3139. Limitation on use of funds for certain
research and education purposes........................ 381
Section 3140. Processing of high level nuclear waste and
spent nuclear fuel rods................................ 381
Section 3141. Department of Energy Declassification
Productivity Initiative................................ 382
Section 3143. Protection of Workers at Nuclear Weapons
Facilities............................................. 382
Subtitle D--Transfer of Jurisdiction Over Department of
Energy National Security Functions......................... 382
Section 3151. Plans for transfer of jurisdiction over
Department of Energy national security functions....... 382
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 382
Section 3161. Responsibility for Defense Programs
Emergency Response Program............................. 382
Section 3162. Requirements for Department of Energy
weapons activities budgets for fiscal years after
fiscal year 1996....................................... 383
Section 3163. Enduring nuclear weapons stockpile......... 383
Section 3164. Report on proposed purchases of tritium
from foreign suppliers................................. 383
Section 3165. Report on hydronuclear testing............. 383
Section 3166. Master plan on warheads in the enduring
nuclear weapons stockpile.............................. 384
Section 3167. Prohibition on international inspections of
Department of Energy facilities pending certification
of protection of restricted data....................... 384
Other Items of Interest...................................... 384
Merger of operating and capital resources into one
category............................................... 384
Nuclear stockpile dismantlement.......................... 384
Nuclear reactor safety in Ukraine........................ 385
Accountability for civilian nuclear materials............ 385
Title XXXIII--Naval Petroleum Reserves........................... 387
Section 3301. Sale of Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 1
(Elk Hills)............................................ 387
Section 3302. Study regarding future of Naval Petroleum
Reserves (other than Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered
1)..................................................... 388
Title XXXIV--National Defense Stockpile.......................... 389
Section 3401. Authorized uses of stockpile funds......... 389
Section 3402. Disposal of obsolete and excess materials
contained in the National Defense Stockpile............ 389
Section 3403. Disposal of chromite and manganese ores and
chromium ferro and manganese metal electrolytic........ 389
Section 3404. Restrictions on disposal of manganese ferro 389
Section 3405. Excess defense-related materials: transfer
to Stockpile and disposal.............................. 389
Title XXXV--Panama Canal Commission.............................. 391
Legislative Requirements......................................... 392
Departmental recommendations................................. 392
Committee action............................................. 392
Fiscal data.................................................. 393
Congressional Budget Office cost estimate.................... 394
Regulatory input............................................. 394
Changes in existing law...................................... 394
Additional and Minority Views.................................... 395
Additional Views:
Mr. McCain............................................... 395
Mr. Exon................................................. 401
Mr. Kennedy.............................................. 403
Mr. Glenn................................................ 406
Mr. Lieberman............................................ 409
Mr. Bryan................................................ 412
Minority Views:
Mr. Levin................................................ 413
Mr. Bingaman............................................. 417
104th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 104-112
_______________________________________________________________________
AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 FOR MILITARY
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND
FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE
PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
_______
July 12 (legislative day, July 10), 1995.--Ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Thurmond, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany S. 1026]
The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an
original bill to authorize appropriations during the fiscal
year 1996 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
for military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such
fiscal year for the armed forces, and for other purposes, and,
recommends that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
This bill would:
(1) authorize appropriations for (a) procurement, (b)
research, development, test and evaluation, (c)
operation and maintenance and the revolving and
management funds of the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 1996;
(2) authorize the personnel end strength for each
military active duty component of the armed forces for
fiscal year 1996;
(3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the
Selected Reserve of each of the reserve components of
the armed forces for fiscal year 1996;
(4) authorize the annual average military training
student loads for the active and reserve components of
the armed forces for fiscal year 1996;
(5) impose certain reporting requirements;
(6) impose certain limitations with regard to
specific procurement, research, development, test and
evaluation actions, and manpower strengths; provide
certain additional legislative authority, and make
certain changes to existing law;
(7) authorize appropriations for military
construction programs of the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 1996; and
(8) authorize appropriations for national security
programs of the Department of Energy for fiscal year
1996.
Committee overview and recommendations
As the committee organized to carry out its constitutional
responsibilities and those assigned by the Senate for the 104th
Congress, the Chairman and the Members established priorities
which guided the committee through the authorization process.
As its top priority, the committee recognized that well-
motivated, well-trained, well-led soldiers, sailors, airmen and
marines are the bedrock of national security. The committee's
goal was to ensure that forces remain effective and force
levels remain sufficient, and that the services are manned by
personnel of the highest quality. This in turn required strong
congressional support for equitable pay and benefits, bachelor
and family housing, and other quality of life measures.
The committee emphasized the need to protect the combat
readiness of the armed forces. A prime concern was to establish
a proper balance between near-term and long-term readiness.
Although near-term readiness is a matter of critical
importance, a disproportionate allocation of scarce resources
to operation and maintenance accounts would unwisely limit
funds for research, development and procurement activities
essential to modernization. This could leave the force ill-
prepared for a future conflict. The committee sought to achieve
a reasonable balance by providing adequate funds for training,
and operation and maintenance accounts while authorizing
increases both for weapons and equipment currently in
production and for multiyear procurement. This will help to
avoid creating ``bow waves'' of funding requirements in
subsequent years. The committee has recommended a level of
funding for research and development which should assure U.S.
military superiority in the future. To make the best use of the
funds available, the committee made a concerted effort to
reduce spending for non-defense programs in the defense budget.
The committee was also concerned about the viability of the
nation's nuclear forces. According to the Nuclear Posture
Review (NPR), the United States will continue to depend on
these forces for nuclear deterrence into the foreseeable
future. Safe, reliable, and effective nuclear weapons are at
the core of this deterrence. In this bill the committee sought
to redirect the focus of the Department of Energy toward its
primary responsibility of maintaining the nation's nuclear
capability. To do this the department must emphasize a
stockpile management program geared to the near-term
refabrication and certification requirements outlined in the
NPR.
Finally, the committee addressed the proliferation of
missile technology and weapons of mass destruction. With an
increasing number of nations acquiring or developing long-range
missile technology, the United States must be able to defend
both its deployed forces and the homeland. The committee
provided direction and funds for both of these requirements. It
initiated a program to enhance defense against cruise missiles
while funding robust Theater Missile Defenses and mandating a
National Missile Defense program that will lead to the
deployment of a limited defense of the United States in the
foreseeable future. The committee reaffirmed its support for
cooperative threat reductions with Russia, Ukraine, Belarus,
and Kazakhstan.
The committee is concerned that the administration's budget
request did not include funding for numerous operations which
the armed forces are conducting currently, despite the fact
that the administration fully expects that these operations
will continue into fiscal year 1996. The committee has
therefore authorized $125.0 million to pay for these ongoing
operations. The committee cautions the administration that the
consequence of paying for these operations on an unprogrammed,
ad hoc basis, is often to deny necessary funds to maintain
force readiness. Last year the importance of timely, full
funding for such operations became apparent in lower readiness
ratings and curtailed training in some military units. Unless
the Department of Defense includes the funds for such
operations in the budget request, the committee's ability to
assess the impact these operations will have on other accounts
throughout the department and the services will be impaired.
The committee and the Congress have oversight responsibilities
which are hindered when the department does not budget for
known requirements.
The committee has long expressed its concern about the
decreasing levels of defense funding. The trend over the past
10 years has been one of constant decline. The administration's
request for procurement this year is at the lowest level since
1950, declining about 40 percent since 1985. Each successive
budget since 1993 has continued to push recapitalization
further into the outyears. As a result, the services have been
forced to delay the fielding of critical modern systems while
maintaining aging equipment at ever-increasing operating and
maintenance costs.
The committee remains concerned about the adequacy of
funding levels for national defense programs in the coming
years. Despite the recommended fiscal year 1996 funding
increase of $7.0 billion above the administration request,
budget levels proposed for future years do not adequately fund
even the level of forces required for the Bottom-Up Review
Force. These levels cannot meet modernization needs and do not
cover inflation. This shortfall will seriously impair the
ability of the Department of Defense to field the ready, modern
forces essential to our national security. The limited progress
reflected in this bill cannot be maintained unless future
funding is increased.
Department of Defense decisions to cancel or delay
modernization programs create unrealistic modernization funding
requirements for the future. In this bill, the committee has
addressed critical modernization needs by adding $5.3 billion
in procurement and $1.7 billion in research and development
accounts to offset some of these problems. The committee
believes that the Department of Defense must continue to fund
these accounts at similar, inflation-adjusted levels in future
budget requests.
Throughout the past six months, the committee worked in its
traditional bi-partisan manner which places the national
security interests of the United States and the safety of the
American people above other considerations. The National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 reflects this
cooperative effort and provides a clear direction for U.S.
national security policy, and a foundation for the defense of
the nation.
Explanation of funding summary
The administration's budget request for the national
defense function of the federal budget for fiscal year 1996 was
$257.7 billion, of which $189.5 billion was for programs which
require specific funding authorization.
The committee's authorization recommendation is
substantially larger ($264.70 billion in budget authority) than
the amount requested. The primary reason for this difference is
that the committee authorized an additional $5.3 billion in
procurement and $1.7 billion in research and development.
The following table summarizes both the direct
authorizations and equivalent budget authority levels for
fiscal year 1996 defense programs. The columns relating to the
authorization request do not include funding for the following
items: military personnel funding; military construction
authorizations provided in prior years; and other small
portions of the defense budget that are not within the
jurisdiction of this committee or which do not require an
annual authorization. As explained above, funding for military
personnel is included in the amounts authorized by the
committee, but not in the total funding requested for
authorization.
Funding for all programs in the national defense function
is reflected in the columns relating to the budget authority
request and the total budget authority implication of the
authorizations in this bill. The committee recommends funding
for national defense programs totalling $264.7 billion in
budget authority, which is consistent with the fiscal year 1996
Budget Resolution, an increase of $7 billion above the
President's budget request. The committee decided to allocate
this increase to the modernization accounts, authorizing an
additional $5.7 billion in procurement and an additional $1.3
billion in research and development.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
The committee's concerns over continually declining defense
budgets and the impact of these lower budgets on long-term
readiness was reinforced during both committee and subcommittee
hearings. The senior leaders of the military services
repeatedly expressed their concerns about the effects that
sharply reduced funding for modernization would have on future
capabilities.
Procurement accounts, including the current budget request,
have been cut 44 percent since fiscal year 1992, and the
current budget request does not provide sufficient funds to
address the needs of long-term readiness (modernization). Basic
items of equipment have not been procured in sufficient
quantities. Requirements for additional operating funds have
grown sharply in order to support the higher costs of
maintaining older equipment in reliable operating condition.
The committee has given priority to increasing the
modernization accounts in order to buy the weapons and
equipment needed to fight and win decisively with minimal risk
to personnel. The committee has utilized the following precepts
in allocating congressional increases to the defense budget:
--buy basics;
--invest to achieve savings; and
--invest in the future.
The committee notes that procurement of basic weapons and
items of equipment has been neglected during the decline in
defense spending. Consequently, the committee recommended
increases in such basic items as new ships, trucks, small arms
and upgrades to weapon systems and items of equipment already
in the inventory.
To avoid creating ``bow-waves'' of funding that the
military services could not afford in the outyears, the
committee has recommended increases for weapons and items of
equipment currently in production and the use of multiyear
procurement contracts, as well as a new concept of ``split-
funding'' for ships, where savings might be achieved. Buying
more weapons and equipment currently in production at more
efficient rates lowers overall costs to the government. It also
avoids overlapping procurement sequencing and reduces
competition for procurement resources in the future.
In summary, the committee's recommendation reprioritizes
the defense budget to ensure an appropriate balance between
near-term readiness and long-term readiness (modernization).
The committee also recommends a level of funding for research
and development to assure U.S. military superiority in the
future.
Budget requests for weapons and equipment
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
and the military services frequently fail to request funding
for essential weapons and equipment, believing that the
Congress will provide the necessary funds through the
legislative process.
This practice of not funding essential weapons and
equipment, commonly known as ``gold-watching'', occurs more
frequently as the budgets of the military services decline and
they are hard-pressed to find the funds necessary to fill their
requirements. All the military services have employed this
practice in some form or other, and the Department of Defense
apparently has not exerted appropriate discipline in order to
bring this fiscal ``gaming'' under control.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review
the budget requests of the military services as well as that of
defense agencies in order to eliminate the practice of ``gold-
watching''. Where sufficient funds are not requested for
essential weapons and items of equipment, the Secretary of
Defense or the Secretary of the Military Service will include a
statement explaining why the weapon or item of equipment was
not funded or severely underfunded.
Explanation of tables
The tables in this title display items requested by the
administration for fiscal year 1996 and the committee's actions
in regard to the requested amounts. As in the past, the
administration may not exceed the amounts approved by the
committee (as set forth in the tables or if unchanged from the
administration request, as set forth in the Department of
Defense's budget justification documents) without a
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures.
SUBTITLE A--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
Section - 107. Chemical demilitarization program.
The budget request included $854.7 million for the chemical
agents and munitions destruction program for operation and
maintenance ($393.9 million), procurement ($299.4 million),
research and development of alternative technologies for the
unitary and nonstockpile chemical agents ($53.4 million), and
military construction ($108.0 million).
The committee recommends a reduction of $170.0 million to
the budget request, $75.0 million from the procurement account,
defense-wide and $95.0 million from the military construction
account, defense-wide. The committee's recommendation is based
on the information provided to it that funds appropriated in
fiscal years 1994 and 1995 and allocated for procurement and
military construction for the Anniston Chemical Agent Disposal
Facility have not been obligated because of delays caused by
the lack of environmental permits from the State of Alabama, as
well as other contracting, fiscal, and political
considerations.
Use of Unobligated Fiscal Year 1994 and 1995 Funds
The recent decision of the Department of Defense and the
Army to place Fort McClellan, Alabama, on the base closure list
has caused a delay in the issuance of environmental permits by
the State of Alabama, and resulted in the inability to award
contracts for the Anniston facility. The committee recommends
that unobligated fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 1995 funds in
the procurement and military construction accounts which have
been allocated for use at the Anniston Chemical Agent Disposal
Facility be reallocated for procurement of equipment and
facilities design and construction at Pine Bluff, Arkansas and
Umatilla, Oregon.
Transportation of the Unitary Stockpile
The committee also directs the Department of Defense to
conduct a study to assess the risk associated with
transportation of the unitary stockpile from one location to
another within the continental United States. The study shall
also include the following: the results of the physical and
chemical integrity report conducted by the Army on the existing
stockpile; a determination of the viability of transportation
of any portion of the stockpile, to include drained agent from
munitions and the munitions. The report shall consider the
safety, cost-effectiveness, and public acceptability of
transporting the stockpile, in its current configuration, or in
alternate configurations.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Section - 111. AH-64D Longbow Apache Attack helicopter.
The budget request included $354.0 million to buy 18 AH-64D
aircraft and 13 Longbow fire control radars. The program would
buy 227 fire control radars by 2002 and 758 AH-64D by 2012. The
committee is advised that fielding of the Longbow Apache
aircraft to high priority units can be accelerated
significantly with substantial savings by providing for
multiyear procurement for fiscal years 1996 through fiscal year
2000.
The Army indicates that the proposed multiyear plan would:
--increase fiscal years 1996 to 2000 production from
182 to 240 aircraft--an additional 58 aircraft--which
allows fielding 86 percent of active duty force package
one units within the five year period versus the
current plan which fields only 57 percent;
--lower the unit cost from $13.3 million to $10.6
million per aircraft; ramps up to most efficient
production rates while taking advantage of economic
order quantities; and
--provide for estimated savings of up to $630.0
million over five years and potential savings of
$1,000.0 million over the life of the program.
The committee understands that an additional $82.0 million
is required for fiscal year 1996, $16.0 million in fiscal year
1999, and $43.0 million in fiscal year 2000 in order to execute
the proposed multiyear.
The committee recommends an increase of $82.0 million for
fiscal year 1996 and directs the Secretary of the Army to
ensure necessary funding is provided in future years to execute
the multiyear procurement. The committee recommends a provision
that would provide authorization for multiyear procurement of
the AH-64D Longbow Apache helicopter.
Section - 112. OH-58D AHIP Scout helicopter.
The budget request included $71.3 million to retrofit 33
OH-58D's to the armed configuration. No funds were included for
conversion of OH-58A to the much more capable OH-58D Kiowa
Warrior. The Army is still far short of its requirement for 507
Kiowa Warrior scout helicopters and the Comanche program is
unfortunately, once again experiencing program delays.
Therefore, the committee considers it imprudent to terminate
production of the Army's only scout helicopter and recommends
an additional authorization of $125.0 million for 20 OH-58D
Kiowa Warrior aircraft. The committee recommends a provision
that would repeal current law to permit this procurement.
Section - 113. Hydra 70 Rocket.
The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million for
procurement of Hydra 70 rockets. However, no funds may be
expended until the Army certifies the rocket motor failure
problem has been corrected and alternative motor systems have
been examined.
The conference report accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 noted limitations of the
current Hydra 70 rocket and encouraged investigation of non-
developmental motor systems in the section pertaining to
advanced rocket systems.
OTHER ARMY PROGRAMS
Army Aircraft
C-XX Mid-Range turbofan aircraft
The committee recommends an increase of $23.0 million for
competitive procurement by the Army of four new production C-XX
Mid-Range turbofan aircraft. The Army has identified the C-XX
Mid-Range program as its highest priority fixed wing program
due to cost and operational efficiencies. These efficiencies
will be achieved by the procurement of the C-XX planes in
conjunction with the retirement of older turboprops as well as
the enhanced level of standardization in the Army's aviation
fleet, thus reducing training and support costs.
UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter
Current Army plans would terminate UH-60 production after
the procurement of 60 UH-60 helicopters included in the fiscal
year 1996 budget request, the final year of a five-year
multiyear procurement.
The committee believes it is necessary to continue
production of UH-60 helicopters to maintain a production base
until the Comanche helicopter is ready for procurement. With
continually declining defense budgets, the Army is unable to
afford to buy UH-60's at the annual levels within the current
multiyear contract. The committee is convinced that the Army
and the contractor should work together toward a future
multiyear contract at annual levels which the Army can afford
and at which the contractor can produce the aircraft
efficiently.
The committee recommends an authorization of $281.7 million
for approximately 50 UH-60 helicopters.
Army Missile
Hellfire missile
The budget request included $197.5 million to procure 352
Longbow Hellfire missiles and $12.0 million for post-production
support, for a total of $209.5 million. Due to funding
shortfalls, the Army has stopped production of the Hellfire II
missile despite the fact that stocks are well short of the
requirement for 6,000 missiles. The committee notes that the
Army could take advantage of favorable contract options by
using the $12.0 million of post-production support funds plus
an additional $40.0 million to procure 750 additional Hellfire
II missiles.
The committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million for a
total of $249.5 million, $52.0 million of which is for the
procurement of 750 Hellfire II missiles.
Javelin medium anti-tank weapon
The budget request included $171.4 million which would
procure 557 Javelin missiles. The committee is pleased with
reports of the performance of the Javelin anti-tank system, but
notes that a reduction in fiscal year 1996 funding in the
budget request resulted in a decrease of $39.0 million from
previously planned levels. Restoration of these funds would
provide for the procurement of an additional 453 missiles--a 45
percent increase in missiles for an 18 percent increase in
funds. The committee, therefore, recommends an increase of
$39.0 million for Javelin procurement.
TOW missile
The budget request included $7.4 million for plant closure
and production support of prior year TOW missile deliveries. No
funds were requested for continued TOW missile production. The
TOW remains the centerpiece antiarmor weapon of U.S. ground
forces. Under current Army plans, a replacement for the TOW
missile will not be fielded until sometime after 2003. As a
result of normal shelf-life aging and the expenditure of
missiles in training and testing, the TOW missile inventory
will fall below levels required to equip contingency forces by
2003. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million to
procure 1,000 TOW 2B missiles.
Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS)
The committee provided funds in the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1995 to procure MLRS
launchers and associated equipment for an MLRS battalion for
the Army National Guard. Unfortunately, the funds provided were
not sufficient to complete fielding the entire battalion. The
committee recommends an increase of $16.4 million to
recondition nine MLRS launchers and provide ancillary equipment
to complete fielding of the MLRS battalion in the South
Carolina National Guard. The committee continues to support the
conversion of artillery battalions to MLRS battalions, and
recommends an increase of $48.0 million to recondition 29 more
MLRS launchers and provide necessary equipment for another MLRS
battalion.
The committee has strongly supported the expeditious
fielding of the Extended Range-MLRS (ER-MLRS) rocket to assist
in overcoming range deficiencies in U.S. Army artillery. The
ER-MLRS rocket will extend the range of the MLRS from 30 to 45
kilometers. The committee recommends an increase of $43.0
million dollars to produce 1500 extended range rockets in
fiscal year 1996. The committee directs that in meeting
requirements, the Secretary of the Army continue the successful
arrangement for procurement of MLRS rockets, including rocket
motor cases and warhead metal parts by sustaining the current
production team.
The committee is aware of the Army's proposal to initiate
foreign military sales (FMS) of the Extended Range MLRS (ER-
MLRS) during low rate initial production. The committee
understands that the initial funded ER-MLRS production levels
will be well below the industrial capacity. Utilizing this
unused production capacity for FMS will result in better
efficiency for U.S. production. The committee supports this
initiative to use FMS production to benefit the U.S. planned
program.
Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS)
The budget request included $106.97 million for 91 ATACMS
missiles (50 block I, 41 block IA). The block IA missile is the
version which provides exceptionally greater capability in
terms of extended range. The committee has consistently
supported ATACMS and was impressed by its performance in the
Persian Gulf War.
The committee recommends an increase of $18.0 million to
procure 29 additional extended range ATACMS missiles (50 block
I, 70 block IA).
Stinger missile modifications
The budget request included $10.1 million for the
modification of 650 Stinger missiles. These retrofits will
increase overall missile performance in certain engagement
situations and resolve a key aviation deficiency which requires
aviation platforms to super elevate. The committee is informed
that current funding is inadequate to provide economical
production rates for the Block 1 retrofit program and could
cause shutdown of critical elements of the industrial and
technical base.
The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million to
retrofit Block 1 upgrades to an additional 650 Stinger
missiles, and $3.0 million to modify 45 percent of Force
Package I platforms to accommodate the Block 1 configured
missiles.
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles
M113 family of vehicles (FOV)
The budget request included $48.1 million to continue the
modernization of the M113 armored personnel carrier family of
vehicles. The committee fully supports the Army's efforts to
upgrade the M113 FOV. M113A3 family vehicles are used by the
Army for a variety of critical combat, logistical, and command
and control functions within its heavy divisions. In fiscal
year 1995, the Army proposed a five-year, level-funded program
to continue to upgrade this critical armored vehicle fleet.
However, the Army's fiscal year 1996 request reflects a
decrease of $20.0 million in fiscal year 1997. The committee
remains convinced that the level-funded program is far more
advantageous for the Army. The Army is directed to restore the
$20.0 million to the fiscal year 1997 program, and ensure that
the fully-funded program is reflected in the fiscal year 1997
budget request.
Bradley fighting vehicle
The budget request included $138.3 million for the Bradley
Base Sustainment Program. The committee notes that no funding
is provided for continuing the upgrade of the oldest
configuration of the Bradley fighting vehicle (BFV), the A0, to
the more modern, survivable A2 version. Under current plans,
there will still be approximately 2,000 of the A0 BFV's in the
fleet, when the upgrade program would be terminated. Even with
a reduced force structure, the Army will not be able to fill
its total BFV requirement.
The committee believes this plan to terminate A0 to A2 BFV
upgrades may be premature, since the A0's lack the
survivability and improvements needed for the modern
battlefield. Commanders in Operation Desert Storm demanded the
more modern configuration when facing actual combat. It is also
likely that significant operation and support cost savings can
be realized by continuing to modernize the BFV fleet. The
committee believes the Army should consider continuation of the
A0 to A2 BFV upgrade program, and directs the Army to submit a
plan which addresses funding profile and procurement strategy
for continuation of the upgrade program. The plan should be
submitted with the fiscal year 1997 budget.
The committee also recommends an increase of $14.0 million
to buy one battalion set of reactive armor tiles for BFV.
Improved Recovery Vehicle (IRV)
The budget request included $23.5 million to procure nine
M88A1E1 Improved Recovery Vehicles (IRV). The IRV is a product-
improved tank recovery vehicle capable of independent recovery
(lift, winch and tow) of the Abrams series tank. Fielding of
the IRV is essential for battlefield recovery of the latest,
heavier (70 ton) M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams tanks. Fielding of the
IRV has been delayed due to lack of modernization funds in the
Army.
The committee recommends an increase of $33.9 million to
procure 12 more IRV's for the Army.
M1A2 tank upgrades
The budget request included $473.8 million for 100 M1A2
tank upgrades for the Army. Section 111(a) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 authorized the
use of multiyear procurement contracts for the M1A2 tank
upgrade program. The committee continues to be supportive of
multiyear procurement but notes that the Army has not proposed
such a strategy in the fiscal year 1996 budget.
The committee believes that procurement of tracked combat
vehicles (TCV) now and in the future must continue to maintain
a proper balance between the heavy and medium portions of the
fleet. The Army needs to field required modern equipment and to
protect critical elements of the industrial base as well. The
committee is concerned that multiyear contracting for the tank
upgrade program could result in an unbalanced TCV procurement
program if currently projected future budget increases do not
materialize. This would occur if funds committed to multiyear
contracts consumed the major share of a smaller than currently
projected TCV procurement account. The committee, therefore,
insists that any multiyear procurement proposals must include
sufficient flexibility in both quantity of upgrades and funding
to ensure appropriate balance in future TCV procurement. The
committee directs the Army Acquisition Executive to demonstrate
to the defense committees how this flexibility is achieved
before he agrees to multiyear contracts for M1A2 tank upgrades.
The National Defense Authorization Act Fiscal Year 1995
also included a provision (section 112) which directed the Army
to transfer 24 M1A1 common tanks to the Marine Corps Reserve in
conjunction with receipt of an additional 24 M1A2 tank upgrades
provided to the Army by an increase of $108.0 million to the
Abrams upgrade program. The intent of the committee, according
to the report accompanying the National Defense Authorization
Act of Fiscal Year 1995 (S. Rept. 103-282) and of the
conferees, according to the statement of managers in the
conference report accompanying that Act (H. Rept. 103-701), was
that the transfer in fiscal year 1995 was the first year of a
two-year program to eliminate a shortfall of 48 tanks in the
Marine Corps Reserve tank battalions. Therefore, the committee
recommends an increase of $110.0 million for 24 additional M1A2
tank upgrades for the Army. The Army is directed to transfer 24
additional M1A1 common tanks to the Marine Corps Reserve in
accordance with procedures set out in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995.
Small arms programs
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995
directed the Secretary of the Army to enter into multiyear
contracts for the MK-19 Grenade machine gun, the M-16A2 rifle,
the M-249 squad automatic weapon, and the M-4 Carbine in fiscal
year 1996 if he did not do so in fiscal year 1995. Despite
congressional direction, the Army did not request any funds for
small arms in the fiscal year 1996 budget request.
The committee expects the Secretary of the Army to comply
with congressional direction for multiyear procurements and
recommends increases for fiscal year 1996 as indicated below
for these programs:
--MK-19: $33.9 million for approximately 2100 weapons.
--M-249: $28.5 million for approximately 10,420
weapons.
--M-16A2: $13.5 million for approximately 25,000
weapons.
--M-4: $13.5 million for approximately 25,000 weapons.
The committee is aware of a requirement for the Army to
procure approximately 1434 modification kits for medium machine
guns, and recommends an increase of $6.5 million for this
procurement.
The committee also understands that there is an outstanding
requirement for M-9 9mm Personal Defense Weapons, and
recommends an increase of $4.0 million for approximately 10,000
pistols.
The committee is also aware of a requirement for a
universal mounting bracket for the MK-19, and recommends an
increase of $1.5 million within program modifications under $2
million, to begin initial production of a nondevelopmental
universal bracket, and $0.5 million in program element 604802
to type-classify this bracket.
7.62 millimeter medium machine gun
The committee understands that the Army has a requirement
to upgrade its current 7.62 millimeter medium machine gun. The
committee further understands that the requirement for non-
vehicular, 7.62 millimeter machine guns is in excess of 20,000
weapons for the Army's current force structure. Therefore, to
ensure the viability of the U.S. small arms industrial base,
the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to ensure that
long-term production to meet this requirement will be done in
the United States.
Army Ammunition
Army ammunition
The committee recommends the following adjustments to the
budget request for Army ammunition procurement:
Item Millions
7.62mm............................................................ $10.0
25mm M792 HEIT.................................................... 20.0
40mm M430A1....................................................... 10.0
60mm Illum M721................................................... 7.0
120mm APFSDS-T M829A2............................................. 87.1
120mm M830A1 HEAT-MP-T............................................ 20.0
120mm M929 (HV MORT).............................................. 20.0
155mm M795 (ex rge)............................................... 20.0
HYDRA 70 M264 (smoke)............................................. 20.0
M87A1 (Volcano)................................................... 30.0
BDM............................................................... 15.0
SLAM XM94......................................................... 9.5
SLAM XM94 (SOCOM)................................................. 1.5
Demolition Items.................................................. 6.0
Conventional Demilitarization..................................... 4.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Subtotal...................................................... 280.1
Selectable Lightweight Attack Munition XM94
The committee recommends an addition of $11.0 million for
procurement of the Selectable Lightweight Attack Munition
(SLAM). Of this amount, $9.5 million shall be available for
Army SLAM inventory, and $1.5 million shall be available for
the Special Operations Command.
Procurement of M-795 artillery projectile
The committee recognizes a need to provide land combat
forces with extended range artillery munitions, and recommends
an increase of $20.0 million to procure the M-795 round.
The committee also recognizes the value of soliciting
competitive bids for procurement items, and directs the
Secretary of the Army to consider competition among public and
private entities for procurement of this item.
Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support (ARMS)
The committee recommends an increase of $45.0 million to
compensate for unobligated funds rescinded in 1995 to offset
contingency operation expenses in the administration's
emergency supplemental request.
ARMS has proven to be a highly successful program which
allows DOD to avoid costs for operating and maintaining
government ammunition facilities still necessary for national
security requirements.
The committee strongly recommends that the DOD study an
ARMS-like approach as a viable method of controlling costs at
other DOD facilities.
Other Army Procurement
High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV)
The budget request included $57.7 million for 546 HMMWV's.
These numbers are significantly reduced from levels previously
presented by the Army. The need for additional HMMWV's,
however, has been indicated by both the Army and the Marine
Corps during testimony before the committee. The recently
released Tactical Wheeled Vehicle investment strategy outlining
the Army's long range acquisition strategy for its truck
programs, reflects increased funding for trucks beginning in
fiscal year 1997. However, funding shortfalls in fiscal year
1996 jeopardize HMMWV production capabilities. In order to
continue to fill the needs of the military services and
maintain minimum levels of production, the committee recommends
an increase of $72.0 million to procure approximately 1,300
additional HMMWV's for the Army in fiscal year 1996. The
committee is also concerned about the increasing age and
condition of the HMMWV fleet and recommends an increase of $5.0
million in the Army's research and development accounts to
initiate prototype development of a HMMWV Extended Service
Program (ESP).
Family of medium tactical vehicles (FMTV)
The Office of the Secretary of Defense recently published a
new Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Investment Strategy (TWVIS) in
response to concern expressed by all four defense committees of
the Congress. This strategy described the extreme underfunding
of the Army's truck fleets, the rapidly deteriorating age and
condition of the fleets, and what can be accomplished at
different levels of increased funding. The committee has been
concerned about the Army's truck fleets for several years, and
notes the increased operation and maintenance costs and
declining readiness as these fleets continue in use without
replacement or remanufacture.
The committee notes that the Army failed to request funds
for the fifth year of a multiyear contract for the FMTV in the
fiscal year 1996 budget request. The committee is aware that
the Army has been forced to cut deeply into its modernization
efforts in order to fund immediate readiness shortfalls
resulting from inadequate budget levels. As the TWVIS
indicated, ``At this funding level there is no modernization *
* *'' As a result, the fiscal year 1996 funding for FMTV
procurement was reduced from $384.0 million to $39.7 million,
which would effectively terminate this vitally-needed
modernization program. The committee understands that the
contractor has indicated a willingness to negotiate a
production ``stretch-out'' if additional funding is provided in
fiscal year 1996 that is less than the contractually required
amount. The committee recommends an increase of $110.0 million
for the FMTV program and expects the Army and the contractor to
cooperate fully in contract renegotiations to maintain
favorable pricing for the government and to avoid delays in
delivery of trucks to the Army. The committee expects the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army to ensure
that the military services' truck programs are adequately
funded in fiscal year 1997 and throughout the Future Years
Defense Plan.
Family of heavy tactical vehicles (FHTV)
The Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Investment Strategy (TWVIS)
recently forwarded to the congressional defense committees by
the Secretary of Defense indicated significant problems in the
Army's light, medium and heavy truck fleets. Nonetheless, the
committee notes that funding provided in the Army's truck
procurement account for fiscal year 1996 is far below levels
provided in previous years. The amount in this account over the
past ten years ranges from a high of $917.0 million to a low of
$419.0 million and averages $738.0 million per year. The Army's
fiscal year 1996 funding is only $128.0 million.
While the most severe problems are currently found in the
medium fleet, there are serious problems in the other fleets as
well. Critically important heavy fleets such as the Heavy
Equipment Transporter (HET), the transporter for the Abrams
main battle tank, with an estimated economic life of 14 years,
reached a fleet average age of 13.1 years in 1995.
The committee, therefore, recommends increases in the
amounts indicated below within the Family of Heavy Tactical
Vehicles budget line for the following components of the heavy
vehicle fleet:
In millions
--Heavy Equipment Transporters.............................. $17.0
(buys 38 HET's toward Force Package (FP)1 prepositioned
ship requirements)
--Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Trucks................... 33.0
(HEMTT 10 ton)(buys 125 wreckers and tankers for FP 1)
--Flatracks (for Palletized Loading System)................. 30.0
(buys 2500 flatracks for PLS)
--Yard Tractors............................................. 15.0
(procures 202 vehicles to replace overage fleet)
--HEMTT 10 ton Extended Service Program (ESP)............... 30.0
(Refurbishes 196-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
--Total.....................................................$125.0
Medium truck extended service program (ESP)
The committee is aware that the medium truck fleets (2\1/2\
ton and 5 ton) are in worse shape than the other truck fleets
in the Army in terms of both age and condition. Sixty-one
percent of the 2\1/2\ ton trucks and seventeen percent of the 5
ton trucks in the Army qualify for antique license plates in
several states. The committee has supported programs to procure
new medium trucks as well as programs to remanufacture trucks
currently in the fleet. A program is currently underway to
remanufacture 2\1/2\ ton trucks for the Army National Guard.
Both the Army and DOD now agree that a comprehensive extended
service program for medium trucks for both the active and
reserve components is necessary. The Marine Corps has decided
to upgrade its medium trucks through an extended service
program.
The committee supports the conclusions of the recent
Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Investment Strategy which endorses new
vehicle procurement, as well as remanufacture with technology
insertion for the light, medium and heavy truck fleets. The
committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million for the
medium truck extended service program.
The committee is concerned, however, about the possibility
of initiating several truck remanufacture programs, thereby
creating excess capacity in the industry. The committee is also
concerned about the Army's past selection of firms to
manufacture military trucks which had never done so, with
extremely troublesome results.
The committee prefers that maximum use be made of the
medium truck ESP currently underway; that separate, additional
procurements be kept to a minimum to avoid industrial
overcapacity; and that, for future procurements, consideration
be given to reliable manufacturers who have demonstrated
capabilities to produce military trucks.
In that regard, the committee expects the Army and Marine
Corps requirements for medium truck ESP will be harmonized to
provide for the most efficient procurement and to take maximum
advantage of economies of scale.
Communications and intelligence systems
The committee is aware of several communications and
intelligence systems where small investments now will provide
performance enhancements and significant potential for savings.
The committee recommends the following increases:
--$3.3 million to procure CHS-2 hardware for the Army
Global Command and Control System;
--$2.8 million to accelerate procurement of the Defense
Messaging System (DMS);
--$6.4 million to initiate the CHS-2 buy and accelerate
software insertion in the All Source Analysis System
(ASAS);
--$5.0 million to procure hardware to support the
initial operational test and evaluation and the Task
Force XXI operational evaluation for the Maneuver
Control System (MCS).
Army Data Distribution System (ADDS)
The budget request included $19.9 million for the ADDS-
Enhanced Position Location Reporting System (EPLRS). ADDS-EPLRS
is a state-of-the-art radio network developed to provide
robust, wide-area secure tactical data communication, friendly
identification, and position location/navigation information.
The committee is impressed with the performance of ADDS-EPLRS
and recommends an increase of $25.0 million for the procurement
of 300 EPLRS units, necessary support and field testing.
Single channel ground and airborne radio system (SINCGARS)
The committee is aware of significant savings that can be
achieved through accelerated procurement of SINCGARS radios.
The committee recommends an increase of $54.1 million to buy an
additional 9600 radios, and urges the Army to add funds in
fiscal years 1997 and 1998 to allow fielding three years
earlier than planned.
Commanders Tactical Terminal
The budget request included $11.3 million for 33 Commanders
Tactical Terminals (CTT). The committee is aware of the
capability of CTT to rapidly deliver critical, time-sensitive
intelligence and targeting information to Army air defense,
aviation, field artillery and military intelligence units. The
committee notes the inefficient rates at which the CTT is being
procured and recommends an increase of $18.7 million to procure
an additional 55 units.
Forward area air defense-ground based sensor (FAAD-GBS)
The budget request included $44.7 million to procure eight
FAAD-GBS systems. The committee is advised that additional
funds will provide for more efficient rates of production and
lower unit acquisition costs. Added funding to procure another
12 systems would lower the unit acquisition cost from $3.7
million to $2.7 million--a reduction of $1.0 million per unit.
The committee, therefore, recommends an increase of $19.2
million for a total of $63.9 million to procure 24 systems in
fiscal year 1996.
Night vision devices
In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1995, the committee supported efforts by the Army to upgrade
night weapon sights which incorporate older generation night
vision technology. This support included the authorization of
$2.25 million for generation III image intensification
technology which, as a direct drop-in replacement for the older
tubes, would double the range of these weapons sights and
increase the useful life of the image tube by a factor of five
times that currently experienced. The Army is currently in the
process of procuring the first 500 25 millimeter image tubes.
The committee understands that the Army has provided
funding in future budgets for this upgrade program. In the
interim, to ensure continuation of production of the 25
millimeter tube, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0
million for the Army and an increase of $2.0 million for the
Marine Corps within their respective night vision devices
funding lines.
Tactical quiet generators
The committee is aware of an effort the Army has pursued
for several years to replace its old, inefficient family of
generators for field use. The new family of generators will be
quieter and far more dependable than generators currently in
use. Significant savings are anticipated through reduced
maintenance and operating costs and changes in maintenance
procedures resulting from the procurement of the new family of
generators. The committee provides an increase of $35.0 million
to procure new, tactical, quiet generators from 5kw up to 60kw
for force package 1. The committee expects the Army to include
funding in fiscal years 1997 through 1999 to continue
procurement through force package 2.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Section - 121. Seawolf and New Attack Submarine programs.
The budget request included $1.5 billion to complete
acquisition of the third and final Seawolf class attack
submarine, known as SSN-23. The budget request also contains
$455.4 million for development and $704.5 million for advanced
procurement for a lead ship of a new class of attack submarine,
now known as the new attack submarine (NAS).
The Navy plan, reflected in the budget request, has been to
obtain authorization for SSN-23 in fiscal year 1996 and
continue what it calls a design/build process for the NAS with
lead ship authorization in fiscal year 1998. Design/build, as
described by the Navy, would be conducted by close coordination
between the Navy and the proposed builder, Electric Boat.
Process teams composed of design engineers, waterfront
production trades, key suppliers, and the Navy, would pool
their technical and engineering knowledge and employ state-of-
the-art CAD/CAM computer programs to execute preliminary and
contract design. If the design/build process works as planned,
it will produce far greater progress toward completion of
detailed design than is normal at contract award, optimize the
design for Electric Boat's production process, and produce
significant overall cost savings. Production efficiencies
introduced during design and a lower potential for disruptive
design changes are examples offered by the Navy of the
potential benefits of the design/build process.
The Navy contends that its plan would be the most cost-
effective way of delivering advanced capability nuclear
submarines to satisfy JCS requirements. However, the plan
derives from a premise that it is vital to national security to
maintain two nuclear capable shipbuilders--Newport News
Shipbuilding and Drydock for nuclear aircraft carrier
construction and refueling overhauls and Electric Boat for
nuclear submarines. During hearings held by the committee this
year, some questioned the validity of the Navy's underlying
premise.
Testimony and correspondence on submarine procurement that
the committee received this year dealt with two central
issues--the requirement to build SSN-23 and competition between
General Dynamics Electric Boat Division and Newport News
Shipbuilding and Drydock Company for construction of the NAS.
At issue with respect to SSN-23 was whether the requirement to
build the submarine is based on industrial concerns,
operational requirements, or both and whether the submarine is
affordable in today's budget environment. At issue with respect
to the NAS was whether the Navy's plan to allocate all future
submarine construction to Electric Boat without competition, a
plan that derives from the Department of Defense's Bottom Up
Review, was an acceptable course of action for the Navy to
follow. To properly consider these issues, the committee heard
testimony from the Navy, the shipbuilders, the General
Accounting Office (GAO), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO),
and the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Prior to this year the Navy advanced an industrial base
argument for SSN-23, asserting that the submarine was necessary
as an ``industrial bridge'' that will provide sufficient work
at Electric Boat for that company to remain viable as a
shipbuilder until construction of the NAS begins in fiscal year
1998. This year the Navy also introduced an operational
requirements argument for SSN-23, based on intelligence
estimates that the worldwide submarine threat from modern,
quiet submarines is proliferating rapidly. The Navy directed
specific attention to the Russian submarine program--the
quietness of both its existing and new construction boats
relative to the Navy's current front-line attack submarine, the
SSN-688 class, and the large commitment of resources that
Russia was devoting to submarine construction. In evaluating
this threat-based argument, the committee was informed by
witnesses that, while there is little doubt that the SSN-23
will perform superbly compared to any submarine now built or
under construction in both open ocean and littoral missions,
the existing JCS requirement, 10-12 submarines with quietness
equivalent to Seawolf (SSN-21), by the year 2012, can be met if
the Navy executes its current construction plan for the NAS
without the need to build SSN-23. Thus the committee did not
find the Navy's operational requirement argument a compelling
reason to authorize SSN-23.
Based on testimony and independent evaluation, the
committee does not take issue with the argument that
construction work on a scope comparable to that associated with
SSN-23 is needed for Electric Boat to remain a viable
shipbuilder for the NAS class. While the committee received
testimony on other possible construction options that might
sustain Electric Boat until fiscal year 1998, none appears more
cost-effective than building SSN-23. Even with SSN-23, Electric
Boat must reduce its work force from about 18,000 to a steady
state of about 6,000 and introduce a wide range of management
and labor efficiencies to remain profitable while building the
NAS at the rate projected in the future years defense program.
The issue of competition for the NAS produced strong,
forceful, and conflicting testimony. Newport News Shipbuilding
and Drydock introduced strong objections, echoed by committee
members, to the Navy's plan to allocate submarine construction
to Electric Boat. Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock is the
lead design yard for the SSN-688 class and the Seawolf class,
and has been actively involved in construction of SSN-688 class
submarines for the past twenty years. It desires to remain in
the submarine construction business and is seeking competitive
access to the NAS program as a means to do so. In pursuit of
this goal Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock performed an
economic analysis of the savings to the Navy that would result
if it decided to build all nuclear ships--aircraft carriers and
submarines, at Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock and
determined the savings would be substantial. Initially, the
Navy chose not to offer a comparable analysis, maintaining the
position that two nuclear capable yards were essential to
national security and citing the findings of the Bottom Up
Review as justification. After conflicting testimony before the
House National Security Committee (HNSC) revealed glaring
disparities between the Navy and Newport News Shipbuilding and
Drydock over the potential cost benefits associated with
carrying out the Navy's plan or shifting all construction to
Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock, the HNSC commissioned
the Congressional Research Service to conduct an independent
analysis for purposes of resolving the confusion. Preliminary
results of this analysis were available when the committee held
its hearing on submarine procurement. Further, the Navy had
decided to prepare its own assessment of the savings and
offered it for consideration shortly before the committee's
hearing.
Much of the testimony on submarine construction received by
the committee at its hearing on submarine procurement has been
summarized in the preceding paragraphs. Additional information
provided by the witnesses included:
1. the Navy's position on competition for the NAS had
evolved. The Navy testified that it was now agreeable
to competition at a time, not precisely specified, when
the design of the NAS was mature and a building rate
that would support competition was achieved;
2. testimony by GAO included observations that there
is some disagreement within the intelligence community
on the severity of the potential foreign submarine
threat, which could imply a future reassessment of the
requirement for U.S. submarine construction;
3. CBO, which had performed an assessment at the
request of a committee member, focused primarily on
short-term cost effects associated with not authorizing
SSN-23 in fiscal year 1996;
4. the CRS witness, based on analysis performed by
CRS at the request of the HNSC, devoted attention to
both the transient short-term and long-term recurring
savings that would occur in the period fiscal year
2006-fiscal year 2012. Summarizing major items from his
testimony:
a. when consistent assumptions regarding
building rate and future inflation are applied
to the Navy and Newport News Shipbuilding and
Drydock estimates, savings associated with
reducing to a single building yard for
submarine construction over the period from
fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 2012 would be:
--Newport News--$5.8 billion
--Navy-- $1.9 billion; and
b. the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock
and Navy estimates of average annual recurring
savings after a steady state is reached
differed by about $200 million per year.
Different estimates for direct labor and
material account for most of this difference
rather than fixed overhead costs;
5. both Navy and Newport News Shipbuilding and
Drydock agreed that a one yard strategy would be
cheaper but disagreed substantially on the amount of
savings that could be realized;
6. the Navy, based on its assessment of cost savings
associated with a single yard strategy, believes that
the 3 percent penalty it will have to pay to keep two
yards is worth the additional cost;
7. there is no significant difference in the quality
of the submarines built by the two shipyards;
8. there appeared to be a general consensus among the
witnesses that, if a competition for the fiscal year
1998 lead NAS occurred and the follow ship profile
currently planned remained valid, the competition would
be winner take all, i.e., the losing yard could not
sustain its submarine construction capability until
fiscal year 2000 when the Navy plans to request
authorization of the second submarine;
9. some provision must be made to give Newport News
Shipbuilding and Drydock access to design information
if the shipyard is to be competitive for the lead NAS
in fiscal year 1998; and
10. Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock asserted
that modification of the NAS design that is produced by
the design/build process at Electric Boat would not be
necessary for Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock to
compete, provided that Newport News Shipbuilding and
Drydock could remain current on the design as it
evolved.
While the committee intends to pursue the most cost
effective approach to the NAS program, it is reluctant to rely
exclusively on the accuracy of cost estimates presented at its
hearing on submarine procurement. The Navy and the shipbuilders
clearly had positions to defend, and the assumptions underlying
their analysis were in general favorable to the outcome they
desired. Attempts at objective analysis by the GAO, CBO, and
CRS were handicapped by uncertain and incomplete data, or data
withheld as proprietary. While the estimates tended to bound
the potential savings associated with shifting to a single
shipyard for submarine construction, they lacked sufficient
precision to permit the committee to use them as sole
justification for a recommendation that would likely cause the
loss of submarine construction capability at Newport News
Shipbuilding and Drydock or the extinction of Electric Boat as
a shipbuilder. Further, while the design/build concept appears
a sound approach to designing an affordable submarine, the
committee is concerned that the Navy may wait too long before
starting competition for the NAS. With regard to competition
the committee considers that:
1. competition in shipbuilding is an effective means
to minimize cost to the government;
2. without authorizing and appropriating the
necessary funds for the third Seawolf class submarine,
SSN-23, in fiscal year 1996, Electric Boat may likely
go out of business and competition for the NAS would
not be possible; and
3. for real competition to occur, both shipbuilders
must possess a sufficient level of knowledge about the
design that either could build the NAS.
After extensive additional review and consultation the
committee recommends a provision that would:
1. authorize the SSN-23 at $1.5 billion, the budget
request;
2. limit the ability of the Secretary of the Navy to
obligate or expend funds for SSN-23 until he
restructures the NAS program to provide for:
a. procurement of the lead NAS from Electric
Boat in fiscal year 1998;
b. procurement of the second NAS from Newport
News Shipbuilding and Drydock in fiscal year
1999; and
c. competitive procurement of any other
vessels under the NAS program with potential
competitors being any source to which the
Secretary of the Navy has awarded a contract
for construction of nuclear attack submarines
during the past 10 years.
3. direct the Secretary of the Navy to solicit
competitive proposals and award the contract or
contracts for NAS submarines after the second one on
the basis of price;
4. direct the Secretary of the Navy to take no action
that would impair the design, engineering,
construction, and maintenance competencies of either
Electric Boat or Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock
to construct the NAS.
5. direct the Secretary of the Navy to report every
six months to the Senate Armed Services Committee and
the House National Security Committee the obligation
and expenditure of funds for SSN-23 and the NAS;
6. authorize $814.5 million in fiscal year 1996 for
design and advance procurement of the lead and second
NAS. Of this amount $10.0 million would be available
only for participation of Newport News Shipbuilding and
Drydock in the NAS design; and $100.0 million would be
available only for advance procurement and design of
the second submarine under the NAS program;
7. authorize $802.0 million in fiscal year 1997 for
the lead and second NAS. Of this amount $75.0 million
would be available only for participation by Newport
News Shipbuilding and Drydock in the design of the NAS;
and $427.0 million would be available only for advanced
procurement and design of the second submarine under
the NAS program; and
8. authorize $455.4, the budget request, for
research, development, test, and evaluation for the NAS
program.
Section - 124. Split funding for construction of naval vessels.
Documentation provided with the budget request and
testimony offered by witnesses at the committee's hearing on
shipbuilding programs painted a bleak picture of the current
projections for modernization of the fleet. Navy ship
procurement is at its lowest level in real terms since the
years immediately following World War II. The Navy, which
testified that it is seeking to sustain a force structure of
336 ships, will procure an average of 4.67 new ships per year
under the six year plan accompanying the budget request. Even
with an optimistic 35 year life expectancy for these ships,
this procurement rate would produce a steady state fleet size
of less than 200 ships. Further, when the overlapping period
included in the fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996 budget
requests were compared, the fiscal year 1996 shipbuilding plan
lost seven of 22 ships, a 30 percent reduction. This phenomenon
of unrealized outyear expectations is not uncommon and reflects
a siphoning away of planned modernization to accommodate
emerging operational requirements associated with Bosnia,
Haiti, and Somalia, and reordering of modernization priorities
for the other services.
Aside from the impact that such volatile shipbuilding plans
may have on force structure planning, they can also have a
dramatic effect on the shipbuilding industrial base. For
example, a Congressional Research Service study, Navy DDG-51
Destroyer Procurement Rate: Issues and Options for Congress
(CRS Rept. 94-343F), published in April 1994, concluded that a
production rate below three DDG-51s per year would be
inadequate to sustain the two shipyards that the Navy, based on
a recently completed acquisition study, concluded are necessary
for continued procurement of the DDG-51 Aegis Class destroyers
at an efficient rate.
Hearing testimony and the committee's analysis of the
budget request yielded the following observations:
1. as previously described, the Navy's budget request
does not provide sufficient funding to meet its force
structure goals;
2. the construction rate of the six year shipbuilding
plan will create a funding ``bow wave'' in fiscal years
2002-2005 that will be between two and three times the
average funding for construction of new ships during
the next six years; and
3. the shipbuilding industrial base is severely
under-utilized, resulting in production inefficiencies
and increased unit costs. For example, during his
review of the Navy's fiscal year 1996 Program Objective
Memorandum, the Secretary of Defense chose to defer the
acquisition of two DDG-51 Class destroyers in order to
meet what he considered higher priority needs. Aside
from further exacerbating the underfunding of ship
procurement relative to force structure requirements,
this action increased the total cost of the remaining
13 destroyers by almost $800.0 million dollars.
Since the early 1960's the Department of Defense has
followed a policy for acquisition of major weapons systems,
shipbuilding being a prime example, that requires full funding
in the year of authorization--all the funds necessary to
procure the ship, including a provision for future inflation,
are included in the budget request even though actual
expenditures for the ship will occur over five or more years.
The full funding approach was adopted because unpredictable
cost growth once construction had begun generated unexpected
pressure on the annual appropriations process and in the worst
case caused partially completed projects to be abandoned. While
this conservative approach helps to insulate the ship
acquisition process from the impact of unexpected cost growth,
rigid adherence to it is apt to generate volatile annual
funding requirements and put extraordinary stress on
shipbuilding budgets that require a very large commitment of
capital resources for each ship that is bought. When
modernization is underfunded relative to requirement and
capacity, both force structure and the shipbuilding industrial
base are jeopardized.
Based on these considerations the committee recommends a
provision that would permit the Department of Defense to modify
its acquisition policy for specific shipbuilding programs, in
selected cases, to allow split funding of ship acquisition.
This provision incorporates the following concepts:
1. applies only to shipbuilding programs because of
the extraordinary unit cost and the time required to
construct;
2. in preparing its budget request the Department of
Defense would divide the total amount required for
procurement of a ship, including provision for
escalation, into two equal parts that would be
requested in consecutive budget requests;
3. authorization and appropriation of the first
increment of funding would be sufficient for the Navy
to enter into a contract for the full cost of the ship;
4. the contract would include a provision for a
termination liability reserve in the event that the
second increment of funding does not become available;
5. only ship construction programs that have been in
progress for a sufficient amount of time for the costs
to be well understood and predictable will be eligible
for split funding; and
6. the Secretary of Defense will propose ships for
split funding subject to approval of the committee and
the House National Security Committee.
The committee has incorporated split funding into its
recommendations on the fiscal year 1996 budget request.
Accordingly, in fiscal year 1996 the committee recommends
authorization of $2.2 billion, the budget request, for the full
funding procurement of two DDG-51 Class destroyers. Of this
amount $6.8 million is advanced procurement in fiscal year 1996
to support the fiscal year 1997 DDG-51 budget request. Further,
the committee recommends an increase of $650.0 million for the
acquisition of two additional DDG-51 Class destroyers under the
split funding provision.
OTHER NAVY PROGRAMS
Navy Aircraft
AV-8B remanufacture
The budget request contained $148.0 million for the
remanufacture of four US Marine Corps AV-8B harrier aircraft
into the Harrier II Plus configuration. The Harrier II Plus
configuration provides needed radar-equipped aircraft for day/
night/adverse weather use with improved survivability and
enhanced multi-mission capability. Because additional aircraft
are needed for fleet deployments of radar-equipped aircraft,
the committee recommends an increase of $100.0 million to
procure an additional four aircraft. Procurement of eight AV-8B
aircraft is a more cost-effective approach than the budget
request and provides the Marine Corps with increased combat
capability at a more efficient production rate.
Additional F/A-18C/D strike fighters
The committee understands that the F/A-18C has substantial
upgrades over the older F/A-18A's that significantly increase
its operational capability and warfighting effectiveness.
Improvements such as AMRAAM, JSOW, JDAM, APG-73 radar, and
night vision compatibility provide the F/A-18C greater
capability with greater survivability.
When the last F/A-18C is delivered in 1998, the F/A-18C
inventory will peak at approximately 400 aircraft, 36 short of
the requirement for an all F/A-18C carrier force. This figure,
436, includes regular squadrons, RDT&E, and pipeline aircraft.
It does not account for attrition.
The budget request for 12 F/A-18C's in fiscal year 1996 and
none in fiscal year 1997 is a reduction of 36 aircraft from the
Navy's plan for 24 in each of those years. However, the
requirement for those aircraft still exists to sustain combat
effectiveness through the early 21st century as the Navy
transitions to the newer F/A-18 E/F. The night strike F/A-18C's
will serve until 2015 and beyond.
The committee is persuaded by the need for more capable
strike fighter aircraft on carrier decks both now and in the
future, and recommends the acquisition of 24 F/A-18C's, an
increase of twelve, and an increase of $564.0 million in the
APN account of the fiscal year 1996 budget request to provide
the needed capability.
CH-53E helicopters
This year the committee is aware of the continuing need of
the Marine Corps for additional CH-53E helicopters for its
active and reserve component. In fiscal year 1995 the Navy
proposed to resolve Marine Corps CH-53E shortages by
transferring MH-53E helicopters from its airborne mine
countermeasures (AMCM) squadrons. The committee remains
concerned about the overall condition of the Navy's mine
countermeasures capability and has concluded that any
reductions in the Navy's AMCM squadrons to help satisfy the
requirement of the Marine Corps would be imprudent. Therefore,
the committee recommends an increase of $90.0 million for the
purpose of buying additional CH-53E helicopters for the Marine
Corps. This action should eliminate any need for the Navy to
transfer more CH-53E helicopters from the Navy to the Marine
Corps.
F-14 Forward looking infrared (FLIR)/Laser
The committee understands the Navy has a continuing need
for F-14 capability upgrades as the A-6 medium attack aircraft
retires, and the F-14 assumes the A-6's long range strike role.
Operational requirements for a FLIR/Laser Designator system
have only recently been documented in an Operational
Requirements Document (ORD 406-88-95) of June 1995. This
emergent requirement is a high priority for carrier operations,
and will be budgeted in future years by the Navy in the budget
request. However, the committee understands that before the
Navy can proceed with any upgrades, it must comply with
requirements in the Appropriations Conference Committee Report
(H. Rpt. 103-747) regarding F-14 modernization programs.
The committee recognizes the need for upgrading F-14
capabilities and recommends an increase in aircraft procurement
Navy (APN-5) of $17.1 million to be used with existing funds to
incorporate a FLIR/Laser in the F-14. These additional funds
are not to be obligated until previous reporting requirements
are complied with. The committee understands that the Navy will
not obligate these funds without providing for funding in the
FYDP.
Thermal imaging modifications for USMC aircraft
In order to improve flight safety and navigation, and
enhance effectiveness of USMC UH-1N helicopters in search and
rescue missions, the Navy has undertaken a program to upgrade
them with AN/AAQ-22 navigation thermal imaging systems. To
ensure that this equipment is procured at an efficient and
cost-effective rate, the committee recommends an increase of
$13.0 million to the budget request for the purpose of
equipping UH-1N helicopters of the Marine Corps' active
helicopter fleet.
AN/APR-39A(V)-2 radar warning receiver
The committee has been made aware of the status and need
for radar warning receivers in helicopters and other low flying
aircraft. The AN/APR-39A(V)-2 provides warning against radar-
guided and radar-aided threats, and is a joint program led by
the Army. Now in engineering and manufacturing development, the
system recently passed Operational Test and Evaluation, but was
not included in the fiscal year 1996 budget request because the
services were awaiting the completion of testing before
requesting funding. The committee recognizes the need for the
system and recommends an increase of $30.0 million for initial
procurement of the AN/APR-39A(V)-2 radar warning receiver. The
committee's recommendation supports the non-recurring
engineering field support and procurement of an estimated 50
systems. The committee further expects the department to ensure
future year acquisition of the system will be budgeted for by
the department in the FYDP prior to obligating any amounts for
the acquisition of the initial sets.
Undergraduate NFO Training
The committee has been advised of a proposal to sell
seventeen T-39N aircraft plus spare engines and simulators for
$45.0 million. The aircraft are now leased to the Navy for
undergraduate Naval Flight Officer flight training. This is the
only undergraduate aircrew training system in the DOD that is
not owned by the military. The committee has been informed that
ownership of these assets by the Navy may result in future
savings amounting to over $100.0 million. Accordingly, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide an
analysis of the proposal to the committee no later than March
29, 1996, so that it can be reviewed for possible further
action.
Navy Weapons
Tomahawk missile
In its review of the budget request, the committee
determined that $41.7 million, authorized and appropriated in
fiscal year 1995, had not been obligated because contract
savings eliminated the need. Therefore, the committee
recommends an authorization of $120.0 million in fiscal year
1996 for the procurement and remanufacture of Tomahawk missiles
and further recommends that $41.7 million of funds previously
authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 1995 be made
available in fiscal year 1996 to satisfy the balance of funds
required for the procurement of 164 Tomahawk missiles, the
quantity of missiles contained in the budget request.
Direct broadcast service
The committee has followed the progress of several new
commercial satellite communications (SATCOM) technologies with
special interest in direct broadcast service. The committee
supports insertion of this technology into the military
communications master plan to reduce the load on dedicated
military SATCOM systems as well as to provide near-real-time
information to the warfighter. The committee believes that the
most affordable means for achieving a near-term Global
Broadcast Service (GBS) capability is to use the Navy's ultra-
high frequency follow-on (UFO) satellite system. The committee
is aware of other concepts to provide a GBS capability, and is
willing to allow the newly established Deputy Under Secretary
of Defense (DUSD) for Space to evaluate the tradeoffs.
In order to support a timely resolution of this issue, the
committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million to PE
0303109N. If the DUSD for Space does not submit a written
report justifying an alternative GBS concept to the
congressional defense committees within 30 days after the
enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1996, the Secretary of the Navy shall proceed to obligate
the $30.0 million to integrate a direct broadcast capability on
UFO satellites 8, 9, and 10. If the DUSD for Space selects, and
justifies in writing, an alternative approach, the committee
authorizes the DUSD for Space to proceed to employ the $30.0
million on the preferred GBS approach, beginning 30 days after
the committees have received the written report. The committee
will consider the selected approach to be a pilot program for a
future military GBS system, which will be incorporated into the
Department of Defense's future MILSATCOM architecture.
Navy Shipbuilding and Conversion
Amphibious lift
The budget request did not contain funds for procurement of
additional amphibious lift. The committee understands that
there exists a shortfall in the Navy's ability to satisfy the
2.5 Marine expeditionary brigade (MEB) requirement of the
Defense Planning Guidance with active ships. This lift is badly
needed by the Marine Corps to satisfy its mission as an
expeditionary force that is ready to respond to emerging crises
on short notice. One prominent shortfall is in the area of
large deck, aviation-capable, amphibious assault ships with the
command and control capabilities needed to support amphibious
task force commanders. The LHD-7, for which a negotiated
contract option exists, would satisfy that shortfall.
The operational requirement for LHD-7 is clear. In written
reports and testimony before the committee a series of senior
military leaders have confirmed the strong requirement of LHD-7
as the anchor for a twelfth amphibious ready group (ARG).
Last year Congress authorized $50.0 million for the purpose
of extending the existing contract option for LHD-7 until this
year. The contractor agreed to extend the option at no cost to
the government. An additional $50.0 million was appropriated in
fiscal year 1994.
Exercising the contract option at this point, while the
production is in progress, rather that procuring LHD-7 in 2001,
as currently reflected in the six-year shipbuilding plan, will
result in a substantial cost savings. Accordingly, the
committee recommends an increase to the budget request of $1.3
billion for LHD-7 with the understanding that funds previously
appropriated in fiscal years 1994 and 1995 will be made
available as the additional increment needed to fully fund LHD-
7 at $1.4 billion.
LCAC service life extension program
During its consideration of the budget request, the
committee received a contractor proposal for a service life
extension program (SLEP) for the Navy's fleet of landing craft,
air cushion (LCAC). The proposal raised the committee's
awareness on how best to maintain the future condition of the
Navy's LCACs over their projected twenty year service life. A
related question concerns any capability improvements that may
be needed to deal with increased lift demands of new weapons
systems that have been fielded since the LCAC was originally
designed. Of concern is the fact that production of new LCACs
already on contract will be completed in fiscal year 1997. It
may be necessary to take action to preserve the LCAC
contractor's production capability if it is determined that an
LCAC SLEP would best be conducted at his production facility
rather than in home port.
Discussions between the committee and the Navy determined
that the Navy has not yet developed a detailed plan for a LCAC
SLEP program, based on its evaluation that the need for such a
plan was not imminent. Given current affordability constraints
in its budget, the Navy had decided that a decision on a LCAC
SLEP program could be deferred for at least two years. It is
not clear, however, that the Navy fully considered the future
status of the LCAC production line when it made this decision.
The committee also determined that there had not been any
substantive dialogue between the contractor and the Navy about
the scope, timing, and costs of a LCAC SLEP program.
The committee needs more information before it can act on
the LCAC SLEP program. Accordingly, the Navy is directed to
prepare a detailed plan for such a program and submit it to the
committee in company with its fiscal year 1997 budget request,
ensuring that the costs, benefits, and timing of an option to
perform the LCAC SLEP on the exiting production line are fully
considered.
Shipbuilding contract retentions
The committee is concerned that the Navy may need to revise
its current procedures for retaining payments on shipbuilding
and conversion contracts. The committee fears that current
practices may provide insufficient incentive to the builder for
improved performance, or may deny shipbuilders needed operating
capital. These procedures could weaken the Navy's fragile
shipbuilding industrial base.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Navy to work with the shipbuilding industry to review its
practices with respect to progress payments, retentions, and
dispute resolution. The committee directs the Secretary to
report on the results of this review to the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security
of the House by March 1, 1996. The committee expects that the
report will propose any procedural changes that may better
sustain the naval shipbuilding industrial base and encourage
improved shipbuilder performance, without forgoing protection
of the taxpayers' interests.
Other Navy Procurement
Submarine navigation sets
In fiscal year 1995 the Navy began limited rate procurement
of the MK-49 ring laser gyro (RLG) navigator. These navigation
sets will be installed on DDG-51 class destroyers. Other
candidate ships for this system include cruisers, attack
submarines, aircraft carriers, and other major combatants. An
attractive aspect of this plan is that for the first time a
common navigation set will be installed on surface combatants
and submarines, greatly simplifying logistics support.
The navigation system currently installed on U.S. Navy
submarines is the electrically suspended gyro navigator (ESGN).
Input from senior submarine force commanders in both the
Atlantic and Pacific fleets indicates that the ESGN continues
to be a maintenance and fiscal burden. They recommend
replacement of submarine force ESGN sets with RLG sets at the
earliest opportunity.
Although the Navy has just begun to procure the MK-49 RLG
navigator, they have been in service as a NATO standard and in
continuous production since 1987. In service they have proven
more reliable and accurate than the older spinning mass units
that they will replace.
The committee acknowledges the strong recommendations of
the Navy's senior submarine force operational commanders. It is
mindful of their conclusion that prompt installation of RLG
navigation sets in place of existing ESGN sets will generate an
immediate and significant drop in maintenance costs for the
U.S. Navy's submarine force. Accordingly, the committee
recommends an increase of $10.0 million to purchase and install
MK-49 RLG navigators in U.S. Navy submarines. As a partial
offset for this increase, the committee authorizes only $1.6
million, a reduction of $2.5 million, for the ESGN. The $2.5
million reduction was included in the budget request for ESGN
reliability modifications. The committee believes that these
funds would be better utilized for the purchase and
installation of new MK-49 RLG navigators rather than for
modifying a system they will soon replace.
AN/SLQ-32 electronic warfare system
The SLQ-32 advanced capability (ADCAP) program has been
designed to improve the SLQ-32's active countermeasures
capabilities against modern threats, support combined and
integrated operation with decoys, and improve the system's
counter-targeting capabilities against advanced search and
targeting radars. The SLQ-32 ADCAP successfully completed
operational testing after the budget request had been prepared.
Consequently, the request contained no provision for
procurement of the SLQ-32 ADCAP in fiscal year 1996. Because of
affordability constraints, the current future years program
spreads production over several years at quantities that are
below economically efficient rates. Upgrades to the system can
be accomplished by simple removal of old components and
insertion of new components without the need for a shipyard
availability.
The committee believes that the improvements afforded by
SLQ-32 ADCAP provide badly needed capabilities against modern
threats and will provide far better electronic countermeasures
in littoral operations. Consequently, the committee recommends
an increase of $23.0 million for this program and recommends
that the Secretary of the Navy consider a multiyear procurement
approach that will permit the program to be executed in a cost
effective manner.
Integrated communications for aircraft carriers
In recent years, major technological improvements have been
made in command and control systems installed in the Navy's
aircraft carriers. However, it is the committee's opinion that
no substantial progress has been made in fielding improvements
to the interior communications (IC) systems on the aircraft
carriers or to effectively integrate them with other shipboard
communications systems. For example, the Navy's newest aircraft
carrier, CVN 74, will get underway for sea trials with an IC
system that is not integrated and is based on 40 year old
technology.
A formal operational requirement exists for the Navy to
provide an integrated wired IC system that would provide
seamless interior and exterior connectivity for the aircraft
carriers. The committee is aware of a non-developmental item
system that has been tested aboard CVN 73 with very positive
results, indicating that there are systems currently available
that will correct this serious deficiency in the IC systems on
the aircraft carriers. Whether this system is the best one to
meet the Navy's needs remains to be fully evaluated. However,
the committee believes that the Navy needs to promptly survey
available candidate systems and initiate a procurement program
for the most suitable one, rather than continuing to pursue the
lengthy development process that is ill-suited to the rapid
evolution occurring in information systems technology. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to prepare a report
on its plan to replace the obsolete IC technology currently
installed on the Navy's aircraft carriers and submit it to the
committee no later than December 31, 1995. The committee also
authorizes an increase of $3.5 million in the budget request
for the purpose of procuring the best candidate system and
installing it in an aircraft carrier that the Secretary deems
most suitable.
Challenge Athena
The committee has followed the progress of several
commercial satellite communications (SATCOM) technologies with
special interest in commercial wideband service such as that
demonstrated by the Chief of Naval Operations special project
Challenge Athena. The committee is interested in how this
technology could be effectively inserted into the military
communications master plan to reduce over-subscribership to
current military SATCOM systems as well as provide near real-
time information to the warfighter. Operationally, these
commercial systems will provide near real-time imagery for
precision targeting/precision strike, video teleconferencing,
as well as other high data rate computer capabilities. In
addition, this connectivity will provide for the health and
welfare of deployed sailors through the use of video
telemedicine/telepsychiatry, sailor telephone, and video
training. The committee recommends an increase of $14.4 million
to fund wideband terminals in support of commercial
communications for afloat warfighters.
Sonobuoy procurement
The statement of managers accompanying the conference
report on the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for
fiscal Year 1994 (H. Rept. 103-254) directed the Navy to submit
a report on sonobuoy inventories. That report was supposed to
project inventories over a five year period, by accounting for:
(1) shelf life, (2) procurement rates, (3) usage rates, and (4)
future inventory requirements. The Assistant Secretary of the
Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition submitted the
report on April 13, 1994.
In reviewing the Navy's report, the committee found that
the Navy's fiscal year 1995 budget did not carry out the
report's recommendations. Consequently, the committee shifted
funds among the individual types of sonobuoys without adding
funds to the sonobuoy request.
The Navy budget request for fiscal year 1996 also fails to
implement the Navy's requirements. The committee understands
that the Navy made a combination of errors in preparing and
establishing priorities when developing its budget. More
important, the budget request fails to satisfy the requirements
of the Unified and Specified Commanders in Chief. They have
supported buying roughly 125,000 sonobuoys per year as
necessary to meet minimum training and operational
requirements.
Accordingly, the committee recommends the following:
Sonobuoy Million
AN/SSQ-36......................................................... $0.2
AN/SSQ-53......................................................... 0
AN/SSQ-62......................................................... 4.1
AN/SSQ-110........................................................ 21.9
Electro-optical sight/weapons director
The committee is aware that the Navy has a broad range of
electro-optical (E-O) requirements for day/night surveillance
that the gunfire control systems installed on its surface
combatants should satisfy. The committee is also aware that a
wide variety of E-O devices and systems are currently installed
on Navy combatants. While many of these systems perform similar
or nearly similar functions, each requires unique life cycle
support, maintenance and operator training.
The committee has been informed that the MK-46 E-O sight
and gun director has demonstrated excellent at-sea performance
aboard the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke Class destroyers. The committee
questions why the Navy has chosen not to use this E-O system,
which is a congressionally funded Navy program, fully life-
cycle supported, and has established Navy school house
maintenance and operator training in place, for the Navy's CG-
47 Aegis class cruisers and DD-963 Spruance Class destroyers.
Instead the Navy appears intent on developing and introducing
yet another E-O system with its own set of unique support
requirements.
In the absence of additional information it would appear
that the Navy has not been pursuing a cost effective approach
to procurement of E-O systems for its ships. To clarify this
situation, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to
submit a report to the committee by February 1, 1996 that will
specifically address the Navy's E-O plans and the future
funding requirements required to provide the CG-47 Aegis class
cruiser, the DD-963 class destroyer, and other classes of ships
with a fully integrated E-O surveillance sight and gun
director.
Vertical launch system
During its review of the budget request, the committee
determined that the Navy's fiscal year 1996 budget could be
reduced by $1.9 million because fiscal year 1995 installation
costs for vertical launch systems had proven lower than
expected. The excess fiscal year 1995 funds can be used in
fiscal year 1996. Therefore, the committee recommends
authorization of only $3.6 million for the vertical launch
system in fiscal year 1996, a reduction of $1.9 million.
Forklift trucks
During the review of the Navy's fiscal year 1996 budget
request, the committee determined that funds requested for the
procurement of forklift trucks can be reduced by $2.0 million
because excess fiscal year 1995 funds are available to satisfy
the requirement. Therefore, the committee recommends
authorization of $1.8 million for the procurement of Navy
forklift trucks, a reduction of $2.0 million.
Marine Corps Ammunition
Marine Corps ammunition
The committee recommends the following adjustments to the
budget request for Marine Corps ammunition procurement:
Item Millions
7.62mm............................................................ $10.0
cal. .50 SLAP..................................................... 10.0
cal. .50 4&1...................................................... 15.0
81mm M889A1 (HE).................................................. 24.0
81mm M816 (IR).................................................... 11.4
120mm APFSDS-T M829A2............................................. 5.0
120mm M830A1 HEAT-MP-T............................................ 5.0
Prop Charge, M203A1............................................... 26.0
Grenade, Smoke, V. G955........................................... 0.7
Igniter, M766..................................................... 0.4
Demo Sheet........................................................ 2.2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Subtotal....................................................$109.7
Marine Corps
M1A1 tank modifications
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1995, directed that 24 M1A1 tanks be transferred to the Marine
Corps Reserves. The statement of managers in the conference
report accompanying the Act (H. Rept. 103-701) indicated that
the transfer in fiscal year 1995 was intended to be the first
year of a two-year program to eliminate a shortfall of 48 tanks
in the Marine Corps Reserve tank battalions. The committee
recommends an increase of $110.0 million for an additional 24
M1A2 upgrades for the Army and directs the Army to transfer 24
M1A1 tanks to the Marine Corps Reserve in accordance with
procedures set out in the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1995. The Marine Corps has indicated a
requirement to modify these tanks to standards of the Marine
tank fleet. The committee recommends an increase of $12.3
million to the modification kits (trkd veh) program to modify
48 M1A1 tanks to Marine Corps baseline configuration.
The committee also recommends an increase of $2.2 million
to the same program to procure 268 modification kits and other
enhancements for M240G ground-mount medium machine guns.
Operational enhancements
The committee is aware of several enhancements which would
provide significant operational improvements for the Marine
Corps. The committee recommends increases indicated below to
implement these enhancements:
--$1.6 million for HAWK Launch modifications.
--$1.0 million in items less than $2 million for
procurement, modification, and downsizing of four Improved
Direct Air Support System Central (IDASC) systems.
PSC-5 radios
The committee understands that the Marine Corps has a
requirement for critical satellite communications with multi-
service interoperability. The committee recommends an increase
of $3.0 million to procure 174 PSC-5 radios to complete the
planned acquisition.
Advanced field artillery tactical data systems (AFATDS)
The committee strongly supports the AFATDS and is advised
that operations will be substantially enhanced and savings
achieved by accelerating procurement and completing the planned
acquisition for the Marine Corps. The committee recommends an
increase of $11.0 million to procure 186 AFATDS units currently
planned for fiscal year 1997, in fiscal year 1996.
Night vision devices (NVD)
The committee supported efforts last year to upgrade night
weapon sights which incorporate older generation night vision
technology. Generation III image intensification technology is
available as direct drop-in replacements for older tubes. The
replacement tubes double the range of the weapon's sights and
increase the useful life of the image tube by a factor of five
times over that currently experienced. The committee recommends
an increase of $2.0 million in the Night Vision Equipment
program for procurement of the 25 millimeter replacement tubes.
The committee also recommends an increase of $3.0 million
in the Marine Enhancement Program for procurement of Night
Vision Magnification Devices which provide 3X magnification,
significantly extending the range of the current night vision
goggles.
Computer upgrades
The committee is advised that the Marine Corps has a
requirement to upgrade selected computer networks which have
become technically obsolete and do not interface effectively
with more modern equipment used by the other services. The
committee recommends increases indicated below within the ADP
Equipment program to facilitate necessary upgrades.
--$17.8 million for Asset Tracking Logistics and
Supply System to replace current supply and maintenance
system with deployable, integrated system.
--$3.8 million for procurement of 1580 Lightweight
Tactical Computer Units to replace obsolete units.
Trailers
The committee is aware of the need for the Marine Corps to
replace its fleet of 40-ton low-bed trailers which are reaching
the end of service life. The committee recommends an increase
of $5.5 million for the procurement of M101A3 and M870A2
trailers.
Water purification and support equipment
The committee is aware of the need to provide additional
equipment for both active and reserve Marine Corps units to
enable Marine forces to purify, store and distribute water in
tactical operations. The committee recommends increases in the
tactical fuel systems as indicated below to enhance current
capabilities:
--$1.9 million to procure additional equipment used
for water storage and distribution.
--$.5 million to procure 13 medium freshwater
purification units for the Marine Corps Reserve.
Training simulators
The committee strongly supports increased use of training
simulators by Marines, especially during extended deployments
aboard ship, when combat skills are subject to rapid
deterioration. The committee encourages the Marine Corps to
explore opportunities for greater use of simulation for active
units and reserve units, especially aboard amphibious ships to
maintain Marine combat skills. The committee recommends the
following increases to the training devices program for various
simulators and devices:
--$27.5 million for 181 Indoor Simulated Marksmanship
Trainers.
--$5.9 million to modify 287 systems and procure 48
additional system trainers for TOW and Dragon antitank
weapons.
--$0.6 million to procure Marine Corps Tank Full Crew
Interactive Simulator.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Air Force Aircraft
Strategic airlift
The Milestone III Defense Acquisition Board (DAB)
Integrated Airlift Force Decision is planned for November,
1995. The committee understands this decision will determine
the proper size and composition of the airlift fleet. If the
November Milestone III DAB Integrated Airlift Force Decision
recommends a mixed fleet of additional C-17 and Non
Developmental Airlift Aircraft (NDAA) to best support our
airlift requirements, the committee encourages the Air Force to
begin a robust procurement of those aircraft. To initiate this
effort, of the funds provided in the fiscal year 1996 budget
request in the Strategic Airlift account, $183.0 million may be
used for the NDAA program or for advanced procurement for the
C-17. The committee also encourages the Air Force to merge the
$85.0 million remaining from fiscal year 1994 with these funds.
The committee further expects the Air Force to program funds in
the future year defense program, starting with fiscal year
1997, for procurement of the recommended NDAA program in order
to accelerate and achieve the airlift goals.
C-17 Spares
The committee is aware that the Air Force's fiscal year
1996 request for spares and repair parts can be reduced by
$21.9 million for initial spares allocated to the C-17 because
the aircraft requires only $95.6 million for initial spares
instead of the requested $117.5 million. These data are based
on the assumption of a 120 aircraft C-17 program.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease in
aircraft procurement, Air Force spares and repair parts.
Air Force Ammunition
Air Force ammunition
The committee recommends the following adjustment to the
budget request for Air Force ammunition procurement:
Item Millions
CBU 87............................................................ $30.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Subtotal.................................................... 30.0
Air Force Missile
Defense Support Program procurement
The budget request included $102.9 million for Defense
Support Program (DSP) procurement. The committee understands
that $35.9 million in fiscal year 1995 funds are excess and
being considered for reprogramming for non-DSP purposes. The
committee, therefore, reduces the fiscal year 1996 DSP
procurement budget by $35.9 million and directs the Air Force
to use the excess fiscal year 1995 funds to fulfill fiscal year
1996 requirements.
Minuteman guidance replacement program
The Department of Defense's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)
recommended that the United States maintain three wings of
Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) for
the foreseeable future. The NPR recommended the replacement of
the aging Minuteman III guidance system electronics and the
remotoring of the missiles. The committee strongly supports
rapid implementation of these recommendations and the
maintenance of 500 operational Minuteman III missiles.
Minuteman III guidance systems were produced from 1970 to
1978 with all systems now 7 to 15 years beyond their design
life of 10 years. To ensure the timely replacement of the aging
Minuteman III guidance system, the committee recommends an
increase of $10.0 million in procurement funds to begin the
guidance replacement program and to ensure that the first
article delivery, now scheduled for September 1998, does not
slip again, and that all installations on the 500 Minuteman III
missiles are complete in the 2002 timeframe.
Global Positioning System block IIF advanced procurement
In fiscal year 1996 the Air Force plans to begin both
development and advanced procurement of the Block IIF Global
Positioning System (GPS) satellites. The budget request for
advanced procurement was $38.4 million. Due to the excessive
amount of concurrency between development and procurement of
this system, the committee believes that a one year delay is
warranted. The committee believes that this delay will not
seriously impact the Air Force's ability to develop and deploy
the Block IIF. Moreover, the delay will allow time to solve
technical issues associated with the Block IIR. The committee
therefore recommends no funds for GPS Block IIF advanced
procurement in fiscal year 1996.
Space boosters
Due to savings possible by combining Titan, Atlas and
Centaur activities at the launch bases and manufacturing
facilities, the committee recommends a $15.0 million reduction
in the Air Force budget for space booster procurement.
Defense Satellite Communications System
The budget request for the Defense Satellite Communications
System (DSCS) procurement was $25.7 million. Due to reduced
launch costs, the committee recommends a reduction of $7.5
million in Air Force procurement for DSCS.
Other Air Force Procurement
Avionics support equipment
The Navy has been developing the consolidated automated
support system (CASS) to provide a common ground support system
for its sophisticated aircraft avionics. The committee notes
that the Navy has been making progress on CASS, with
reliability currently at rates greater than three times the
operational requirement. Further, the recent competition for
CASS production has provided significant procurement cost
savings. The Navy expects that fully fielding the CASS program
will yield up to $8.0 billion in life-cycle cost savings for
Navy aviation units.
The committee is concerned about the Air Force's plans to
pursue a separate path for supporting each of its aircraft
avionics systems, despite the similarities among different
aircraft avionics. Since the Navy has consolidated its support
requirements for multiple types of aircraft, the committee
questions whether the additional research and development,
procurement, and support for each Air Force aircraft system is
a prudent expense.
The committee believes that the Air Force should
investigate using the Navy CASS program as the basis for
consolidating its avionics support requirements. The committee
notes that the Air Force has identified airlifting support
equipment as a major concern for any future deployments. Since
the Air Force has also established several composite wings, it
seems reasonable to consider providing common support equipment
to lessen the potential deployment burdens for these wings. The
committee understands that the Navy's CASS architecture would
allow repackaging for a deployable configuration to meet this
requirement.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees on the potential of applying the Navy's CASS program
to meet the Air Force's requirements. The Secretary should
submit the report by March 1, 1996.
SUBTITLE D--OTHER PROGRAMS
Section - 131. Tier II predator unmanned aerial vehicle program.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994
limited the Tier II UAV to ten air vehicles and three ground
stations, and expressed concern regarding the overall DOD
management of UAV programs. The committee is unaware of
additional requirements for Tier II UAV that would justify
continued procurement, and continues to be concerned about the
proliferation of different types of UAV's and the capability of
the DOD organizational structure to manage the number of
complex and diverse UAV programs in development and
procurement. The committee notes the lack of progress in
fielding effective, operational UAV systems, and believes that
the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office and the UAV Joint
Program Office could manage fewer programs more effectively.
Therefore, the committee recommends a provision which would
prohibit obligating or expending funds for further procurement,
research, development, test or evaluation of the Tier II
Predator UAV program. The committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report to the defense committees along with
the fiscal year 1997 budget request indicating measures to
strengthen the management of UAV programs in order to
facilitate more timely fielding of required operationally
effective systems.
Section - 132. Pioneer unmanned aerial vehicle program.
The committee has strongly supported the adaptation of the
CARS to the entire family of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) for
several years to reduce total personnel requirements, reduce
the requirement for pilot training, and extend operational
capabilities by enabling UAV recoveries in all weather
conditions during day and night operations. The committee is
convinced that use of CARS will dramatically reduce accidents
during UAV recoveries, currently a major source of aircraft
loss and damage.
The committee has repeatedly identified this system as an
example of desired commonality, and directed that it be applied
promptly to all UAV systems in use and under development. The
committee understands that five sets of CARS are to be procured
in the summer of 1995 for Pioneer UAVs, and that the remaining
four of the nine Pioneer systems are to be transferred to the
Navy.
As a result of the continuing delay in fielding of CARS on
UAVs, the committee directs that the Secretary of the Navy
ensure that five sets of CARS are procured as government
furnished equipment (GFE) and installed on Navy UAVs as soon as
possible.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.5 million and
directs the Secretary of the Navy to procure four additional
sets of CARS as GFE and install them on the four remaining
Pioneer systems. The committee reaffirms its commitment that
CARS should be integral to every UAV system used by U.S.
military services, and directs the Secretary of the Navy to
report to the defense committees with the fiscal year 1997
budget submission a plan for procurement and integration of
CARS to all U.S. military UAVs.
The committee recommends a provision which would restrict
the obligation of funds for the operations and activities of
the UAV Joint Program Office until all nine Pioneer systems are
equipped with CARS.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Mark V special operations craft
The Mark V special operations craft is an 81-foot aluminum
monohull craft with a displacement of 55 tons, a sustained top
speed of 45 to 50 knots and a range of 250 to 300 nautical
miles. The Mark V is intended to provide a medium range
insertion and extraction capability for Special Operations
Forces in a low to medium threat environment and a secondary
mission of coastal patrol and interdiction. The budget request
provided $19.5 million for the procurement of two Mark V craft
with associated equipment. Commander-in-Chief, Special
Operations Command in testimony before the Armed Services
Committee in February, 1995 stated that four craft were
required in fiscal year 1996.
The committee recommends an increase of $17.7 million to
procure two additional Mark V craft and associated equipment in
fiscal year 1996.
Rigid hull inflatable boat (RHIB)
The committee supports the effort to acquire a fleet of
RHIBs as the standard mobility platform for SEAL platoons, and
is aware that the initial 10-meter RHIB design proved
unsatisfactory. The committee recommends a decrease of $4.3
million in Special Operations Forces (SOF) Maritime Equipment
and a corresponding increase of that amount to the RDT&E
account program element 116404BB to provide adequate funds for
a follow-on developmental effort. The committee authorizes the
Special Operations Command to use funds remaining in the SOF
Maritime Equipment account to procure 24-foot RHIB craft from
industry until the new RHIB under development can be procured
in sufficient quantities.
National Guard and Reserve Equipment
The committee continues its strong support for the National
Guard and the other reserve components but remains concerned
about the degree to which the National Guard and the other
reserve components are being modernized. The committee is
convinced that the Department of Defense has grown to rely on
annual congressional increases for equipment for the National
Guard and the other reserve components and does not include in
annual budget requests adequate resources to properly equip the
reserve components. The committee recommends a provision in
title X, described elsewhere in this report, which would
require the Secretary of Defense to submit a special report to
the congressional defense committees dealing with these issues.
The committee recommends an increase of $777.4 million for
equipment for the National Guard and the other reserve
components as indicated in the following table:
Title I Procurement
National Guard and Reserve Equipment
Army Reserve Thousands
Medium Truck ESP...................................... $10,000
Heavy Truck Modernization............................. 15,000
Night Vision Equipment................................ 5,000
Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System
(SINCGARS).......................................... 5,000
Chemical/Biological Defense Equipment................. 2,000
Miscellaneous Equipment............................... 25,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
$62,000
Naval Reserve
C9 Upgrade............................................ $25,000
F-18 Upgrades......................................... 24,000
MIUW TS Q-108......................................... 10,000
Miscellaneous Equipment............................... 15,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
$74,000
Marine Corps Reserve
AH-1W Helicopters (3)................................. $35,000
SINCGARS.............................................. 5,000
Night Vision Equipment................................ 5,000
Miscellaneous Equipment............................... 10,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
$55,000
Air Force Reserve
C-130J (5)............................................ $210,000
C-20G (1)............................................. 30,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
$240,000
Army National Guard
Avenger (1BN)......................................... $54,000
Paladin/FAASV (1BN)................................... 55,000
MLRS (1BTRY).......................................... 16,400
M113A3 Upgrades....................................... 10,000
M113A3 Night Viewers.................................. 2,000
Medium Truck ESP...................................... 10,000
Heavy Truck Modernization............................. 10,000
Night Vision Equipment................................ 5,000
Chemical/Biological Defense Equipment................. 2,000
SINCGARS.............................................. 5,000
AH-64 Mission Simulator............................... 15,000
AH-1 Boresighting Device.............................. 5,000
Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (CH-47)..... 5,000
Miscellaneous Equipment............................... 15,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
$209,400
Air National Guard
C-130 H (3)........................................... $102,000
KC-135 Re-engining (1)................................ 26,000
C-26 (2).............................................. 9,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
$137,000
Total................................................. $777,400
National Guard artillery modernization
The committee remains committed to ensuring the Army
National Guard is adequately modernized. A key component in the
modernization plan of the Army National Guard is the upgrade of
51 battalions and seven additional batteries with the M109A6
Paladin system. Initial cost estimates of this modernization
exceed current levels of funding.
A possible interim solution to this modernization problem
is an upgrade of the M109A5 system currently in the Army
National Guard inventory. The committee encourages the Army to
evaluate the M109A5 upgrade for digital and survivability
advantages and other enhancements until the M109A6 can be
fielded to all appropriate Army National Guard units.
In order to accomplish this evaluation, the Army is
authorized to use RDTE funds to prototype and evaluate not more
than two M109A5 systems for use by the Army National Guard.
High Capacity Air Ambulances
The committee understands the Army will complete a mission
needs statement (MNS) and operational requirements document
(ORD) before October 1, 1995 for a High Capacity Air Ambulance
(HCAA). These documents will provide the rationale and
definition for a program of responsive casualty evacuation
combined with enroute treatment.
Because of the existing expertise within the National Guard
in emergency medical service, aviation, and operations, the
committee urges the Secretary of Defense to assign the mission,
once developed, to the National Guard; and to report to the
committee not later than April 15, 1996 on the recommended
doctrine, organization, and mission statement for the High
Capacity Air Ambulance concept.
Naval Reserve C-9B Aircraft
The committee is aware of the need to get the longest use
of existing systems through periodic upgrades. The committee
recommends $25.0 million of the total funds authorized for
National Guard and Reserve equipment be used for the purpose of
continuing the avionics modernization program for the C-9B
aircraft in an effort to avoid block obsolescence of these
efficient and durable aircraft.
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION (RDT&E)
The committee recommends investments in research and
development to address mission needs and to ensure that
military systems embody the most advanced technologies.
Appropriate subcommittees of the full committee conducted
hearings and reviewed information on various research and
development program requests including: national and theater
missile defense programs; Army general purpose programs; new
ships and related ship programs; tactical and strategic
aircraft and associated systems; counterproliferation programs;
command, control and communications programs; science and
technology programs; and DOD dual-use technology programs.
The committee's research and development priorities were to
focus on improving battlefield capabilities assuring
contingency U.S. military superiority and to achieving future
savings. In the case of the request for science and technology
programs, the committee agreed to reduce funding for the
maintenance of the RDT&E infrastructure and for unspecified
investment in favor of maintaining strong technology base
programs in the military departments.
The committee recommendations appear in subsequent tables.
Explanation of tables
The tables in this title display items requested by the
administration for fiscal year 1996 and the committee's actions
in regard to the requested amounts. As in the past, the
administration may not exceed the amounts approved by the
committee (as set forth in the tables or if unchanged from the
administration request, as set forth in the Department of
Defense's budget justification documents) without a
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures.
SUBTITLE B--PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, AND LIMITATIONS
Section - 211. A/F117X long-range, medium attack aircraft.
Joint advanced strike technology program
The Department of Defense established the joint advanced
strike technology (JAST) program to develop technologies that
would lead to replacements for several different aircraft
systems for the Air Force, the Marine Corps, and the Navy. Each
of the three services has distinctly different requirements.
The Air Force needs a conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL)
aircraft to replace the F-16. The Marine Corps needs a
vertical/short takeoff and landing (VSTOL) aircraft to replace
the AV-8B. The Navy needs a survivable medium attack variant to
meet the requirements formerly filled by the A-6. The committee
believes that the JAST program represents a bold leap ahead in
technology integration, with an emphasis on cost-effective
solutions.
The organization, management and technical expertise
embodied in the JAST program leadership have made a favorable
impression on the committee. However, even with the best
leadership and expertise, the program faces substantial
challenges.
The most doubtful aspect of the program's future is its
ability to fulfill the needs of three different services. Two
years ago, the committee asked the Department to report on the
potential for having the Navy participate in the F-22 program
as a way to meet the Navy's requirements for a highly capable
aircraft platform. The DOD report explained the difficulty of
having the Navy join the F-22 program, although the F-22
program had not completed a single engineering and
manufacturing development (EMD) aircraft. So, while the
Department claims that the F-22 cannot be modified before
production for a naval mission, the Department asserts that the
JAST program will provide Air Force, Marine and Navy variants.
The committee believes that there are two separate
approaches that would be appropriate to reduce risk that JAST
will not meet expectations.
Risk Reduction--Current Program
For the JAST program to be deemed a complete success, the
program must deliver a true, low cost family of operational
aircraft to meet the needs of the Air Force, Navy, and Marine
Corps. The committee believes that concept demonstration
aircraft flight testing is critical to making such a successful
transition. A test of full scale, full thrust demonstration
aircraft by competing contractors would provide test data
applicable to evaluating the unique attributes required by each
Service. It would also be in keeping with the committee's
longstanding ``fly-before-buy'' philosophy. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, from within funds
in the original fiscal year 1996 budget, to ensure that the
JAST program leads to such a competitive demonstration.
Further, the committee believes supporting competitive
propulsion programs would help reduce risk and lead to higher
confidence of achieving more affordable life cycle costs. The
committee fears that the current JAST approach may lead to
selecting one power plant manufacturer prematurely. Therefore,
the committee directs the Secretary to evaluate at least two
propulsion concepts from competing engine companies as part of
the full scale, full thrust aircraft demonstrators.
Risk Reduction--Additional Program Scope
Of the three sets of requirements, the committee believes
that Navy's is most demanding. Unfortunately, the Department of
Defense will have few alternatives for meeting the medium
attack variant requirement if the JAST program cannot.
The committee is aware of a proposal to develop a carrier-
capable variant of the F-117 stealth fighter that could greatly
benefit from capabilities pioneered in the F-117 program. The
F-117 has a distinguished combat record. Developing a carrier-
capable variant would be in keeping with a near-term
modernization strategy of acquiring developed systems. This
could help provide confidence in a workable solution to meet
the Navy's needs through capitalizing on development already
done, and could provide an available alternative in case the
JAST program is unable to fulfill all three sets of
requirements.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to conduct a thorough examination of this proposal in fiscal
year 1996 to develop a carrier-capable variant of the F-117
stealth fighter, a so-called ``A/F-117X,'' in defining a
potential program. The committee expects the essential risk
reduction efforts to include: large scale high and low speed
wind tunnel testing, radar cross section (RCS) component
testing, detailed propulsion design, structural analysis to
validate carrier suitability, and completion of required trade
studies and reports to validate A/F-117X capability to meet
defined Navy requirements.
The committee recommends an additional $175.0 million in
fiscal year 1996. The committee directs that the Navy not
expend more than $25.0 million of this amount to conduct the
initial examination. The Secretary shall submit a report on the
results of this examination to the congressional defense
committees by March 29, 1996. Final analysis by the Navy should
assess production risk, scope, aircraft performance, and cost
for engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) program.
The remaining $150.0 million would be made available to
execute an A/F-117X EMD program, presuming that the Secretary
of the Navy approves the results of program definition effort.
The committee expects that these additional EMD funds will be
used to modify an existing F-117A test asset to a configuration
able to demonstrate carrier suitability, flying qualities, and
low observables durability in a shipboard environment in the
near-term. Such demonstrations should allow the Navy to assess
the critical carrier suitability qualities of the A/F-117X
design concept early in the execution of a full EMD program.
The committee also directs the Secretary of the Air Force
to review the manufacturer's offer to complete the originally
planned F-117 force structure, including potential upgrades
through inserting technology from present development efforts.
This effort should serve as the basis for comparing
alternatives for meeting future Air Force requirements,
including JAST products, F-22 attack variants, and an upgraded
F-117.
Section - 212. Navy mine countermeasures program.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
1992 and 1993 included a provision that transferred the primary
responsibility for developing and testing naval mine
countermeasures systems to the Director, Defense Research and
Engineering during fiscal years 1993 through 1997. The
provision contained a waiver that would permit the Navy to
retain responsibility for developing and testing naval mine
countermeasures if (1) the Secretary of Defense determined that
the Secretary of the Navy had annually submitted to him an
updated mine countermeasures master plan whose budget was
adequately funded in the future years defense plan and (2) the
Secretary of Defense certified the adequacy of the Navy's plan
to the congressional defense committees each year during the
effective period of the provision. The National Defense
Authorization Act of 1994 amended the applicable period to
include fiscal years 1995 through 1999.
To better assign responsibility to the cognizant official
in the Department of Defense, the committee recommends an
amendment that would substitute the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition and Technology in lieu of the Director, Defense
Research and Engineering as the person responsible for
developing and testing naval mine countermeasures systems. The
amendment would also change the applicable period to include
fiscal years 1997 through 1999.
Section - 213. Marine Corps shore fire support.
The committee has strongly encouraged the Navy/Marine Corps
team over the past five years to develop or acquire shore fire
support capability to supplant the firepower lost when the
Navy's battleships were decommissioned. The committee has
repeatedly indicated its views to the Navy and the Marine Corps
that the capability to provide indirect fire suppression,
essential for the conduct of amphibious operations, is an
urgent requirement. The committee is unimpressed with Navy/
Marine Corps efforts to date to devise a solution to this
deficiency.
The committee is aware of improvements to the Army Multiple
Launch Rocket System (MLRS) which may make the MLRS a suitable
system to provide requisite shipboard indirect fire suppression
for Marine Corps amphibious operations. The Army has already
developed and will soon begin production of the Extended Range
(ER) rocket which will increase the range from 30 to 45
kilometers. The Army also has a program underway to improve the
actuator system on the launcher which may provide sufficient
stabilization to the system to enable MLRS to be fired
effectively from the deck of a ship. The Army also has a
developmental program to adapt Global Positioning System (GPS)
guidance to both the MLRS launcher and rocket. These
improvements indicate the potential of the MLRS to assume a
major role in filling the Marine Corps requirement for sea-
based indirect fire suppression.
The committee believes the Navy could conduct a live-fire
demonstration in fiscal year 1997 if funding is provided in
fiscal year 1996 to allow preparation for such demonstration.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million and
recommends a provision which would direct the Secretary of the
Navy to make necessary preparations in fiscal year 1996 to
conduct a shipboard demonstration of ER-MLRS, incorporating the
improved launcher mechanical system (ILMS) and a guided rocket
in fiscal year 1997. The Secretary of the Navy is also directed
to ensure that the Navy/Marine Corps team thoroughly examines
two potential applications of ER-MLRS: (1) firing the improved
ER-MLRS from the deck of a ship to support an amphibious
assault; and, (2) transporting the MLRS launchers via LCAC to
the beach where these launchers then would become the Marine
Corps general support artillery. The Secretary of the Navy
shall also submit to the congressional defense committees a
progress report on this program in May and September, 1996.
The committee does not intend this effort to supplant Navy
shore fire support developmental efforts, but to complement
such efforts. The committee believes, however, that the sea-
based MLRS concept could be fielded early, providing a near-
term capability.
Section - 214. Space and missile tracking system program.
The Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) will replace and
provide increased performance over the existing Defense Support
Program (DSP) system. SBIRS will incorporate new technologies
to enhance detection, provide direct reporting of strategic and
theater ballistic missile launches, and provide mid-course
tracking and discrimination data for national and theater
missile defense. The system will consist of sensors located in
geosynchronous orbits (GEO), highly elliptical orbits (HEO),
and low earth orbits (LEO), and an integrated centralized
ground station serving all space elements of SBIRS as well as
DSP.
The committee commends the Department of Defense for the
process that was employed in deciding upon the SBIRS
architecture and the streamlined acquisition strategy that has
been adopted. The committee expects the resulting integrated
structure to provide the basis for program stability and
efficiency in what has been an overly turbulent and protracted
search for a DSP follow-on. More importantly, the committee
expects the SBIRS program to be a catalyst in the development
of a new approach to missile warning. Tactical Warning and
Attack Assessment (TW/AA) can no longer be viewed as a mission
which stands separate from ballistic missile defense. Future
national and theater missile defenses must be integrated with,
and take maximum advantage of, the SBIRS architecture. SBIRS
also signals a dramatic technical departure from past
approaches. The introduction of a distributed LEO constellation
will provide tremendous advantages and opportunities, some of
which are not yet fully understood. In addition to its role in
missile defense, the LEO system will make major contributions
in the areas of technical intelligence and space object
characterization and surveillance.
The budget request for SBIRS included $130.7 million for
Demonstration/Validation (Dem/Val), $152.2 for Engineering and
Manufacturing Development (EMD), and $19.9 million for
Procurement. Of the funds requested for Dem/Val, $114.8 million
was for the Space and Missile Tracking System (SMTS), formerly
known as ``Brilliant Eyes.''
After evaluation of its original ground system development
plan, the Air Force has decided to restructure the program to
re-phase hardware purchases and software engineering to allow
for a more careful evaluation of system costs versus military
utility. Hence, the $19.9 million procurement request is no
longer needed for the previously identified purpose. The
committee, therefore, recommends no funding for SBIRS
procurement (PE 35915F), and recommends that $10.0 million of
these funds be transferred to SBIRS EMD (PE 0604441F) to
support ground system risk reduction, for a total of $162.2
million. Of this amount, the committee directs the Secretary of
the Air Force to use $9.4 million to launch the third Miniature
Sensor Technology Integration (MSTI-3) satellite. MSTI-3 will
provide critical infrared background clutter phenomenology data
for the SBIRS high element EMD program.
Although the committee endorses the priority and schedule
for the GEO and HEO components of SBIRS, it views the current
schedule for the LEO segment to be unacceptably prolonged.
Current plans do not call for the first launch of an objective
SMTS satellite until 2006. This leisurely schedule is based on
the assumption that SMTS will not be needed to support national
or theater missile defenses before this date. The committee
strongly disputes this planning assumption. Theater missile
defense systems that will be able to exploit SMTS data will
become operational before the turn of the century. More
important, the Missile Defense Act of 1995 (Subtitle C of Title
II), is premised in part on an SMTS initial operational
capability in fiscal year 2003.
The committee notes that there are no technical obstacles
to having a first launch of an SMTS user operational evaluation
system (UOES) satellite in 2001. The committee, therefore,
recommends a provision which requires the Secretary of the Air
Force to restructure the SMTS program to support a first launch
of UOES satellites in fiscal year 2001, with the full SMTS
constellation (consisting of a combination of UOES satellites
and objective satellites) on orbit by the end of fiscal year
2003. To support this restructured schedule, the committee
recommends an authorization of $250.0 million in fiscal year
1996 for the SMTS program, an increase of $135.0 million over
the budget request. The committee directs the Air Force to
restructure the SMTS schedule to meet the following milestones:
--Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and Critical Design
Review (CDR) of the flight demonstration system (FDS)
in fiscal year 1996.
--System Requirements Review (SRR) for the objective
SMTS satellites in fiscal year 1996.
--Formal Requirements Review (FRR), deployment
decision, and PDR for the objective SMTS satellites in
fiscal year 1997.
--Launch of the FDS satellites in fiscal year 1998.
--CDR for the objective satellites in fiscal year
1999.
The objective SMTS system shall be designed, developed,
tested and constructed to detect, characterize, track, and
synthesize stereo track information concerning ballistic
missile attack. The system shall be designed to generate and
transmit, in a sufficiently timely manner, all data necessary
to enable defensive interceptors to commit, launch, fly-out,
and receive in flight target updates and guidance information
in advance of--or in place of--the defensive system's
associated radar, and in a way which maximizes the kinematic
potential of the defensive interceptor to conduct ballistic
missile intercepts.
To ensure that this schedule and these technical
specifications are met, the committee recommends a provision
which would require the Air Force to seek the concurrence of
the Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
before implementing any decision that would have any of the
following results regarding SMTS: (1) a reduction in funds
available in any fiscal year; (2) an increase in the total
program cost; (3) a schedule delay; or (4) a modification of
the performance parameters or specifications.
As a result of budgetary constraints, the Air Force has
been forced to down-select to a single flying contractor for
the SMTS FDS. While the committee does not oppose this
decision, it does believe that the Air Force should consider
alternatives for maintaining competition and reducing risk. The
committee is aware of proposals to have the non-flying
contractor conduct a low-cost flight experiment to provide a
second SMTS concept capable of moving forward into EMD. The
committee understands that such a flight experiment could be
conducted for a total of $80 million over three years. The
committee urges the Air Force to carefully evaluate this
alternative and to determine whether this approach could in
fact reduce risk and help meet the deployment goals specified
above. If the Secretary of the Air Force determines that this
approach would help achieve the deployment goals specified
above, the committee authorizes the use of up to $40 million of
the funds authorized for SMTS in fiscal year 1996 to begin such
a low-cost flight experiment.
Section - 215. Precision guided munitions.
The Heavy Bomber Study required by the National Defense
Authorization for Fiscal Year 1995 emphasized the value of
precision guided munitions (PGM) in future air campaigns as an
especially cost effective warfighting capability.
While the committee is persuaded of the importance and
value of precision guided munitions, it is also concerned over
the management and rationalization of the many disparate
programs in production and under development. The military
services have bought or are developing 33 types of PGM with
over 300,000 individual munitions to attack surface targets.
The services estimate that when planned development and
procurement are complete, the United States will have invested
nearly $58.6 billion (then year dollars) in the 33 PGM types.
Presently there are 19 munition types in inventory and
production with a total of 130,422 munitions acquired at a cost
of $30.4 billion.
Within the overall category of PGM, the committee has
acknowledged three areas for concern: upgrades to the bomber
force to enable them to employ PGM; the need for a long-term
cohesive, joint PGM program; and a coherent, interim plan to
provide limited numbers of precision munitions that are now
available while the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) family
of weapons completes development.
Interim PGM
The committee acknowledges the requirement for precision
munitions, both those than can be procured now as ``interim''
capability, and those under development for the future.
However, the committee also recognizes the need for a rational,
structured program for both near-term and long-term PGM
requirements, while acknowledging the individual Services'
concepts of operations and unique platform characteristics. In
requiring a comprehensive review of PGM procurement and
development, the committee's intent is not to develop a single
weapon that embodies excessive compromises to fit each
service's platform characteristics, but rather to ensure
complementary development of systems to cover a wide range of
targets.
The committee is persuaded of the need to rationalize and
oversee the acquisition of PGM's to ensure:
--adequate future commitment to completion of the
acquisition programs;
--a comprehensive evaluation of complementary and
joint use of weapons to attack a comprehensive target
set (fixed, mobile, land and sea) from a variety of
delivery systems;
--efficient development and procurement of systems.
Section - 216. Defense Nuclear Agency programs.
The committee is concerned with the decline in funding for
research and development for the Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA)
and the resulting detrimental impact on nuclear expertise and
the ability of the Services to operate in a nuclear,
biological, and chemical environments. Funding for DNA research
and development has declined by around 40 percent over the past
fifteen years, and based on documents provided to the
committee, it appears that the Secretary of Defense intends to
make even further reductions. This action is extremely
disturbing, considering the threat of the proliferation of
nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and technology, as
stated by the President, the Secretary of Defense, the
Commanders in Chief and the Services, in statements and
testimony before the Congress.
Equally, if not more troubling, is the idea that radiation
hardening of microelectronics to protect space-based systems is
unnecessary and not affordable in today's security environment.
The demand for radiation hardened chips has dropped since the
end of the Cold War, however, the threat of proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction makes limited nuclear use in
regional conflicts much more likely. Current U.S. strategy and
conventional superiority relies on high technology systems
which are becoming inherently vulnerable to the effects of
radiation and electromagnetic pulse (EMP). Current and next
generation military satellites are vulnerable to a single
nuclear strike, undermining our conventional warfighting
capability. Given the attention the Department places on
proliferation and the maintenance of conventional superiority
in a regional contingency, the current lack of attention on
radiation hardening is strategically shortsighted.
DNA Mission
The committee is also concerned that the Office of the
Secretary of Defense continues to question DNA's mission,
despite a series of exhaustive congressionally-mandated reviews
spanning several years, which concluded that DNA should serve
as the Department of Defense's center for nuclear expertise;
and that its expertise should be applied to the emerging
nuclear and related weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
challenges and related defense needs, particularly in the area
of counterproliferation targeting technologies and biological
and chemical agent destruction. The committee expects the
Department of Defense to maintain this mission and to maximize
the DNA's inherent expertise over a wide range of national
security challenges, as well as consolidate further nuclear
support missions within the Agency. Furthermore, as the agency
with expertise in nuclear matters for the Department, the
committee expects DNA to be an outspoken advocate for its
missions. In order to be effective, the resources necessary to
perform simulation of weapons effects using non-nuclear testing
methods and other applications to enhance the span of lethality
options must be included in its budget. The committee is not
convinced that in this era of declining budgets that the
Services will allocate or prioritize the necessary funds to
compensate DNA for such tests. It is the committee's experience
that, faced with conflicting priorities, the Services would
place simulation and testing near the bottom of their priority
lists. Additionally, DNA can offer efficiencies, as DOD's
center for nuclear expertise, which the Services cannot offer.
In this era of declining budgets, consolidating funding and
effort should be guiding principles in dealing with the WMD
threat. DNA remains a key player in the national nuclear
support infrastructure and a central participant in the
national response to the WMD challenge.
DNA Budget Request
The committee recommends authorization of $252.9 million
for fiscal year 1996 for the Defense Nuclear Agency, a $23.0
million increase to the fiscal year 1996 budget request. Of
those funds authorized, the committee directs the following:
--$3.0 million for the establishment of a tunnel
characterization/neutralization program to be managed
by DNA as part of the department's counterproliferation
effort. The initial source of funding for this effort
shall include the $10 million directed by the Deputy
Secretary to DNA in Fiscal Year 1996 for this purpose;
--$6.0 million for the establishment of a long-term
radiation tolerant microelectronics program to ensure
the continued operability of U.S. military systems in
regional WMD-threat scenarios. DNA shall serve as the
focal point for this DOD-wide effort to develop
affordable and effective hardening technologies, ensure
their incorporation into systems, and sustain the
supporting industrial base. Additionally, the Secretary
is directed to provide a report to Congress on the
effort to be conducted and the outyear funding
required, no later than 120 days after the enactment of
this Act.
The committee strongly encourages the Department to
maintain DNA research and development funding at no less than
the current level and to apply greater resources in the
outyears to ensure continued nuclear competence.
Electro-Thermal Chemical (ETC) Gun Program
Lastly, the committee is pleased to learn of the
significant technical progress of DNA's Electro-Thermal
Chemical (ETC) Gun Program. This program is an ideal example of
the outgrowth of DNA nuclear expertise being used for
conventional purposes. Using nuclear expertise developed at DNA
for pulse power and plasma physics, the DNA ETC gun program
meets the United States Navy's requirement for Naval Surface
Fire Support as a low cost, high performance alternative with
sufficient range and lethality, as well as required rate-of-
fire. This past year, DNA completed a series of firings with a
conventional propelling charge and a low vulnerability (LOVA)
propellant which demonstrated better repeatability than the
current naval gun system. Equally significant, DNA
technological advancements have dramatically reduced the
electrical requirement, significantly reducing the size of the
Pulse Forming Network. Recognizing the revolutionary potential
of this new technology, the United States, British, German, and
French armies are now pursuing analogous electric armaments
research. The committee encourages Army consideration of ETC
propulsion for future tank applications. DNA is encouraged to
support these expanded U.S. and allied efforts. To compensate
for the reduction made in the fiscal year 1995 appropriations
process, the committee recommends an additional $4 million in
fiscal year 1996 for the DNA ETC Gun Program.
Thermionics
The committee is dissatisfied with the slow pace of the
thermionics conversion technology under Air Force management,
and therefore recommends the transfer of the thermionics
conversion technology from the Air Force Weapons program
(PE62601F) and unobligated funds authorized and appropriated in
prior years, totalling around $12.0 million to the Defense
Nuclear Agency program (PE62715H). This program converts
thermal energy from a number of different sources into
electricity without the use of moving parts. There are a number
of defense applications for satellite power and propulsion
systems as well as potential commercial applications in energy
conservation. The committee also recommends an increase of
$10.0 million to accelerate this program in fiscal year 1996.
Section - 217. Counterproliferation support program.
The fiscal year 1996 budget request included $108.2 million
for the Counterproliferation Support Program to accelerate the
development and deployment of essential military
counterproliferation technologies and capabilities in the
Department and the military services. The committee recommends
an increase of $36.3 million to the budget request.
Since the end of the Cold War, the committee has been
reviewing programs of the Department of Defense, the Department
of Energy, and the intelligence community to prevent the
proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and
their delivery systems. The committee has supported robust
funding in research and development programs for near-, mid-,
and long-term approaches to addressing the problem. To
prioritize and optimize funding for non/counterproliferation
initiatives, the Congress created the Counterproliferation
Program Review Committee (CPRC).
The proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons are a major potential threat to national security.
Areas of continuing concern to the committee are biological
detection, deep underground detection and attack, and emergency
preparedness and response. The committee is also concerned that
funds requested for the Counterproliferation Support Program
for accelerating or enhancing research and development
activities in the chemical and biological weapons defense
program are not being used appropriately. Funds in this program
should be used to significantly accelerate or enhance programs,
or to promote advanced procurement of advanced commercial
technologies which would provide the services with operation
capabilities in a cost-effective manner.
Biological Detection
Biological agents and weapons are a powerful threat to the
security of our nation, our allies, and innocent people
everywhere because they are easy to produce, easy to conceal,
cheap, and extremely lethal. The Department of Defense has
established programs to develop capabilities to detect and
defend against biological agents. However, delivery to the
services, with limited exceptions, is expected to be around
between the years 2000 to 2005. DOD's Defense Science and
Technology Strategy states that ``Bolder detection of and
defense against biological agents, however they are developed,
is needed today.'' Universities and non-profit industry have
developed potential technologies for biological detection which
include ultraviolet fluorescence sensors, fiber optic wave
guide biodetectors, upconverting phosophor detectors, micro-
electromechanical systems, whole cell biosensors, and bio-
sensing mini-mass spectrometers, which could provide the
military Services with operational capability at an earlier
date.
The committee recommends that $15.0 million of the funds
authorized for the Counterproliferation Support Program for
fiscal year 1996 be used for biological detection research and
development. It is the committee's view that used separately or
jointly, the above mentioned biological detectors would provide
for much earlier operational capability for detection and, in
some cases, near real-time detection of biological agents.
Special Operations Forces
In recognition of the Secretary of Defense's direction to
prepare United States special operations forces to conduct
operations in support of counterproliferation objectives, the
committee recommends that $6.3 million of the funds authorized
for the Counterproliferation Support Program be allocated to
the Special Operations Command (SOCOM). Funds are provided
expressly for the purposes of broadening SOCOM's
counterproliferation activities to include those needs
consistent with the Commanders-in-Chiefs' (CINCs) priorities
and the program guidance reflected in the May 1995 Report on
Activities and Programs for Countering Proliferation.
Underground and Deep Underground Structures
The United States' record of detecting underground
facilities is very poor. The number of facilities, activities
in the facilities, and equipment stored in facilities, has been
consistently underestimated. U.S. intelligence clearly
underestimated the number and size of underground facilities,
the amount of equipment stored, and the number of research and
prototype production facilities built in the underground
facilities in Germany, Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, South
Africa, and Iraq. Tunnels and underground facilities in North
Korea and China are even more difficult for current detection
systems to penetrate.
The Department must continue to pursue an aggressive
program of developing detection and attack capabilities.
Discriminate destruction of deep underground targets remains
important, and concepts such as ``deep digger'' should be
explored for discriminate attack on such facilities. ``Deep
digger'' can potentially be used for a variety of missions,
especially special operations, and can be delivered a number
ways, ranging from special forces to aircraft. The committee
directs that $1.5 million of the funds identified for hard
target characterization be used to explore the ``deep digger''
concept.
Cruise Missile Proliferation
The committee is concerned about the growing threat posed
by cruise missiles. At least a dozen countries now have land-
attack cruise missiles under development. Several of those
countries appear willing to export complete systems, including
systems with low observable features and component technologies
and development expertise. The widespread availability of cheap
guidance, navigation, and digital mapping technologies would
enable developing countries to convert widely proliferated
anti-ship cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles to land-
attack roles. Cruise missile accuracy and aerodynamic stability
make them excellent platforms for delivery of biological and
chemical agents, which could threaten U.S. and allied
projection forces.
Given the emerging cruise missile threat, the committee
believes that certain prudent measures should be taken, and
recommends an increase of $35.0 million in program element
0203801A to upgrade Patriot PAC-1 missiles to provide an
improved anti-cruise missile capability. Further details of
this recommendation are contained in the report section on Army
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) programs.
Proliferation of Space Technology
Now more than ever before, the United States military
relies on space. The military owns, operates, and sustains a
broad mix of space and ground-based capabilities to meet the
spectrum of multi-service and joint warfighting requirements.
The Department of Defense and the military services are
moving to greater use of commercial-off-the-shelf space
technology. At the same time, the United States is granting
export licenses for a number of these commercial technologies
to foreign countries. Items which have been exported include
commercial satellite communications, remote sensing, satellite-
based navigation, and space launch services. In a conflict the
United States could be faced by an adversary with significant
space capabilities, or with access to space-derived data.
The administration believes it is in the United States'
interests to export these technologies so that the nation can
compete effectively in the foreign market. However, the
committee is concerned about the ability of the United States
to counter the technological gains by proliferant countries who
may gain access through massive decontrol of these technologies
for export.
The committee is committed to ensuring that the United
States can influence when and how those capabilities are used
in a conflict. The committee recommends $30.0 million for the
continuation of the Army tactical antisatellite technologies
(ASAT) program (PE 633292A) for a user operational evaluation
system (UOES) contingency capability. This program would
provide a contingency capability enabling the United States, if
necessary, to influence the use of these technologies in a
conflict, and prevent the misuse or denial of space systems and
access to space.
Emergency Preparedness and Response
The nerve gas attack in Japan, the bombing in Oklahoma this
year, and the 1981 contamination of the New York City water
supply with U-235 serve to highlight the need for disaster
preparedness. Additionally, because of recent reports of
attempts to smuggle highly enriched uranium and plutonium in
Eastern Europe and Russia, there is concern that those
materials could make their way into the United States.
The Congress included a provision (section 1704) in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994
expressing the sense of the Congress that the President should
strengthen the capabilities of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) interagency emergency planning and other
appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies to respond to
the use of chemical or biological agents by terrorists against
the United States.
The following year, the Congress included provisions in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 to
enable FEMA to provide, among other things, financial
assistance, training, and equipment by loan or grant to the
states for emergency preparedness to respond to the use of
radiological, chemical, bacteriological, and biological agents
or weapons.
The committee directs the Secretaries of Defense and Energy
and the intelligence community to conduct an assessment of its
military disaster preparedness and civil defense plans and
programs, including who will coordinate those programs, and
how, to anticipate and respond to the use of chemical,
biological, nuclear, and radiological agents or weapons.
Transfer Authority
The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
Department of Defense to transfer up to $50.0 million from
fiscal year 1996 defense-wide research and development accounts
for counterproliferation support activities that are determined
by the Counterproliferation Program Review Committee (CPRC) to
be necessary and in the national security interests.
Report to Congress
The CPRC failed to meet the requirement to provide the
Congress with the annexes on special compartmented programs and
special access and activity programs. The committee reminds the
Department that the decision of a program manager to
compartment information does not supersede the law, nor grant
him the right not to produce and send the information required
by law to the Congress. The committee directs the Department to
comply with the legislation in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995.
Section - 218. Nonlethal weapons program.
Non-lethal weapons (NLW) offer field commanders important
new capabilities across the spectrum of conflict, but are
especially valuable in non-traditional operations where high
collateral damage can inflame the situation, put U.S. lives at
risk, and undermine the political objectives of the mission.
NLW disable or incapacitate personnel and equipment while
causing minimal collateral damage. They can also be used to
make reversible attacks against infrastructure--roads or power
grids, for example. NLW systems can also locate and destroy an
enemy's weapons or the projectiles fired by them.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995
authorized $41.0 million for work on non-lethal weapons
technology applicable to peacekeeping and law enforcement. The
committee supports the continuation of the effort to identify,
evaluate, develop, and field non-lethal systems and
technologies, and recommends $37.2 million for fiscal year
1996. This effort includes dual use technologies that will
benefit both military forces and law enforcement. Thus the
fiscal year 1996 authorization for a NLW program will
incorporate the joint program conducted under the Memorandum of
Understanding between the Department of Justice and the
Department of Defense, and managed in fiscal year 1995 by the
Advanced Research Projects Agency.
The committee notes the interest on the part of the
Department of Defense in developing near-term NLW capabilities
because of their possible value in complex, ambiguous
situations that demand operational flexibility. In particular,
the committee commends the initiative of the Marine Corps in
transitioning non-lethal technologies for employment in
Operation United Shield. Although limited in scope, the Marine
Corps experience validated the operational utility of NLW. It
also revealed significant shortcomings in the U.S. military's
ability to deploy nonlethal and less-than-lethal systems.
Consequently, the committee directs that a new,
consolidated program for non-lethal systems and technology be
established and managed by the Office of Strategic and Tactical
Systems of the Under Secretary for Acquisition and Technology,
which has demonstrated a commitment to systemization and
fielding of mature NLW technologies. The focus of this new
Program Office shall be to create the earliest possible
operational capabilities for deployed forces. The committee
establishes a new Program Element/budget line item for this
program, and directs the following transfer of funds to the new
Program Element: from PE 603570D Defense Laboratory Partnership
Program, $6.0 million; from PE 603750D Advanced Concept
Technology Demonstrations, $3.4 million; from PE 602702E
Tactical Technology (Advanced Land Systems), $17.8 million; and
from PE 603226E Experimental Evaluation of Major Innovative
Technologies, $10.0 million.
The committee intends that these funds be used to execute
the NLW program plan recently approved by the Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquistion and Technology. However, the
committee is also aware of other funds being used to support
highly classified programs in non-lethal technology and
Operations Other Than War. The committee recommends that the
new Program Office for Non-lethal Systems and Technology be
given responsibility for coordinating a comprehensive,
Department-wide effort in NLW and Operations Other Than War,
including currently classified programs.
Section - 219. Federally funded research and development centers.
The committee is pleased at the degree to which the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology is
attempting to assert greater management control over the 11
Department of Defense federally-funded research and development
centers (FFRDC) and the similar university affiliated research
centers (UARC). The committee supports the current initiatives
within the Department of Defense to improve the management of
fees, to define the core work that FFRDC's and UARC's perform,
to compete the non-core work, and to establish an independent
advisory committee to review and report annually on Department
of Defense management of FFRDC's and UARC's. The committee
intends to review the implementation of these initiatives in
future hearings to insure that implementation is timely and
aggressive.
The committee notes that the recent DOD FFRDC management
efforts have included two independent reviews of the
controversial issue of executive compensation. Both the DOD
Inspector General and the private sector Hay Group analyzed
this issue and found that executive compensation levels at
FFRDC's were generally either at or below the market averages.
Therefore, the committee believes that continuation of a
congressionally-mandated salary ceiling is inappropriate.
In recognition of the continuing decline in funding for
research and development, the committee recommends an
undistributed reduction in FFRDC funding of $90.0 million below
the ceiling for fiscal year 1995 and has established a
statutory ceiling for FFRDC's of $1.162 billion in fiscal year
1996. The committee expects that this reduction will be
implemented by moving non-core work, from FFRDCs other than
Studies and Anaylses FFRDCs, to other competitively-awarded
contracts as determined by the ongoing DOD review of core
capabilities for FFRDC's. The committee directs the Department
to ensure adequate funding this year for those FFRDCs engaging
in studies and analyses for the Office of the Secretary of
Defense and the services. The committee further directs the
Department to provide Congress with a recommended funding
ceiling for the UARCs for fiscal year 1996. The committee
directs that no more than one third of the total funds for
UARCs be released until the proposed ceiling is transmitted to
Congress.
Section - 220. States eligible for assistance under Defense
Experimental Program To Stimulate Competitive Research.
The committee recommends an amendment to section 257 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 that
would modify the graduation criteria for states participating
in the Department of Defense EPSCoR program.
Section - 221. National defense technology and industrial base, defense
reinvestment, and conversion.
In fiscal year 1993 the committee created the Technology
Reinvestment Project (TRP), in response to the rapidly
declining percentage of the national research program devoted
to military research. This investment was part of a larger
defense reinvestment program designed to respond to the
declining defense budget.
For the last three years, the committee has supported large
investments in the TRP portion of the defense reinvestment
program. The projects under the TRP have been required to be
competitively selected and have incorporated a requirement that
the non-government participants at least match the funds
invested by the federal government in the development of the
technology.
This year a number of policy issues have arisen that
require the committee to consider the degree to which the TRP
should be funded in fiscal year 1996 and beyond. The
Subcommittee on Acquisition and Technology reviewed these
issues during a hearing on May 17, 1995.
The first issue involves the relevance of the selected
projects to the science and technology priorities of the
Department of Defense and the degree to which the military
services are involved in the process of selecting the
technology projects. The committee has heard a number of
criticisms about the insufficient involvement of the military
services in the selection process for the fiscal year 1993
competition. The General Accounting Office provided testimony
indicating that some of the projects, especially in the
deployment portion of the program, had only an indirect
relevance to a military mission. The GAO also testified,
however, that defense relevance has played an increasing role
in the selection process since fiscal year 1993. The committee
is pleased to see the emphasis on defense relevance underscored
further in the most recent solicitation for the fiscal year
1995 competition. The committee is concerned, however, that
statutory selection criteria for the Defense Advanced
Manufacturing Technology Partnerships are still being
interpreted by the Department of Defense to allow benefits such
as environmental hazard reduction to be given weight equal to
the potential direct defense benefits of the proposed project.
Another management concern is the outyear funding
associated with some of the technology projects and the lack of
congressional oversight of the expenditure of these funds. For
example, the Affordable Composites for Propulsion project will
have required a total of $130 million in federal funds over
five years for completion. The option for fiscal year 1996
requires $35.0 million. The justification documentation
supporting the request for defense reinvestment gives no
insight into such amounts that, on an annual basis, are larger
than many separate programs which the committee reviews and
approves. Consequently, the committee has inadequate insight
into the degree to which many of the projects in the TRP are
integrated with other programs in similar technology thrust
areas.
Finally, the committee is faced with the difficult choice
of either funding a new competition in fiscal year 1996 under
the TRP, or putting priority on the technology programs of the
services. At the hearing on May 17, the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology voiced strong support
for continuing this program because of its unique collaborative
features. Despite this strong support for the TRP, the
Department of Defense has yet to define the technology thrusts
that would be the subject of a new competition. Therefore,
under the current budget constraints, the committee believes
that a new TRP competition in fiscal year 1996 involving
unspecified technologies is a lower priority than ensuring the
funding of defined research and development projects in the
technology base programs of the services. To reflect this, the
committee has recommended reducing the amount of the request by
$262.0 million.
In order to preserve the proven benefits of the competitive
and collaborative approach under the TRP, however, the
committee recommends an authorization of $238.0 million in the
defense reinvestment account (PE 603570E) to continue the
existing program. The committee expects that these funds will
be used to fund options on 20 major and small business
innovative research projects awarded in prior fiscal years as
well as to allow full funding of the fiscal year 1995
competition. The committee directs that the Secretary of
Defense provide to the Committees on Armed Services and
National Security by December 15, 1995, a list of all projects,
including the Small Business Innovative Research Program's
Phase II projects, which are under consideration for funding
under the TRP in future fiscal years. This list should include
the proposed federal and non-federal funding required to
complete each.
The committee has also recommended legislation which would
redesignate the program as the Defense Dual-use Technology
Initiative, repeal the statutory authorization for all but the
Defense Dual-use Critical Technology Partnerships and the
Defense Advanced Manufacturing Technology Partnerships, and
clarify the primacy of direct defense relevance in the criteria
for the award of the projects under the program.
Section - 222. Revisions of manufacturing of science and technology
programs
The committee remains disappointed that the Department of
Defense has yet to develop an adequate program for the
development and implementation of process technologies for the
production of systems and subsystems for military services. The
request for $119.3 for the total programs of the services and
OSD is substantially less than current requirements for these
efforts. The goal of increasing the affordability of DOD
programs will not be achieved unless the Department succeeds to
a much greater extent than in the past in linking funding
requests for the manufacturing science and technology program
with the requirements of the individual program managers. The
Department must also strengthen the interservice coordination
process through such organizations as the Joint Directors of
Laboratories to avoid duplication and to ensure that priority
technology thrusts within manufacturing science and technology
are addressed. A further prerequisite of a sound investment
approach is the ability to more adequately measure the return
on manufacturing technology investments.
While recognizing that the manufacturing science and
technology programs remain underfunded, the committee
recommends approval only of funding at the requested amount. In
the case of the Navy, the committee directs that funding for
the Navy program in PE603771N be allocated strictly in
accordance with the budget item justification exhibit R-2,
dated February 1995, submitted for the program. The committee
reiterates its strong support for requirements for cost-sharing
by non-federal participants in all cases where there is a
potential for the development of dual-use technologies. The
committee urges the services to more aggressively seek cost-
sharing in the projects under their programs.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2525 of title 10, United States Code, in two ways.
First, the committee recommends a change that would clarify the
role of the Joint Directors of Laboratories in establishing the
Manufacturing Science and Technology Program. Second, the
committee has recommended language that would clarify its
intent that producers of manufacturing equipment be involved
more directly in the projects funded under this program. Such
producers are a primary mechanism for the dissemination of new
technologies throughout the defense industrial base. As such,
they should be involved as partners in the individual projects
wherever practicable.
Section - 223. Preparedness of the Department of Defense to respond to
military and civil defense emergencies resulting from a
chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear attack.
The tragic events of the past--the nerve gas attack in
Japan and the bombing in Oklahoma this year, and the 1981
contamination of the New York City water supply with U-235--
serve to highlight the need for disaster preparedness. There
are also reports of highly enriched uranium and plutonium being
smuggled out of Eastern Europe and Russia, which could
potentially find its way to the United States. These are only
recent manifestations of a continuing problem.
Due to concern with the threat of possible use of these
weapons of mass destruction in the United States by terrorist
or subnational groups, a provision (Section 1704) was included
in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994
expressing the sense of the Congress that the President should
strengthen the capabilities of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) interagency emergency planning and other
appropriate federal, state, and local agencies to respond to
the potential use of chemical or biological agents or weapons
use by terrorists against the United States.
The following year, the Congress included provisions (Title
VI) in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1995 that would enable FEMA to provide financial assistance,
training, and equipment by loan or grant, to the states for
emergency preparedness to respond to the use of radiological,
chemical, bacteriological, and biological agents or weapons.
The committee directs the Secretaries of Defense and
Energy, in consultation with the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) to submit a report to Congress by February 28,
1996 of its military and civil defense plans and programs to
respond to the use of chemical, biological, nuclear, and
radiological agents or weapons.
SUBTITLE C--MISSILE DEFENSE
Sections 231 through 241
Missile Defense Act of 1995
The committee recommends that the Missile Defense Act of
1991 be replaced by a provision (Subtitle C of Title II) that
more completely responds to the challenges and opportunities of
the post-Cold War era, and which charts a firmer and clearer
course for missile defenses than the United States is currently
on. The Missile Defense Act of 1995 would: (1) accelerate and
focus U.S. theater missile defense (TMD) efforts; (2) establish
a deployment plan for a national missile defense (NMD) system;
(3) establish a cruise missile defense (CMD) initiative to
strengthen and coordinate current CMD programs while preparing
systems that will be highly capable against future threats; (4)
set forth a compliance standard for air and theater missile
defense with regard to the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty;
(5) advocate a cooperative transition to a regime that does not
feature mutual assured destruction as the basis for strategic
deterrence and stability; and (6) recommend establishment of a
Senate select committee to conduct a comprehensive review of
the continuing value and validity of the ABM Treaty and
recommend a specific course of action.
The committee has received extensive testimony and
briefings from the intelligence community, administration
officials, and non-governmental experts on the expanding
ballistic and cruise missile threat. It is clear that the
threat to the national security of the United States posed by
the proliferation of such missiles is significant and growing,
both qualitatively and quantitatively. It is equally clear in
the committee's view that the United States must respond
aggressively by deploying effective defenses against ballistic
missiles of all ranges and against cruise missiles.
Theater Missile Defense Architecture
The committee recommends rapid development and deployment
of a core theater missile defense program. The committee
recommends a provision that would specify that the following
systems shall define the core program: the Patriot PAC-3
system, the Navy Lower Tier system, the Theater High-Altitude
Area Defense (THAAD) system, and the Navy Upper Tier system.
The provision would also establish guidelines for advancing new
systems into the core TMD program. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to ensure that the systems in the core
program are developed aggressively so that they become
operational as soon as possible.
THAAD--The committee understands that the THAAD user
operational evaluation system (UOES), consisting of operational
prototype hardware, will meet the primary system performance
requirements against the full threat spectrum. The budget
request for the THAAD program in fiscal year 1996 includes
funds to acquire 40 UOES missiles. Additional funding will be
required to support testing of the UOES missiles in fiscal year
1997. The THAAD UOES systems delivered during 1997 and 1998
will provide a warfighting commander-in-chief (CINC) with a
critical capability to deploy advanced theater missile defenses
in the event of a crisis. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to execute the option to procure the UOES
missiles. Upon completion of the demonstration/validation
(DemVal) phase, the THAAD program will enter a four year
engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase. Limited
rate initial production (LRIP) will begin after adequate
testing of the EMD missiles. The purpose of the EMD program
should be to build on the DemVal system by addressing the
manufacturing technology, producibility, and reliability
improvements, all while maintaining the continuity necessary to
achieve reductions in procurement and life cycle costs. Thus,
the committee believes there should be a smooth transition from
DemVal to EMD and LRIP. Since the UOES missile appears to meet
most system performance requirements in its current
configuration, the committee believes that additional missiles
should be made available for contingency use before the year
2000. To accomplish all these objectives, the committee
believes that LRIP could be initiated concurrently with the
testing of the EMD missiles, once initial tests have verified
that performance has not been degraded by any EMD design
changes. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to submit, as part of the TMD reporting requirement
contained in the Missile Defense Act of 1995, an analysis of
these planning issues and the department's plan for
implementing a smooth transition from DemVal to production, all
while providing additional EMD missiles to augment the initial
UOES inventory.
NAVY LOWER AND UPPER TIER--The committee is equally
concerned that the Navy Lower Tier and Upper Tier systems
become operational as soon as possible. The committee has
recommended sufficient funding, which, if continued in the out
years, would ensure availability of Navy Lower Tier UOES
missiles in fiscal year 1997 and an initial operational
capability (IOC) of the objective system in fiscal year 1999.
For Navy Upper Tier, the committee's recommended funding would
provide a UOES in fiscal year 1999 and an IOC in fiscal year
2001. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide
sufficient funding to ensure that these schedules are met.
Regarding Navy Upper Tier, the committee supports a thorough
comparison of the Lightweight Exoatmospheric Projectile (LEAP)
system and a ``marinized'' version of the THAAD kill vehicle,
along with associated boosters, to reduce risk and ensure that
the best system is selected. This comparison should reflect the
results of the ongoing cost and operational effectiveness
analysis (COEA), as well as actual technical developments and
demonstrated performance. The committee urges the Navy to
consider developing a program plan for a competition between
these two kill vehicle/missile concepts, including parallel
development activities and flight tests, followed by a down-
select in time to achieve a UOES capability in fiscal year 1999
and an IOC in fiscal year 2001.
TMD BATTLE MANAGEMENT/COMMAND AND CONTROL--The committee is
aware both of an ongoing Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
(BMDO) study on missile defense command and control, and of
individual missile defense command and control efforts by the
services, notably the Navy's Cooperative Engagement Capability
(CEC) and the Army's Battlefield Integration Center (BIC). The
committee welcomes the effort by the Department to examine the
command and control requirements for effective theater missile
defenses, in light of the numerous programs currently under
development. However, the committee is concerned that the CEC
and BIC efforts appear to be proceeding on independent paths,
with little interaction between them; and even less effort on
the requirement for their ultimate integration into a
``seamless'' theater-level command and control network under
the control of a Theater CINC. The committee sees little
evidence that Theater CINCs--the ultimate users--have been
consulted as to their preferences for the design and operation
of theater missile defense command and control centers.
Moreover, any command and control solution for Theater CINCs
must be designed for effective operations under a variety of
possible scenarios, including such variants as the CINC's
initial command center being remote from the theater of
operations, or initial operations from shipboard with a
subsequent transfer of command and control authority to a
facility ashore. Finally, the theater missile defense center
has to be capable of dealing with both ballistic missile and
cruise missile threats within the theater. Because of the
evident complexity of the theater missile defense command and
control problem, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to expand the charter and focus of this ongoing study effort.
This effort should involve close consultation and interaction
with Theater CINCs regarding the development of a ``seamless''
command and control center capable of rapid integration of
sensor information, surveillance information, and interceptor
allocations, whether land or sea based.
OTHER TMD ACTIVITIES--Despite its strong support for TMD in
general and the core programs in particular, the committee is
concerned that approximately eighty percent of our investments
in BMD are currently being directed to TMD activities. The
committee is also troubled by the expanding number of new TMD
systems that are headed for acquisition. If the current course
is allowed to continue, the United States will expend virtually
all its effort and resources on a plethora of TMD systems that
are designed for narrow in-theater applications. The committee
does not understand how the Department of Defense can
contemplate an entirely new development and acquisition program
to provide air and missile defense for maneuver forces when it
is already planning to spend $15.8 billion on the Patriot PAC-3
and THAAD systems. Also, while the committee is strongly
supportive of developing systems capable of intercepting
ballistic missiles in the boost phase, it does not understand
how the Department of Defense can push a fighter-launched
kinetic energy boost-phase intercept (BPI) system in the
direction of acquisition when serious technical and operational
obstacles remain to be solved.
The committee recommends a more focused TMD investment
strategy and increases to other BMD activities to restore a
more balanced BMD program. The committee is not opposed to the
emergence of new core TMD systems, but insists that such
systems be coherent and affordable, and that they leverage to
the extent possible existing systems and technologies. Follow-
on TMD investments must be targeted so as to build on existing
investments, or to support significant leaps ahead in the
technological state of the art. The United States cannot afford
and does not need six kinetic-energy TMD systems that approach
the threat fundamentally in the same technical manner.
The committee, therefore, recommends the termination of the
existing Corps SAM and kinetic-energy BPI programs. To satisfy
the Corps SAM requirement, which the committee views as valid,
the Department of Defense should propose a restructured
program, which essentially merges ongoing efforts in PAC-3 and
THAAD to produce a mobile hybrid system with 360 degree
coverage. The committee believes that such a system will
satisfy the requirement more rapidly and in a more cost-
effective manner than the Corps SAM/MEADS program. The
committee also believes that this will present an opportunity
to begin replacing existing Patriot infrastructure, which is
excessively large and manpower-intensive, with a new type of
system that is essentially a mobile PAC-3. If implemented
properly, production of the new system could be phased into
ongoing PAC-3 production, thereby providing savings from both
ends of the spectrum.
The committee is sensitive to the diplomatic implications
of canceling the MEADS program, but believes that it is better
to restructure the program in its infancy rather than later.
The committee is not opposed to having an international aspect
to the restructured program. More important, the committee
believes that the United States should seek to foster
cooperation with its allies on wide-area missile defense. The
primary threat to our European and Asian allies will not be
countered by a MEADS-like system. The committee believes that
the United States should place greater emphasis on fostering
cooperation on programs such as THAAD and Navy Upper Tier.
With regard to boost-phase intercept, the committee remains
highly skeptical about a BPI system based on manned tactical
aircraft. Even if the needed interceptor technology should
mature, the operational implications of this system make it
almost unsustainable. To the extent that kinetic-energy BPI
systems hold promise for TMD applications, the committee
believes that reliance should be placed on unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs). The committee notes that the United States is
conducting extensive work on UAVs and has an ongoing, though
severely under-funded, program to study a UAV/BPI concept with
the State of Israel. The committee believes that leveraging
existing U.S. UAV programs and the ongoing effort with Israel
would provide the basis for a much more cost-effective BPI
program. The committee, therefore, recommends that the
Secretary of Defense initiate a cooperative program between the
United States and Israel, which leverages the work both
countries have done on missile defense and UAVs.
National Missile Defense Architecture
The committee notes that there is greater ambiguity and
more disagreement regarding the future ballistic missile threat
to the territory of the United States than there is regarding
the threat posed by short- and medium-range missiles, which are
already deployed in large numbers throughout the world. With
regard to ballistic missile threats to the United States
itself, there are really two subcategories--existing threats
that we have lived with for some time, and emerging new
threats. Most of the debate has surrounded the question of new
threats.
The committee notes that the intelligence community does
not presently forecast the emergence of a new indigenously-
developed ballistic missile threat to the continental United
States within the next ten years. Nevertheless, the
intelligence community does confirm that the proliferation
trend is toward longer-range and more sophisticated ballistic
missiles, and that there are a number of ways for determined
countries to rapidly acquire intercontinental ballistic
missiles (ICBM) by means other than indigenous development. The
intelligence community also confirms that North Korea is
developing an ICBM class missile (the Taepo Dong II), which may
become operational within five years, and which may have
sufficient range to target Alaska. Some analysts speculate that
this missile could have an even longer range. In any event, the
mere existence of this North Korean program is cause for
questioning the intelligence community's ten year forecast. It
also highlights how suddenly a new ICBM threat can emerge.
Given North Korea's history as a missile proliferator and its
ongoing cooperation with Iran on such programs, the committee
views these developments as extremely threatening.
The committee does not believe that the intelligence
community's ten year threat assessment in any way undermines
the case for accelerating deployment of a national missile
defense system. Even if it were certain that a new threat would
not materialize for ten years, the United States would still
need to get started now to ensure that it develops a highly
effective and affordable system in time. As previously noted,
however, there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the
ten year estimate. The United States must be prepared to
respond earlier if necessary. Perhaps more important, deploying
an NMD system prior to the unambiguous emergence of new missile
threats to the United States may serve to deter countries that
would otherwise seek to acquire ICBMs. A vulnerable United
States merely invites proliferation, blackmail, and even
aggression.
In addition to dealing with emerging threats to the United
States, NMD can help pave the way for a more reliable and less
adversarial form of strategic stability. Mutual vulnerability
is clearly not a necessary basis for a stable deterrence
relationship. In the near-term, NMD deployments would serve to
stabilize mutual deterrence by reducing prospective incentives
to strike first in a crisis. The committee believes that even
modest NMD deployments can reduce the vulnerability of U.S.
strategic forces and thereby strengthen stability. Over time,
as political circumstances permit, increasingly robust defenses
can serve to devalue offensive forces, especially those that
are most destabilizing, virtually eliminating first strike
incentives and establishing the basis for deeper offensive
reductions.
Indefinitely extending Cold War notions of nuclear
deterrence based on vulnerability and threats of retaliation is
likely to perpetuate basic animosities and security concerns,
and prohibit the development of the more positive relations
necessary for a genuinely stable U.S.-Russian strategic
relationship. Arms reductions alone cannot accomplish this
goal. By easing concerns about possible non-compliance and
third party ballistic missile threats, missile defenses can
help provide the confidence necessary to move toward deeper
offensive reductions. In sum, the argument that effective
national ballistic missile defenses are inconsistent with
deterrence and arms control is as outdated as the Cold War
itself.
Therefore, the committee recommends a provision which would
establish an NMD program to deploy a multiple-site, ground-
based interceptor system by 2003, with a more limited
contingency capability available by the turn of the century.
The committee believes that there is an urgent need to
establish explicit milestones and performance goals for the NMD
program in order to achieve these deployment goals. The
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to employ
streamlined acquisition procedures and other cost saving
measures as appropriate to ensure rapid and cost-effective
development of an NMD system.
The committee notes that the ground-based interceptor (GBI)
program, with its exoatmospheric kill vehicle (EKV), has been
underway for almost five years, and has achieved significant
technical progress. The committee also notes the existence of
various options for off-the-shelf boosters for the GBI, but
questions whether these can be optimized for the GBI mission.
The committee therefore recommends that a detailed analysis be
conducted in order to select an optimized booster configuration
that balances cost and performance considerations. The
committee supports aggressive development and testing of the
EKV to support the deployment goals specified above. The
committee is troubled by recent schedule delays in the EKV
program and the fact that BMDO is considering a down-select to
a single design and contractor before conducting flight tests.
To ensure that the best design is selected upon demonstrated
performance, and to minimize program risk, the Secretary of
Defense is directed to maintain competition in the EKV program
through successful completion of flight demonstrations.
In order to develop and deploy optimized sensor support for
an NMD system, the committee supports upgrading existing early
warning radars while new X-band fire control radars are readied
for deployment. The committee also strongly supports the
development of the Space and Missile Tracking System (SMTS),
which is being developed by the Air Force as part of the Space-
Based Infrared System (SBIRS). The committee believes that SMTS
should be developed for a first launch in fiscal year 2001,
with an IOC in fiscal year 2003, to support the objective
multiple-site NMD system. The committee believes that the
proper mix between space-based sensors and ground-based radars
must be achieved to maximize coverage and effectiveness while
minimizing the ultimate cost of the NMD system. With robust
space-based sensor support, the system may not require new
radars at each interceptor deployment location.
The committee recognizes that there may be opportunities to
significantly improve the cost and operational effectiveness of
a ground-based NMD system by including space-based and/or sea-
based defensive systems in the NMD architecture. The committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to include an analysis of such
options in the NMD implementation plan.
Cruise Missile Defense Initiative
In a significant departure from the Missile Defense Act of
1991, the Missile Defense Act of 1995 addresses the threat
posed by existing and emerging cruise missiles. The committee
believes that CMD has not been given the degree of attention
warranted by the threat, and notes with concern the
intelligence community's estimate that at least twelve
countries have land-attack cruise missiles under development.
Although there are many programs in the Department of Defense
involving CMD, for the most part these have not been
sufficiently emphasized, funded, or coordinated. The committee
believes that the Secretary of Defense should seek to
coordinate and leverage activities involving air defense, CMD
and BMD to maximize synergies and cost savings.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
coordinate the department's CMD and BMD efforts and to ensure
that existing air defense systems are upgraded to improve
capabilities against cruise missiles. The committee also
directs the Secretary to undertake a high priority development
program to support the future deployment of systems that are
highly effective against advanced cruise missiles, including
cruise missiles with low observable features. Finally, the
committee directs the Secretary to prepare a plan for
implementing a cruise missile defense initiative, including an
assessment of organizational and managerial changes that could
strengthen and further coordinate the cruise missile defense
activities of the Department of Defense. The committee
recommends a substantial increase in funding for cruise missile
defense activities, which is described in a separate funding
section below.
Policy Regarding the ABM Treaty
The committee acknowledges that many of the policies and
recommendations contained in the Missile Defense Act of 1995,
if implemented, would require relief in one form or another
from the ABM Treaty. Rather than recommend a specific course of
action at this time, however, the committee believes that
Congress should undertake a comprehensive review of the
continuing value and validity of the ABM Treaty with the intent
of making a well informed and carefully considered
recommendation on how to proceed by the end of the 104th
Congress.
The Missile Defense Act of 1995 would establish a policy to
seek a cooperative transition to a regime which does not
feature mutual assured destruction as the basis for deterrence
and stability, yet it is not presently clear how best to
achieve this goal. Incremental amendments to the treaty must be
considered, but there is a risk that such incrementalism may
undermine the ultimate goal of replacing the treaty with a more
appropriate and up-to-date regime. Congress also will want to
evaluate the Secretary of Defense's NMD implementation plan and
a variety of technical and policy issues before recommending a
specific course of action. Furthermore, given that there are no
ABM Treaty limitations on research, development, or testing of
ground-based NMD systems or components, it is prudent to
dedicate a year to studying all ABM Treaty-related issues and
alternatives. The committee, therefore, recommends a provision
that calls for the Senate to undertake a careful one-year
review of the continuing value and validity of the ABM Treaty,
during which time all efforts by the administration to modify,
clarify, or otherwise alter U.S. obligations under the ABM
Treaty should cease.
To conduct this comprehensive review and to issue specific
guidance, the committee recommends that the Senate consider
establishment of a select committee on the future of the ABM
Treaty, which would convene for a one-year period of time. The
select committee would conduct hearings and interviews, review
all relevant documents, and carefully consider the full range
of policy issues. At the end of the 104th Congress, the select
committee would issue a report and be disbanded.
To facilitate the Senate's review and to foster full and
open debate, the committee recommends requiring the
declassification of the ABM Treaty negotiating record. This
action would be consistent with the classification policy in
Executive Order 12958, announced by the administration on April
17, 1995. The Reagan Administration, which declassified a
significant portion of the ABM Treaty record, established the
precedent for this action. The committee understands that in
connection with the 1987 study of the ABM Treaty by the State
Department Legal Advisor, most of the negotiating record along
with a complete index was compiled. The committee suggests that
this would be a good starting point for the administration in
providing Congress with the information requested.
Development, Testing and Deployment of Non-ABM Systems
The committee observes that the ABM Treaty does not limit
the development or deployment of TMD or air defense systems;
yet, as a result of ambiguities in the treaty, the United
States has for years unilaterally limited the development of
non-ABM systems. These self-imposed restraints exceed not only
the requirements of the Treaty, but common sense. Article VI(a)
of the ABM Treaty states that non-ABM systems may not be
``tested in an ABM mode'' and may not be ``given capabilities
to counter strategic ballistic missiles.'' Unfortunately, these
terms and concepts remain essentially undefined. In this void,
the Department of Defense developed an arbitrary methodology,
based on computer simulations of one-on-one engagements, to
determine whether defensive systems have ``capabilities to
counter strategic ballistic missiles.'' This approach,
unfortunately, conforms neither to operational reality nor to
the requirements of the ABM Treaty. Since the treaty is
verified and monitored solely by ``national technical means,''
compliance standards based on computer simulations clearly
exceed the terms and requirements of the Treaty. There is no
evidence that Russia, or the Soviet Union before it, has ever
employed anything as onerous and self-limiting as this.
The results of this excessive self-regulation have recently
become very apparent. Recent compliance reviews have imposed a
variety of constraints on our ability to proceed efficiently
and aggressively with TMD programs such as THAAD and Navy Upper
Tier. Both systems are now being forced down a very precarious
path between artificial ABM Treaty constraints and the pressing
need to maximize their operational capability.
Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would
codify in precise terms that a demonstrated standard shall be
used for evaluating the compliance of TMD and air defense
systems. The provision would establish that TMD and air defense
systems are not subject to the terms of the ABM Treaty unless
flight tested against a ballistic missile with a range greater
than 3,500 kilometers or a velocity in excess of 5 kilometers
per second. The committee did not select these parameters
arbitrarily; in fact, they formed the basis for the official
United States position tabled at the Standing Consultative
Commission in November 1993. The committee finds that specific
performance or deployment limitations on TMD systems would be
inconsistent with our current treaty obligations and United
States national security interests in general. Unlike the
demonstrated standard recommended by the committee, such
limitations would establish new legal obligations for the
United States under the ABM Treaty, essentially transforming it
into a TMD treaty.
Ballistic Missile Defense Program Elements
The committee recommends a provision that would realign the
program element (PE) structure of BMDO's budget, reducing the
number from thirteen to seven. The committee believes that all
core TMD programs should be covered in individual PEs, and that
all other TMD programs, projects and activities should be
covered in the Other TMD Activities PE. The committee believes
that battle management, command, control and communications
(BM/C3) programs should be covered in the Other TMD or the NMD
PEs, and that funding for program support activities should be
included in the relevant PEs.
Ballistic missile defense funding
The fiscal year 1996 budget request for the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) was $2.9 billion, including
research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E),
procurement, and military construction. The committee
recommends a total BMDO authorization of $3.4 billion, an
increase of $490.0 million over the request. The committee
notes that this funding level is approximately $136.0 million
lower than the amount recommended for fiscal year 1996 by the
Clinton Administration's own Bottom-Up Review, and
approximately $4.0 billion lower than the amount recommended
for fiscal year 1996 in the last budget submitted by the Bush
Administration.
The committee recommends the following budget allocation:
[Millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Request Change Recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patriot System*............... 666.9 ........... 666.9
Navy Lower Tier*.............. 254.4 + 45.0 299.4
THAAD**....................... 589.9 ........... 589.9
Navy Upper Tier............... 30.4 +170.0 200.4
Hawk Upgrade*................. 28.3 ........... 28.3
TMD BM/C3*.................... 70.8 ........... 70.8
Corps SAM..................... 30.4 -30.4 ..............
BPI........................... 49.1 -49.1 ..............
Other TMD**................... 463.0 +15.0 478.0
NMD**......................... 371.5 +300.0 671.5
Support Technology............ 172.7 + 70.0 242.7
Management.................... 185.5 -30.0 155.5
-----------------------------------------
Total BMDO.............. 2,912.9 +490.5 3,403.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes RDT&E and Procurement
** Includes RDT&E and Military Construction
Core Theater Missile Defense Programs
The committee recommends the establishment of a core TMD
program consisting of the Patriot PAC-3 system, the Navy Lower
Tier system, the THAAD system, and the Navy Upper Tier system.
The committee notes that this prioritization is consistent with
the Department of Defense's Bottom-Up Review, which recommended
that these four programs be funded as major acquisitions in the
fiscal year 1995-99 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). The
committee recommends a total core TMD funding level of $1.8
billion in fiscal year 1996. This includes an increase of $45.0
million for Navy Lower Tier, an increase of $170.0 million for
Navy Upper Tier, and full funding of the requests for THAAD and
Patriot. The committee understands that this funding profile,
if sustained, would lead to the following operational
capabilities:
--For Patriot PAC-3, a First Unit Equipped (FUE) in
fiscal year 1998.
--For THAAD, a user operational evaluation system
(UOES) capability in fiscal year 1997 and an IOC in
fiscal year 2002, which may be accelerated by as many
as three years.
--For Navy Lower Tier, a UOES capability in fiscal
year 1997 and an IOC in fiscal year 1999.
--For Navy Upper Tier, a UOES capability in fiscal
year 1999 and an IOC in fiscal year 2001.
The committee endorses this schedule and directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide sufficient funding in the
outyears to sustain it. The committee also directs the
Secretary to ensure that funds authorized for core TMD programs
not be utilized for other purposes without the express consent
of the congressional defense committees. The committee also
directs that no funds authorized for the Navy Upper Tier
program be used for additional Terrier-LEAP flight tests.
Other Theater Missile Defense Activities
The committee believes that BMDO's TMD activities lack
sufficient focus. Establishment of a well funded, high
priority, core TMD program will help but will not solve this
problem. The committee believes that other theater missile
defense (OTMD) activities must also be focused and made more
efficient. In addition to providing core support activities
such as targets, the committee believes that OTMD funds must be
pooled and focused so as to satisfy outstanding TMD
requirements. Some difficult choices will have to be made and
greater efficiencies will have to be realized.
Therefore, the committee recommends the termination of the
Corps SAM and Boost-Phase Interceptor (BPI) programs. As
explained elsewhere in this report, there are more efficient
ways to satisfy the requirements that these programs are
attempting to fulfill. The committee believes that the
Atmospheric Interceptor Technology (AIT) program, which has
been funded as part of the BPI program, should be transferred
to the OTMD PE, and be restructured as a follow-on kill vehicle
technology program.
The committee does recommend an increase of $15.0 million
in the OTMD PE to initiate a joint U.S.-Israel boost-phase
intercept program based on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The
committee looks forward to evaluating a restructured Corps SAM
program, which leverages to a much greater degree existing
systems, technologies and programs.
National Missile Defense
The Missile Defense Act of 1995 (Subtitle C of Title II)
would establish a highly focused effort to defend the United
States against limited ballistic missile attacks. The NMD
program as it now exists is structured to spend approximately
$400 million a year for the foreseeable future without
deploying a single element of defensive capability. The
committee views this as a wasteful expenditure and a program
that fundamentally neglects a serious emerging threat to the
national security of the United States. The committee,
therefore, recommends an increase of $300.0 million for the NMD
program, for a total of $671.5 million, to accelerate key
technologies and systems pending the outcome of a detailed NMD
deployment plan.
The committee recognizes that deploying a multiple-site NMD
system by 2003 will require significant investments in the out
years, and directs the Secretary of Defense to budget
accordingly. Given the consequences of not being prepared for
the emerging threat, the committee believes that this
investment should be one of the Secretary's highest priorities.
The committee believes that the ultimate cost of deploying
an NMD system can be significantly reduced by employing
streamlined acquisition procedures and a sense of urgency. The
Missile Defense Act of 1995 would establish a requirement for
the Secretary to prescribe and employ such procedures as well
as other cost saving measures. The committee believes that, for
purposes of acquisition, the Secretary should consider NMD
deployment a national priority, requiring highly streamlined
treatment. The committee notes the case of the Pershing II
intermediate-range ballistic missile development and deployment
effort during the late 1970s and early 1980s, in which
streamlined acquisition procedures and a sense of urgency
produced rapid, cost-effective and technically very
satisfactory results. The committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to emulate this model for NMD as much as possible.
Support Technologies
The committee notes that of the BMDO budget request, only
approximately 6 percent is for advanced follow-on technology
development. While the committee is pleased that BMDO is now
pursuing a variety of major acquisition efforts, it is
concerned that the pendulum may have swung too far away from
technology development. If the present funding allocation
continues, the United States will soon have ``consumed its seed
corn'' and built structural obsolescence into its deployed BMD
systems. Moreover, the United States will have abandoned
promising missile defense technologies, which offer the
possibility of vastly improving BMD cost and operational
effectiveness.
The committee is particularly troubled by the
administration's plans to terminate our last remaining space-
based missile defense program, the space-based laser, at the
end of fiscal year 1997. The committee believes that it is
critical for the United States to continue developing space-
based defenses to preserve the option of deploying highly
effective global defenses in the future. The committee notes
that a space-based laser would be the most effective system for
intercepting ballistic missiles of all ranges in the boost
phase. The committee therefore recommends an increase of $70.0
million to the Support Technologies PE for the space-based
laser program. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to reinvigorate this program and to ensure that sufficient
funds are provided in the outyears to continue a robust effort.
Cruise missile defense funding
The committee has become increasingly concerned by the
growing threat of cruise missiles. The committee is
particularly alarmed by the emerging threat posed by land-
attack cruise missiles, especially those that employ low
observable technologies. Although the Department of Defense has
a number of programs designed in part or whole to deal with
this threat, the committee believes that more can and must be
done to enhance and coordinate these efforts. The committee
therefore recommends a provision, as part of the Missile
Defense Act of 1995, that would establish a Cruise Missile
Defense Initiative. To support this effort, the committee
recommends a funding increase of $145.0 million for various
cruise missile defense programs and activities. The allocation
of this proposed increase is presented below.
The committee endorses the Defense Science Board's
recommendation to enhance existing air defenses through
improved connectivity among existing shooter and sensor assets.
To help foster this improved connectivity, the committee
recommends an additional $15.0 million to accelerate joint
programs between the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA)
and the military services. Specifically, the committee
recommends an increase of $5.0 million in each of the following
three service program elements for ARPA/Service seeker
development: (1) 0603009A TRACTOR HIKE; (2) 0207163F AMRAAM;
(3) 0603746N RETRACT MAPLE.
The most serious aspect of the emerging cruise missile
threat is the severe reduction it will cause in available
battlespace to detect and intercept low-flying, low-observable
missiles. Existing and planned improvements in theater air
defenses will not restore that battlespace. Fortunately,
advanced sensors and sensor platforms being developed by ARPA
and the services are maturing and offer vastly improved
capabilities to detect and track low-observable targets at
ranges of several hundred kilometers. Fixed-wing platforms
offer flexibility for a centralized airborne surveillance and
fire control system. By contrast, lighter-than-air platforms,
including aerostats and airships, would significantly reduce
cost, technical risks, and acquisition time, at some marginal
degradation in operational flexibility. Life-cycle costs also
favor lighter-than-air options over fixed-wing alternatives. To
explore this potential, the committee recommends an additional
$5.0 million in PE 0603009A for aerostat risk reduction
evaluations jointly conducted by ARPA and the Army. The
committee believes that airships may offer the most cost-
effective alternative to the airborne sensor problem. Airships
would provide sufficient payload volume, weight, and power to
carry the sensors capable of providing three dimensional target
resolution sufficient to acquire a target at considerable
standoff ranges, and provide target illumination and data link
services for a beyond the horizon intercept. Hence, the
committee recommends an increase of $60.0 million in PE
0603238N to begin the development of an airship and mission
system that is militarily significant in scope, of full size
and operationally capable of demonstrating a counter-cruise
missile capability for ground and naval forces. The committee
also recommends an additional $10.0 in PE 0603226E to support
ARPA's classified cruise missile defense activities.
The committee is particularly supportive of the Navy's
Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) program, which will
dramatically enhance air and missile defense effectiveness. The
committee encourages the Navy's efforts to include the Army and
the Air Force in the CEC program. CEC integration into systems
such as Patriot, Hawk, THAAD and AWACS appears to be quite
promising. The committee, therefore, recommends an increase of
$20.0 million in PE 0603755N to accelerate joint Army-Navy and
Air Force-Navy exploitation of CEC for cruise missile defense
and theater missile defense.
The committee is aware of a proposal to refurbish and
upgrade existing Patriot missiles within the Army's current
inventory to provide an improved anti-cruise missile
capability. This effort would provide a new seeker for older
Patriot missiles to optimize their performance against cruise
missiles. The committee strongly supports this upgrade. The
committee, therefore, recommends an increase of $35.0 million
in PE 0203801A for the first year of a three-year research and
development effort for the proposed upgrade.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
High modulus polycrylonitrile (PAN) carbon fiber
Polyacrylonitrile (PAN) carbon fiber is a critical
composite material used in the Theater High Altitude Air
Defense (THAAD) missile component. Currently, the only company
supplying this material is located in Japan. In order to
develop at least two domestic sources for this material, the
committee recommends an additional authorization of $4.0
million in PE 602105A to fund this effort. The committee
directs that all applicable competitive procedures be used in
the award of any contracts or other agreements under this
program, and that cost-sharing requirements for non-federal
participants be utilized where appropriate.
Army technology base programs
The committee notes and applauds the degree to which the
Army is attempting to evaluate and embrace new concepts of
warfare in its Force XXI vision for shaping the Army for the
year 2010. Unfortunately, these intentions are jeopardized by
the investment strategy the Army is pursuing in the technology
base budget request for fiscal year 1996. The fiscal year 1996
request for programs in the basic research, exploratory
development, and advanced development categories are 10
percent, 30 percent and 40 percent respectively below the
amounts appropriated for programs in those categories in fiscal
year 1995.
The Force XXI vision draws its essence from the current
efforts in the Joint Chiefs of Staff and elsewhere to determine
the elements of the next revolution in military affairs. The
Subcommittee on Acquisition and Technologies reviewed these
efforts in a hearing on May 5. The testimony of Admiral Owens,
Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, indicated the
degree to which the aggressive development of a broad spectrum
of technologies will be necessary to put the new forms of
warfare within reach over the next 10 to 15 years. The current
Army technology base program is inadequate to the emerging
challenge.
The committee urges the Army leadership and the Office of
the Secretary of Defense to break the cycle of the recent past,
in which the Army and the Department of Defense chronically
underfunded the Army technology base, and provide more balanced
funding for the Army technology base program in relation to the
other Army accounts in the fiscal year 1997 request. To
partially address the underfunding issue in fiscal year 1996,
the committee has recommended an increased authorization of
$24.0 million to be distributed as follows:
Million
PE 602211A Aviation Technology.................................... $3.0
PE 602303A Missile Technologies................................... 5.0
PE 602624A Weapons and Munitions Tech............................. 3.0
PE 602709A Night Vision Technology................................ 2.0
PE 602782A C3 Technologies........................................ 2.0
PE 603006A C3 Advanced Technologies............................... 3.0
PE 603734A Military Engineering Adv. Technology................... 6.0
Environmental Policy Simulation Laboratory (EPSL)
The committee notes that the department faces increasing
environmental challenges with decreasing environmental
budgetary resources. It also faces a subsequent mandate to
avoid any costly false starts and to optimize first-time field
deployments while encouraging maximum innovation and technology
transfer. In this regard, the committee encourages the
Department of Defense to simulate new environmental technology
processes and products whenever possible. The committee also
recommends the establishment of the Environmental Policy
Simulation Laboratory (EPSL) under the direction of the Army
Environmental Policy Institute (AEPI). The EPSL will develop
policy simulation models for air, water, soil, noise, and
visual pollution characteristics of military operations in
order to increase pollution prevention and risk compliance, and
to reduce costs of integrating innovative environmental
technology solutions to military missions. The committee
recommends that $3.0 million be added to PE 602720A to provide
for the competitive establishment of EPSL operations. No part
of these funds may be used for construction of facilities.
During its second operating year, the committee directs the
EPSL to report all ongoing and potential environmental
technology deployment cost savings resulting from its
operation.
Funding for medical total access programs (telemedicine)
The committee commends the Army for its innovative and
timely use of medical total access programs, especially
pertaining to teledentistry program development, outpatient
referral service for telemedicine, and its planned program for
both active duty soldiers and their dependents. The committee
also wishes to commend the Navy for its outstanding field tests
of telemedicine on the aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower. The
committee believes that further total access program
development by the military offers each of the services the
possibility of increasing available medical care of its patient
population while possibly decreasing associated costs for
health care.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increased
authorization of $3.0 million in PE 603002A for total access
programs in the fiscal year 1996 authorization bill, and
directs the Army to coordinate with and include the Air Force
and the Navy in its total access program format. Further, the
committee requests that the Army report to the committee not
later than March 1, 1996 on the implementation of its total
access programs.
Wave net technology
The committee supports the Army's efforts to enhance
command, control, and communications for the digital
battlefield by applying emerging technologies. The committee
understands that, in connection with evaluating various
technologies to enhance its battlefield digitization efforts,
the Army is interested in examining wave net technology which
has the potential to reduce costs, increase bandwidth
utilization, and provide increased command and control
capability. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0
million to program element 603006A for development and testing
of wave net technology for possible application to the Army's
digitization initiatives.
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)
The committee recommends authorizing PE 603105A at the
requested level of $2.9 million and directs that $1.0 million
of that amount be used to continue domestic clinical HIV
programs.
Multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) enhancements
The committee strongly supports the MLRS/Army Tactical
Missile System (ATACMS) and is aware of developmental efforts
which have potential to greatly enhance the effectiveness of
these systems. The committee recommends the following
increases:
--$3.7 million to program element 603778A for MLRS
improved launch mechanical system;
--$7.0 million to program element 603313A for MLRS
low cost guidance;
--$7.0 million to program element 604768A for ATACMS/
Brilliant Anti-armor submunition risk reduction; and
--$5.0 million to program element 603313A for
development of Low Cost Autonomous Attack Submunition
(LOCAAS).
The committee believes there is potential to employ the
MLRS/ATACMS as a sea-based indirect fire suppression weapon for
amphibious assaults and has directed the Secretary of the Navy
to conduct a test/demonstration firing of an Extended Range
MLRS rocket with low cost guidance from a launcher with
improved launch mechanism and GPS location device. The
committee expects the Army to cooperate fully to ensure items
suitable for Navy/Marine Corps test/demonstration are available
in fiscal year 1997.
Objective individual combat weapon (OICW)
The committee supports the effort to improve the
effectiveness of individual infantrymen and is aware of the
effort to develop an Objective Individual Combat Weapon. The
committee is advised of a shortage of funds within the Joint
Service Small Arms Program, and recommends an increase of $3.0
million in program element 0603607A to permit continued
competitive development of OICW through Phase 3 of the
development process.
Advanced artillery propellant development
The budget request included $10.9 million to continue
development of advanced solid propellant (unicharge) and a 52
caliber solid propellant armament system as a backup to the
advanced field artillery system-liquid propellant (AFAS-LP).
While the committee continues to support the AFAS program, it
recognizes that even if AFAS-LP is fully successful, there will
still remain in the Army--certainly in the National Guard--a
large number of conventional 155mm cannon. With a bolt-in/bolt-
out gun mount, it is anticipated that a significant number of
155mm cannon could be candidates for conversion to the 52
caliber solid propellant system.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.7 million to
program element 603640A for continued development of the 52
caliber solid propellant system and the advanced solid
propellant as a hedge against risk in the AFAS-LP program and
for possible integration in the M109A6 Palladin and other field
artillery systems.
Armored systems modernization (ASM)
The committee recommends the following increases to the
Army's budget request:
$5.3 million, Armored Gun System, program element
604645A/D413
$4.5 million, CMS/Grizzly, program element 603649A/
DG24
$9.9 million, CMS/Grizzly, program element 604649A/
DG25
$4.2 million, CMS/Wolverine, program element 604649A/
DC26
$1.3 million, Abrams tank, program element 203735A/
D330
The Abrams tank modification line is reduced $25.3 million
to offset these increases.
Small arms common module fire control system (SACMFS)
The committee is aware of new fire control system
technology which has the potential to significantly increase
the lethality and probability-of-hit of the Mark-19 grenade
machine gun. In addition to enhanced performance of the Mark-
19, the new fire control system technology could provide
substantial savings in ammuition and logistical support. The
committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to program
element 603802A to initiate a program to upgrade the Small Arms
Common Module Fire Control System (SACMFS), and directs the
Secretary of the Army to report to the defense committees by
March 1, 1996 on the progress of this effort.
Command and control centers
The committee supports continuing efforts in the Army to
improve operations through enhanced command and operations
centers and recommends the following increases:
--$11.0 million to program element 604201A for
prototype airborne command and control system for Task
Force XXI;
--$10.0 million to program element 604741A for Air
Defense Artillery Brigade Operations Centers for
Patriot and Forward Area Air Defense command and
control.
Comanche helicopter
The budget request included $199.1 million for continued
research and development of the RAH-66 Comanche helicopter. The
committee continues to be supportive of the Comanche, but is
concerned that the development program continues to be extended
while the procurement is pushed further into the future. If the
Comanche is truly the ``quarterback'' of the Army's Force XXI,
then the program must be viewed as viable--with a realistically
credible fielding date. Repeated reductions in the research and
development program by the Office of the Secretary of Defense
delay the program unnecessarily and discourage the Army from
putting more funds at risk.
The committee recommends an increase of $174.0 million for
the Comanche program. The Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of the Army are directed to submit a jointly
developed plan with the fiscal year 1997 budget request,
indicating restoration of funding in the outyears to provide
for procurement of Comanche commencing by fiscal year 2001 with
initial operating capability by 2003.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to
structure the engineering development program to ensure that
the upgraded T800 (T801) engine is appropriately flight
certified and included in the second Comanche prototype.
Medium tactical truck extended service program (ESP)
The committee is aware of deficiencies in the Army's truck
programs, especially its medium trucks. The committee is
advised that only 6,000 new medium tactical vehicles (MTV) are
scheduled to be procured through the year 2002. Nearly 27,000
vehicles will be over age by that time. Further, approximately
35 percent of the five-ton fleet will be beyond 20 years old,
which will impact unit readiness and operations and support
costs. The committee strongly supports current Army efforts to
remanufacture two and one-half ton trucks and believes the Army
should immediatiely initiate a similar program for five-ton
trucks.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to
program element 604604A for initiation of a five-ton truck
extended service program to:
--remanufacture M809 and M939 series vehicles to
augment the MTV buy and replace over age vehicles;
--insert technologies to improve reliability, correct
operational deficiencies, and comply with EPA and
safety requirements;
--co-manage Marine Corps Medium Tactical Vehicle
Replacement (MTVR) program with the Army five-ton ESP;
and
--include Air force and Navy requirements to known
Army and Marine Corps quantities for five-ton truck
ESP.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide
a report on the five-ton truck ESP to the defense committees
with the fiscal year 1997 budget submission addressing all the
points above and laying out a schedule leading to five-ton
truck remanufacture commencing in fiscal year 1997. The
committee expects the Army to harmonize requirements for the
other military services to take maximum advantage of medium
truck ESP currently underway, to minimize additional
procurements to avoid industrial overcapacity, and to give
consideration to reliable manufacturers who have demonstrated
capabilities to produce military trucks.
Heavy tactical vehicles
The committee recommends an increase of $1.9 million in
program element 0604622A for development of a water heater/
chiller for the Army's water tank semitrailer.
High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV)
The committee recognizes that many of the HMMWV's in both
the Army and Marine Corps are reaching age and mileage levels
leading to increased maintenance and operating costs and lower
reliability. This indicates the need for an extended service
program (ESP). Therefore, the committee recommends an increase
of $5.0 million to program element 604642A to initiate
prototype development leading to an ESP for HMMWV. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a report
to the defense committees with the fiscal year 1997 budget
request describing a program to develop and test prototypes and
to initiate a program to remanufacture HMMWV's for both the
Army and the Marine Corps. The committee directs the Army and
the Marine Corps to conduct a joint program, harmonizing their
requirements for ESP.
Laser warning component-suite of survivability enhancements
The committee is aware of the growing threat to ground
combat vehicles in the form of laser-based range finders and
anti-tank guided missiles, and recognizes that many nations
throughout the world already have programs underway to field
laser warning systems on their ground combat vehicles. The
committee is concerned that efforts within the U.S. Army have
not been adequately funded, and recommends an increase of $3.0
million in program element 604740A to be used for development
of the laser warning component of the suite of survivability
systems.
Mark-19 universal bracket
The committee recommends an increase of $0.5 million in
program element 604802A for type classification of a non-
developmental universal mounting bracket for the Mark-19
grenade machine gun.
High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility
The committee continues to support the operation of the
High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility (HELSTF) as the central
test facility to support the nation's high energy laser
development. The committee is disappointed with the $3.0
million request for HELSTF, which would be insufficient to
carry out the current Army plan to terminate the Mid-Infrared
Advanced Chemical Laser (MIRACL), but continue the operation of
the rest of the facility. That plan would require $19.6 million
in fiscal year 1996 according to Army documents. The committee
does not agree with the plan to terminate MIRACL, particularly
when constraints on testing the laser against objects in space
will not be imposed in fiscal year 1996, and the full potential
of the facility can be realized for the first time. The
committee therefore has added $21.8 million to the request for
this facility.
Nautilus/Tactical High Energy Laser Program
The committee continues to support the joint Army-Israel
Ministry of Defense Nautilus program to assess the potential of
high energy lasers to meet tactical threats. The committee has
added $5.0 million to PE603308A to fund the U.S. share of phase
II of the Nautilus program. The committee also understands that
the tactical high energy laser (THEL) concept is drawing
increasing support within the Army, ranking as the highest
science and technology priority of the Depth and Simultaneous
Attack Battle Lab, and second of 140 concepts in Mobile Strike
Force 2010 planning. The Marine Corps has also established a
mission need statement for THEL. The committee therefore
provides $5.0 million in PE603308A to initiate program planning
for a THEL technology demonstration in fiscal year 1996.
Army Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS)
The committee has been advised that upgrades and digital
links are required to adapt AFATDS for digitization exercises
in conjunction with Task Force XXI. The committee recommends an
increase of $6.2 million to program element 203726A for this
purpose.
Stinger missile modifications
The committee recommends an increase of $9.8 million to
program element 203801A to continue and accelerate the Stinger
missile modification block II program.
Communications enhancements
The committee is aware of communications developmental
efforts where relatively small investments now could lead to
significantly enhanced communications as well as savings. The
committee recommends the following increases:
--$2.3 million in program element 303142A to
accelerate development and fielding of the Single
Channel Anti-jam Man Portable (SCAMP) Block II., and
--$7.2 million in program element 208010A to
accelerate development and fielding of the Integrated
System Control (ISYSCON).
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Defense research sciences (Navy)
The committee recommends a reduction of $3.0 million in PE
601153N to fund other priority programs.
Power electronics building block
The committee recommends an additional $6.0 million in PE
602121N for the development of the power electronics building
block technology for the rapid switching and control of high
power electrical systems. The committee recommends academic
participation to ensure that supporting technologies, such as a
computational testbed for system simulation, are developed to
expedite the widespread application of this technology. The
committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be
used in the award of any contracts or other agreements under
this program, and that cost sharing requirements for non-
federal participants be utilized where appropriate.
Parametric airborne dipping sonar
Parametric sonar projectors transmit two relatively high
frequency acoustic beams that interact to form a narrow, low
frequency beam for detection and classification of underwater
objects. This technology could provide reduced reverberation
and superior range and bearing resolution relative to lower
frequency sonars. Parametric sonar technology has potential for
improved weapons system performance in applications such as
dipping sonars installed in helicopters. The Navy has been
conducting a technology demonstration to evaluate a parametric
system. The demonstration will culminate with planned delivery
of a prototype parametric projector during fiscal year 1995.
Although laboratory tests and model runs have indicated a
parametric sonar may offer significant benefits over other
developmental systems, funding constraints have prevented the
Navy from pursuing further development of this technology in
the fiscal year 1996 budget request.
The committee believes that parametric sonar technology has
shown considerable promise for anti-submarine warfare (ASW),
particularly in littoral areas where the high power and low
frequency of existing and developmental systems optimized for
open ocean ASW tend to limit their effectiveness in shallower
water. The committee supports continued development and
evaluation of a parametric sonar system for possible airborne
dipping sonar application. Consequently the committee
recommends an increase of $4.8 million in PE 0602314N for the
following purposes:
1. expand the scope of the current effort to provide
three dimensional stabilized steerable beams around 360
degrees at full source level for an over-the-side
demonstration;
2. further characterize the technology for mine
avoidance applications;
3. evaluate whether parametric technology merits
further pursuit; and
4. report the conclusions of this analysis to the
committee as promptly as possible after testing and
data analysis are complete.
Air Systems and Weapons Advanced Technology
The committee views with great interest the initiatives
taken by the Chief of Naval Research in support of the Chief of
Naval Operations to make emerging technologies more readily
available to the fleet. The Technologies for Rapid Response
Initiative which is designed to give operational forces access
to mature technologies is particularly noteworthy. To further
Commander in Chief (CINC) access to these technologies, the
committee recommends a transfer of $9.0 million from PE 601153N
to PE 603217N, Air Systems and Weapons Advanced Technology.
This increase is to be used by the Chief of Naval Operations to
support fleet CINC use of the Technologies for Rapid Response
Program with the view that these technologies will provide
enhanced operational capability as well as allow the
development of new tactics and concepts of operations.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide
the committee with a report by March 1, 1997 of lessons learned
from this technology insertion initiative.
Intercooled recuperated gas turbine
In its review of the budget request, the committee noted
that the Department of Defense had transferred the project for
development of the intercooled recuperated gas turbine from the
Advanced Surface Machinery (ASM) demonstration/validation
program to PE 0603508N in the technology base. The committee is
concerned that the transfer may have been done as an expedient
bookkeeping action without taking into account the
interrelationship between the program for development of the
new ICR engine and other elements of the ASM program.
To restore ASM program integrity, the committee directs the
transfer of $25.6 million, the amount requested in PE 0603508N,
to PE 0603573N to restore the integrity of the ASM program and
authorizes this amount for continued development of the ICR
engine.
Remote minehunting vehicle
During its consideration of the budget request, the
committee was briefed by the Navy on a developmental program
that integrates commercial and Navy hardware to provide a
contingency organic mine reconnaissance capability that can be
remotely operated by surface ships. During an amphibious
exercise conducted in March and April 1995, this remotely
operated vehicle located exercise mines very effectively in
support of an amphibious assault. The Navy believes that this
remote minehunting operational prototype (RMOP) has shown real
promise in filling a gap in its mine countermeasures
operational capabilities, a deficiency that was highlighted by
the impact of mines on operational planning during Desert
Storm. The committee concurs, and recommends an increase of
$7.5 million in PE 0603502N to accelerate development of this
remote minehunting system.
Advanced armored amphibious vehicle (AAAV)
The committee strongly supports the Marine Corps AAAV
program, and understands that the current funding profile is
inadequate. In that regard, the committee recommends an
increase of $6.0 million for turbo charger development efforts
for the AAAV 2600 horsepower main propulsion engine and
upgrading of modeling and simulation efforts. The committee
directs that any funding changes or undistributed reductions to
program element 603611M may not be made without prior approval
of the defense committees.
Lightweight 155mm howitzer
The committee supports the joint Marine Corps/Army effort
to develop and field a lightweight 155mm howitzer, and
recommends an increase of $4.2 million to accelerate
development. The committee understands that additional funding
will be used for technical testing of cannon assemblies and
studies regarding various fire control measures.
Cooperative engagement capability
The Navy is developing a cooperative engagement capability
(CEC) that will enable greatly enhanced engagement coordination
as well as remote cuing of sensors and fire control systems by
coordinating all battle force anti-air warfare sensors into a
single, real-time composite track picture having fire-control
quality data. When fielded, CEC will distribute sensor data
from each ship and aircraft or cooperating unit to all other
cooperating units in the battle force through a real-time,
line-of-sight, high-data rate sensor and engagement data
distribution network. Because the CEC link will be line-of-
sight, its integration into an airborne platform is
particularly important. An airborne platform will be able to
transmit to, and relay from, cooperating units that are over
the horizon and beyond direct line-of-sight of units on the
surface.
To continue accelerated development of the airborne
component of CEC, the committee recommends an increase of $22.5
million to the budget request.
Naval surface fire support
During its review of the budget request for fiscal year
1996 the committee was briefed on a revised naval surface fire
support (NSFS) program that focuses on near term improvements
to naval NSFS systems. These included demonstration and
development of a long range rocket-assisted guided projectile
that would incorporate an advanced, low-cost global
positioning/inertial navigation (GPS/INS) guidance technology
and improvements in the existing MK-45 5-inch naval gun. While
other weapons systems, such as a naval variant of the Army's
tactical missile system (ATACMS), are also included in this new
program, the Navy has given top priority to improvements to the
5-inch gun that is installed on the majority of its surface
combatants, and its associated projectile. The Navy and Marine
Corps assert that this new NSFS program was conceived after the
services had evaluated a recently completed cost and
operational effectiveness analysis (COEA) and determined that
its recommended solution was not achievable in a realistic time
frame due to affordability constraints. Consequently, with
close involvement by the Marine Corps in evaluating mission
requirements, the Navy has conceived a program that in its
judgment makes the best use of existing assets, is affordable
and achievable in a much shorter time period, yet will still
cover the majority of potential targets for an opposed
amphibious assault.
The Navy has also informed the committee, however, that,
because this new NSFS program emerged in the interval between
preparation of the budget request and its review by the
committee; it is underfunded by over $160.0 million across the
future years defense program. Further, far term requirements
have not yet been adequately addressed.
The committee has stressed the issue of NSFS repeatedly
over the past several years but has found the Navy's response
to be lackluster and highly variable as a new program or
approach emerged each year. The committee's concern about this
apparent lack of commitment by the Navy was once more raised
this year. With no advance coordination with the committee, the
Secretary of the Navy decided to strike the Navy's four
remaining Iowa class battleships, its only remaining potential
source of around-the-clock, accurate, high volume, heavy fire
support, in apparent disregard of the loss of NSFS capability
that would result. In the committee's judgment, its queries to
the Navy on this subject have not produced any substantive
response. The committee remains unclear on any existing or near
term NSFS capability that could adequately replace the
capability lost by this decision.
Because the need is so strong and because the Navy finally
appears committed to pursuing a program to completion, the
committee is willing to provide initial support this year to
the Navy's program to upgrade the capability of its 5-inch
guns, based on the assurances of the Navy's leadership that the
Navy will follow through with consistent, stable, and adequate
future years funding. Consequently, the committee recommends an
increase in funding of $19.2 million in PE 0603795N and notes
the need for the Navy to put increased emphasis on pursuing a
long-term program to satisfy the NSFS mission requirements that
can not be met by improvements to the 5-inch naval gun.
Further, the committee recommends a provision that would direct
the Secretary of the Navy to restore at least two Iowa class
battleships to the naval register and to retain them in its
strategic reserve until the Secretary of the Navy is prepared
to certify that the Navy has replaced the potential NSFS
capability that they can provide. A recommendation for testing
of an extended range multiple launch rocket system for the
shore fire support mission is also included elsewhere in this
report.
S-3B Project Gray Wolf
The Navy has been testing the concept of equipping an S-3
aircraft with a multi-mode synthetic aperture radar, designated
AN/APG-76. The Navy has called this demonstration ``Project
Gray Wolf.'' With such a system, S-3B aircraft could support
fleet operations in littoral warfare missions by providing real
time, stand-off surveillance, targeting, and strike support.
The committee is aware of the success the Navy has achieved in
limited demonstrations of the system's capability in fleet
exercises and in the ``Roving Sands'' experiment at White Sands
Missile Range.
The committee recommends an increase of $13.2 million in
program element 0604217N to:
1. buy an AN/APG-76 radar system, a ground station,
and a data link capability;
2. modify the radar system to include a commercial,
off-the-shelf (COTS) processor; and
3. provide contractor logistics support for further
testing.
The committee believes that the Department should consider
identifying Project Gray Wolf as an advanced concept technology
demonstration if testing and evaluation continues to show such
promising results.
V-22 Osprey
The committee notes that the proposed low production rate
for the V-22 results in a 27 year production run to field the
required 523 aircraft for the Marines, Special Operations
Forces and the Navy. The committee understands this is
primarily due to a cap placed by the Department of the Navy on
V-22 procurement by the Department of Defense of $1.0 billion
in fiscal year 1994 dollars. The committee questions this
approach as unnecessarily lengthy and inefficient. The
committee is aware of Defense Science Board recommendations to
reduce costs by treating the three Low Rate Initial Production
lots as a package in order to permit more efficient purchasing
of parts and materials.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide an analysis of the Defense Science Board proposal
including more efficient production profiles of up to 36
aircraft per year for the Department of the Navy. The report is
to be submitted no later than 15 April 1996 to the defense
committees.
The committee is also interested in the success of the
development of the Special Operations Forces version, or CV-22,
and consequently requests the Department to provide a detailed
program overview, including funding and schedule details
concerning the current CV-22 program, with any possible
alternatives to accelerate initial operational capability of
the Special Operations Forces aircraft.
Airborne electronic warfare
Last year, the statement of managers accompanying the
conference report on S. 2182 (H. Rept. 103-701) directed the
Secretary of the Navy to provide for a robust upgrade of EA-6B
electronic jammers by taking advantage of technologies
developed in the previously canceled advanced capabilities
(ADVCAP) program. The report also directed the Secretary to
submit the long overdue joint tactical airborne electronic
warfare study (JTAEWS) by December 31, 1994.
Although it had successfully passed all development and
testing milestones, the Navy canceled the ADVCAP program. The
ADVCAP program would also have provided funding for safety,
reliability, maintainability, configuration commonality, and
depot level maintenance for the Navy's EA-6B airborne jammer.
The Navy's decision to cancel ADVCAP failed to account for
continuing these other needed efforts that were unrelated to
the capability upgrade portion of the ADVCAP program. The
committee also believes that decision incorrectly ignored the
EA-6B's dwindling capability against a widening array of
threats.
Since last year, the Department has also decided to cancel
the EF-111 system improvement program (SIP) and retire the
aircraft on a phased basis by fiscal year 2000. The Department
intends to use an additional 20 EA-6B aircraft to support the
Air Force stand-off jamming mission. The report recently
released by the Roles and Missions Commission noted the
importance of supporting specific interoperability initiatives,
such as upgrading the Navy/Marine Corps EA-6B force to meet all
DOD airborne electronic standoff jamming needs. Unfortunately,
the budget does not include the funding needed to support this
decision.
The committee has concluded that airborne electronic
warfare (EW) has drifted backward. The committee sees no
coherent DOD plan for a joint future capability to conduct
integrated strike air warfare. The JTAEWS analysis was supposed
to define the future shape of airborne EW by examining the
dominant elements of EW: jamming, self protection, suppression
of enemy air defenses (SEAD), and stealth. However, the budget
does not even implement the results of that analysis.
The Department has ignored congressional intent time and
again in this matter. With no coherent plan, and with disregard
for Congressional direction, the Department appears to hope the
problem will solve itself. The committee believes that this is
an unacceptable situation. The combatant commanders will not
launch strikes without EW support, yet airborne electronic
warfare is not important enough to receive upgrade funds.
Unfortunately, because of previous and planned cancellations,
the combatant commanders now have less EW capability available
now than they had during Desert Storm.
For these reasons, the committee recommends a provision
directing the Navy to include a warfighting capability
improvement component in its planned series of upgrades to the
EA-6B.
The committee recommends additional funding as follows:
1. $25.0 million in program element 0604270N for
warfighting capability improvements. These upgrades
should, at a minimum, address gaps in the aircraft's
ability to counter emerging threats by improving the
low band receiver system to enhance our ability to
conduct smart communications and radar jamming.
2. $40.0 million dollars to begin a robust band 9/10
capability upgrade for the EA-6B fleet. Additionally,
the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to work
with the Secretary of the Air Force to ensure that
technologies developed in the EF-111 SIP program for
band 9/10 jammers are used in the EA-6B program.
3. $140.0 million to upgrade 20 EA-6B aircraft to the
Block 89 configuration to support the additional Air
Force stand-off jamming mission.
The committee notes that these items and initiatives are
consistent with the Operational Advisory Group's (OAG) top war
fighting priorities and represent a prudent step to ensure that
the Department maintains needed airborne EW capability.
NULKA decoy development
NULKA is a joint U.S.-Australian project to develop an
anti-ship missile decoy system. Increased funding in fiscal
year 1996 would allow for the integration of NULKA with the
Ship Self-Defense System for installation on amphibious ships
and other self-defense ships, to conduct testing of the
integrated system, and commence development of improvements to
the payload needed to counter improvements in anti-ship missile
technology. The committee strongly supports these objectives
and recommends an increase of $9.0 million in program element
0604755N for three purposes:
1. $4.4 million would be used to integrate NULKA into
the Shipboard Self-Defense System and the Electronic
Warfare Decoy Device Integration, making it a fully
coordinated component of a ship's self-defense
architecture;
2. $3.6 million would be used for the Enhanced
Payload Improvement Program upgrade to allow NULKA to
counter advanced threats; and
3. $1.0 million would be used for Navy support of the
program.
Infrared search and track
The budget request reduced funding and restructured the
infrared search and track (IRST) program for affordability
reasons. The committee believes that the IRST system has the
potential to play a very important role in defending naval
ships against sea skimming antiship missiles. A recently
completed cost and operational effectiveness analysis (COEA)
supports this conclusion. The committee strongly believes the
Navy should emphasize early integration of the IRST system with
both Aegis and non-Aegis ships and place priority on early
completion of its development. Therefore, the committee
recommends an increase of $9.5 million in PE 0604755N to
accelerate plans for combat system integration and design of
the IRST system.
BARAK 1--ship self defense
The committee has been very concerned about protecting U.S.
Navy ships from the proliferation of maneuvering, sea-skimming,
low observable, anti-ship cruise missiles. The committee
recognizes that budget realities make it necessary to examine
existing available solutions. Consequently, the committee is
pleased that the existing BARAK 1 is currently under
consideration as a candidate defense system for LPD-17. The
committee wishes to be kept informed on the LPD-17 cost and
operational effectiveness analysis progress and results.
Furthermore, the committee directs the Navy to present by
December 1995 a plan that could lead to testing of the BARAK
system in the U.S. during fiscal year 1996.
Because of the advantage to the fleet of an early
deployment of a robust ship self defense system, the committee
directs that the Navy also examine and report on BARAK
applicability to other ship classes. The results of this study
should be provided to the committee by January 1996.
Medium tactical vehicle remanufacture (MTVR)
The committee supports the Marine Corps plan to
remanufacture its medium truck fleet and recommends an increase
of $9.4 million to program element 206624M for additional truck
variants and development of simulation models and testing. The
committee directs the Marine Corps and the Army to harmonize
requirements for their respective medium truck extended service
programs (ESP), to take maximum advantage of medium truck ESP
currently underway, to minimize additional procurements to
avoid industrial overcapacity, and to give consideration to
reliable manufacturers who have demonstrated capabilities to
produce military trucks.
Crash attenuating seats for helicopters
The committee has learned of an initiative to accelerate
the inclusion of crash attenuating seats for passengers in
military helicopters. While there is a program to include such
seats, it is not scheduled for execution until fiscal year 1999
and beyond. In order to accelerate the effort and take
advantage of non-developmental options, the committee
recommends the release of the $2.7 million appropriated in
fiscal year 1995 to be used in defining specifications and
qualification of non-developmental seats, and to report to the
committee no later than 15 May 1996 on the non-developmental
options available to provide crash attenuating seats for
military transport helicopters.
Plasma Electric Waste Converter Program
The committee noted in fiscal year 1995 that a new
technology--Plasma Electric Waste Converter technology--was
available which could help the Navy solve its solid waste
disposal problem on board its deployed ships. Congress
authorized the Navy to spend $1.8 million in fiscal year 1995
to explore plasma electric waste converter technology as a
solution to this problem. Recognizing the growing problem of
base cleanup efforts as the base closure process progresses,
Congress believes that this technology might also have
application in such cleanup efforts. Thus, the Navy is urged to
consider ways to test the application of this technology to
cleaning up bases which are being closed or realigned and at
which there is environmental or waste disposal problems.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Adaptive optics
The committee recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE
601102F for adaptive optics research.
Defense research sciences (Air Force)
The committee recommends a reduction of $9.0 million in the
Defense Research Sciences program of the Air Force to allow the
funding of higher priority projects.
Human systems technology
The committee recommends a reduction of $15.0 million in
PE 602202F to fund other priority programs. The committee notes
that this reduction would still allow for a substantial
increase in funding for this program in fiscal year 1996.
Thermally stable jet fuels
The committee recommends an additional authorization of
$3.0 million in PE 602203F for the acceleration of a program to
develop thermally stable jet fuels using chemicals derived from
coal.
Range tracking and safety
The committee recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE
0603311F for suborbital flight testing at White Sands Missile
Range of ballistic missile guidance, range tracking and safety
equipment that is based on existing Global Positioning System
equipment.
Micro-satellite development program
The Air Force Phillips Laboratory, in conjunction with the
Air Force Space Command's Space Warfare Center, has initiated a
small satellite program to develop and demonstrate a variety of
miniaturized space technologies. The micro-satellite program
builds upon the highly successful Clementine satellite program.
The committee recommends an authorization of $20.0 million in
fiscal year 1996 to continue this effort, under the control of
the Space Warfare Center and executed by the Clementine Team
(Phillips Laboratory, Naval Research Laboratory, and Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory). The committee recommends the
$20.0 million authorization be included in PE 0603401F,
``Advanced Spacecraft Technology.''
Polar satellite communications
The Department of Defense has an urgent requirement to
provide secure communications for operations in the polar
region. The most critical of these requirements can be
satisfied in the near-term through an Air Force program to
place extremely high frequency (EHF) communications packages,
similar to the ones used on the Ultra-High Frequency Follow-On
program (UFO), on host satellites. Having already approved this
program as a new start in fiscal year 1995, the committee
recommends the authorization of $58.0 million in fiscal year
1996 in PE 603432F to acquire the communications payload and
perform integration and test activities in support of a 1997
launch of this capability aboard a host satellite. To offset
this increase, the committee recommends the realignment of
funds from the MILSTAR program (PE 604479F) that are no longer
required for termination liability fees.
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
The budget request included $23.9 million for the national
polar-orbiting operational environmental satellite system
(NPOESS), a converged Department of Defense, Department of
Commerce, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
national weather satellite program. The committee has long
supported such a convergence. The committee understands that a
slower than expected start-up of the Integrated Program Office
and delay in the demonstration/validation phase of the program
have reduced required funding. The committee, therefore,
recommends a reduction of $10.0 million.
Reentry vehicle applications
The Nuclear Posture Review, conducted by the Department of
Defense during the fall of 1994, recommended sustaining the
industrial base for strategic ballistic missile reentry
vehicles (RVs). The United States Strategic Command has
reported that the RV industrial base, especially the expertise
and capability to manufacture specialized material, is rapidly
eroding. In response to this critical requirement, the
Department of Defense has directed the Air Force and the Navy
to sustain key elements of the RV industrial base through an RV
applications program.
The budget request includes $5.7 million for the Air Force
and $10.0 million for the Navy to pursue this effort. However,
the Air Force funding level is inadequate. Therefore, the
committee recommends an increase of $4.3 million in PE 603851F
to balance the Air Force and Navy efforts. To help bolster this
effort, the committee also recommends an increase of $750,000
in PE 0602102F to the Thermal Protection Materials Reentry
Vehicle Project for the purchase, testing, and evaluation of
three nosetip billets and related technologies; and an increase
of $2.2 million in the Strategic Submarine and Weapons System
Support program (PE 0101221N) for the fabrication and testing
of carbon-carbon composite shape stable nosetip billets for
submarine launched ballistic missile RV system applications.
Interim precision guided munitions (PGM)
Last year, the committee directed the Department of Defense
to conduct a Heavy Bomber Study to define the future needs for
long range bombers. The Heavy Bomber Study strongly endorsed
the need for PGM's. Accordingly, while awaiting the analysis
and recommendations required by the Bill's related provision on
PGM's, the committee recommends an increase of $353.0 million
as a cost-effective method of procuring capability instead of
acquiring further B-2 aircraft. The committee is persuaded by
that argument, and recommends an increase in the budget request
as detailed below.
Precision Guided Munitions Procurement
Procure 100 AGM-130 missiles, an increase of $40.0
million.
Convert 200 AGM-86 ALCM's to conventional
configuration an increase of $27.2 million.
Procure 50 Have Nap PGM's for use on B-52 H aircraft,
an increase of $38.0 million.
Procure additional conventional bomb modules for B-1
bombers through an addition of $85.0 million.
Make necessary modifications to the B-1 weapons
carriage system to support an interim Joint Standoff
Weapon (JSOW) through an addition of $11.6 million.
Procure up to 25 interim JSOW's, an addition of $10.4
million.
Precision Guided Munitions RDT&E
$20.0 million in PE 0604226F to acquire an interim
precision munition for the B-1B, known as the B-1B
Virtual Umbilical Device (BVUD), provided the Secretary
of the Air Force certifies to the congressional defense
committees that the BVUD is a valid requirement by May
15, 1996. Failing such certification, the funds
provided are to be used for further acceleration of
upgrades to the B-1B through the Conventional Munitions
Upgrade Program (CMUP).
An increase $20.0 million to integrate the AGM-130
with the B-52H bomber and begin qualification and
testing of the extended-range version of the AGM-130,
in PE 0101113F.
$40.0 million in PE 0604226F to provide a portion of
the B-1 fleet with an interim capability for employing
the Joint Standoff Weapon.
An increase of $7.0 million for Interferometric
Terrain Aided Guidance (ITAG) technology demonstration
to improve JDAM accuracy, PE 0604618F.
Conventional Bomber Enhancements
Accelerate the Conventional Munitions Upgrade Program
(CMUP) for the B-1 bomber, an increase of $47.2 million
in PE 0604226F.
Increase by $6.6 million PE 0604226F to allow for an
acceleration of the ECM upgrade by funding the Systems
Requirements Review in fiscal year 1996, rather than
the budget's planned start in fiscal year 1997.
These additions and program accelerations are made with the
intent of satisfying the requirements for capable, conventional
bombers as soon as practicable.
F-22 program
The committee held hearings on tactical aviation forces
modernization this year and reviewed the F-22 engineering and
manufacturing development (EMD) program. The committee notes
that issues have been raised on the level of concurrency,
projected weight, and projected engine performance with
specific fuel consumption (SFC).
There are conflicting viewpoints. A report of the Defense
Science Board concluded that, ``There is no reason based on
risk/concurrency to introduce a schedule stretch at this
time.'' But the General Accounting Office (GAO) believes that
the F-22 program ``exhibits a high degree of concurrency.''
Based on hearing testimony the committee believes that the
Department should address promptly a number of questions. The
committee is making no finding as to the level or risk of
concurrency on the F-22 program at this time. However, the
committee would have serious concerns about any program that
involves an inappropriately high level of concurrency that
possesses high risk.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees before September
1, 1995. That report shall address the concerns on concurrency,
weight and SFC, and shall, at a minimum, answer the following
questions.
A. Concurrency:
1. What metrics for measuring the level of program
concurrency are important for predicting the potential
for a program to deliver the promised product, on
schedule, at or below cost, with the required
performance?
2. What is the level of concurrency risk in the F-22
program, given that the present program calls for 80
production planes before completion of research,
development, and testing?
a. What is the risk of the current F-22 EMD
program to cost, schedule, and performance of
the overall F-22 program?
b. What change could or should be made to
reduce whatever level of concurrency exists in
the F-22 EMD program?
3. What is the department's view of what constitutes
low, medium, and high levels of concurrency in general,
and specifically as to the present F-22 program?
4. What are the benchmarks that the Congress should
use to gauge when any program should be pursued with
moderate or high levels of concurrency?
5. How should concurrency relate to risk, either in
terms of cost, schedule, or performance?
6. How should the Congress compare the F-22 EMD
program's projected level of concurrency to that
experienced in the A-12 program?
7. What are the similarities and differences between
the F-22 and the A-12 programs that prevent a re-
occurrence of the A-12 problems in the F-22 EMD
program?
B. Weight:
1. What is the current condition of projected weight
of production aircraft?
2. Since no EMD or production aircraft has been
built, on what basis is the Department projecting an
overweight condition?
3. What was the outcome of the JROC review regarding
weight? If the JROC approved the Air Force's change
request, what was the basis for making that decision?
4. What would be the effect on military capability of
F-22 aircraft if they are delivered at the currently
projected weight?
5. What is the risk that weight will grow above the
current projection?
6. How large a weight increase above the current
projection should the Congress be willing to accept
without restructuring the program?
7. What has been the experience of other aircraft
development programs in incurring additional weight
after the critical design review milestone?
8. Absent fiscal concerns, could the weight goal be
attained? What is the estimated cost of achieving the
original weight goal?
C. Specific fuel consumption:
1. What is the current condition of projected SFC of
engine operating in production aircraft?
2. Since no EMD or production aircraft has been
built, on what basis is the Department projecting an
SFC deficiency?
3. What was the outcome of the JROC review regarding
SFC? If the JROC approved the Air Force's change
request, what was the basis for making that decision?
4. What would be the effect on military capability of
F-22 aircraft if they are delivered with engines
operating at the currently projected SFC?
5. What is the risk that SFC performance will fall
below the current projection?
6. How much of a performance decline should the
Congress be willing to accept without restructuring the
program?
7. What has been the experience of other aircraft
development programs in incurring poorer SFC
performance after the critical design review milestone?
8. Absent fiscal concerns, could the SFC performance
goal be attained? What is the estimated cost of
achieving the original SFC performance goal?
The committee recommends $2.1 billion for the F-22 program.
However, the committee directs that, of these funds, $600.0
million shall not be made available for obligation until 60
days after the Department of Defense submits the requested
report.
Sensor Fuzed Weapon Improvement Program
The committee understands that the Air Force has the
opportunity to substantially increase the effectiveness of the
sensor fuzed weapon (SFW) through a pre-planned product
improvement program (P3I). The committee further understands
that if an increase in Air Force funding were available for
fiscal year 1996, the program's Engineering and Manufacturing
Development could begin at once.
Realizing the opportunity to increase the weapon's
performance by 300 percent for a 15 percent increase in
production cost, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million for the start of the EMD for the Sensor Fuzed Weapon
(P3I). The committee further understands that the Air Force
will budget for the program in the FYDP by the Air Force prior
to obligating these funds.
Ultra-high frequency satellite communications
The budget request for Ultra-High Frequency (UHF) satellite
communications was $15.6 million. The Air Force has recently
changed its acquisition strategy to down-select to a single
Network Control Station contract earlier than planned. As a
result, the committee recommends a reduction of $6.5 million.
RC-135 Re-engining
The committee continues to appreciate the critical role of
the RC-135 ``Rivet Joint'' Signal Intelligence aircraft. The
committee is aware of a plan by the Department to re-fit two
retired EC-135 aircraft to add to the RC-135 fleet, and that
these aircraft are currently awaiting sensor integration.
To facilitate an affordable program for the RC-135 upgrade
program, the committee recommends an increase in the Defense
Airborne Reconnaissance Office (DARO) authorization of $79.5
million, to include $31.5 million of non recurring integration
activity and $48.0 million for two CFM56 engine kits. This
upgrade has the support of the GAO, and is a prudent investment
in future capability.
Joint air-to-surface standoff missile (JASSM)
The committee expects the Department to establish a joint
program for the Air Force and the Navy for development of a
replacement for the canceled Tri-Service Standoff Attack
Missile (TSSAM). The committee is aware that the Air Force and
the Navy have jointly developed JASSM requirements, are working
on an aggressive development schedule/strategy, and have
established a program office. The committee also understands
JASSM will have an affordability focus, leveraging off existing
technologies and lessons learned from the TSSAM program. The
committee agrees with the focus on affordability, but expects
the Air Force to emphasize weapons performance as well.
The committee understands the TSSAM cancellation occurred
too late in the budget cycle for either service to address the
requirement for JASSM in the fiscal year 1996 budget request.
Now the program is being considered in the Air Force fiscal
year 1997 request as a new program. The Air Force has a more
urgent need for JASSM missiles, and is therefore funding the
early development of the joint requirement. Accordingly, the
committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million in Air Force
RDT&E for this purpose.
Standoff Land Attack Missile Extended Response
The committee recognizes the Navy's need for an upgrade
program to the standoff land attack missile (SLAM) to make it
operationally suitable and effective. Accordingly, the
committee supports the budget request of $40.5 million in PE
64603N for continued development of the Standoff Land Attack
Missile Extended Response (SLAM ER) to upgrade the 700 SLAM in
the current inventory.
Rivet Joint technology transfer program
The committee recommends an increase of $28.0 million to
the theater missile defense (TMD) program element (PE 208060F)
to initiate the migration of the Cobra Ball medium wave
infrared acquisition technology to the Rivet Joint RC-135
tactical reconnaissance fleet. With the transfer of this
technology, the Rivet Joint fleet would be provided with a
cost-effective means to significantly improve theater missile
defense long-range surveillance, warning, and rapid cueing for
attack operations as well as impact point prediction for both
active and passive defensive measures. The committee
understands that the Department of the Air Force has programmed
the balance of the funds in the outyears to complete the TMD
migration program.
Information systems security
The committee strongly supports efforts to develop multi-
level security systems for the Department of Defense's
information systems. Therefore, the committee recommends an
authorization of $1.5 million in PE 0303140F to complete
research and development of the Trusted RUBIX database
management system.
Defense Support Program
The budget request for Defense Support Program (DSP) RDT&E
was $43.7 million. $5.0 million in fiscal year 1995 funds have
been identified as excess and are expected to be reprogrammed
as part of the fiscal year 1995 Omnibus reprogramming. The
committee directs the Air Force to use these funds for fiscal
year 1996 requirements and therefore reduces the fiscal year
1996 request by $5.0 million.
Fighter data links
The committee finds the Air Force's decision to equip its
air superiority fighters (F-15Cs) with the data link called
``Link 16'' encouraging. Nevertheless, the committee does not
understand why the Air Force is planning to equip only this
subset of its forces with data links. Getting tactical data
links for Air Force attack aircraft has been a difficult
challenge over the years. The committee believes the added
situational awareness resulting from sharing data among various
platforms has real potential for making our forces more
effective warfighters.
The committee believes that the Air Force should place a
higher priority on increasing situational awareness of our
attack aircraft. The other Services are taking a more
determined approach:
1. The Army is installing the improved data modem and
data links among helicopters, and between helicopter
forces and other Army and Air Force units.
2. The Navy is installing multifunction information
distribution system (MIDS) terminals in its fighter and
attack aircraft. The MIDS program is an international
effort to provide this capability for a variety of
weapons platforms for the U.S. and our allies.
The Air Force says that it cannot afford to outfit all of
its aircraft with the full MIDS terminal. The committee
understands that the budget process and tight fiscal
constraints force the Services to make tough choices. However,
the committee remains puzzled by the relative priority that the
Air Force has accorded data link capability. In response to
inquiries, the Air Force provided the congressional defense
committees a prioritized list of how it would choose to spend
extra funds if they were available. That list totals more than
$1.8 billion in fiscal year 1996 alone. The list shows that the
Air Force would choose to spend none of any additional funds on
spreading this data link capability.
The committee believes that investing in additional data
links could yield a several fold increase in combat capability
in the near-term and provide much greater leverage than many
items on the Air Force's list.
The Air Force has also said that its forces do not need all
the capability that the Navy requires from its MIDS terminals.
The committee understands that the Air Force has been
considering a proposal for a lower-cost joint tactical
information distribution system, called ``JTIDS 2R.''
Department of Defense officials have told the committee
that a variant of the current MIDS terminal could achieve the
reduced costs the Air Force seeks, while avoiding the overhead
associated with launching another program. In view of this
information, the committee will not support initiation of a
new, redundant program to meet similar requirements. The common
approach should reduce the department's costs of ownership and
increase interoperability with our allies, and will help
promote cooperative development efforts.
The committee recommends that the Under Secretary of
Defense (Acquisition and Technology) continue to pursue a MIDS
production strategy that maximizes competition for U.S.
industry, while maintaining the benefits of the MIDS
architecture and commonality. The Air Force should share the
results of the Mountain Home Air Force Base technology
demonstrations with the MIDS program office to assist in
fulfilling the Air Force's fighter data link requirement.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Combat readiness research
The committee is aware of the potential to accelerate
certain research activities affecting combat readiness within
the university community. The committee recommends an addition
of $10.0 million to the University Research Initiative account
(601103D) to allow the Secretary of Defense to enter an
agreement with a qualified institution of higher learning with
strong capabilities in areas of combat research, including
chemical and biological warfare, target acquisition and
identification, anti-submarine warfare, combat medicine,
biodeterioration, and command, control and communications. The
committee directs the Secretary to follow all applicable
competitive procedures in awarding this agreement, to require
the institution awarded the agreement to contribute at least
twice the amount provided by the federal government to execute
the program, and to stipulate in the agreement specific savings
in research or other federal expenditures that will accrue from
accelerating research covered under the agreement.
DODDS Director's fund for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering
The committee is again pleased with the progress made in
this important program. The Department of Defense Dependent
School System (DODDS) is one of the nations only two federal
school systems. It enrolls children from every state in the
union and from sponsors who range in rank from the lowest
enlisted grades to the highest flag ranks. Many of the DODDS
schools also enroll students from other federal agencies and
from allied nations.
The director's fund is intended to allow the Director to
focus modern technology on the most pressing educational needs
of students in the system in the disciplines of science,
mathematics, and engineering. Its success to date is
demonstrated by the increasing progress DODDS has made toward
meeting the Goals 2000 educational standards.
The committee is aware of the many stresses that an
overseas assignment places on the families of the men and women
in uniform. Not the least of these is the challenge that
children of service members face as they attend relatively
small schools remote from American life, often in locations
that are widely dispersed. This program is designed to insure
that these children have the benefit of the best technology
possible as they acquire the technical disciplines that so
often lead to higher education, and the technical and medical
skills needed by our nation.
The committee remains concerned that these funds be at the
disposal of the Director of the DODDS system. The committee
recognizes the need for program management and for the
integration of this program with other educational programs of
the department. Nevertheless, the ultimate authority on the
allocation of these resources should be the Director of the
DODDS system who has the overall responsibility to educate the
children of our military personnel serving overseas. The
committee directs that $10.0 million of the funds in PE 601103D
be provided for this program.
University Research Initiatives
The committee recommends a reduction of $15.0 million in
the University Research Initiatives program to fund other
priority programs.
Medical Free Electron Laser program
The committee notes the continued progress of the Medical
Free Electron Laser (MFEL) Program, which was initiated to
develop medical applications of free electron laser technology
at university medical centers. This technology has proven
itself in a number of military and civilian clinical
applications, such as the treatment of skin lesions, skin
burns, cancers, and kidney and gallstones. The geographically-
distributed, merit-selected medical centers have been
successful in transferring significant amounts of technology to
the private sector.
Given the success of the MFEL program to date, the
committee is concerned about the impact of the reduction in the
funding request for fiscal year 1996 of $13.0 million below the
amount appropriated for fiscal year 1995. The committee notes
that the Department of Defense intends to restore the funding
level in the request for fiscal year 1997 to $24.8 million. In
order to ensure an orderly continuation of the MFEL program,
the committee has recommended an addition of $8.0 million to PE
602227D in fiscal year 1996. Additionally, the committee
continues to support the DOD practice requiring that no less
than four-fifths of the funds authorized be applied through the
university-based centers to adapt tunable, short-pulsed, high-
peak power free electron laser applications in medicine,
photobiology, surgery, and associated material sciences.
Software reuse
The committee recommends an additional authorization of
$3.0 million in PE 602301E to continue software reuse
activities in the Department of Defense.
Tactical landing system
The committee recommends an additional authorization of
$6.5 million in PE 62702E for the completion of the tactical
landing system program.
Diamond substrates
The Advanced Research Projects Agency has had an ongoing
program to address issues in the manufacture of industrial
diamond materials for use in thermal management in integrated
circuits. With the growth of on-chip integration of
transistors, developers and producers are facing serious
limitations because of the need to dissipate ever increasing
thermal energy. Diamond has the highest thermal conductivity of
any known material combined with high electrical resistance,
making it a leading material for addressing this problem.
Successful reduction in the cost of producing diamond
substrates using the chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process
could result in significant increases in power and decreases in
size and weight of military electronics. Therefore, the
committee recommends an additional authorization of $8.0
million to PE 602712E to accelerate the program. The committee
directs that all applicable competitive procedures be used in
the award of any contracts or other agreements under this
program and that cost sharing requirements for non-federal
participants be utilized where appropriate.
High temperature superconductivity
High temperature superconductivity (HTS) offers the
opportunity to realize the processing speed benefits of
superconductivity while cooling electronic devices to a
temperature no lower than that of liquid nitrogen. There are
significant potential military benefits from this technology
including reduction in the size of electronic components,
increases in the sensitivity of radars and other sensors, and
increases in useful bandwidth. There are a number of
manufacturing issues that must be addressed to make this
technology operational, including reducing processing costs and
increasing the yields within those processes. To enable ARPA to
address these issues in a coherent framework, the committee
recommends an additional authorization of $8.0 million in PE
602712E. The committee directs that all applicable competitive
procedures be used in the award of any contracts or other
agreements under this program and that cost sharing
requirements for non-federal participants be utilized where
appropriate.
Pulsed fast neutron analysis (PFNA) technology
Congress initiated funding for the Department of Defense in
1991 to develop non-intrusive cargo detection which has
resulted in the Pulsed Fast Neutron Analysis (PFNA) technology.
PFNA is an automated, non-intrusive detection technology that
recognizes the presence of hidden explosive material and other
contraband. It can be particularly useful in detecting the
contents of sealed cargo containers through the use of a
scanning beam which measures the elemental composition of the
cargo. The committee recommends an authorization of $2.0
million in PE 603122D for continued development of PFNA cargo
inspection technology under the direction of the Technical
Support Working Group of the Department of Defense.
Thermophotovoltaics
The thermophotovoltaics program (TPV) is a collaborative
program between ARPA and NASA to demonstrate and develop a
passive power generator powered by liquid and gaseous fuels.
TPV has potential for a number of military applications
including power generation in unmanned underwater vehicles. The
committee recommends an additional authorization of $5.0
million in the Experimental Evaluation of Major Innovative
Technologies to continue the program in fiscal year 1996. The
committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be
used in the award of any contracts or other agreements under
this program and that cost sharing requirements for non-federal
participants be utilized where appropriate.
Large Millimeter Wave Telescope
The Large Millimeter Wave Telescope (LMT) design project
has significant potential for advancing the state of the art
for radio telescopes through the use of intelligent structures.
The design could greatly improve capability for acquisition and
recognition of targets in space, as well as demonstrate the
feasibility of long range directed energy devices. The
committee recommends an additional authorization of $3.0
million for the continuation of the LMT program in the Advanced
Space Technology Project within the Advanced Research Project
Agency's Experimental Evaluation of Major Technologies program
(PE 603226E). The committee directs that cost sharing
requirements for non-federal participants be utilized under the
program where appropriate.
Rapid acquisition of manufactured parts
The committee continues to support efforts to develop and
deploy technologies under the rapid acquisition of manufactured
parts (RAMP) program. The committee recommends an additional
authorization of $12.0 million to the CALS Initiative program
(PE 603736D) to complete the research and development portion
of the RAMP program in fiscal year 1996.
Advanced electronics technologies
The committee recommends a reduction of $50.0 million from
PE 603739E for lower priority activities and activities not
directly related to electronics research and development. The
committee directs that the reduction be distributed among the
projects in the program as follows:
Millions
MT-07 Centers of Excellence............................... -$23.6
MT-08 Manufacturing Technology............................ -20.0
MT-11 CALS/Electronic Commerce............................ -6.4
The committee notes that the U.S.-Japan Management program
requested in project MT-07 is now managed in the Office of
Scientific Research in the Air Force. The committee notes that
the Air Force may, at its discretion, apply funds authorized in
PE 601102F to continue the program at its present level.
Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology (SEMATECH)
The committee notes the request for $89.6 million in the
request to provide direct funding for the SEMATECH consortium
to continue research in semiconductor manufacturing technology.
SEMATECH has made a major contribution to reestablishing the
competitiveness of the U.S. semiconductor industry. However,
with the funding requested for fiscal year 1996, the direct
federal participation in the program will have exceeded by
three years the five year period of such participation foreseen
during the establishment of the consortium in fiscal year 1988.
The committee agrees with the managers of SEMATECH that the
time has come for the industry members to take responsibility
for directly funding the operation of the consortium.
Therefore, the committee recommends approval of the requested
amount for fiscal year 1996, but expects that there will be no
further direct federal funding requested for SEMATECH for
fiscal year 1997 and beyond.
ATD-111 non-acoustic sensor technology
The Department of Defense has sponsored several programs to
develop non-acoustic sensor technology for anti-submarine
warfare and mine detection applications. Congress has
consistently supported such initiatives in order to fully
explore the potential of various types of non-acoustic sensors,
including a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system known as
ATD-111. The statement of managers accompanying the conference
report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1994 (H. Rept. 103-357) directed the Secretary of the Navy
to prepare a report that (1) searched for any competitive
research and development projects; (2) evaluated the relative
maturity, capability, and life cycle costs of ATD-111 and any
other programs identified in the search; (3) outlined an
appropriate acquisition strategy that could carry them forward
from the development phase; (4) identified additional possible
missions these technologies might satisfy; and (5) reported the
results to the congressional defense committees.
The department's report was prepared by Johns Hopkins
University's Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU/APL). It was
submitted to Congress in June of 1995. It found no technology
or program more mature, more promising, or more capable,
relative to stated Navy mission requirements, than ATD-111.
However, the report did not identify an acquisition plan as
directed in the statement of managers. Further, the fiscal year
1996 budget request contained no funding for continued
development of ATD-111 or any proposal for acquisition under
the future years defense program.
The committee is concerned that the Navy has not chosen to
continue development of the ATD-111 system nor to fully address
the potential contribution of the ATD-111 system for anti-
submarine warfare (ASW) or countermine applications. In the
committee's opinion, the system has strong potential as a non-
acoustic alternative for ASW at a time when the Navy has
repeatedly testified before and briefed the committee on the
shrinking acoustic advantage of United States ASW systems
relative to those of other countries. For example, much of the
debate associated with submarine procurement discussed
elsewhere in this report has centered on the need to regain an
acoustic advantage over other nations at a time when each
incremental improvement is achieved at a cost of hundreds of
millions of dollars.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase in funding
in PE 603714D of $10.0 million: (1) to test ATD-111 system
upgrades; (2) to provide for system corrections identified
during field tests; (3) to bring the test systems to a common
configuration; and (4) to evaluate carriage on alternate
airborne platforms. The committee further directs the Secretary
of the Navy to prepare a plan for the acquisition and
deployment of the ATD-111 system and to provide this plan to
the congressional defense committees is with the fiscal year
1997 budget request.
NATO research and development program
The committee recommends a reduction of $5.0 million in the
NATO Research and Development program to fund other priority
areas. The committee makes this reduction without prejudice and
notes that this recommended reduction would still provide for
an increase above the amount appropriated for this account for
fiscal year 1995.
Fuel cells
For several years the Congress has provided funding for a
cooperative fuel cell development program between the
Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. The
committee supports these ongoing programs but has concerns that
the programs have expanded and lengthened beyond their original
scope. The committee is also concerned that these programs do
not have substantial cost sharing provisions despite their
obvious dual-use nature. The committee is willing to continue
its support for this research but only on the condition that
the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy report
to the committee no later than February 15, 1996 regarding the
duration and long-term goals of the programs. The committee
also directs the two departments to obtain cost sharing
agreements with the developers of these fuel cells before
additional funds are released. The committee recommends $9.4
million in PE 63226E for carbonate-based fuel cells, and $12.0
million in PE 63851D for fuel cells for DOD installations.
Special Operations Forces counterproliferation support
The committee recognizes that Special Operations Forces are
relied upon for multiple counterproliferation objectives and
contingency operations. The committee recommends that of the
funds provided in the Counterproliferation Support program,
$6.3 million shall be allocated to the U.S. Special Operations
Command (SOCOM) for preparation and support of
counterproliferation activities.
Technical studies, support and analysis
The committee recommends a reduction of $5.0 million in PE
605104D without prejudice to fund other priority programs.
Technical assistance and SBIR administration
The committee recommends a denial of the authorization of
$4.92 million in PE 605129D and $1.57 million in PE 605790D.
The committee believes that the Procurement Technical
Assistance Center program for which the committee elsewhere has
recommended an additional $12.0 million would provide an
adequate infrastructure for offering technical assistance and
other services to potential government contractors.
U-2 Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) sensor upgrades
While the committee supports the Defense Airborne
Reconnaissance Office's (DARO) initiative to define a Joint
Airborne SIGINT Architecture (JASA), the committee is also
concerned with DARO's apparent decision not to continue
upgrading current platforms while focusing funding exclusively
on a new development program. Therefore, the committee
recommends an authorization of $20.0 million for the DARO to
initiate the Remote Airborne SIGINT (RAS-1B) upgrade program
for the U-2 fleet. The committee expects DARO to budget for the
remaining funds to complete the upgrade, and directs that this
upgrade be fully compliant with JASA standards.
U-2 defensive system upgrade
The committee appreciates the need for updating the
defensive system of the U-2 aircraft, especially as it could be
called on to fly over hostile territory. The committee further
understands that the warfighting commanders-in-chief
unanimously endorse the need for an improved self-defense
capability for the U-2. Accordingly, the committee recommends
an authorization of $13.0 million for the purpose. The
committee expects that the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance
Office (DARO) will budget for the remaining funds for the
upgrade.
Maritime unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)
The committee is advised that a variant of the fixed wing,
short-range Joint Tactical UAV currently under development is
intended to fill the role of the Navy's short-range maritime
UAV system. This system will require the Navy to take off from
and land the system on the flight deck of a ship--either an
amphibious ship or an aircraft carrier. The committee is
concerned about the suitability of a tactical fixed wing UAV
for Naval forces.
Vertical take-off/landing (VTOL) UAV's address both Naval
and land forces' requirements for UAV's with minimal launch and
recovery space constraints. A VTOL variant Joint Tactical UAV
may provide an effective and complementary air vehicle solution
for the multi-service need for real time data in support of
reconnaissance, surveillance, targeting, battle damage
assessment, and off-board electronic countermeasure anti-ship
missile defense (ASMD) against radar-guided missiles.
Congressionally mandated VTOL UAV variants which have
demonstrated potential to meet these operational needs should
be matured and evaluated further.
The committee continues to insist on maximum commonality
among various UAV's--especially on such items as sensors,
avionics, control systems, data links and automatic landing and
recovery systems. However, the committee also believes that UAV
air frames and their operating characteristics must fit the
needs of the user. Therefore, the committee directs the DOD to
reexamine the requirements for Joint Tactical UAV for Naval
forces and to allocate $12.5 million of the funds provided for
the Joint Tactical UAV for fiscal year 1996 to support
continued development and evaluation of VTOL Joint Tactical UAV
variants.
The Secretary of Defense will provide a report to the
congressional defense committees on the requirements for Joint
Tactical UAV for Naval forces and how those requirements are
being addressed by February 15, 1996.
Advanced SEAL delivery system (ASDS)
The committee has supported the development of a long-range
submersible capability to deliver special operations forces for
clandestine missions and is pleased with the joint efforts of
the Special Operations Command (SOC) and the Navy to develop
ASDS. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in
program element 116404BB to facilitate testing and fielding of
the ASDS.
Rigid hull inflatable boat (RHIB)
The committee is aware that the Special Operations Command
(SOC) has found the 10 meter RHIB design, on which initial
developmental efforts were focused, unsatisfactory and has
adopted a new strategy for development of a RHIB to meet
Special Operations Forces requirements. The committee
recommends an increase of $4.3 million in program element
116404BB to support this developmental effort. The committee
makes a corresponding reduction of $4.3 million in the
procurement account for SOF maritime equipment to offset this
increase.
Expertise on defense trade and international technology
U.S. government policy on the export and trade of U.S. and
foreign technologies and products continues to evolve. These
policy changes have put new emphasis on the requirement for DOD
to evaluate and monitor the availability of technologies in the
world marketplace. The committee commends the efforts of Office
of the Secretary of Defense in establishing a special internal
trade and technology capability in the C3I FFRDC community to
provide broad-based technical and engineering support to policy
makers in the evaluation of complex international trade and
technology areas. The committee believes it is important to
enhance support to the Department of Defense in international
technology monitoring, technology transfer risk management,
industrial base analyses, and the development of opportunities
for trade cooperation.
RDT&E infrastructure
The committee continues to be concerned about the inability
of the Department of Defense to manage the size of the
infrastructure supporting research, development, test and
evaluation efforts. Especially in the test and evaluation area,
the size of the infrastructure is not decreasing in proportion
to the reductions made in the research and procurement programs
that such infrastructure supports. The committee notes that at
a time when the budget request for the technology base programs
has decreased by over 10 percent, funding for the RDT&E support
programs has declined less than 4 percent. The result is that
an increasing proportion of our annual RDT&E investments pays
for infrastructure maintenance rather than research and
development supporting defense missions. Absent a clear
approach to infrastructure consolidation from the Secretary of
Defense, the committee has recommended reductions in the
following RDT&E support accounts:
Millions
PE 604759A................................................ -$10.0
PE 605103A................................................ -5.0
PE 605896A................................................ -20.0
PE 605864N................................................ -5.0
PE 605807F................................................ -20.0
PE 604940D................................................ -10.0
PE 605804D................................................ -10.0
In the past two years, the committee has supported a number
of initiatives to help offset the growing burden of
infrastructure support costs. The committee urges the managers
of the test and evaluation infrastructure to use existing
legislative authority granted under section 846 of the Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 to sell use of the test
ranges to paying customers other than the DOD in appropriate
cases. While the authority was enacted at the specific request
of the Department of Defense, the managers of the test ranges
have been slow to use it. In particular, our allies are showing
a much greater interest in using U.S. test ranges and
facilities because of encroachment problems overseas, and the
Department should be more aggressive in encouraging and
facilitating such requests. On the other hand, the committee is
concerned about reports that laboratory and test facilities are
using section 846 authorities to compete with private
enterprise for test services. It was not the intent of the
committee that those authorities be used to foster government
competition with the private sector. Continued committee
support for these authorities will be contingent on the
implementation of effective barriers to such competition.
Individual lift vehicle development
The committee understands that there is a proposal for
developing technology that could lead to an individual flying
vehicle (``X-Jet'') that could have a wide variety of military
applications. The committee believes that such a system could
be particularly useful to the special operations community. The
committee is interested in an evaluation by the Special
Operations Command to determine the merits and demerits of
developing such a system, and whether there is a requirement
for such a system in the U.S. Special Operations Command or
elsewhere within the Department.
The committee directs SOCOM and the Joint Requirements
Oversight Council to provide this analysis to the congressional
defense committees by March 1, 1996.
Defense Developmental Test and Evaluation
Environmental technology
The Department of Defense strategy for environmental
technology is based on two key elements: (1) systematic
identification of technology needs and (2) development,
demonstration, and validation of technologies. The Defense
Environmental Quality Program Annual Report to Congress for
fiscal year 1994 briefly addressed the elements of
environmental technology, but the report raised more questions
than it resolved.
It is essential that defense environmental technology have
a focus that ensures comprehensive and effective management of
the existing projects and resources. Such management should
include the following: centralized review and categorization of
identified needs; oversight and accountability for all aspects
of environmental technology; and consolidation of activities
related to demonstration and validation of technologies.
Centralization and consolidation of the elements of defense
environmental technology will facilitate matching technology
sources with identified needs, and will minimize duplication of
effort.
The committee desires that the Secretary of Defense conduct
a complete review of all aspects of Defense environmental
technology and submit a detailed recommendation for
restructuring environmental technology activities and relating
those activities to funding for the next budget cycle. That
recommendation should be an integral part of the Defense budget
proposal for fiscal year 1997.
In addition, the committee has become aware that the
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, the
Environmental Security Technology Certification Program, and
the National Defense Center of Environmental Excellence have
all engaged in the development of three distinct computerized
databases designed to facilitate the exchange of information
relevant to the development and demonstration/validation of
environmental technology. The Department of Defense should
ensure that these databases are not duplicative.
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The President's budget request included $91,634.4 million
for operation and maintenance of the Armed Forces and component
agencies of the Department of Defense in fiscal year 1996.
The committee recommends authorization of $91,426.7 million
for the operation and maintenance (O&M) accounts for fiscal
year 1996, a decrease of $207.7 million. The recommended amount
authorized for the O&M accounts includes, to the extent
provided in appropriations acts, transfer of $150.0 million
from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund.
The committee recommends authorization of $878.7 million
for the revolving and management funds.
The O&M accounts include approximately 36 percent of the
total Department of Defense budget. Expenditures from these
accounts pay the costs for:
--day-to-day operations of our military forces in the
United States and around the world;
--all individual and unit training for military
members, including joint exercises;
--maintenance and support of the weapons, vehicles,
and equipment in the military services;
--purchase and distribution of spare parts and supplies
to support military operations;
--support, maintenance, and repair of buildings and
bases throughout the Department of Defense.
The funding in these accounts has a direct impact on the
combat readiness of U.S. military forces. While insufficient
O&M funds would lead to problems with short-term or current
readiness, excessive or unnecessary O&M expenditures for low
priority or non-defense programs would also serve to restrict
the availability of funds for modernization programs.
Modernization is nearly synonymous with long-term or future
readiness.
The quality of overall readiness essentially depends on
adequate funding for both current and future readiness.
Although this funding mix is often portrayed as a balance, the
committee suggests it is a fundamental obligation of the
federal government to provide adequate resources for both
current and future readiness.
This year the committee received testimony on readiness
issues from the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, the service Secretaries, the Chiefs of Staff,
and the unified combatant commanders. The committee also
received testimony from four commissioned officers of various
ranks from each service, who illustrated the condition of the
armed forces.
The Subcommittee on Readiness conducted three hearings this
year, receiving testimony from retired senior commissioned
officers, the service Chiefs of Staff, the Comptroller of the
Department of Defense, and the Comptroller General of the
United States on financial management.
Concerns about readiness were heightened this year as a
result of an announcement by the Secretary of Defense in
November 1994 that three Army divisions had reported themselves
at readiness level C-3 due to deficiencies in training. Some
have noted that three divisions had not been C-3 for training
deficiencies since the ``Hollow Force'' years, when the Army
had 18 divisions, and the announcement seemed to confirm the
existence of a problem. Although the administration
subsequently determined that these divisions would not deploy
in the first increment in response to a regional contingency
crisis, the significance of this development is open to debate.
The committee is nonetheless concerned that the senior
Department of Defense leadership did not appear to be aware of
the readiness situation.
The committee received information this year about DOD
efforts to improve readiness reporting, including an effort to
measure ``Joint Readiness.'' While the committee recognizes the
need for DOD to improve its understanding of readiness, it
would suggest that readiness reporting is not a science.
Readiness comprises a variety of nonquantifiable factors. It is
broadly subjective, and readiness reports become less
statistically relevant as data are aggregated at higher levels.
The probability that meaningful or predictive information may
be derived from a joint readiness report is low. However,
attempts to understand the relationship between inputs and
outputs could be helpful.
While current readiness is not robust, future readiness is
a larger and more serious problem. The committee believes
future readiness deficiencies must be addressed now. If not,
more serious indicators will emerge within the next two years
and the solution will become far more difficult. Current
readiness must be protected at the same time to ensure military
forces have the best possible chance to accomplish their
missions with minimum casualties and without exposure to
unnecessary risk.
The committee recommends a reduction in O&M funding for low
priority and non-defense programs. Funds made available from
these reductions should be authorized for current and future
readiness programs so that the Armed Forces can begin the next
century with less obsolete and worn-out equipment. This
planning consideration required the committee to make some
difficult decisions. However, declining defense budgets and
serious problems with force modernization have made such
decisions necessary.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
SUBTITLE A--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
Section - 303. Armed Forces Retirement Home.
The committee recommends $59.1 million for the operation of
the AFRH in fiscal year 1996, and $45.0 million to be added to
the balance of the AFRH Trust Fund to provide for the continued
solvency of the Fund. The impending depletion of the Fund is
the consequence of reductions in the size of the active duty
force, which has reduced the funding stream envisioned by the
Congress in establishing the AFRH.
Section - 304. Transfer from National Defense Stockpile Transaction
Fund.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense, to the extent provided in
appropriations acts, to transfer $150.0 million from the
National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund to the O&M
accounts.
SUBTITLE B--DEPOT-LEVEL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR
Section - 311. Policy regarding performance of depot-level maintenance
and repair for the Department of Defense.
The committee recommends a provision which would provide
DOD with the direction, flexibility, and legislative relief
necessary to develop and execute a comprehensive depot
maintenance policy during fiscal year 1996.
The single most important consideration of this policy must
be to ensure a reliable maintenance and repair capability. The
quality of depot work affects the safety and effectiveness of
our men and women in uniform, and the responsiveness of the
depot system affects the ability of the armed forces to achieve
vital national security objectives. These considerations,
rather than simple business practices, are most important.
Congress previously enacted various measures to preserve
the capacity to perform depot-level work, absent a viable
policy within DOD. These measures have tended over time to
limit flexibility to the point where restructuring in order to
respond to new requirements and conditions is very difficult.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to recommend
a policy for the performance of depot-level work by March 31,
1996, for approval by the Committee on Armed Services of the
Senate and the Committee on National Security of the House. The
recommendation should articulate core requirements to be
performed by public depots, and delineate what competencies,
skills, volumes, and plant capacities are needed for the
services to perform their missions. The Secretary should then
describe how these requirements might best be met.
Both public and private sector capabilities should be
considered in developing this policy. Broad latitude to
interservice work should be assumed in order to take maximum
advantage of all capabilities.
The ability to capture accurate total cost data has been a
consistent shortcoming among public sector entities, which the
policy recommendation should address. When competitions are
conducted, they should be based on auditable, verifiable data.
The committee cautions DOD that the most effective public-
private mix may not be the most cost effective solution.
Although cost is obviously a prime factor in this matter,
national security considerations must take precedence over
simple cost avoidance.
The committee recognizes that DOD needs the ability to
select among various options for performing depot-level work.
The recommended provision would enhance flexibility by
repealing two current provisions of law (10 U.S.C. 2466 and
2469) which amount to artificial constraints. The repeal would
become effective only upon the enactment of legislation which
accepts or modifies the DOD policy recommendation. This affords
Congress the latitude to retain the limitations in the event
DOD is not able to develop a satisfactory policy.
Section - 312. Extension of authority for aviation depots and naval
shipyards to engage in defense-related production and services.
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through fiscal year 1996 the authority provided by section 1425
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991,
as amended, for naval shipyards and aviation depots of all the
services to bid on defense-related production and services.
SUBTITLE C--ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISIONS
Section - 321. Revision of requirements for agreements for services
under environmental restoration program.
Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2701(d), the Secretary of Defense has
entered into agreements to reimburse states and territories for
regulatory oversight services provided at Department of Defense
installations within their boundaries. Forty-four states and
four territories have signed DSMOAs and are eligible to receive
reimbursement. The Defense fiscal year 1996 budget request for
DSMOAs is $20,897 million.
At a time when the Congress is struggling with the need to
produce a balanced budget and reduce the deficit it is
necessary for state and federal government agencies to conduct
business in a manner that ensures financial accountability. To
the extent that a state or territory is undertaking a
regulatory activity under generally applicable federal or state
environmental laws, the committee believes that the activities
should be funded from appropriate federal and state sources,
not the Department of Defense.
The committee recommends an amendment to 10 U.S.C. 2701(d)
that would limit the basis for state reimbursement. Under the
amendment, states or territories participating in the DSMOA
program could only receive reimbursement for providing
technical and scientific services. The committee also
recommends a provision that would limit the total amount of
funds available for state reimbursement.
Section - 322. Discharges from vessels of the Armed Forces.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251,
and implementing regulation currently exempt incidental vessel
discharges from permitting requirements. Incidental discharges
remain subject to varying state regulation. The lack of
uniformity has presented operational problems for the Navy.
The administration has proposed legislation to address
incidental discharges from vessels of the Armed Forces in a
comprehensive and rational manner through the development of
the Uniform National Discharge Standards. The committee
recommends this provision in order to establish the process
necessary to develop those standards.
The Uniform National Discharge Standards provision will
substantially advance shipboard environmental protection in a
manner that respects and enhances the operational capabilities
of the Navy. The provision is modeled after section 312 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1322. Section
312 establishes uniform national discharge standards for sewage
discharges from all vessels. The Uniform National Discharge
Standards provision extends this model to regulate non-sewage
incidental discharges from vessels of the armed forces.
Section - 323. Revision of authorities relating to restoration advisory
boards.
The Department of Defense is developing a funding program
for installation Restoration Advisory Boards, pursuant to 10
U.S.C. 2705. Section 2705 provided that RABs would be
established to assist the Department with environmental
restoration activities at military installations and to provide
funding for local community members of RABs and existing
technical review committees.
About 200 Restoration Advisory Boards have been established
at operational and closing installations and Formerly Used
Defense Sites. The RAB funding sources for local community
member participation and for technical assistance are the
Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA) and the Base
Realignment and Closure Account (BRAC). Section 2705(e)(3)(B)
provided for $7.5 million limit on available DERA and BRAC
funds for RABs technical assistance in fiscal year 1995. Under
section 2705(d)(3) routine administrative expenses for RABs may
be paid out of funds available for the operation and
maintenance of an installation, without any limit on the amount
of funds that may be expended for that purpose.
Section 2705 of title 10 has been amended to limit funding
sources to BRAC and DERA, not to exceed $4 million. Technical
assistance shall be provided through federal, state, and local
agencies responsible for overseeing environmental restoration
at the installation, the contractors carrying out environmental
restoration at the installation, or available Department of
Defense personnel, unless those existing sources of technical
expertise cannot serve the objective for which technical
assistance is requested.
SUBTITLE D--CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES
Section - 331. Minimum number of military reserve technicians.
The committee recommends a provision that would establish a
floor for military technicians in the Army and Air Force
Reserve and National Guard for fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
The recommended military technician authorizations are:
Army National Guard--25,750
Army Reserve--7,000
Air National Guard--23,250
Air Force Reserve--10,000
The committee notes that the severe reductions directed in
the military technician program by the Department of Defense
were not based on changes in force structure or missions.
Rather, it appears that the directed reductions were arbitrary,
full-time-equivalent targets assigned to meet National
Performance Review goals. Testimony before the committee
confirmed that the directed reductions would have an adverse
effect on reserve readiness and the ability of the reserve
component to accept missions which would relieve active
component personnel tempo requirements.
Section - 332. Exemption of Department of Defense from personnel
ceilings for civilian personnel.
The committee recommends a provision that would preclude
the management of civilian personnel in the Department of
Defense by artificial limits on manyears, end strength, full-
time equivalents (FTEs), or other such personnel ceilings. The
committee is concerned about certain aspects of the ongoing
reductions in the Department of Defense civilian work force. It
is apparent that, regarding the reductions in the military
component, the Department has made a serious effort to
associate reductions with force structure and programmatic
changes. Efforts to do the same regarding the civilian work
force, however, are far less apparent. The committee is
concerned by the use of FTEs and the department's willingness
to apply uniform, ``salami slice'' reductions to the military
departments and defense agencies.
The Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994 provided an
aggregate ceiling for all federal civilian personnel measured
in FTEs. Subsequently, the Department of Defense chose to
provide annual FTE ceilings for each military department and
each defense agency covering fiscal years 1994 through 2001.
These ceilings apportion the overall reduction uniformly across
the Department of Defense without regard to differences among
the departments and agencies, force structure changes, workload
fluctuations, the potential results of the Base Realignment and
Closure Commission process, or readiness.
The administration's report: ``Cutting Red Tape--Creating a
Government That Works Better and Costs Less'' in referring to
``Full Time Equivalents'' (FTEs) provides that ``The President
should direct OMB and agency heads to stop setting FTE ceilings
in fiscal year 1995.''
The practical effects on readiness of management by FTEs
are exceptionally troublesome. Management by FTE assumes a
level of workload predictability that is inapplicable to
numerous activities. It severely restricts the flexibility of
depots and shipyards to adjust their workforce in response to
funded customer requirements. Despite the availability of
funds, FTE ceilings preclude these activities from adjusting
the size of their workforce in response to operational
commitments, contingencies, and other surges in workload.
Additionally, certain defense agencies frequently produce goods
and services for other defense agencies and are appropriately
reimbursed. The imposition of FTEs precludes agency heads from
retaining or hiring necessary personnel for which funds are
available through this reimbursement mechanism. In addition,
management by FTEs could actually require a military department
or defense agency to take more than the mandated reduction if
the reductions are postponed until late in the fiscal year to
make up manyears executed early in the fiscal year.
Section - 333. Wearing of uniform by National Guard technicians.
The committee recommends a provision that would require
military technicians to wear military uniforms in their jobs.
The provision would also place technician officers on the same
footing as Active Guard and Reserve officers for purposes of
qualifying for a uniform allowance.
Section - 334. Extension of temporary authority to pay civilian
employees with respect to the evacuation from Guantanamo, Cuba.
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorization for the Navy to continue to pay evacuation
allowances until January 31, 1996 to civilian employees whose
dependents were evacuated from Guantanamo, Cuba, in August and
September 1994. The provision would require a monthly report
regarding the number of employees with dependents in an
evacuation status, their positions of employment, the number
and location of their dependents, and the actions that the
Secretary of the Navy is taking to eliminate the conditions
making the payments necessary. The committee is disappointed
that it is necessary to extend this authority. The evacuation
allowances authority limits the period for evacuation payments
to 180 days. In April 1995, the Congress extended the authority
through the end of the fiscal year to permit the Navy more time
to take the necessary actions to replace the civilian workers
under an accompanied tour contract with military personnel, or
with civilian personnel in an unaccompanied status. To date,
the Navy has not taken any action to eliminate the conditions
making these payments necessary. The lack of action by the Navy
has resulted in the families of the civilian employees living
in temporary arrangements separated from their spouses and
unsure of what the future holds for almost a full year. This
lack of action reflects an insensitivity to the professional
development and quality of life of the affected civilian
employees. The situation is particularly aggravated since the
Navy changed the tours for military personnel assigned to Naval
Station Guantanamo to alleviate a similar situation affecting
the military personnel and their families. While the Secretary
of the Navy has limited influence on the diplomatic and
political dynamics of the situation in Cuba, that lack of
influence is not an excuse for permitting families to remain in
an evacuee status for such an extended period. The committee
urges the Secretary of the Navy to take the necessary steps to
eliminate the conditions which require extending this authority
before this final extension expires.
Section - 335. Sharing of personnel of Department of Defense domestic
dependent schools and Defense Dependents' Education System.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to direct the sharing of personnel
resources between the Department of Defense Overseas School
System and the Defense Dependents' Education System to provide
administrative, logistical, personnel, or other support
services to either system for a period to be prescribed by the
Secretary.
Section - 336. Revision of authority for appointments of involuntarily
separated military reserve technicians.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 3329 of title 5 United States Code to eliminate the
requirement that separated technicians receive a job offer
giving them placement rights over other separated DOD civilian
employees. The provision would also eliminate the requirement
to artificially create a vacancy to accommodate a separated
technician.
Section - 337. Cost of continuing health insurance coverage for
employees voluntarily separated from positions to be eliminated
in a reduction in force.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 8905a(d)(4) of title 5 United States Code, to extend
continued health insurance coverage and payment of the employer
portion of the premium and administrative fee for surplus
employees who voluntarily resign in response to base closures,
realignments, or formal force reduction procedures.
Section - 338. Elimination of 120-day limitation on details of certain
employees.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 3341 of title 5 United States Code, to eliminate the
requirement that the administration of details for civilian
employees be managed in 120-day increments.
Section - 339. Repeal of requirement for part-time career opportunity
employment reports.
The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate
the requirement in section 3407 of title 5 United States Code,
that agencies provide progress reports on the part-time career
employment program.
Section - 340. Authority of civilian employees of Department of Defense
to participate voluntarily in reductions in force.
The committee recommends a provision that would allow
employees who are not affected by a reduction-in-force (RIF) to
volunteer to be RIF separated in place of other employees who
are scheduled for RIF separation.
Section - 341. Authority to pay severance payments in lump sums.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 5595 of title 5 United States Code, to permit the lump-
sum payment of severance pay.
Section - 342. Holidays for employees whose basic workweek is other
than Monday through Friday.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 6103(b)(2) of title 5 United States Code, to authorize
agencies some discretion in designating holidays for employees
whose basic work week is other than Monday through Friday.
Section - 343. Coverage of nonappropriated fund employees under
authority for flexible and compressed work schedules.
The committee recommends a provision that would permit
nonexempt nonappropriated fund employees to work on a
compressed schedule without entitlement to overtime.
SUBTITLE E--DEFENSE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Section - 351. Financial management training.
The budget request included $88.9 million to establish a
financial management training center in Southbridge,
Massachusetts.
The committee strongly supports the DOD effort to conduct
appropriate training for civilians who perform financial
management work. As financial management increasingly becomes
an OSD responsibility, the program direction for education and
training will shift to OSD. The need for OSD involvement in
curricula, standards, and processes is readily apparent. The
committee strongly supports this shift and recognizes the need
for OSD involvement and control.
The committee recommends a provision which would prohibit
the obligation of funds to establish a DOD financial management
training center pending certification by the Secretary of
Defense of the need for such an organization. The committee
provision requires DOD to justify the need for such a center
and the decision to locate it in Southbridge.
The Secretary would be directed to analyze the requirement
for a center and consider alternatives in developing a plan to
achieve clearly stated financial management training
objectives. The committee further directs the Secretary to
submit a plan and an accompanying report to the Committee on
Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on National
Security of the House of Representatives, to implement the
results of this analysis. The report would also detail the
long-term and short-term costs, and state what means were
considered to conduct this training.
In the event the Secretary determines there is a need to
establish a new training center, the Secretary should recommend
a site and describe the process by which the site was selected.
No funds would be authorized for obligation for a capital
lease for any such facility until 90 days following submission
of the Secretary's certification of need, report, and plan to
the defense committees.
Section - 352. Limitation on opening of new centers for Defense Finance
and Accounting Service.
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department of Defense to conduct a review of the need for
further expansion of Defense Finance and Accounting System
(DFAS) centers, and to report to the appropriate committees of
the Congress prior to establishing any new DFAS centers. The
committee is concerned that the current expansion plans have
not been examined against actual requirements, given continued
consolidation and downsizing of the services.
SUBTITLE F--MISCELLANEOUS ASSISTANCE
Section - 361. Department of Defense funding for National Guard
participation in joint disaster and emergency assistance
exercises.
The committee recommends a provision that would provide
funding authority for National Guard units to participate in
joint exercises preparing them to respond to civil emergencies
or disasters.
Section - 362. Office of Civil-Military Programs.
The committee approved a prohibition on the use of funds
for the Office of Civil-Military Programs. The committee
believes civil-military cooperation efforts should be limited
and at the discretion of local commanders, who are in the best
position to determine the positive or negative effects of such
operations on the readiness of the units under their command.
The committee notes that the military has engaged in these
activities in the past on an ad hoc basis without central
direction from the Department of Defense. The committee is not
aware of any change in circumstances that requires the central
direction of these activities.
Section - 363. Revision of authority for Civil-Military Cooperative
Action Program.
The committee recommends a provision that would revise
section 410 of title 10 United States Code, to restrict civil-
military activities under this section to reserve component
forces and make other technical changes.
Section - 364. Office of Humanitarian and Refugee Affairs.
The committee approved a prohibition on the use of funds
for the Office of Humanitarian and Refugee Affairs. The
committee believes that this office is more appropriately
funded and operated within the Department of State.
SUBTITLE G--OPERATION OF MORALE, WELFARE, AND RECREATION FUNDS
Section - 371. Disposition of excess morale, welfare, and recreation
funds.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 373 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1995 to permit the Marine Corps to retain the MWR
funds transferred from USMC installations. An unintended
consequence of the current provision might require the Marine
Corps to transfer MWR funds from USMC installations to the Navy
MWR fund.
Section - 372. Elimination of certain restrictions on purchases and
sales of items by exchange stores and other morale, welfare,
and recreation facilities.
The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate
the cost, price, size, and country of origin limitations on
purchases and sales of items sold in the military exchanges and
MWR facilities. Currently, the exchanges are limited by a
collection of limitations based on cost, price, size, value and
country of origin. The committee believes these restrictions
prohibit the exchanges from selling items service members and
their families want to purchase. The recommended provision
should improve the quality of life for service members and
their families.
Section - 373. Repeal of requirement to convert ships' stores to
nonappropriated fund instrumentalities.
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 371 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1994. The provision would repeal the requirement to
convert ships' stores operations to a Navy Exchange System
agency.
SUBTITLE H--OTHER MATTERS
Section - 381. National Defense Sealift Fund: availability for Ready
Reserve component of the Ready Reserve Fleet.
The committee recommends a provision that would permit the
use of National Defense Sealift Fund funds for support of the
national defense reserve fleet (NDRF). Beginning with the
fiscal year 1996 request, funds for the operation and
maintenance of the NDRF will be included in the budget request
and be subject to committee recommendation for their
authorization.
Section - 382. Limitation on contracting with same contractor for
construction of additional new sealift ships.
The committee has become aware of a proposal to direct
procurement of strategic sealift ships to specific
shipbuilders. By separate action the committee has affirmed its
commitment to competition in shipbuilding and recommended a
provision that would provide for competitive procurement of the
new attack submarine. The committee is also aware of potential
cost growth in existing contracts for procurement of strategic
sealift ships. While the committee remains strongly committed
to meeting the requirements for strategic sealift established
in the Mobility Requirements Study and subsequent updates, the
committee does not believe that directing procurement to a
shipbuilder, particularly one experiencing cost growth in his
contract with the Navy, is a proper course of action to follow.
The committee recommends a provision that would limit the
ability of the Secretary of the Navy to enter into a new
contract for additional sealift ships in the event of (1) cost
growth in an existing contract that would exceed the maximum
price originally established in the contract; or (2) there are
outstanding claims against the government that, if approved,
would increase the maximum price of the existing contract.
Section - 383. Availability of recovered losses resulting from
contractor fraud.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 134 of title 10, United States Code to authorize the
DOD to retain three percent of single damage funds, or
$500,000, whichever is less, recovered in contract fraud
matters at military installations. This percentage would be
distributed to the military departments, to be credited to the
O&M accounts of the installations responsible for the
recoveries.
This amendment would enable a more business-like approach
to DOD operations, provide an incentive to pursue cases of
suspected fraud, and reward success. It would also provide a
means to fund other investigations and return 97 percent of
recoveries to the Treasury. Military installations do not have
budgeted funds available to pursue such cases. They incur costs
in the conduct of investigations and litigation which this
provision would reimburse in part.
The Department of Justice has similar authority under
section 527 of title 28, United States Code.
Section - 384. Permanent authority for use of proceeds from the sale of
certain lost, abandoned, or unclaimed property.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2575 of title 10, United States Code to enable
installation commanders to use proceeds from the sale of lost,
abandoned, or unclaimed personal property to offset costs
incurred against installation O&M accounts to collect,
transport, store, protect, or sell such property. Any net
proceeds may be used to support morale, welfare, and recreation
at the installation.
Installation commanders are currently required to expend
O&M funds budgeted for other purposes to dispose of such
property. The costs of these disposals are currently not
reimbursed; the recommended authority would enable
reimbursement. Disposals would be conducted on a business-like
basis and the recommended authority would provide an incentive
to obtain the best value.
This approach to disposal of such property has been
validated by demonstration projects, authority for which was
granted in section 343 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993.
Section - 385. Sale of military clothing and subsistence and other
supplies of the Navy and Marine Corps.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 651 of title 10, United States Code, to provide the
Navy and Marine Corps the authority currently granted to the
Army and Air Force to conduct in-kind replacement sales of
individual equipment items which have been lost, damaged, or
destroyed.
Section - 386. Conversion of Civilian Marksmanship Program to
nonappropriated fund instrumentality and activities under
program.
The committee recommends a provision to provide for the
conversion of the Civilian Marksmanship Program to a
nonappropriated fund instrumentality.
Section - 387. Report on contracting out certain functions of
Department of Defense.
The committee is interested in exploring possibilities to
achieve efficiencies through privatization of commercial
functions. Therefore, the committee has included a provision
requiring the Department to submit a report describing the
advantages and disadvantages of using contractor personnel,
rather than civilian employees of the Department of Defense, to
perform functions of the Department that are not essential to
the warfighting mission of the Armed Forces.
Section - 390. Impact aid.
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Secretary of Education from considering payments to a local
educational agency from defense funds when determining the
amount of impact aid to be paid from Department of Education
funds. Additionally, the recommended provision would make
technical changes to previous year authorization of impact aid.
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
Army
Army reimbursable positions
The Army's civilian personnel budget request for Budget
Activity 4 was based on 32,969 direct-hire work years including
4,996 reimbursable work years. The correct number of work years
is 27,973. Based on an average annual salary of $46,604, the
Army's civilian personnel request is overstated by $233.0
million. Therefore, the committee has reduced the Army O&M
budget request by this amount.
Historically black colleges and universities fellowships
The budget request includes $300,000 to provide fellowships
for professors from historically black colleges and
universities. Because the Department of Defense has not
provided a national security requirement for these fellowships,
the committee has reduced the Army's operation and maintenance
budget by the amount that is requested for this purpose.
National Science Center
The committee notes that the National Science Center has
plans to begin to move from Army facilities at Fort Gordon into
new facilities that are being provided by state and local
funds. This new facility will significantly increase the
revenues generated by user and entrance fees. The committee
applauds this move and notes that this move into a facility
provided by non-federal funding will allow the Army to realize
significant savings. The committee further notes that the Army
portion of the cost of operation of the new center should
decline as new revenues are generated. The committee has
provided direction in another section of this report for the
Army to renegotiate its Memorandum of Understanding with the
center. The committee recognizes that the Army has worked
closely with the center to prepare a plan which will insure
that the Army's cost of participation in the center will be
reimbursed by revenues generated by the center. This plan is
based on the assumption that the Army costs should be at
current levels of funding or lower for the next two years and
then gradually reduced until they are fully covered by
reimbursements from center revenues by the fifth year of the
center's operation. The committee directs the Army to work with
the center to develop a modification to the current plan which
would allow the Army to be fully reimbursed by the fourth year
of operation. These plans should be submitted to the committee
no later than the submission of the President's budget request
for fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends an authorization
of $3.5 million for Fiscal Year 1996.
Navy
Nimitz Center
The budget request included $3.1 million for the Chester W.
Nimitz Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies. The committee
does not authorize funds for this program because of
requirements in higher-priority programs.
Active and Reserve P-3 squadrons
The services of P-3 squadrons are historically in very high
demand by the unified commanders. In recent years, that demand
has increased dramatically as the ability of the P-3 aircraft
to carry out littoral warfare missions has become more
apparent. Simultaneously, however, budget pressures have forced
the Navy to cut P-3 force structure in its budget request. The
current maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) force structure consists
of 22 squadrons, 13 active and nine reserve squadrons (13/9).
The budget request would support Navy plans to reduce MPA force
structure to 20 squadrons, 12 active and eight reserve (12/8).
The committee believes MPA aircraft make an invaluable
contribution to antisubmarine warfare missions. The committee
also recognizes that MPA aircraft are ideally suited to meet a
variety of mission requirements for littoral operations very
effectively and efficiently.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an additional $35.0
million to sustain the MPA force structure at 13/9 in fiscal
year 1996.
Yard Tugboat Service
The committee is encouraged by the Navy's effort to improve
yard tugboat services by contracting out to private industry.
Long-term tractor tug charters at Kings Bay, Georgia; Mayport,
Florida; and San Diego, California have proven successful in
furnishing the Navy with quality products and services at lower
costs than Navy-owned and operated tug boats. The Navy is
currently examining several additional ports for conversion to
long-term tug charters, as well.
The committee directs the Navy to evaluate the potential
for expanding the use of private sector tug boat services, and
report to the congressional defense committees by January 1,
1996. The report should identify locations where long-term
charters for yard tug boat service would be cost effective,
increase safety, and ensure compliance with the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990. If contracting out would make these benefits
achievable, the committee encourages the Navy to seek long-term
contracts for yard tug boat services with private firms.
Marine Corps
Marine Corps Extended Cold Weather Clothing System (ECWCS)
The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million in the
O&M account for the Marine Corps to field needed protective
garments to the Fleet Marine Force. The second generation ECWCS
garments are vapor permeable, waterproof, and windproof. They
significantly enhance insulation. Garments can be laundered
aboard ship and are resistant to petroleum contamination.
Current equipment issued to Fleet Marines does not have these
properties.
These are important considerations for deployed Marines,
who often receive orders to conduct operations not anticipated
before deployment.
Air Force
Civil Air Patrol
The budget request includes $27.5 million for the Civil Air
Patrol (CAP). While the committee recognizes the value of the
Civil Air Patrol in providing for civilian search and rescue
missions and disaster relief operations, these operations are
more appropriately funded by another agency or by state
governments.
In addition, the committee is concerned that such a
substantial portion of the CAP's budget goes to personnel and
overhead costs while only 10 percent is used to reimburse the
volunteer pilots who dedicate their time and efforts to provide
the search and rescue operations of the CAP. The committee
notes that the ongoing reorganization of the CAP to reduce the
number of active duty military and Air Force civilian employees
was expected to reduce required funding by $3.0 million a year.
However, according to the General Accounting Office, this
reorganization resulted in an increased requirement of $4.0
million rather than the expected $3.0 million savings.
The committee therefore recommends a reduction in the level
of funding for this program by $5.0 million from the fiscal
year 1996 budget request. The committee intends to explore
other funding sources for this program in the future to further
reduce its reliance on the DOD.
Civilian Personnel Policy
Modernization and regionalization of civilian personnel management
functions
The committee commends the Department of Defense for the
progress made in attempting to streamline and improve human
resource management policy, practices, and service delivery. Of
particular importance are those initiatives involving the
modernization and regionalization of civilian personnel
management functions. Under certain conditions, the
modernization and regionalization of civilian personnel
management functions could provide a tremendous opportunity for
enhanced customer service and substantial savings in overhead
and staff resources.
The committee is concerned, however, by the consolidation
of personnel servicing before a modern, standard personnel data
system and its supporting communications network are in place.
Without a modern, standard personnel data system in place and
without the communications network in place to support such a
data system, the consolidation of personnel servicing into
large service centers may not produce substantial cost savings
without an unacceptable degradation in customer service. The
very significant--and perhaps premature--reductions in civilian
personnel specialists which unfortunately coincide with the
regionalization initiative render the degradation in customer
service even more probable.
The continued downsizing of the civilian workforce over the
next several years will place extraordinary demands on the
civilian personnel management community. The committee notes
that 1) planned reductions in personnel specialists and 2)
regionalization prior to modernization can only further
complicate the personnel management challenge at a time when
the department's civilian employees deserve only the highest
levels of customer service. The committee intends to review
these issues in the coming months with officials from the
military services.
Defense-Wide
Multi-Technology Automated Reader Card (MARC)
MARC is a multi-functional, cross-service utility card with
a magnetic stripe, integrated computer chip (ICC), a bar code
and static information. It combines non-updatable information
(name, social security number, blood type, photograph, etc.)
and updatable information (medical, pay, qualifications) in the
same card. The ICC can be used to record a wide variety of
transactions and records. MARC has been shown to be
particularly useful in reducing administrative requirements and
errors.
The committee has noted with interest the success of the
DOD MARC project. Field tests of this ``Smart Card'' technology
have demonstrated important gains in efficiency and
effectiveness in a variety of applications. The committee
recommends an additional $8.0 million to expand the project.
SR-71
The committee is pleased with the timely and cost-effective
reconstitution of a contingency force of manned, high speed,
penetrating reconnaissance aircraft as a hedge until
penetrating unmanned aerial vehicles are widely fielded. This
contingency capability of two SR-71 aircraft was accomplished
by the Air Force under the direction of the Defense Airborne
Reconnaissance Office for substantially less than the $100.0
million appropriated for this purpose last year. The committee
therefore encourages the Air Force and the Defense Airborne
Reconnaissance Office to retain this capability in fiscal year
1996 from such funds as are made available.
Museums
The committee is concerned with the growing number of
museums scattered throughout the nation's military facilities.
The operation and maintenance of these museums absorbs an
increasing portion of a limited defense budget. The committee
believes that the military services should assess the necessity
of maintaining these museums when there are limited funds
available for training and other essential military needs.
The committee directs the Department of Defense to submit a
report by January 1, 1996 that lists each of the military
museums and the costs required for their operation and
maintenance.
Spending for non-military missions
During the course of the year, the committee has become
increasingly concerned that while the defense budget continues
to decline and a lack of funds has caused training exercises,
needed munitions purchases, and modernization programs to be
canceled, the Department of Defense continues to spend
increasing portions of its limited budget on non-defense or
low-priority military programs. These programs include:
civilian rescue missions, support to homeless shelters,
assistance to local communities and civilian agencies, civilian
educational programs, youth outreach programs, foreign disaster
assistance, and international humanitarian efforts.
Such programs are often performed with DOD funds, but
support another agency's mission. The recent report by the
Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces
recommended that ``the President should limit the use of
military forces in both peace operations and operations other
than war to tasks that cannot be more appropriately assigned to
others.'' The committee approves of this recommendation and
encourages the President to assign non-military tasks to more
appropriate agencies.
The committee recognizes the importance of many of these
programs to the nation as a whole, and understands that the DOD
possesses both the equipment and knowledge to perform them.
However, the committee believes that the Department of Defense
should be reimbursed for its costs if it supports the missions
of other agencies. Therefore, the committee has not provided
funding for many of these programs.
The committee believes that the Secretary of Defense needs
to reassess DOD involvement in low-priority defense activities.
Over the past several years, the General Accounting Office and
the Congressional Research Service have reported that these and
other programs not directly related to warfighting consume
billions of dollars of the defense budget each year. While such
programs may be well intentioned, the declining defense budget
makes it difficult to sustain their continued funding with DOD
resources.
Therefore, the committee directs the Department of Defense
to provide a report on those activities currently being
performed by the DOD which support another agency's mission.
The Secretary of Defense should provide the results of this
report to the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House
National Security Committee no later than April 1, 1996.
International peacekeeping
The budget request included $65.0 million for international
peacekeeping assessments for those operations which the
Department of Defense would have lead funding and management
responsibility under proposed new legislation. The committee
has determined that U.N. assessments for these activities would
more appropriately be funded through the Department of State as
has been the practice in the past. Therefore, the committee
does not support the proposed legislation and denies
authorization for these funds.
Humanitarian assistance and foreign disaster assistance
The fiscal year 1996 budget requested $79.8 million for
humanitarian assistance, including $20.0 million for the
humanitarian demining program, and an additional $45.3 million
for foreign disaster relief. The committee is concerned that
these programs are outside of the department's core mission and
are not affordable at a time when reductions in the defense
budget are having a negative impact on essential national
security functions of the Department of Defense. The committee
is further concerned about the negative impact on the quality
of life of military personnel resulting from increased
deployments to support operations of this nature.
The committee understands the unique capability of the
Department of Defense to respond to humanitarian crises,
including man-made and natural disasters. Nevertheless, the
committee believes that these activities would more
appropriately be funded by the Department of State on a
reimbursable basis. The committee authorizes the $20.0 million
for the landmine clearance program, but denies the remaining
portion of the request.
Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps
The budget request included $131.9 million for the Junior
Reserve Officer Training Program. The committee recognizes the
value of this program but authorizes only $119.6 million (the
fiscal year 1995 level of funding). This results in a $12.9
million reduction from the budget request for fiscal year 1996.
Civilian personnel levels
The committee notes that the Department of Defense civilian
personnel drawdown continues faster than expected. During
fiscal year 1995, civilian personnel levels in the Department
of Defense, have been reduced faster than anticipated when the
fiscal year 1996 budget was drafted. This drawdown means lower-
than-budgeted civilian personnel levels throughout fiscal year
1996 resulting in savings of $250.0 million. The committee has
made the appropriate adjustments in the fiscal year 1996 budget
to reflect these savings.
Federal Energy Management Program
The budget request included $234.7 million for the Federal
Energy Management Program. The committee is concerned that the
Department of Defense could not provide a list of projects to
support this funding request. Such information is necessary for
determining the validity of a request this size.
While the committee believes in the importance of
conserving energy at the nation's military facilities, it
believes that base commanders can initiate such projects if
provided sufficient funding for base operations and real
property maintenance. The committee notes that these commanders
are in a position to identify the most important needs of each
facility, including those which would result in the greatest
decrease in energy consumption.
Therefore, the committee has authorized only $50.0 million
for the Federal Energy Management Program, but it has increased
the amount of funds for base operations and real property
maintenance so that base commanders will have sufficient funds
available for energy conservation and other important
functions.
Homeless support initiative
The budget request includes $3.0 million for the Homeless
Support Initiative. The committee notes that 10 U.S.C. 2546
allows service Secretaries to provide assistance to homeless
shelters so long as the assistance does not interfere with
military preparedness or military requirements. The committee
further notes that training exercises and modernization
programs have been canceled because of a lack of funds.
Therefore, the committee believes that providing $3.0 million
annually to this program qualifies as interference with
military preparedness and military requirements.
While the committee is concerned with the health and
welfare of the nation's homeless, the committee believes that
supporting homeless shelters is outside the primary mission of
the Department of Defense and would more appropriately be
funded through those agencies with primary funding and policy
responsibility for this issue.
Civil-military/youth outreach programs
The budget request includes $69.5 million for civil-
military programs including Civil-Military Cooperation,
CHALLENGE, and STARBASE.
The committee is concerned with the cost of these programs
at a time when the defense budget continues to decline. The
committee understands that the armed forces can provide useful
assistance to local communities while at the same time perform
mission training activities. However, the committee believes
that civil-military efforts should be limited and at the
discretion of local commanders who are in the best position to
determine the positive or negative effects of such operations
on the readiness of the units under their command. In the past,
military commanders and personnel have been allowed to assist
local communities in efforts to improve the infrastructure on
an ad hoc basis without central bureaucratic direction. The
committee sees no reason to expand these activities by
authorizing limited DOD funds for their execution.
In addition, the committee is concerned with the increase
in resources being dedicated to youth outreach programs while
needed training exercises go unfunded. The committee believes
DOD funding for civil-military youth programs should be limited
to a single program that has the greatest military relevance--
Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps. The committee continues
to authorize the National Guard to carry out both CHALLENGE and
STARBASE, however, funding for these programs will have to be
provided by another federal agency, state governments, or
private organizations.
United Services Organization
The United Services Organization, chartered by Congress, is
one of the premier voluntary civilian organizations which
contributes to the quality of life of members of the Armed
Forces and their families. The USO does not receive any direct
federal funding, but relies on contributions from individuals
and corporations. The USO does receive some in-kind assistance
from the Department of Defense in the form of housing for USO
personnel overseas, use of military postal services and the
defense telecommunications system, and access to the DOD
dependents school system. The committee commends the Secretary
of Defense for his efforts to assist the USO and encourages him
to seek opportunities to enhance the in-kind assistance
provided to the USO.
Revolving Funds
National defense features
The committee report on S. 1298 (S. Rept. 103-112) and the
statement of managers accompanying the conference report on the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and
1993 (H. Rept. 103-160) expressed continuing support for a
national defense features (NDF) program. An NDF program would
provide funds to install important defense features in
privately-owned merchant vessels during their construction.
Such features would make these vessels more capable of carrying
military cargo during a contingency. The commercial ship owner
would bear the ship construction costs. The owner would
contract directly with a U.S. shipyard for construction of the
ship. The nation's shipbuilding industry would benefit from
such a proposal to the extent that it would provide an
incentive for commercial ship construction. Costs to the
government per ship would be much lower than buying a whole
ship. Through a binding agreement with the ship's owners, it
would be available for immediate recall in case of a
contingency.
To better evaluate the merits of an NDF program, the
committee requested that the Secretary of Defense provide a
study by January 1, 1994 of the costs and benefits of this
program. Unfortunately, the Secretary did not submit his report
until March 1995--fourteen months later.
The report supports the concept of an NDF program, but
considers buying foreign-built roll-on/roll-off (RO/RO) ships
for the Ready Reserve Force (RRF) a higher priority.
Consequently, the fiscal year 1996 budget request contained
$70.0 million to purchase and modify more foreign-built RO/RO
ships for the RRF.
The committee has reviewed the report and agrees that
incorporation of additional RO/RO ships into the RRF is
consistent with the Joint Staff's Mobility Requirements Study
and its subsequent updates. The committee believes, however,
that an NDF program has the potential to:
1. provide the strategic sealift that the country
needs while building substantially superior ships;
2. support the U.S. Merchant Marine;
3. save or create a significant number of jobs in the
shipbuilding industry and the suppliers of that
industry; and
4. assist U.S. shipyards to reenter the commercial
shipbuilding market.
The committee believes that these are worthy objectives that
adding RO/RO ships to the RRF would not satisfy.
Consequently, of the funds approved in the National Defense
Sealift Fund, the committee recommends $70.0 million to be used
as follows:
1. $20.0 million to modify RO/RO vessels purchased in
fiscal year 1995; and
2. $50.0 million to procure and install defense
features on commercial RO/RO ships, to be built in U.S.
shipyards.
Maritime prepositioning ship leases
The committee report on S. 2182 (S. Rept. 103-282) required
that the Secretary of Defense provide an analysis of a Navy
proposal to buy-out some of the maritime prepositioning ship
(MPS) leases before taking any steps to terminate the lease
contracts. The Department of the Navy submitted justification
material with the amended budget request indicating that the
Navy might begin using unobligated balances in the National
Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF) to purchase these vessels. If this
course of action is pursued, the Navy intends to divert funds
presently on deposit in the NDSF for acquisition of
prepositioning/surge ships that are already under contract to
buy out the MPS leases. The budget request cautions that such a
buyout would in turn create a need for additional funding for
these ships.
Section 2218 of title 10, United States Code requires that
NDSF budget requests be made by programs, projects, and
activities. The committee notes that the budget justification
material does not request any specific amounts to begin buy-out
of MPS leases. The committee also notes that the Secretary of
Defense has not submitted the required analysis.
Therefore, the committee directs that none of the funds in
the NDSF or other funds available to the Secretary of Defense
be used to terminate these lease contracts or buy the MPS
vessels.
Maritime prepositioning ship enhancement
In fiscal year 1995 the committee developed a new
initiative, maritime prepositioning ship (MPS) enhancement, to
expand the capabilities of the three Marine Corps MPS
squadrons. The committee recommended authorization of $220.0
million for the purchase and conversion of up to three
additional ships to permit the Marine Corps to add additional
tanks, an expeditionary airfield, additional Navy construction
battalion equipment, a fleet hospital, and other supplies to
each squadron to better sustain the Marine Corps as an
expeditionary force. While MPS enhancement had not been
included in the fiscal year 1995 budget request, the committee
took action based on its determination that the requirement was
valid and information that indicated ships were available for
purchase and conversion under cost effective circumstances. The
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1995
provided $110.0 million to purchase and convert the first MPS
enhancement ship.
An approved requirement for MPS enhancement now exists.
However, additional funding for the program was not included in
the budget request. The committee's inquiries determined that
the ships targeted for procurement and conversion last year are
no longer available. Consequently, the Department of Defense
had embarked on an apparently lengthy process to develop a
design, then seek out alternate candidates that, when
converted, will satisfy the requirements of the MPS squadrons.
It does not appear that the department is aggressively
exploring options, such as commercial ships or dual use of
existing ready reserve force (RRF) ships for both
prepositioning and surge missions, that could make an MPS
enhancement ship available more quickly.
The committee continues to strongly support MPS
enhancement. The committee is troubled that, despite an
approved requirement, the budget request failed to include
funding for a second ship. Additionally, the committee is
concerned over the limited progress made in acquiring and
converting the fiscal year 1995 MPS enhancement ship.
As a measure of its strong support for the MPS enhancement
program, the committee authorizes $110.0 million to purchase
and convert an additional ship. The committee expects the
Department to aggressively pursue all possible options,
including the use of RRF RO/ROs or commercial procurement, in
order to accelerate the purchase, conversion, and delivery of
the ships authorized in fiscal years 1995 and 1996. Further,
the Secretary of Defense is directed to report on progress
toward meeting this goal when he submits the fiscal year 1997
budget request. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to prepare this report because, while an option such as dual
designation of RRF RO/ROs presently allocated for Marine Corps
assault follow-on echelon equipment appears a sensible
proposal, experience indicates that it may generate
bureaucratic disputes that can only be resolved at his level.
Defense Environment
Defense environmental compliance
There are three basic categories of non-recurring
requirements in the Defense Environmental Compliance Program:
Class I--necessary to bring an activity into compliance with
existing mandates; Class II--necessary to meet future
compliance milestones, some of which must be completed to avoid
a future violation within the current budget cycle; and Class
III--a positive contribution to the environment, but not needed
to comply with legal requirements.
The Department of Defense budget cycle requests for
compliance funding are based on costs related to recurring
requirements, Class I current violations, and Class II
violations projected to occur within the programmed year. The
recurring requirements portion of the budget amounts to about
one half of the compliance budget.
Under 10 U.S.C. 2706(b) the Secretary of Defense is
required to submit to Congress an annual report on the status
of environmental compliance activities at military
installations. The report for fiscal year 1994 addresses the
entire environmental quality program, including compliance. The
report does not distinguish between the funding levels and
personnel requirements associated with each of the
environmental quality pillars of pollution prevention,
conservation, and compliance. As a result, it is difficult to
track the basis for the compliance funding request in a given
budget cycle.
The committee directs that the department's future annual
reports on the environmental quality program provide a breakout
of the funding levels for each of the environmental quality
pillars addressed in the report. The committee directs that the
report shall include a projection of the funding levels and the
number of full-time personnel that will be required for the
Department of Defense to comply with applicable environmental
laws during the fiscal year for which the budget is submitted
and for the following five fiscal years. The report shall
separately set forth projections for the Department of Defense
as a whole and for each military installation, broken out by
environmental quality pillar and by appropriation for recurring
costs. For non-recurring costs, breakouts shall be provided by
pillar, appropriation, and media category. Funding projections
for the budget fiscal year shall include a project listing for
non-recurring requirements that separately identifies Class I
and II requirements for each military installation.
Legacy resource management program
In the Department of Defense 1991 Appropriation Act, the
Secretary of Defense was directed to establish a Legacy
Resource Management Program and establish a separate
appropriations line item for the program. Prior to the
inception of the Legacy Program, requirements related to the
preservation of natural and cultural resources under the
jurisdiction of the Department Defense were planned,
programmed, and budgeted within the Defense Environmental
Compliance Program.
The Legacy Program was designed specifically to address
those conservation and preservation projects that would be
valuable and beneficial, but which were not required to be
performed under applicable environmental laws. The absence of
funding for those kinds of projects was perceived as a gap in
the Department of Defense environmental programs.
The department has since developed a definitive annual
planning, programming, and budgeting strategy for environmental
conservation and preservation, so there is no longer a need for
a separate line item for the Legacy Management Resource
Program. The committee expects the Department of Defense to
fulfill its obligation to responsibly manage its 25 million
acres of valuable natural and cultural resources through the
Defense Environmental Conservation Program.
Environmental management
The Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA)
appropriation was created by Congress in fiscal year 1984 to
consolidate and expand separate Department of Defense
environmental cleanup programs. DERA was later codified in
permanent law as section 211 of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act, enacted in 1986. As codified, sums
appropriated to DERA may only be obligated or expended to carry
out the Secretary of Defense functions related to environmental
restoration.
The committee is concerned about the use of DERA funds for
management and overhead costs of the Office of the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Environmental Security. The committee
has determined that a $1 million decrement to the fiscal year
1996 DERA budget request is appropriate, and that no more than
$2.9 million shall be available for management and overhead
costs of the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Environmental Security.
The committee directs the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Environmental Security to initiate a broad review of the
department's management structure and funding requirements for
its environmental restoration program. The results of that
review should be incorporated in the fiscal year 1997 DERA
budget request, and in the Defense Environmental Restoration
Program Annual Report to Congress.
Cleanup of National Presto Industries Plant, Eau Claire, Wisconsin
The committee is concerned that there are unresolved issues
of hazardous waste contamination related to the National Presto
Industries Plant, Eau Claire, Wisconsin. The plant was
originally constructed in 1942 by the War Department as the Eau
Clair Ordnance Works. In 1948, National Presto Industries, Inc.
purchased the site and used it to produce commercial products
and to fulfill contracts with the Army for the design,
development and maintenance of manufacturing lines for
artillery shells. In 1978, the company entered into a
production standby agreement with the Army and remained in
standby readiness until 1992. The committee strongly recommends
that the Army and National Presto Industries, Inc. endeavor to
resolve in good faith any disputes over liability and funding
for remediation activities to the mutual satisfaction of the
parties.
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS
The Congress, exercising its military manpower oversight
responsibilities, authorizes the end strength of the active and
reserve forces annually. This year the Subcommittee on
Personnel held hearings to examine the force structure plans of
the Department of Defense and the military services. Based on
those hearings, the administration's budget request and other
information, the committee recommends end strength ceilings for
the active and reserve forces, including active component
support for the reserves. Additionally, the committee
recommends temporary relief from the Defense Officer Personnel
Management Act (DOPMA) grade tables since the Department of
Defense has not responded to the committee's guidance
concerning development of comprehensive recommendations to
address the DOPMA grade tables in light of changing
requirements and officer retention behavior.
SUBTITLE A--ACTIVE FORCES
Section - 401. End strengths for active forces.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
active duty end strength levels for fiscal year 1996 and fiscal
year 1997 as shown below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1996 1997 1997
authorization request recommendation request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army:
Total.................................. 510,000 495,000 495,000 495,000 495,000
Officer................................ ............. 81,300 81,300 80,312 80,312
Navy:
Total.................................. 441,641 428,000 428,340 409,400 409,740
Officer................................ ............. 58,805 58,870 56,550 56,615
Marine Corps:
Total.................................. 174,000 174,000 174,000 174,000 174,000
Officer................................ ............. 17,978 17,978 17,978 17,978
Air Force:
Total.................................. 400,051 388,200 388,200 385,400 385,400
Officer................................ ............. 75,928 75,928 76,494 76,494
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The active component authorization for the Navy is recommended
to be increased by 340, of which 65 would be officers, to
permit the Navy to retain an active P-3 squadron. The committee
recommends the Military Personnel, Navy appropriation be
increased by $14 million above the request in fiscal year 1996
to accommodate this increase.
Section - 402. Temporary variation in DOPMA authorized end strength
limitations for active duty Air Force and Navy officers in
certain grades.
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
Navy and Air Force temporary grade relief from the Defense
Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA) grade tables. The Army
and Marine Corps currently have temporary grade relief in
effect.
Section 502 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1993 required the Department of Defense to task an
outside agency to conduct a review of officer management plans
and to report by February 1, 1994, the results of that review,
including recommendations for appropriate changes to the
Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA) to the
Committee on Armed Services in the Senate and the Committee on
National Security in the House of Representatives.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994
provided temporary grade table relief for the Marine Corps. In
doing so, the conferees noted that they expected the Department
of Defense to address the adequacy of the existing grade tables
as part of the then overdue report on officer management plans
required by section 502 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1993. Additionally, the conferees indicated
that they would consider permanent changes to the grade tables
after the report was received.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995
provided temporary grade table relief for the Army and extended
the previously provided relief for the Marine Corps. In doing
so, the conferees indicated they were still reluctant to
address permanent changes to the grade tables in a piecemeal
fashion and that they did not understand the department's
reluctance to address this matter in a comprehensive manner.
The conferees again indicated that they would consider
permanent changes to the grade tables after receiving the
report required by section 502 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993.
Given the conferees' consistent position on the issue of
grade table relief, the committee notes with concern and
disappointment that, again this year, the department has
requested temporary grade-table relief for the military
services. While the 1994 Rand Report, ``Future Career
Management Systems for U.S. Military Officers,'' discusses
officer planning systems, it does not address the adequacy of
the existing grade tables nor does it contain recommendations
upon which the Congress could base permanent changes to the
grade tables.
Should the Department of Defense continue to ignore
congressional guidance and expectations on this matter, neither
the department nor the military services should expect
additional grade-table relief or any extension of the temporary
relief provided in this or previous acts.
Additionally, the committee expects that the military
services, and specifically the Navy, will ensure that the
temporary grade-table relief provided is allocated in a way
that provides the services' Nurse Corps treatment in
assignments and promotion timing that is equivalent with that
of the Line of the Navy or a comparable category in the Army
and Air Force.
Section - 403. Certain general and flag officers awaiting retirement
not to be counted.
The committee recommends a provision that would exempt a
retiring Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Chief of Staff of the
Army, Chief of Naval Operations, Chief of Staff of the Air
Force, or Commandant of the Marine Corps from counting in the
number of general and flag officers on active duty authorized
to be serving in the grade of general and admiral during the
period when they are completing those activities necessary to
transition to the retired list after they have been relieved
from their former position. The committee intends that this
authority would not be used for more than 60 calendar days.
This provision does not affect the numbers of general and
flag officers authorized on active duty under 10 U.S.C. 526.
SUBTITLE B--RESERVE FORCES
Section - 411. End strengths for Selected Reserve.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
selective reserve end strength levels for fiscal year 1996 and
fiscal year 1997 as shown below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997
authorization 1996 request recommendation 1997 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard of the
United States.................. 400,000 373,000 373,000 367,000 367,000
The Army Reserve................ 242,000 230,000 230,000 215,000 215,000
The Naval Reserve............... 102,960 98,602 98,894 96,402 96,694
The Marine Corps Reserve........ 42,000 42,000 42,274 42,000 42,682
The Air National Guard of the
United States.................. 115,581 109,458 112,707 107,151 107,151
The Air Force Reserve........... 78,706 73,969 73,969 73,160 73,160
The Coast Guard Reserve......... 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee is pleased that the Naval Reserve completed
the assessment of its future roles and missions. By turning
from the traditional role of providing personnel to fill ships
upon mobilization to an aggressive program of contributory
support, the Naval Reserve has begun to use the many assets and
resources available to enhance the readiness and effectiveness
of the Navy.
The recommended increase in the Naval Reserve end strength
reflects the committee's recommendation that one reserve
component P-3 squadron be retained in the force. The increase
of 292 in the selected reserve, combined with a recommended
increase of 97 in full-time support, would permit the Navy to
retain one reserve P-3 squadron. The committee recommends
increasing the Reserve Personnel, Navy appropriation by $6.2
million to accommodate this increase.
The recommended increase in the Marine Corps Reserve end
strength is based on the committee's concerns about inadequate
active duty and full-time support for the Marine Corps Reserve.
Given the anticipated early deployment role of the Marine Corps
Reserve in contingency and other operations, the committee has
increased the authorization for the Marine Corps Reserve to
accommodate an increase in the number of reserves on active
duty in support of reserves.
The committee recommends increasing the Reserve Personnel,
Marine Corps appropriation by $12.8 million to accommodate this
increase. In light of the difficulties caused by recent
decreases in active duty support for the reserve component, the
committee expects that increases in the Marine Corps full-time
support program (now called the Active Reserve (AR) Program)
not be made at the expense of other important reserve programs;
nor should these increases occasion a further erosion of active
duty support. Similarly, in future years the committee expects
that the increase in full-time support be fully budgeted
without inappropriate cuts in essential reserve programs.
The committee recommends an increase in the Air National
Guard end strength of 3,249. This increase, combined with an
increase of 249 in Air National Guard full-time support will
permit the Air National Guard to maintain the number of general
purpose fighter aircraft at 15 in each unit. The committee is
concerned about the planned reduction of Air National Guard
general purpose fighter aircraft from 15 per unit to 12 per
unit. These planned reductions resulted from budget pressures
within the Air Force. The Air Force decided to maintain the
number of general purpose fighter units at 27 and reduce the
number of aircraft within each unit by three to 12. The
committee is concerned about evidence which indicates that
these reductions will reduce the effectiveness of the units.
The committee recommends increasing the Reserve Personnel,
Air National Guard appropriation by $12 million to accommodate
this increase. Further, the committee directs the Air Force to
conduct a comprehensive study of the impact and advisability of
reducing the number of Air National Guard general purpose
fighter units or the number of aircraft within the units and
submit a report with the recommendation on how to properly size
the Air National Guard general purpose units in conjunction
with the budget request for fiscal year 1997.
Section - 412. End strengths for reserves on active duty in support of
the reserves.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
reserve full-time support end strength levels for fiscal year
1996 and fiscal year 1997 as shown below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997
authorization 1996 request recommendation 1997 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard of the
United States.................. 23,650 23,390 23,390 23,040 23,040
The Army Reserve................ 11,940 11,575 11,575 11,550 11,550
The Naval Reserve............... 17,510 17,490 17,587 17,074 17,171
The Marine Corps Reserve........ 2,285 2,285 2,559 2,285 2,967
The Air National Guard of the
United States.................. 9,389 9,817 10,066 9,824 9,824
The Air Force Reserve........... 648 628 628 625 625
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee is concerned about the full-time support to
reserve units in each of the military departments. The
downsizing of the uniformed services and continued instability
in the international environment has necessitated an increased
reliance on reserve components to meet contingency requirements
as well as continuing existing responsibilities. Together with
active duty support for reserve programs, the military
technician programs in the Army and Air Force and the various
full-time support programs in all of the services are essential
elements of the long-term readiness of reserve component
forces.
In light of the reductions in the military technician
program planned by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the
committee has recommended specific floors for the Army and Air
Force military technician programs elsewhere in this report.
The committee also is concerned, however, about reductions
in active duty support for the reserve components. For example,
since fiscal year 1993, the active duty Marine Corps has been
reduced approximately 2.5 percent; the Marine Corps Reserve has
been reduced less than 0.5 percent; and the Marine Corps'
active duty support for the Marine Corps Reserve has been
reduced 11.8 percent.
Therefore, the committee has recommended full-time support
levels for the Air Force and for the Marine Corps that are
above the fiscal year 1995 authorizations. The committee also
notes that full-time support personnel are intended to
complement--not substitute for--active duty support. Therefore,
the committee does not intend for these increases in full-time
support to cause further erosion of active duty support. This
is especially important as the reserve components in each of
the services are called with increasing frequency to relieve
the personnel tempo pressures being experienced in the active
components and to participate directly in contingency
operations.
The increase of 97 in the authorization for full-time
manning for the Naval Reserve reflects the requisite increase
in full-time manning to support the committee's recommendation
to retain one reserve P-3 squadron.
The increase of 249 in the authorization for full-time
manning for the Air National Guard reflects the requisite
increase in full-time manning to support the committee's
recommendation to retain the Air National Guard general purpose
fighter units at 15 aircraft per unit in fiscal year 1996.
Section - 414. Reserves on active duty in support of Cooperative Threat
Reduction programs not to be counted.
The committee recommends a provision that would exempt
members of a reserve component participating in Cooperative
Threat Reduction Act programs from counting against the
authorized active duty end strength.
Another section of the bill would permit funds appropriated
for programs under the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act to be
used to reimburse the military personnel accounts for pay and
allowances paid to reserve component personnel engaged in
Cooperative Threat Reduction Act programs.
Section - 415. Reserves on active duty for military-to-military
contacts and comparable activities not to be counted.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 168 of title 10 U.S.C., by adding a new subsection to
exempt members of a reserve component participating in
activities or programs specified in section 168 who serve over
180 days from counting against the end strengths authorized for
members of the Armed Services on active duty under section
115(a)(1)of title 10 United States Code.
SUBTITLE C--MILITARY TRAINING STUDENT LOADS
Section - 421. Authorization of training student loads.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
active and reserve average military training loads for fiscal
year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 as shown below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997
authorization 1996 request recommendation 1997 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army............................ 69,420 75,013 75,013 79,275 79,275
Navy............................ 43,064 44,238 44,238 44,121 44,121
Marine Corps.................... 25,377 26,095 26,095 27,255 27,255
Air Force....................... 36,840 33,232 33,232 35,522 35,522
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
The committee addressed a number of military personnel
policy issues as a result of information received during
hearings conducted by the full committee and the Subcommittee
on Personnel. The committee began a review of officer promotion
policy which will continue next year. The committee identified
several anomalies within the officer promotion system which are
addressed in the recommended provisions. These anomalies
involved legitimate activities which had not been reviewed in
light of the changing requirements and reduced size of the
officer corps. In other policy initiatives, the committee
addressed issues pertaining to the reserve components, Service
Academies, travel and transportation, and the pay and
allowances for military personnel sentenced to extended
confinement by courts martial.
SUBTITLE A--OFFICER PERSONNEL POLICY
Section - 501. Joint officer management.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend joint
officer management policies. The provision would: (1) reduce
the requirement for the Secretary of Defense to designate at
least 1,000 critical joint duty assignment positions to 500.
The Joint Duty Assignment study determined that approximately
500 billets should be critical joint duty assignments; (2)
allow the Secretary of Defense to award joint duty assignment
credit to certain officers who serve in qualifying joint task
force positions. The Department requested authority to
designate in-service billets as qualifying for joint duty
assignment. The committee notes that initially the number of
in-service billets was estimated to be 250 and that language
accompanying the legislative proposal indicates that 421
positions may be designated as joint duty assignments. The
committee believes this indicates an inability to discipline
the process within the Department. In addition, the committee
believes that authorizing the Secretary of Defense to award
joint duty credit for certain officers serving in joint task
force positions will permit virtually all the deserving in-
service assignments to receive joint duty assignment credit;
(3) allow the Secretary of Defense to waive the education and
sequencing requirements and award the joint specialty
designation without a 10 percent restriction by grade for each
fiscal year for general and flag officers; (4) allow the
Secretary of Defense to exempt selected officers from certain
requirements for the management of joint duty tour requirements
to permit early release of officers on a second joint tour.
The Senate version of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1993 included several amendments to the
statutory provisions governing joint officer management.
Although these amendments were not agreed to in conference, a
DOD report to Congress on joint duty assignments was mandated.
The committee believes that the modifications to the Joint
Officer Management provisions included in the Fiscal Year 1996
recommendation are a direct result of the committee's earlier
initiatives. These modifications give the Department of Defense
and the military services sufficient flexibility to manage and
enhance the quality of joint specialty officers. The committee
expects the Secretary of Defense to closely manage the award of
joint duty credit for duty in joint task forces.
The committee is disappointed that the joint duty
assignment study, which was required to be submitted not later
than April 15, 1993, still has not been received. Additionally,
the committee was disappointed to learn that, despite the time
the Department has taken to do this study and our urging, the
study will not include a billet-by-billet review.
Section - 502. Revision of service obligation for graduates of the
service academies.
The committee recommends a provision that would reduce the
service obligation for graduates of the service academies from
six years to five years. The recommended provision would ensure
that no service academy graduate would be obligated to serve
more than five years on active duty by reducing the obligation
for those cadets/midshipmen currently enrolled as well as
future cadets/midshipmen. It would also require a report on the
effects that various periods of active duty service obligations
would have on the number and quantity of applicants to the
service academies.
Section - 503. Qualifications for appointment as Surgeon General of an
armed force.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 3036, 5137 and 8036 of title 10, United States Code to
permit educationally and professionally qualified officers such
as dentists, nurses, and clinical psychologists as well as
doctors to be appointed as Surgeon General of an Armed Force.
Currently, only physicians may be appointed as Surgeon General
of an Armed Force.
Section - 504. Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Air Force.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 8037 of title 10, United States Code, to adjust the
tenure of the Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Air Force
from two years to four years and authorize the grade of the
deputy to be major general.
Section - 505. Retiring general and flag officers: applicability of
uniform criteria and procedures for retiring in highest grade
in which served.
The committee recommends a provision that would permit the
retirement of three- and four-star general and flag officers to
be considered under the same standards and procedures as other
general and flag officer retirements at the one- and two-star
level. It will also ensure that three- and four-star officers
facing retirement are not subjected to confirmation procedures
that do not apply to their civilian superiors or other civilian
government officials.
Promotions to three- and four-star positions are treated as
temporary rather than permanent promotions. The individual
holds the three- or four-star grade only ``while serving'' in
the three- or four-star position. The member also may hold the
grade for brief transitional periods to cover transfers between
assignments, hospitalization, and before retirement.
Because these grades are ``temporary,'' an individual who
is in a three- or four-star grade retains his ``permanent
grade,'' which is typically a two-star grade. If the individual
is not nominated, confirmed, and appointed to another three- or
four-star position, the individual will revert to his permanent
(e.g., two-star) grade.
Under current law, these considerations apply to
retirements as well as promotions. As a result, if a three- or
four-star officer who retires is not nominated, confirmed, and
appointed to retire in a permanent three- or four-star grade,
the individual will revert to his permanent (e.g., two-star)
grade upon retirement--with the attendant loss of retired pay
and status.
This situation applies uniquely to three- and four-star
officers. Other flag and general officers, as well as other
commissioned officers, retire in the highest grade held,
subject to minimum time-in-grade requirements, without a
requirement for nomination, Senate confirmation, and
appointment to a retired grade.
Similarly, both tenured and non-tenured civilian officials
who retire from the civil service are not required to face
Senate confirmation, no matter how high their grade. Thus, a
cabinet or sub-cabinet official, as well as career civil
service officials who qualify for civil service retirement will
receive their full retired pay without action by the President
or the Senate.
The recommended provision would not change the current
requirement for nomination and Senate confirmation of all
three- and four-star active duty promotions, assignments, and
reassignments.
Section - 506. Extension of certain reserve officer management
authorities.
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
several reserve officer management authorities currently
extended by section 514 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1994. When the Reserve Officer Personnel
Management Act becomes effective on October 1, 1996, no further
extension will be required.
Section - 507. Restrictions on wearing insignia for higher grade before
promotion.
The committee recommends a provision that would define
``frocking'' and limit the numbers of officers that could be
frocked to grades O-4 through O-7.
Frocking is the practice of allowing an officer to wear the
insignia of a higher grade prior to that officer's being
appointed to that higher grade. While the Department of Defense
has attempted to control the extent of frocking through
regulation, the practice remains a means by which the services
circumvent the statutory limits on the number of officers
authorized to serve in certain grades.
While frocking can be defended as a cost-free way to boost
the morale of those officers awaiting promotion, it masks
erroneous expectations and dissatisfaction about promotion
timing on the part of the individual and encourages the
services to select individuals for promotion unreasonably far
in advance of the anticipated date of promotion. For example,
the committee is aware of a November 1993 Navy flag list from
which, as of June 1995, fewer than half the selectees have been
promoted. Yet, all have been frocked. The practical result of
overselecting in order to frock is that an individual can be
selected for promotion to O-7, frocked to O-7 for over a year
in a highly visible position in which he exercises supervisory
authority over other O-6s, and subsequently retire without ever
having been promoted to O-7.
Frocking has also evolved, unfortunately, to be a
significant factor in the officer assignment process. The Joint
Staff and the Combatant Commanders expect individuals assigned
to their organizations to be in the correct grade. The services
routinely assign newly-selected individuals to joint positions
requiring the grade to which they have been selected with
little or no thought to when the individual will actually be
promoted. As a direct result the committee is routinely
pressured by the services to confirm promotion lists abnormally
in advance of the earliest effective date just so the
individuals can be frocked. These developments represent an
unacceptable distortion of the officer assignment and selection
systems.
The committee recognizes the existence of certain
situations, primarily in the international arena, in which it
may be in the best interests of the United States to frock
certain officers. The committee believes, however, that such
situations should be viewed as the exception and not the rule.
Section - 508. Director of Admissions, United States Military Academy:
retirement for years of service.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Army to involuntarily retire the Director
of Admissions, United States Military Academy, after 30 years
of service as a commissioned officer. Currently, the Secretary
of the Army can retire permanent professors at the Academy
after 30 years of service. This provision would provide the
Secretary of the Army the same authority for the Director of
Admissions.
SUBTITLE B--MATTERS RELATING TO RESERVE COMPONENTS
Section - 511. Mobilization income insurance program for members of
Ready Reserve.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to establish an income protection
insurance plan for members of the ready reserve. Participation
under the recommended provision would be voluntary, would be
financed by premiums paid by participants, and would pay income
protection benefits to reservists involuntarily called to
active duty by the President.
Section - 512. Eligibility of dentists to receive assistance under the
financial assistance program for health care professionals in
reserve components.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
financial assistance for qualified dentists in certain
specialties engaged in training for a dental specialty which is
critically needed in wartime. Physicians and nurses are
currently eligible for similar assistance. This provision
authorizes equal treatment for certain dentists in return for a
commitment to serve in the ready reserve.
Section - 513. Leave for members of reserve components performing
public safety duty.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 6323(b) of title 5, United States Code, that would
permit employees who elect, when performing public safety duty,
to use either military leave, annual leave, or compensatory
time to which they are otherwise entitled.
SUBTITLE C--UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE
Section - 522. Definitions.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
article 1 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C.
801) to define the terms ``classified information'' and
``national security''. The definitions would be similar to
those used in the Classified Information Procedures Act (18
U.S.C. App. 1).
Section - 523. Article 32 investigations.
Under present law, charges must be investigated by an
officer appointed under Article 32 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice before being referred to a general court-
martial. If the Article 32 officer uncovers evidence of
additional misconduct in the course of the investigation, the
information must be provided to the convening authority, and
then referred back to the Article 32 officer before it can be
investigated by the Article 32 officer. This is a burdensome
and unnecessary procedure.
The committee recommends a provision that would permit the
Article 32 officer to investigate additional misconduct
uncovered during the investigation so long as the accused
receives all the rights provided under Article 32 with respect
to the additional charges, including full notice of the charges
and the rights of legal representation, presentation of
evidence, and cross-examination.
Section - 524. Refusal to testify before court-martial.
Article 47(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
currently limits the punishment which may be imposed by a
Federal District Court for a civilian witness's refusal, after
being subpoenaed, to appear or testify before a court-martial.
If a civilian witness who has been subpoenaed to appear or
testify before a court-martial refuses to do so, a Federal
District Court under current law may impose ``a fine of not
more than $500.00, or imprisonment of not more than six months,
or both''.
The punishment for the same offense in a civilian trial,
however, is a matter within the discretion of the court under
18 U.S.C. 401-402. The committee recommends a provision that
would amend Article 47 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
to provide district courts with the same power in military
cases as they have in civilian cases.
Section - 525. Commitment of accused to treatment facility by reason of
lack of mental capacity or mental responsibility.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice does not currently
provide for the commitment of an accused to a treatment
facility if that accused is incompetent to stand trial or is
found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility. In
such cases, the accused potentially is subject to a medical
separation. Any subsequent restraint or treatment is dependent
on action by state civil authorities.
Reliance on determinations by officials of different states
to treat or restrain a mentally incompetent military accused
introduces an element of inconsistency into the military
justice process.
The Armed Forces clearly have an interest in preserving the
integrity of the military justice system through consistent
action on the issue of restraint or treatment of a mentally
incompetent military accused. Those interests can best be
preserved by making use of the existing federal criminal law
procedures under 18 U.S.C. 4247(j). The committee recommends a
provision that would permit the convening authority, in the
case of any soldier, airman, sailor, or Marine found
incompetent to stand trial, or found not guilty by reason of
lack of mental responsibility, to commit the individual to the
custody of the Attorney General for action in accordance with
18 U.S.C. 4243(e).
Section - 527. Deferment of confinement.
The committee recommends an amendment to the Uniform Code
of Military Justice that would combine the current authority
for deferment of confinement (Article 57(d)) with two new
provisions.
The first would permit the Service Secretary concerned to
defer confinement when a Judge Advocate General submits a case
for review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces under Article 67(a)(2).
The second would allow the convening authority to defer the
running of a sentence to military confinement so that the
accused would not receive credit for time served during a
period of civilian confinement following a court-martial in
circumstances in which the military is obligated by an
agreement, such as the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act,
18 U.S.C. App. 2(2) or a treaty, to return the accused to state
or foreign custody after a court-martial is completed.
Section - 528. Submission of matters to the convening authority for
consideration.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
Article 60(b)(1) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to
require post-trial submissions by an accused for consideration
by a convening authority to be in writing.
Section - 529. Proceedings in revision.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
Article 60 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to authorize
a proceeding in revision, prior to authentication of the record
of trial by the military judge, to correct an erroneously
announced sentence. The sentence may be corrected even if the
severity of the sentence is increased, but only to the extent
that federal civilian courts are authorized to do so under
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. The amendment would
apply only to correction of an erroneously announced sentence
and would not authorize reconsideration.
Section - 530. Appeal by the United States.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
Article 62 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to allow the
government to file an interlocutory appeal of rulings or orders
issued by the military judge which direct the government to
disclose classified information, impose sanctions for
nondisclosure of classified information, or refuse a protective
order sought to prevent the disclosure of classified
information. The provision would apply to courts-martial the
same protections with regard to classified information as apply
to orders or rulings issued in Federal District Courts under
the Classified Information Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App. 7).
Section - 531. Flight from apprehension.
The committee recommends a provision that would clarify
Article 95 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to make it
clear that Article 95 proscribes fleeing from apprehension
without regard to whether the accused otherwise resisted
apprehension.
The clarification is needed because the United States Court
of Appeals for the Armed Forces in United States v. Harris, 29
M.J. 169 (C.M.A. 1989), and United States v. Burgess, 32 M.J.
446 (C.M.A. 1991), held that resisting apprehension does not
include fleeing from apprehension, despite the longstanding
provisions to the contrary in the Manual for Courts-Martial.
Section - 532. Carnal knowledge.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
Article 120(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice by
making the crime of carnal knowledge gender neutral, bringing
Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice into
conformity with the spirit of the Sexual Abuse Act of 1986 (18
U.S.C. 2241-2245).
The provision also would amend Article 120 by adding a new
subsection (d) to conform military law to federal civilian law
(18 U.S.C. 2243) in terms of the affirmative defense of mistake
of fact for alleged carnal knowledge, and regarding the age of
the person with whom the accused committed the act of sexual
intercourse.
Section - 533. Time after accession for initial instruction in the
Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
Article 137(a)(1) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice by
increasing the period of time in which training in certain
provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice must be
provided to new enlistees from six to fourteen days after entry
onto active duty.
Section - 535. Permanent authority concerning temporary vacancies on
the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
Section 1301 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 authorized the Chief Justice of the
United States, upon request of the Chief Judge of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, to appoint
Article III judges to fill vacancies on the Court of Appeals
for the Armed Forces. This provision will expire in 1995. Based
on the success of this provision in permitting the Court to
address the problem of temporary vacancies in a timely manner,
the committee recommends that the authority be made permanent.
Section - 536. Advisory panel on UCMJ jurisdiction over civilians
accompanying the Armed Forces in time of armed conflict.
Article 2(10) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
establishes court-martial jurisdiction ``[i]n time of war''
over ``persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in
the field''. In United States v. Averette, 41 C.M.R. 363
(C.M.A. 1970), the Court of Military Appeals ruled that an Army
civilian employee in Vietnam who was convicted of theft from
the Army could not be tried by court-martial because the Court
interpreted Article 2(10) as requiring a war formally declared
by Congress.
Since that time, the Armed Forces have made increasing use
of contractor personnel to provide important technical and
administrative services to deployed military forces, including
forces deployed in armed conflicts not involving a declared
war. Since World War II, none of the significant armed
conflicts involving the United States--including Korea,
Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, and the Persian Gulf--have involved a
formal declaration of war. The committee is concerned that
current law does not provide adequate jurisdiction to try
civilians accompanying the Armed Forces in such circumstances.
The committee also recognizes that court-martial jurisdiction
exists primarily for the disciplinary needs of the Armed
Forces, and that any use of that jurisdiction over civilians
would require the most careful consideration.
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General jointly to
establish an advisory panel to review this issue and make
appropriate recommendations to the Congress concerning
jurisdiction over the Armed Forces in time of conflict not
involving a formal declaration of war. The review would
specifically consider the options of: (1) establishing court-
martial jurisdiction over civilians; (2) establishing
sufficient jurisdiction in the Article III courts over such
civilians; and (3) establishing separate Article I courts with
jurisdiction over civilians accompanying the Armed Forces in
the field in time of armed conflict.
SUBTITLE D--DECORATIONS AND AWARDS
Section - 541. Award of Purple Heart to certain former prisoners of
war.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
award of the Purple Heart to prisoners of war captured before
April 1962 who were injured or wounded in conjunction with
their capture or imprisonment.
Section - 542. Meritorious and valorous service during Vietnam era:
review and awards.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense or the Secretaries of the military
departments to award a decoration for an act, achievement or
service performed during the Vietnam era but which was not
awarded. The provision would establish a one-year period in
which award recommendations could be submitted for
consideration using existing award review procedures. At the
end of one year, the Secretary would be required to report to
the Congress on the results of this review.
Section - 543. Military intelligence personnel prevented by secrecy
from being considered for decorations and awards.
The committee recommends a provision expressing the Sense
of the Senate that the secretaries of the military departments
should review the records of personnel who performed military
intelligence duties during the Cold War period. The committee
is aware that there are cases in which the secrecy of the
mission prevented recognition through the military awards
system. It is the view of the committee that these oversights
should now be corrected.
SUBTITLE E--OTHER MATTERS
Section - 551. Determination of whereabouts and status of missing
persons.
The committee recommends a provision that would add a new
chapter to title 10, United States Code requiring the Secretary
of Defense to centralize the oversight and policy
responsibility for accounting for missing persons at the
Department of Defense level. The recommended provision
establishes procedures for review of cases of those who are
missing. The recommended provision would protect the missing
service member from being declared dead solely because of the
passage of time. The committee believes that the recommended
provision will assist the Department of Defense and the next-
of-kin of missing service members as both struggle with the
emotion and frustration of a system which has, to date, proved
insensitive and unresponsive.
Section - 552. Service not creditable for periods of unavailability or
incapacity due to misconduct.
The committee recommends a provision that would equalize
the accrual of service credit between officers and enlisted
personnel.
Section - 553. Separation in cases involving extended confinement.
Section - 526. Forfeiture of pay and allowances and reduction in grade.
The committee recommends a provision that would require
forfeiture of pay or allowances or reduction in grade included
in a sentence of a court-martial to be effective 20 days after
the date the sentence is adjudged or upon approval of the
convening authority, whichever is earlier. The recommended
provision would also require that a sentence which includes
confinement for one year or more or a punitive discharge would
result in a forfeiture of all pay and allowances. The committee
recommends an additional provision that would authorize the
administrative separation of a service member who is sentenced
by court-martial to a period of confinement for one year or
more.
The committee notes that, in general, individuals sentenced
to extended confinement are discharged from military service
and lose their entitlement to military pay. There are some
circumstances under current law, however, in which an
individual can remain on active duty and continue to receive
pay and allowances. The provisions recommended by the committee
would make it clear that persons serving extended confinement
should not receive pay or allowances and should not remain on
active duty.
Section - 554. Duration of field training or practice cruise required
under the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps program.
The committee recommends a provision that would permit the
Secretary of a military department to prescribe the length of
the field training portion or practice cruise that persons who
have not participated in the first two years of Reserve
Officers' Training Corps must complete to be enrolled in the
Reserve Officers' Training Corps Advance Course. Currently, the
training must be at least six weeks long.
Section - 555. Correction of military records.
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretaries of the military departments to review the
composition of the Boards for the Correction of Military
Records and the procedures used by those boards. The provision
would require a report to the appropriate committees of the
Senate and the House of Representatives by April 1, 1996.
The committee is concerned about the perception among
service members that the boards have become lethargic and
unresponsive, and have abdicated their independence to the
uniformed service staffs.
These boards are to be the honest broker, the forum for
adjudication of claims from service members who allege errors
in military records. If these boards become extensions of the
military staffs, they will have lost their sole reason for
existence.
This provision would require a comprehensive review of the
make-up, current board procedures, and recommendations for
improving the process. The reports from the military
departments would be submitted through the Department of
Defense. The committee expects that the Office of the Secretary
of Defense will carefully review the reports and, where
applicable, standardize processes and procedures to ensure
efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness to the services
and service members.
Section - 556. Limitation on reductions in medical personnel.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 711 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1991, section 718 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993, and section
518 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1993 to modify the limitations on reductions in medical
personnel. The provision would permit active or reserve medical
personnel to be reduced by not more than 5 percent per year or
a total of 10 percent over 3 years without the requirement to
certify that CHAMPUS costs will not increase and that the
reductions are excess to the current and projected needs of the
military department.
The committee understands that the military departments
need to have a degree of flexibility to reduce the medical
force in conjunction with the overall force reductions.
However, the committee is aware that it is possible to reduce
medical personnel in a manner and to an extent that might be
characterized as less than prudent. The committee directs the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, in
conjunction with the Surgeons General of the military
departments, to develop a comprehensive plan for ``right
sizing'' medical personnel over the next five years. This plan
will be submitted to the appropriate committees of the Senate
and House of Representatives not later than March 1, 1996.
Section - 557. Repeal of requirement for athletic director and
nonappropriated fund account for the athletics programs at the
service academies.
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 4357 of title 10, United States Code, and subsections
(b), (d) and (e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1995.
The committee acknowledges the report from the Secretary of
the Navy which