From the House Reports Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
104th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 104-563
_______________________________________________________________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
----------
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
H.R. 3230
together with
ADDITIONAL, SUPPLEMENTAL, AND
DISSENTING VIEWS
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
May 7, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
104th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2nd Session 104-563
_______________________________________________________________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
__________
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
H.R. 3230
together with
ADDITIONAL, SUPPLEMENTAL, AND
DISSENTING VIEWS
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
May 7, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
One Hundred Fourth Congress
FLOYD D. SPENCE, South Carolina,
Chairman
RONALD V. DELLUMS, California BOB STUMP, Arizona
G.V. (SONNY) MONTGOMERY, Mississippi DUNCAN HUNTER, California
PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado JOHN R. KASICH, Ohio
IKE SKELTON, Missouri HERBERT H. BATEMAN, Virginia
NORMAN SISISKY, Virginia JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
JOHN M. SPRATT, Jr., South Carolina CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas ROBERT K. DORNAN, California
OWEN PICKETT, Virginia JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
LANE EVANS, Illinois JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
JOHN TANNER, Tennessee RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM,
GLEN BROWDER, Alabama California
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi STEVE BUYER, Indiana
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts
CHET EDWARDS, Texas TILLIE K. FOWLER, Florida
FRANK TEJEDA, Texas JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts JAMES TALENT, Missouri
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam TERRY EVERETT, Alabama
JANE HARMAN, California ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
PAUL McHALE, Pennsylvania HOWARD ``BUCK'' McKEON, California
PETE GEREN, Texas RON LEWIS, Kentucky
PETE PETERSON, Florida J.C. WATTS, Jr., Oklahoma
WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana
MIKE WARD, Kentucky SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North
Carolina
JAMES B. LONGLEY, Jr., Maine
TODD TIAHRT, Kansas
RICHARD ``DOC'' HASTINGS,
Washington
Andrew K. Ellis, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Explanation of the Committee Amendment........................... 1
Purpose.......................................................... 1
Relationship of Authorization to Appropriations.................. 2
Summary of Authorization in the Bill............................. 2
Summary Table of Authorizations.................................. 2
Rationale for the Committee Bill................................. 10
Hearings......................................................... 17
Continued Shortfalls........................................... 11
Quality of Life................................................ 12
Modernization.................................................. 13
Ballistic Missile Defense...................................... 15
Innovation..................................................... 15
Conclusion..................................................... 17
Division A--Department of Defense Authorization.................. 19
Title I--Procurement............................................. 19
Overview....................................................... 19
Aircraft Procurement, Army................................... 21
Overview................................................... 21
Items of Special Interest.................................. 24
Missile Procurement, Army.................................... 25
Overview................................................... 25
Items of Special Interest.................................. 28
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army.................... 29
Overview................................................... 29
Items of Special Interest.................................. 32
Ammunition Procurement, Army................................. 33
Overview................................................... 33
Item of Special Interest................................... 36
Other Procurement, Army...................................... 36
Overview................................................... 36
Items of Special Interest.................................. 43
Aircraft Procurement, Navy................................... 43
Overview................................................... 43
Items of Special Interest.................................. 47
Weapons Procurement, Navy.................................... 48
Overview................................................... 48
Item of Special Interest................................... 52
Ammunition Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps.................... 52
Overview................................................... 52
Item of Special Interest................................... 55
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................ 55
Overview................................................... 55
Items of Special Interest.................................. 57
Other Procurement, Navy...................................... 60
Overview................................................... 60
Items of Special Interest.................................. 69
Procurement, Marine Corps.................................... 72
Overview................................................... 72
Items of Special Interest.................................. 77
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force.............................. 77
Overview................................................... 77
Items of Special Interest.................................. 82
Ammunition Procurement, Air Force............................ 85
Overview................................................... 85
Missle Procurement, Air Force................................ 88
Overview................................................... 88
Items of Special Interest.................................. 92
Other Procurement, Air Force................................. 93
Overview................................................... 93
Items of Special Interest.................................. 99
Procurement, Defense-Wide.................................... 99
Overview................................................... 99
Items of Special Interest.................................. 105
National Guard and Reserve Equipment......................... 105
Overview................................................... 105
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense........... 109
Overview................................................... 109
Items of Special Interest.................................. 111
Legislative Provisions......................................... 111
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 111
Section 101-108--Authorization of Appropriations........... 111
Subtitle B--Army Programs.................................... 111
Section 111--Repeal of Limitation on Procurement of Certain
Aircraft................................................. 111
Section 112--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Army
Programs................................................. 112
Subtitle C--Navy Programs.................................... 112
Section 121--Nuclear Attack Submarine Programs............. 112
Section 122--Cost Limitations for Seawolf Submarine Program 112
Section 123--Pulse Doppler Radar Modification.............. 112
Section 124--Reduction in Number of Vessels Excluded From
Limit on Purchase of Vessels Built in Foreign Shipyards.. 112
Section 125--T-39N Trainer Aircraft for the Navy........... 112
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs............................... 112
Section 141--Repeal of Limitation on Procurement of F-15E
Aircraft................................................. 112
Section 142--C-17 Aircraft Procurement..................... 113
Title II--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E).... 114
Overview....................................................... 114
Defense-Wide Programs........................................ 116
Special Considerations..................................... 116
Army RDT&E................................................... 131
Overview................................................... 131
Items of Special Interest.................................. 140
Navy RDT&E................................................... 148
Overview................................................... 148
Items of Special Interest.................................. 157
Air Force RDT&E.............................................. 177
Overview................................................... 177
Items of Special Interest.................................. 187
Defense Agencies RDT&E....................................... 194
Overview................................................... 194
Items of Special Interest.................................. 202
Legislative Provisions......................................... 217
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 217
Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations............... 217
Section 202--Amount for Basic and Applied Research......... 217
Section 203--Dual Use Technology Programs.................. 217
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 217
Section 211--Space Launch Modernization.................... 217
Section 212--Live-Fire Survivability Testing of V-22
Aircraft................................................. 217
Section 213--Live-Fire Survivability Testing of F-22
Aircraft................................................. 218
Section 214--Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions,
Explosives, and Rockets.................................. 218
Section 215--Research Activities of the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency Relating to Chemical and
Biological Warfare Defense Technology.................... 219
Section 216--Limitation on Funding for F-16 Tactical Manned
Reconnaissance Aircraft.................................. 219
Section 217--Unmanned Aerial Vehicles...................... 220
Section 218--Hydra-70 Rocket Product Improvement Program... 220
Section 219--Space-Based Infrared System Program........... 220
Section 220--Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST)
Program.................................................. 220
Section 221--Authorization of Joint United States-Israel
Nautilus Laser/Theater High Energy Laser Program......... 220
Section 222--Nonlethal Weapons Research and Development
Program.................................................. 220
Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense Programs............... 220
Section 231--Funding for Ballistic Missile Defense for
Fiscal Year 1997......................................... 220
Section 232--Certification of Capability of United States
to Defend Against Single Ballistic Missile............... 221
Section 233--Policy on Compliance With the ABM Treaty...... 221
Section 234--Requirement That Multilateralization of the
ABM Treaty be Done Only Through Treaty-Making Power...... 222
Section 235--Report on Ballistic Missile Defense and
Proliferation............................................ 222
Section 236--Revision to Annual Report on the Ballistic
Missile Defense Program.................................. 223
Section 237--ABM Treaty Defined............................ 223
Section 238--Capability of National Missile Defense System. 223
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 223
Section 241--Uniform Procedures and Criteria for
Maintenance and Repair at Air Force Installations........ 223
Section 242--Requirements Relating to Small Business
Innovative Research Program.............................. 224
Section 243--Extension of Deadline for Delivery of Enhanced
Fiber Optic Guided Missile (EFOG-M) System............... 224
Section 244--Amendment to the University Research
Initiative Support Program............................... 224
Section 245--Amendments to Defense Experimental Programs to
Stimulate Competitive Research........................... 224
Section 246--Elimination of Report on the Use of
Competitive Procedures for the Award of Certain Contracts
to Colleges and Universities............................. 224
Section 247--National Oceanographic Partnership Program.... 225
Title III--Operation and Maintenance............................. 226
Overview....................................................... 226
Items of Special Interest...................................... 258
Intelligence Programs........................................ 258
Defense Mapping Agency (DMA)............................... 258
Over the Horizon Backscatter (OTH-B) Radar System.......... 258
Pacer Coin................................................. 259
Senior Scout............................................... 259
Morale, Welfare and Recreation Issues........................ 259
Appropriated Fund Support for Morale, Welfare and
Recreation Programs...................................... 259
Defense Commissary Agency/Performance Based Organization... 261
Distribution of Distilled Spirits.......................... 261
Other Issues................................................. 262
Abrams Integrated Management XXI........................... 262
Ammunition Management Program.............................. 262
Army After Next............................................ 262
Base Closure Transition.................................... 263
Base Operations Support Costs.............................. 263
Concept Development Center................................. 263
Contractor Operated Civil Engineering Supply Stores........ 264
Department of Defense Milk Plants.......................... 265
Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair......................... 265
Electron Scrubber Technology............................... 266
General Purpose Tents...................................... 267
Integrated Computer Framework.............................. 267
Manganese Dust Exposure Levels............................. 267
Military Traffic Management Command's Reengineering
Personnel Property Initiative Pilot Program.............. 268
Mobility Infrastructure Enhancement........................ 269
Operational Support Aircraft............................... 269
Real Property Maintenance.................................. 270
Reserve Readiness.......................................... 270
Standard Missile Maintenance............................... 271
Total Asset Visibility Program............................. 271
Unobligated Balances....................................... 271
Legislative Provisions......................................... 272
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 272
Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding............. 272
Section 302--Working Capital Funds......................... 272
Section 303--Armed Forces Retirement Home.................. 272
Section 304--Transfer From National Defense Stockpile
Transaction Fund......................................... 272
Subtitle B--Depot-Level Activities........................... 272
Section 311--Extension of Authority For Aviation Depots and
Naval Shipyards to Engage in Defense-Related Production
and Services............................................. 272
Section 312--Exclusion of Large Maintenance and Repair
Projects From Percentage Limitation on Contracting For
Depot-Level Maintenance.................................. 272
Subtitle C--Environmental Provisions......................... 273
Section 321--Repeal of Report on Contractor Reimbursement
Costs.................................................... 273
Section 322--Payments of Stipulated Penalties Assessed
Under CERCLA............................................. 273
Section 323--Conservation and Readiness Program............ 273
Section 324--Navy Compliance With Shipboard Solid Waste
Control Requirements..................................... 274
Section 325--Authority to Develop and Implement Land Use
Plans for Defense Environmental Restoration Program...... 274
Section 326--Pilot Program to Test Alternative Technologies
for Limiting Air Emissions During Shipyard Blasting and
Coating Operations....................................... 275
Section 327--Navy Program to Monitor Ecological Effects of
Organotin................................................ 275
Subtitle D--Civilian Employees and Nonappropriated Fund
Instrumentalities.......................................... 276
Section 331--Repeal of Prohibition on Payment of Lodging
Expenses When Adequate Government Quarters Are Available. 276
Section 332--Voluntary Separation Incentive Pay
Modification............................................. 276
Section 333--Wage-Board Compensatory Time Off.............. 276
Section 334--Simplification of Rules Relating to the
Observance of Certain Holidays........................... 277
Section 335--Phased Retirement............................. 277
Section 336--Modification of Authority for Civilian
Employees of Department of Defense to Participate
Voluntarily in Reduction In Force........................ 277
Subtitle E--Commissaries and Nonappropriated Fund
Instrumentalities.......................................... 278
Section 341--Contracts With Other Agencies and
Instrumentalities for Goods and Services................. 278
Section 342--Noncompetitive Procurement of Brand-Name
Commercial Items For Resale in Commissary Stores......... 278
Section 343--Prohibition of Sale or Rental of Sexually
Explicit Material........................................ 278
Subtitle F--Performance of Functions by Private-Sector
Sources.................................................... 278
Section 351--Extension of Requirement For Competitive
Procurement of Printing and Duplication Services......... 278
Section 352--Requirement Regarding Use of Private Shipyards
For Complex Naval Ship Repair Contracts.................. 279
Subtitle G--Other Matters.................................... 279
Section 360--Termination of Defense Business Operations
Fund and Preparation of Plan Regarding Improved Operation
of Working-Capital Funds................................. 279
Section 361--Increase in Capital Asset Threshold Under
Defense Business Operations Fund......................... 280
Section 362--Transfer of Excess Personal Property to
Support Law Enforcement Activities....................... 280
Section 363--Storage of Motor Vehicles in Lieu of
Transportation........................................... 280
Section 364--Control of Transportation Systems in Time of
War...................................................... 281
Section 365--Security Protection at Department of Defense
Facilities in National Capitol Region.................... 281
Section 366--Modifications to Armed Forces Retirement Home
Act of 1991.............................................. 281
Section 367--Assistance to Local Educational Agencies that
Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and
Department of Defense Civilian Employees................. 282
Section 368--Retention of Civilian Employee Positions at
Military Training Bases Transferred to National Guard.... 282
Section 369--Expansion of Authority to Donate Unusable Food 282
Military Personnel Overview...................................... 283
Title IV--Military Personnel Authorizations...................... 285
Items of Special Interest...................................... 285
Air National Guard Fighter Aircraft........................ 285
Army Military Personnel Account Shortfall for Fiscal Year
1997..................................................... 285
Army Reserve Full Time Manning Increase.................... 285
Navy Maritime Patrol Aircraft.............................. 285
Reserve Component Individual Training Funds................ 286
Legislative Provisions......................................... 286
Subtitle A--Active Forces.................................... 286
Section 401--End Strengths For Active Forces............... 286
Section 402--Permanent End Strength Levels to Support Two
Major Regional Contingencies............................. 286
Section 403--Authorized Strengths For Commissioned Officers
on Active Duty in Grades of Major, Lieutenant Colonel,
and Colonel and Navy Grades of Lieutenant Commander,
Commander, and Captain................................... 287
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces................................... 288
Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve............ 288
Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in
Support of the Reserves.................................. 288
Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians........ 289
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 289
Section 421--Authorization of Appropriations For Military
Personnel................................................ 289
Title V--Military Personnel Policy............................... 290
Items of Special Interest...................................... 290
Collection of Comparison Data on Gender-Neutral Training... 290
Guidance to Commanders on Unexplained Absences of Personnel 290
Increased Funding for Off-Duty Education................... 291
Increased Funding for Recruiting........................... 291
Minority Representation in Special Operations Forces....... 291
New Parent Support Program................................. 292
Personnel Tempo............................................ 292
Reduction in Permanent Change of Station Moves............. 293
Report on Sentence Enhancements for Hate Crimes............ 294
Retention Standards for Permanent Medical Nondeployables... 294
Survey of Attitudes Towards Expansion of Roles of Women in
Combat and Combat Related Military Skills................ 295
Legislative Provisions......................................... 295
Subtitle A--Personnel Management............................. 295
Section 501--Authorization For Senior Enlisted Members to
Reenlist for an Indefinite Period of Time................ 295
Section 502--Authority to Extend Entry on Active Duty Under
Delayed Entry Program.................................... 296
Section 503--Permanent Authority for Navy Spot Promotions
for Certain Lieutenants.................................. 296
Section 504--Reports on Response to Recommendations
Concerning Improvements to Department of Defense Joint
Manpower Process......................................... 296
Section 505--Frequency of Reports to Congress on Joint
Officer Management Policies.............................. 296
Section 506--Repeal of Requirement that Commissioned
Officers be Initially Appointed in a Reserve Grade....... 297
Section 507--Continuation on Active Status For Certain
Reserve Officers of the Air Force........................ 297
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Matters........................ 297
Section 511--Individual Ready Reserve Activation Authority. 297
Section 512--Training for Reserves on Active Duty in
Support of the Reserves.................................. 298
Section 513--Clarification to Definition of Active Status.. 298
Section 514--Appointment Above O-2 in the Naval Reserve.... 298
Section 515--Report on Number of Advisers in Active
Component Support of Reserves Pilot Program.............. 298
Section 516--Sense of Congress and Report Regarding
Reemployment Rights for Mobilized Reservists Employed in
Foreign Countries........................................ 298
Subtitle C--Jurisdiction and Powers of Courts-Martial for the
National Guard When Not in Federal Service................. 299
Section 531--Composition, Jurisdiction and Procedures of
Courts-Martial........................................... 299
Section 532--General Courts-Martial........................ 299
Section 533--Special Courts-Martial........................ 299
Section 534--Summary Courts-Martial........................ 299
Section 535--Repeal of Authority For Confinement in Lieu of
Fine..................................................... 300
Section 536--Approval of Sentence of Bad Conduct Discharge
or Confinement........................................... 300
Section 537--Authority of Military Judges.................. 300
Section 538--Statutory Reorganization...................... 300
Section 539--Effective Date................................ 300
Section 540--Conforming Amendments to Uniform Code of
Military Justice......................................... 301
Subtitle D--Education and Training Programs.................. 301
Section 551--Extension of Maximum Age for Appointment as a
Cadet or Midshipman in the Senior Reserve Officers'
Training Corps and the Service Academies................. 301
Section 552--Oversight and Management of Senior Reserve
Officers' Training Corps Program......................... 301
Section 553--ROTC Scholarship Student Participation in
Simultaneous Membership Program.......................... 301
Section 554--Expansion of ROTC Advanced Training Program to
Include Graduate Students................................ 301
Section 555--Reserve Credit for Members of Armed Forces
Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance
Program.................................................. 302
Section 556--Expansion of Eligibility for Education
Benefits to Include Certain Reserve Officers' Training
Corps (ROTC) Participants................................ 302
Section 557--Comptroller General Report on Cost and Policy
Implications of Permitting Up to Five Percent of Service
Academy Graduates to be Assigned Directly to Reserve Duty
Upon Graduation.......................................... 302
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 302
Section 561--Hate Crimes in the Military................... 302
Section 562--Authority of a Reserve Judge Advocate to Act
as a Notary Public....................................... 302
Section 563--Authority to Provide Legal Assistance to
Public Health Service Officers........................... 303
Section 564--Excepted Appointment of Certain Judicial Non-
Attorney Staff in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Armed Forces......................................... 303
Section 565--Replacement of Certain American Theater
Campaign Ribbons......................................... 303
Section 566--Restoration of Regulations Prohibiting Service
of Homosexuals in the Armed Forces....................... 303
Section 567--Reenactment and Modification of Mandatory
Separation From Service For Members Diagnosed With HIV-1
Virus.................................................... 304
Title VI--Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits.............. 306
Items of Special Interest.................................... 306
Foreign Language Proficiency Pay........................... 306
Privately Owned Vehicle Mileage Allowances During Permanent
Change of Station Moves.................................. 306
Special Duty Assignment Pay for Army Special Operating
Forces................................................... 307
Legislative Provisions......................................... 307
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances............................... 307
Section 601--Military Pay Raise for Fiscal Year 1997....... 307
Section 602--Availability of Basic Allowance for Quarters
for Certain Members Without Dependents Who Serve on Sea
Duty..................................................... 307
Section 603--Establishment of Minimum Monthly Amount of
Variable Housing Allowance for High Housing Cost Areas... 308
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays........... 308
Section 611--Extension of Certain Bonuses for Reserve
Forces................................................... 308
Section 612--Extension of Certain Bonuses and Special Pay
for Nurse Officer Candidates, Registered Nurses, and
Nurse Anesthetists....................................... 308
Section 613--Extension of Authority Relating to Payment of
Other Bonuses and Special Pays........................... 308
Section 614--Special Incentives to Recruit and Retain
Dental Officers.......................................... 308
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances............. 309
Section 621--Temporary Lodging Expenses of Member in
Connection With First Permanent Change of Station........ 309
Section 622--Allowance in Connection With Shipping Motor
Vehicle at Government Expense............................ 309
Section 623--Dislocation Allowance at a Rate Equal to Two
and One-Half Months Basic Allowance for Quarters......... 309
Section 624--Allowance for Travel Performed in Connection
With Leave Between Consecutive Overseas Tours............ 310
Subtitle D--Retired Pay, Survivor Benefits, and Related
Matters.................................................... 310
Section 631--Increase in Annual Limit on Days of Inactive
Duty Training Creditable Towards Reserve Retirement...... 310
Section 632--Authority for Retirement in Grade in Which a
Member Has Been Selected for Promotion When a Physical
Disability Intervenes.................................... 310
Section 633--Eligibility for Reserve Disability Retirement
for Reserves Injured While Away From Home Overnight for
Inactive-Duty Training................................... 310
Section 634--Retirement of Reserve Enlisted Members Who
Qualify for Active Duty Retirement After Administrative
Reductions in Enlisted Grade............................. 311
Section 635--Clarification of Initial Computation of
Retiree COLA's After Retirement.......................... 311
Section 636--Technical Correction to Prior Authority for
Payment of Back Pay to Certain Persons................... 311
Section 637--Amendments to the Uniformed Services Former
Spouses' Protection Act.................................. 311
Section 638--Administration of Benefits for So-Called
Minimum Income Widows.................................... 311
Section 639--Nonsubstantive Restatement of Survivor Benefit
Plan Statute............................................. 312
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 312
Section 651--Technical Correction Clarifying Ability of
Certain Members to Elect Not to Occupy Government
Quarters................................................. 312
Section 652--Technical Correction Clarifying Limitation on
Furnishing Clothing or Allowances for Enlisted National
Guard Technicians........................................ 312
Title VII Health Care Provisions................................. 313
Overview....................................................... 313
Items of Special Interest...................................... 313
Army Medical Command (MEDCOM) Network--Information
Technology............................................... 313
Chiropractic Health Care Demonstration Program............. 314
Comptroller General Study on the Department of Defense
Family Member Dental Plan................................ 314
Congressional Budget Office Scoring of Medicare Subvention
Demonstration Program.................................... 315
Global Infectious Disease Surveillance Program............. 315
Pacific Medical Network.................................... 316
Provider Workstation....................................... 316
TRICARE Alternative Financing.............................. 316
TRICARE Prime Portability.................................. 316
Legislative Provisions......................................... 317
Subtitle A--Health Care Services............................. 317
Section 701--Medical and Dental Care for Reserve Component
Members in a Duty Status................................. 317
Subtitle B--TRICARE Program.................................. 317
Section 711--Definition of TRICARE Program................. 317
Section 712--CHAMPUS Payment Limits for TRICARE Prime
Enrollees................................................ 318
Section 713--Improved Information Exchange Between Military
Treatment Facilities and TRICARE Program Contractors..... 318
Subtitle C--Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities.......... 318
Section 721--Definitions................................... 318
Section 722--Inclusion of Designated Providers in Uniformed
Services Health Care Delivery System..................... 318
Section 723--Provision of Uniform Benefit by Designated
Providers................................................ 318
Section 724--Enrollment of Covered Beneficiaries........... 319
Section 725--Application of CHAMPUS Payment Rules.......... 319
Section 726--Payment for Services.......................... 319
Section 727--Repeal of Superseded Authorities.............. 319
Subtitle D--Other Changes to Existing Laws Regarding Health
Care Management............................................ 319
Section 731--Authority to Waive CHAMPUS Exclusion Regarding
Nonmedically Necessary Treatment in Connection With
Certain Clinical Trials.................................. 319
Section 732--Authority to Waive or Reduce CHAMPUS
Deductible Amounts for Reservists Called to Active Duty
in Support of Contingency Operations..................... 320
Section 733--Exception to Maximum Allowable Payments to
Individual Health-Care Providers Under CHAMPUS........... 320
Section 734--Codification of Annual Authority to Credit
CHAMPUS Refunds to Current Year Appropriation............ 320
Section 735--Exception to Requirements Regarding Obtaining
Nonavailability-of-Health-Care Statements................ 320
Section 736--Expansion of Collection Authorities From
Third-Party Payers....................................... 321
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 321
Section 741--Alternatives to Active Duty Service Obligation
Under Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship and
Financial Assistance Program and Uniformed Services
University of the Health Sciences........................ 321
Section 742--Exception to Strength Limitations For Public
Health Service Officers Assigned to the Department of
Defense.................................................. 322
Section 743--Continued Operation of Uniformed Services
University of the Health Sciences........................ 322
Section 744--Sense of Congress Regarding Tax Treatment of
Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship and Financial
Assistance Program....................................... 322
Section 745--Report Regarding Specialized Treatment
Facility Program......................................... 323
Title VIII--Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and
Related Matters................................................ 324
Items of Special Interest...................................... 324
Implementation of Acquisition Reform Legislation........... 324
Truth in Negotiations Act Audit Rights..................... 324
Tungsten Anti-Tank Penetrators............................. 325
Legislative Provisions......................................... 325
Subtitle A--Acquisition Management........................... 325
Section 801--Authority to Waive or Modify Certain
Requirements for Defense Acquisition Pilot Programs...... 325
Section 802--Exclusion From Certain Post-Education Duty
Assignments for Members of Acquisition Corps............. 325
Section 803--Extension of Authority to Carry Out Certain
Prototype Projects....................................... 325
Section 804--Increase in Threshold Amounts for Major
Systems.................................................. 326
Section 805--Revisions in Information Required to be
Included in Selected Acquisition Reports................. 326
Section 806--Increase in Simplified Acquisition Threshold
for Humanitarian or Peacekeeping Operations.............. 326
Section 807--Expansion of Audit Reciprocity Among Federal
Agencies to Include Post-Award Audits.................... 326
Section 808--Extension of Pilot Mentor-Protege Program..... 327
Subtitle B--Other Matters.................................... 327
Section 821--Amendment to Definition of National Security
System Under Information Technology Management Reform Act
of 1995.................................................. 327
Section 822--Prohibition on Release of Contractor Proposals
Under Freedom of Information Act......................... 327
Section 823--Repeal of Annual Report by Advocate for
Competition.............................................. 327
Section 824--Repeal of Biannual Report on Procurement
Regulatory Activity...................................... 327
Section 825--Repeal of Multiyear Limitation on Contracts
for Inspection, Maintenance, and Repair.................. 327
Section 826--Streamlined Notice Requirements to Contractors
and Employees Regarding Termination or Substantial
Reduction in Contracts Under Major Defense Programs...... 328
Section 827--Repeal of Notice Requirements for
Substantially or Seriously Affected Parties in Downsizing
Efforts.................................................. 328
Section 828--Testing of Defense Acquisition Programs....... 328
Section 829--Dependency of National Technology and
Industrial Base on Supplies Available Only From Foreign
Counties................................................. 328
Section 830--Treatment of Department of Defense Cable
Television Franchise Agreements.......................... 328
Section 831--Extension of Domestic Source Limitation for
Valves and Machine Tools................................. 329
Title IX--Department of Defense Organization and Management...... 330
Items of Special Interest...................................... 330
Unified Command Plan....................................... 330
Legislative Provisions......................................... 330
Section 901--Additional Required Reduction in Defense
Acquisition Workforce.................................... 330
Section 902--Reduction of Personnel Assigned to Office of
the Secretary of Defense................................. 330
Section 903--Report on Military Department Headquarters
Staff.................................................... 331
Section 904--Extension of Effective Date for Charter for
Joint Requirements Oversight Council..................... 331
Section 905--Removal of Secretary of the Army From
Membership on the Foreign Trade Zone Board............... 331
Section 906--Membership of the Ammunition Storage Board.... 331
Section 907--Department of Defense Disbursing Official
Check Cashing and Exchange Transactions.................. 332
Title X--General Provisions...................................... 333
Counter-Drug Activities...................................... 333
Overview................................................... 333
Items of Special Interest.................................. 333
National Guard Counter-Drug Program...................... 333
C-26 Aircraft Photo Reconnaissance Upgrades.............. 334
Gulf States Counter-Drug Initiative...................... 334
Southwest Border Fence Project........................... 334
Other Matters................................................ 334
Defense Information Systems Network (DISN)................. 334
Military Affiliate Radio System............................ 335
National Defense University Chinese Translations........... 335
Supercomputer Exports and Proliferation.................... 336
White House Communications Agency.......................... 336
Legislative Provisions......................................... 336
Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................ 336
Section 1001--Transfer Authority........................... 336
Section 1002--Incorporation of Classified Annex............ 337
Section 1003--Authority for Obligation of Certain
Unauthorized Fiscal Year 1996 Defense Appropriations..... 337
Section 1004--Authorization of Prior Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996...................... 337
Section 1005--Format for Budget Request for Navy/Marine
Corps and Air Force Ammunition Accounts.................. 337
Section 1006--Format for Budget Requests for Defense
Airborne Reconnaissance Program.......................... 337
Subtitle B--Reports and Studies.............................. 338
Section 1021--Annual Report on Operation Provide Comfort
and Operation Enhanced Southern Watch.................... 338
Section 1022--Report on Protection of National Information
Infrastructure........................................... 338
Section 1023--Report on Witness Interview Procedures for
Department of Defense Criminal Investigations............ 339
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 339
Section 1031--Information Systems Security Program......... 339
Section 1032--Aviation and Vessel War Risk Insurance....... 340
Section 1033--Aircraft Accident Investigation Boards....... 341
Section 1034--Authority for Use of Appropriated Funds for
Recruiting Functions..................................... 342
Section 1035--Authority for Award of Medal of Honor to
Certain African American Solders Who Served During World
War II................................................... 342
Section 1036--Compensation for Persons Awarded Prisoner of
War Medal Who Did Not Previously Receive Compensation as
a Prisoner of War........................................ 342
Section 1037--George C. Marshall European Center for
Strategic Security Studies............................... 342
Section 1038--Participation of Members, Dependents, and
Other Persons in Crime Prevention Efforts at
Installations............................................ 343
Section 1039--Technical and Clerical Amendments............ 343
Section 1040--Prohibition on Carrying Out SR-71 Strategic
Reconnaissance Program During Fiscal Year 1997........... 343
Title XI--Cooperative Threat Reduction........................... 344
Overview....................................................... 344
Items of Special Interest...................................... 344
Lack of Updated, Multi-Year Program Plan................... 344
Chemical Weapons Destruction............................... 345
Fissle Material Storage Facility........................... 346
Program Overhead........................................... 347
Concerns Regarding Presidential Certification.............. 347
Legislative Provisions......................................... 348
Section 1101--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction
Programs................................................. 348
Section 1102--Fiscal Year 1997 Funding Allocations......... 348
Section 1103--Prohibition on Use of Funds for Specified
Purposes................................................. 348
Section 1104--Limitation on Funds.......................... 348
Section 1105--Availability of Funds........................ 348
Title XII--Reserve Forces Revitalization......................... 349
Legislative Provisions......................................... 349
Subtitle A--Reserve Component Structure...................... 349
Section 1211--Reserve Component Commands................... 349
Section 1212--Reserve Component Chiefs..................... 349
Section 1213--Review of Active Duty and Reserve General and
Flag Officer Authorizations.............................. 349
Section 1214--Guard and Reserve Technicians................ 349
Section 1215--Technical Amendment Reflecting Prior Revision
to National Guard Bureau Charter......................... 350
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Accessibility.................. 350
Section 1231--Report to Congress on Measures Taken to
Improve National Guard and Reserve Ability to Respond to
Emergencies.............................................. 350
Sections 1232 Through 1234--Reporting Requirements......... 350
Subtitle C--Reserve Forces Sustainment....................... 350
Sections 1251 Through 1256--Improvements to Reserve
Component Quality of Life and Benefits................... 350
Title XIII--Matters Relating To Other Nations.................... 351
Items of Special Interest...................................... 351
Arms Control Implementation................................ 351
Chemical Weapons Convention................................ 351
Comprehensive Test Ban..................................... 352
Department of Defense Activities With China................ 353
Operation Joint Endeavor in Bosnia......................... 353
Russian Missile Detargeting................................ 355
Russian Threat Perceptions................................. 356
Legislative Provisions......................................... 357
Subtitle A--Miscellaneous Matters............................ 357
Section 1301--One-Year Extension of Counterproliferation
Authorities.............................................. 357
Section 1302--Limitation on Retirement or Dismantlement of
Strategic Nuclear Delivery Vehicles...................... 357
Section 1303--Certification Required Before Observance of
Moratorium on Use by Armed Forces of Antipersonnel
Landmines................................................ 357
Section 1304--Department of Defense Demining Program....... 359
Section 1305--Report on Military Capabilities of People's
Republic of China........................................ 360
Section 1306--United States-People's Republic of China
Joint Defense Conversion Commission...................... 361
Section 1307--Authority to Accept Services From Foreign
Governments and International Organizations for Defense
Purposes................................................. 361
Section 1308--Review by Director of Central Intelligence of
National Intelligence Estimate 95-19..................... 361
Subtitle B--Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat
to the United States....................................... 363
Section 1321--Establishment of Commission.................. 363
Section 1322--Duties of Commission......................... 364
Section 1323--Report....................................... 364
Section 1324--Powers....................................... 364
Section 1325--Commission Procedures........................ 364
Section 1326--Personnel Matters............................ 365
Section 1327--Miscellaneous Administrative Provisions...... 365
Section 1328--Funding...................................... 365
Section 1329--Termination of the Commission................ 365
Title XIV--Sikes Act Improvements Amendments..................... 366
Legislative Provisions......................................... 366
Section 1402--Definition of Sikes Act for Purposes of
Amendments............................................... 366
Section 1403--Codification of Short Title of Act........... 366
Section 1404--Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans. 366
Section 1405--Review for Preparation of Integrated Natural
Resource Management Plans................................ 366
Section 1406--Annual Reviews and Reports................... 366
Section 1407--Transfer of Wildlife Conservation Fees From
Closed Military Installations............................ 366
Section 1408--Federal Enforcement of Integrated Natural
Resource Management Plans and Enforcement of Other Laws.. 367
Section 1409--Natural Resource Management Services......... 367
Section 1410--Definitions.................................. 367
Section 1411--Cooperative Agreements....................... 367
Section 1412--Repeal of Superseded Provision............... 367
Section 1413--Clerical Amendments.......................... 367
Section 1414--Authorizations of Appropriations............. 367
Divison B--Military Construction Authorizations.................. 369
Purpose........................................................ 369
The State of Military Infrastructure......................... 369
Authorization For Military Construction........................ 387
Title XXI--Army.................................................. 396
Summary........................................................ 396
Items of Special Interest...................................... 396
Improvements of Military Family Housing.................... 396
Repair and Maintenance, Army............................... 396
Legislative Provisions......................................... 397
Section 2101--Authorized Army and Land Acquisition Projects 397
Section 2102--Family Housing............................... 397
Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 397
Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army........ 397
Section 2105--Correction in Authorized Uses of Funds, Fort
Irwin, California........................................ 397
Title XXII--Navy................................................. 398
Summary........................................................ 398
Items Of Special Interest...................................... 398
Improvements of Military Family Housing.................... 398
Naval Air Station Meridian, Mississippi.................... 398
Ordnance Storage Needs of Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma,
Arizona.................................................. 398
Planning and Design........................................ 399
Power Plant Upgrade, Public Works Center, Guam............. 399
Legislative Provisions......................................... 399
Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 399
Section 2202--Family Housing............................... 399
Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 399
Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy........ 399
Secion 2205--Beach Replenishment, Naval Air Station, North
Island, California....................................... 400
Section 2206--Lease to Facilitate Construction of Reserve
Center, Naval Air Station, Meridian, Mississippi......... 400
Title XXIII--Air Force........................................... 401
Summary........................................................ 401
Items of Special Interest...................................... 401
Defense Access Road, Falcon Air Force Base, Colorado....... 401
Improvements of Military Family Housing.................... 401
Planning and Design........................................ 401
Legislative Provisions......................................... 402
Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 402
Section 2302--Family Housing............................... 402
Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 402
Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force... 402
Title XXIV--Defense Agencies..................................... 403
Summary........................................................ 403
Legislative Provisions......................................... 403
Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and
Land Acquisition Projects................................ 403
Section 2402--Military Housing Planning and Design......... 403
Section 2403--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 403
Section 2404--Military Housing Improvement Program......... 403
Section 2405--Energy Conservation Projects................. 403
Section 2406--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense
Agencies................................................. 403
Title XXV--North Atlantic Treaty Organization Infrastructure..... 405
Summary........................................................ 405
Legislative Provisions......................................... 405
Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 405
Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO........ 405
Title XXVI--Guard and Reserve Forces Facilities.................. 406
Summary........................................................ 406
Items of Special Interest...................................... 406
Alternative Funding for Certain Guard and Reserve
Facilities............................................... 406
Armory Infrastructure Requirements......................... 406
Battle Projection Center, Fort Dix, New Jersey............. 407
Military Construction to Support the Beddown of Avenger Air
Defense System Units, Various Locations, Mississippi..... 407
Planning and Design........................................ 407
Planning and Design, Fiscal Year 1996...................... 407
Unspecified Minor Construction............................. 407
Legislative Provisions......................................... 408
Section 2601--Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and
Land Acquisition Projects................................ 408
Title XXVII--Expiration and Extension of Authorizations.......... 409
Legislative Provisions......................................... 409
Section 2701--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts
Required to be Specified by Law.......................... 409
Section 2702--Extensions of Authorizations of Certain
Fiscal Year 1994 Projects................................ 409
Section 2703--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 1993 Projects....................................... 409
Section 2704--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 1992 Projects....................................... 409
Section 2705--Effective Date............................... 409
Title XXVIII--General Provisions................................. 410
Items of Special Interest...................................... 410
Assessment of Certain Overhead Costs of Military
Construction............................................. 410
Efficient Utilization of Existing Facilities............... 410
Infrastructure Requirements for Depot-Level Maintenance.... 410
Modular Utility Cores in Military Housing and Other
Facilities............................................... 411
Legislative Provisions......................................... 411
Subtitle A--Military Construction and Military Family Housing 411
Section 2801--North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security
Investment Program....................................... 411
Section 2802--Authority to Demolish Excess Facilities...... 411
Section 2803--Improvements to Family Housing Units......... 411
Subtitle B--Defense Base Closure and Realignment............. 412
Section 2811--Restoration of Authority for Certain
Intragovernmental Transfers Under 1988 Base Closure Law.. 412
Section 2812--Contracting for Certain Services at
Facilities Remaining on Closed Installations............. 412
Section 2813--Authority to Compensate Owners of
Manufactured Housing..................................... 412
Section 2814--Additional Purpose for Which Adjustment and
Diversification Assistance is Authorized................. 412
Section 2815--Payment of Stipulated Penalties Assessed
Under CERCLA in Connection With Loring Air Force Base,
Maine.................................................... 412
Subtitle C--Land Conveyances Generally....................... 412
Part I--Army Conveyances................................... 412
Section 2821--Transfer and Exchange of Jurisdiction,
Arlington National Cemetery, Virginia.................... 412
Section 2822--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center,
Rushville, Indiana....................................... 413
Section 2823--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center,
Anderson, South Carolina................................. 413
Part II--Navy Conveyances.................................. 413
Section 2831--Release of Condition on Reconveyance of
Transferred Land, Guam................................... 413
Section 2832--Land Exchange, St. Helena Annex, Norfolk
Naval Shipyard, Virginia................................. 413
Section 2833--Land Conveyance, Calverton Pine Barrens,
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Calverton, New
York..................................................... 413
Part III--Air Force Conveyances............................ 414
Section 2841--Conveyance of Primate Research Complex,
Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico...................... 414
Section 2842--Land Conveyance, Radar Bomb Scoring Site,
Belle Forche, South Dakota............................... 414
Part IV--Other Conveyances................................. 414
Section 2851--Land Conveyance, Tatum Salt Dome Test Site,
Mississippi.............................................. 414
Section 2852--Land Conveyance, William Langer Jewel Bearing
Plant, Rolla, North Dakota............................... 414
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 415
Section 2861--Easements for Rights-Of-Way.................. 415
Section 2862--Authority to Enter Into Cooperative
Agreements for the Management of Cultural Resources on
Military Installations................................... 415
Section 2863--Demonstration Project for Installation and
Operation of Electric Power Distribution System at
Youngstown Air Reserve Station, Ohio..................... 415
Section 2864--Designation of Michael O'Callaghan Military
Hospital................................................. 415
Title XXIX--Military Land Withdrawals............................ 416
Subtitle A--Fort Carson-Pinon Canyon Military Lands
Withdrawal................................................. 416
Section 2902--Withdrawal and Reservation of Lands at Fort
Carson Military Reservation.............................. 416
Section 2903--Withdrawal and Reservation of Lands at Pinon
Canyon Maneuver Site..................................... 416
Section 2904--Maps and Legal Descriptions.................. 416
Section 2905--Management of Withdrawn Lands................ 416
Section 2906--Management of Withdrawn and Acquired Mineral
Resources................................................ 416
Section 2907--Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping............... 416
Section 2908--Termination of Withdrawal and Reservation.... 417
Section 2909--Determination of Presence of Contamination
and Effect of Contamination.............................. 417
Section 2910--Delegation................................... 417
Section 2911--Hold Harmless................................ 417
Section 2912--Amendment to Military Lands Withdrawal Act of
1986..................................................... 417
Section 2913--Authorization of Appropriations.............. 417
Subtitle B--El Centro Naval Air Facility Ranges Withdrawal... 417
Section 2921--Short Title and Definitions.................. 417
Section 2922--Withdrawal and Reservation of Lands for El
Centro................................................... 418
Section 2923--Maps and Legal Descriptions.................. 418
Section 2924--Management of Withdrawn Lands................ 418
Section 2925--Duration of Withdrawal and Reservation....... 418
Section 2926--Continuation of Ongoing Decontamination
Activities............................................... 418
Section 2927--Requirements for Extension................... 418
Section 2928--Early Relinquishment of Withdrawal........... 418
Section 2929--Delegation of Authority...................... 418
Section 2930--Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping............... 418
Section 2931--Hold Harmless................................ 419
Division C--Department of Energy National Security Authorizations
and Other Authorizations....................................... 421
Title XXXI--Department of Energy National Security Programs...... 421
Purpose........................................................ 421
Overview....................................................... 421
Items of Special Interest...................................... 436
Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management..... 436
Fissle Materials Protection, Control and Accountability.... 438
Independent Review......................................... 438
Inertial Confinement Fusion................................ 438
Intelligence............................................... 439
International Nuclear Safety............................... 439
International Security..................................... 440
Laboratory Review of Missile Defense....................... 440
Naval Reactors............................................. 440
Nuclear Emergency Search Team.............................. 440
Nuclear Smuggling.......................................... 441
Technology Transfer........................................ 441
Tritium.................................................... 441
Warhead Master Plan........................................ 442
Legislative Provisions......................................... 442
Subtitle A--National Security Program Authorizations......... 442
Section 3101--Weapons Activities........................... 442
Section 3102--Environmental Restoration and Waste
Management............................................... 442
Section 3103--Defense Fixed Asset Acquisition.............. 442
Section 3104--Other Defense Activities..................... 443
Section 3105--Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal............... 443
Subtitle B--Recurring General Provisions..................... 443
Section 3121--Reprogramming................................ 443
Section 3122--Limits on General Plant Projects............. 443
Section 3123--Limits on Construction Projects.............. 443
Section 3124--Fund Transfer Authority...................... 443
Section 3125--Authority for Conceptual and Construction
Design................................................... 444
Section 3126--Authority for Emergency Planning, Design, and
Construction Activities.................................. 444
Section 3127--Funds Available for All National Security
Programs of the Department of Energy..................... 444
Section 3128--Availability of Funds........................ 444
Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 444
Section 3131--Stockpile Stewardship Program................ 444
Section 3132--Manufacturing Infrastructure for Nuclear
Weapons Stockpile........................................ 445
Section 3133--Production of High Explosives................ 446
Section 3134--Limitation on Use of Funds by Laboratories
for Laboratory-Directed Research and Development......... 446
Section 3135--Prohibition on Funding Nuclear Weapons
Activities With People's Republic of China............... 446
Section 3136--International Cooperative Stockpile
Stewardship Programs..................................... 446
Section 3137--Temporary Authority Relating to Transfers of
Defense Environmental Management Funds................... 447
Section 3138--Management Structure for Nuclear Weapons
Production Facilities and Nuclear Weapons Laboratories... 447
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 447
Section 3141--Report on Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
Memorandum............................................... 447
Section 3142--Report on Plutonium Pit Production and
Remanufacturing.......................................... 447
Section 3143--Amendments Relating to Baseline Environmental
Management Reports....................................... 448
Section 3144--Requirement to Develop Future Use Plans for
Environmental Management Program......................... 448
Subtitle E--Defense Nuclear Environmental Cleanup and
Management................................................. 449
Section 3151--Purpose...................................... 449
Section 3152--Covered Defense Nuclear Facilities........... 449
Section 3153--Site Manager................................. 449
Section 3154--Department of Energy Orders.................. 449
Section 3155--Deployment of Technology for Remediation of
Defense Nuclear Waste.................................... 449
Section 3156--Performance-Based Contracting................ 449
Section 3157--Designation of Defense Nuclear Facilities as
National Environmental Cleanup Demonstration Areas....... 450
Title XXXII--Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
Authorization.................................................. 451
Legislative Provisions......................................... 451
Section 3201--Authorization................................ 451
Title XXXIII--National Defense Stockpile......................... 452
Legislative Provisions......................................... 452
Section 3302--Authorized Uses of Stockpile Funds........... 452
Section 3311--Biennial Report on Stockpile Requirements.... 452
Section 3312--Notification Requirements.................... 452
Title XXXIV--Naval Petroleum Reserves............................ 453
Legislative Provisions......................................... 453
Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations.............. 453
Section 3402--Requirement on Sale of Certain Petroleum
During Fiscal Year 1997.................................. 453
Title XXXV--Panama Canal Commission.............................. 454
Legislative Provisions......................................... 454
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 454
Subtitle B--Panama Canal Act Amendments of 1996.............. 454
Section 3521--Short Title; References...................... 454
Section 3522--Definitions and Recommendations for
Legislation.............................................. 454
Section 3523--Administrator................................ 454
Section 3524--Deputy Administrator and Chief Engineer...... 454
Section 3525--Office of Ombudsman.......................... 455
Section 3526--Appointment and Compensation; Duties......... 455
Section 3527--Applicability of Certain Benefits............ 455
Section 3528--Travel and Transportation Expenses........... 455
Section 3529--Clarification of Definition of Agency........ 455
Section 3530--Panama Canal Employment System; Merit and
Other Employment Requirements............................ 455
Section 3531--Employment Standards......................... 455
Section 3532--Repeal of Obsolete Provision Regarding
Interim Application of Canal Zone Merit System........... 456
Section 3533--Repeal of Provision Relating to Recruitment
and Retention Remuneration............................... 456
Section 3534--Benefits Based on Basic Pay.................. 456
Section 3535--Vesting of General Administrative Authority
of Commission............................................ 456
Section 3536--Applicability of Certain Laws................ 456
Section 3537--Repeal of Provision Relating to Transferred
or Reemployed Employees.................................. 456
Section 3538--Administration of Special Disability Benefits 456
Section 3539--Panama Canal Revolving Fund.................. 456
Section 3540--Printing..................................... 457
Section 3541--Accounting Policies.......................... 457
Section 3542--Interagency Services; Reimbursements......... 457
Section 3543--Postal Service............................... 457
Section 3544--Investigations of Accidents or Injury Giving
Rise to Claim............................................ 457
Section 3545--Operations Regulations....................... 457
Section 3546--Miscellaneous Repeals........................ 457
Section 3547--Exemption.................................... 458
Section 3548--Miscellaneous Conforming Amendments to Title
5, United States Code.................................... 458
Section 3549--Repeal of Panama Canal Code.................. 458
Section 3550--Miscellaneous Clerical and Conforming
Amendments............................................... 458
Departmental Data................................................ 459
Department of Defense Authorization Request.................... 459
Military Construction Authorization Request.................... 459
Committee Position............................................... 460
Communications From Other Committees............................. 460
Fiscal Data...................................................... 466
Congressional Budget Office Estimate........................... 466
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate...................... 466
Authorization of Appropriations.............................. 469
Committee Cost Estimate........................................ 474
Inflation-Impact Statement..................................... 474
Oversight Findings............................................... 474
Statement of Federal Mandates.................................... 475
Roll Call Votes.................................................. 475
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 482
Additional, Supplemental, and Dissenting Views................... 705
Additional views of James V. Hansen, Glen Browder, Tillie K.
Fowler, Solomon P. Ortiz, Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, Walter
B. Jones, Jr., Saxby Chambliss, J.C. Watts, Jr., John N.
Hostettler, Neil Abercrombie, Robert K. Dornan, Lane Evans,
and James B. Longley, Jr..................................... 705
Additional and dissenting views of Ronald V. Dellums........... 709
Additional views of John Spratt................................ 717
Additional views of Chet Edwards............................... 718
Additional views of Jane Harman, Rosa L. DeLauro, Ronald V.
Dellums, Patricia Schroeder, Lane Evans, Neil Abercrombie,
Martin T. Meehan, and Patrick J. Kennedy..................... 721
Suplemental views of Patricia Schroeder........................ 724
104th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 104-563
_______________________________________________________________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
_______
May 7, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Spence, from the Committee on National Security, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL, SUPPLEMENTAL, AND DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 3230]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on National Security, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 3230) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 1997 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 1997,
and for other purposes, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill
as amended do pass.
The amendment to the text of the bill is a complete
substitute therefor and appears in italic type in the reported
bill.
The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment
to the text of the bill.
EXPLANATION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT
The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a
substitute during the consideration of H.R. 3230. The remainder
of the report discusses the bill, as amended.
PURPOSE
The bill would--(1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
years 1997 through 2000 for procurement and for research,
development, test and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) Authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for operation and
maintenance (O&M) and for working capital funds; (3) Authorize
for fiscal year 1997: (a) the personnel strength for each
active duty component of the military departments; (b) the
personnel strength for the Selected Reserve for each reserve
component of the armed forces; (c) the military training
student loads for each of the active and reserve components of
the military departments; (4) Modify various elements of
compensation for military personnel and impose certain
requirements and limitations on personnel actions in the
defense establishment; (5) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 1997 for military construction and family housing; (6)
Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for the
Department of Energy National Security Programs; (7) Modify
provisions related to the National Defense Stockpile; and (8)
Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for the operation
of the Panama Canal Commission.
RELATIONSHIP OF AUTHORIZATION AND APPROPRIATIONS
The bill does not generally provide budget authority. The
bill authorizes appropriations. Subsequent appropriation acts
provide budget authority. The bill addresses the following
categories in the Department of Defense budget: procurement;
research, development, test and evaluation; operation and
maintenance; working capital funds, military personnel; and
military construction and family housing. The bill also
addresses Department of Energy National Security Programs.
Active duty and reserve personnel strengths authorized in
this bill and legislation affecting compensation for military
personnel determine the remaining appropriation requirements of
the Department of Defense. However, this bill does not provide
authorization of specific dollar amounts for personnel.
SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZATION IN THE BILL
The President requested budget authority of $254.3 billion
for the national defense budget function for fiscal year 1997.
Of this amount, the President requested $242.5 billion for the
Department of Defense (including $9.1 billion for military
construction and family housing) and $11.1 billion for
Department of Energy national security programs and the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
The committee recommends an overall level of $266.7 billion
in budget authority. This amount is an increase of
approximately $12.4 billion from the amount requested for the
national defense budget function by the President, and
represents an increase of approximately $2.0 billion from the
amount authorized for appropriation by the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106).
Overall, the committee's recommendation is largely consistent
with the amounts the committee expects to be established in the
budget resolution for fiscal year 1997.
SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS
The following table provides a summary of the amounts
requested and that would be authorized for appropriation in the
bill (in the column labeled ``Budget Authority Implication of
Committee Recommendation'') and the committee's estimate of how
the committee's recommendations relate to the budget totals for
the national defense function. For purposes of estimating the
budget authority implications of committee action, the table
reflects the numbers contained in the President's budget for
proposals not in the committee's legislative jurisdiction.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL
HR 3230, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1997, reflects the committee's continued effort to
revitalize America's defenses in oqder to meet the security
requirements of the post-Cold War world. Now in its seventh
year, the post-Cold War world is still largely defined by what
it is not, as the collapse of the Soviet Union and its empire
created shock waves that continue to ripple through the
international geopolitical system. Yet over the past year, the
sharper contours of revived and new great-power competitions
have begun to emerge from the rubble of the old bipolar, Cold
War order. While these new struggles will certainly involve new
challenges to U.S. security interests, the form of the
competition will not be fundamentally new. Neither history, nor
world politics, nor military competition ended with the Cold
War.
The primary mission of the American military establishment
in this turbulent international environment is to protect the
United States and its vital national security interests. These
fundamental interests have not changed with the end of the Cold
War. While the Soviet Union no longer exists, the United States
retains enduring interests in defending the American homeland
and in maintaining as stable and peaceful a political order as
possible in Europe, in Asia, and in the vital energy-producing
regions of the world. Yet we face a growing roster of failed
and failing states, international terrorism, proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, and tribal and ethnic conflicts
fed by the emergence of a new ``warrior class,'' for whom war
too often becomes an end in itself.
The events of the past year clearly demonstrate that new
challenges to U.S. security interests are emerging on many
fronts. China has demonstrated a disturbing willingness to use
military force as a tool of coercive diplomacy, threatening
stability, prosperity and the growth of democracy in East Asia.
In turn, China's actions have caused America's allies and
adversaries alike to question the nature and endurance of
American's commitment to the region.
If the Chinese challenge is that of a newly emerging great
power, the challenge from Russia is that of a disintegrating
military superpower. Russia careens from extreme nationalism to
unreconstructed communism as it struggles to hold itself
together. As it does, it wages a bloody and bitter war in
Chechnya, brandishes nuclear threats in an attempt to thwart
NATO expansion, reintegrates its former empire in Belarus and
Central Asia and sells advanced weaponry of all kinds--
including nuclear technologies--to anyone willing to pay in
hard currency. Russia cannot protect its stockpile of nuclear
materials and Moscow continues to maintain its strategic
nuclear forces at Cold War levels of readiness as it invests
scarce resources in strategic modernization. Disturbingly,
Russia has even adopted a new military doctrine that relies
more heavily on nuclear weapons than did Soviet doctrine.
The compendium of recent U.S. peacekeeping and humanitarian
missions testifies to the rise of ethnic violence, terrorism,
and other challenges to international order and stability. In
Somalia, Haiti, and Bosnia, large contingents of American
troops have been sent on missions with no direct or even
apparent linkage to U.S. security interests, and with little
hope of creating lasting stability. In Kurdistan, a mission of
mercy has been transformed into a nearly permanent operation,
planned and budgeted into the indefinite future. In general,
the diffusion of power to smaller states and non-state actors,
whether measured in political, economic or military terms, has
further complicated the geopolitical transition brought on by
the end of the Cold War.
Perhaps most importantly, the threat of missile attack
against the American homeland is becoming alarmingly real. The
rest of the world recognizes the overwhelming advantage the
United States enjoys in conventional forces, and the strategic
freedom that results from that advantage. One of the lessons of
Operations Desert Storm--that U.S. forces can project power
virtually anywhere on earth--was not lost on our friends and
enemies around the world. Thus, during the recent Taiwan
crisis, a senior Chinese official threatened a nuclear attack
on Los Angeles as a way of deterring American ``interference''
in East Asia. The inability to defend our citizens against
attack by even a single ballistic or cruise missile armed with
nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction is increasingly
recognized as one of our nation's greatest vulnerabilities.
Standing in stark contrast to this troubling strategic
landscape is the Administration's underfunding of our armed
forces. The gap between the U.S. national military strategy and
the resources committed by the Administration to executing that
strategy, estimated by many analysts to be greater than $100
billion, continues to widen.
But as dangerous as the strategy-resources gap is the
strategy itself. The Administration's conduct of foreign policy
continues to elevate economic and moral concerns above security
interests. It has continued to employ American military power
in pursuit of ``peace'' operations that do little to preserve
peace among great powers or even fit into any larger American
security policy framework.
The gaps between strategy, resources and forces that
characterize the Administration's long-term defense plan are
having a detrimental effect on American national security
policy, and producing operational anomalies such as the
deployment of an armored division, designed to maneuver over
large spaces, to the hill country of Bosnia. While all
Americans should be proud of the obvious professionalism with
which Operation Joint Endeavor is being conducted, there are
limits to the adaptability of any organization, even one as
fine as the U.S. military. In sum, the Department of Defense
has been designed to carry out one set of missions, is being
called upon to execute another quite different set of missions,
and is inadequately funded for either. Today, the result is a
growing sense of confusion and disarray. The result tomorrow
could be worse.
CONTINUED SHORTFALLS
Consequently, the committee finds itself trying once again
to address the shortfalls created by the internal
contradictions of the Administration's defense program. In the
report on HR 1530, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996, (H. Rept. 104-131) the committee described
the four pillars of a sound defense program: a decent quality
of military life, to ensure America's compact with service
members and their families and to attract and retain bright and
dedicated men and women; high core readiness, to ensure well
trained and properly equipped forces today; sufficient
modernization, to ensure the technological edge enjoyed by
American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines anywhere they
fight or operate; and a smarter and streamlined defense
bureaucracy, to ensure proper stewardship of taxpayers' dollars
and to free additional resources to address shortfalls
throughout the budget.
The committee's actions last year did much to address these
shortfalls. As a result, the readiness of U.S. forces today is
better than it was less than two years ago when the committee
uncovered troubling indications of a deepening, systemic
readiness problem. All Americans should share the committee's
pride in the meticulous care with which the U.S. armed forces
trained for the arduous mission in Bosnia, the determination
with which they deployed in the depths of winter, and their
remarkable record of operations in a complex political and
dangerous military environment. Yet, this large force will
require significant retraining to meet its primary warfighting
mission when the Bosnia operation is complete. In the
committee's judgment, continued vigilance in regard to
readiness is a ``first principle.''
Despite the funds added last year by Congress to maintain
minimum readiness levels, the President's budget request for
fiscal year 1997 reduced a variety of operations and
maintenance accounts below current spending levels. Key
readiness areas such as real property maintenance, depot
maintenance, base operations support and others remain
underfunded. Thus, the committee has recommended additional
funds above the President's request primarily to address the
growing maintenance backlogs for facilities such as barracks
and dormitories and for equipment, as well as for other
critical health, safety and operational deficiencies. -
Last year the Congress also approved a number of committee
initiatives to reform the Pentagon bureaucracy. These centered
on acquisition reform and reductions in oversized and
inefficient bureaucracies such as the Office of the Secretary
of Defense and acquisition workforce. These efforts continue in
this year's legislation, which extends reform efforts, for
example, to the military departments.
QUALITY OF LIFE-
However, two of the pillars of a sound defense are in need
of even more significant repair. One is to ensure that we
provide for a decent quality of military life. While every
Administration upholds the principle that ``people come
first,'' the quality of military life continues to erode. After
proposing to freeze military pay several years ago, this
Administration has belatedly committed itself, at least for the
next year, to addressing shortfalls in military pay. Yet by
many other measures, and particularly in regard to reducing
out-of-pocket expenses for military personnel and their
families and improving military housing, standards are still
slipping. Marine Corps Commandant General Charles Krulak told
the Committee: ``I went with my godchild to his barracks. He is
a lance corporal in the First Battalion, Third Marines, in
Hawaii. I was appalled at what he was living in. `Appalled' is
probably a mild word for it. . . . We are building some
barracks, we are building some homes, we are doing some whole-
house rehab, but it is not to the level that either I, as
Commandant, or you as a public servant, would be very pleased
about. It is simply a matter of available money.'' -
In addition, the Committee continues to be concerned about
the strains that the high pace of military operations,
particularly those related to ongoing peacekeeping and
humanitarian missions, are placing on service members and their
families. The pace of military operations being maintained by
the Administration results in added strains on a still-
shrinking active-duty military force and growing problems for
reservists being called more often to extended periods of
active service. Despite the committee's efforts to preclude
reductions in service endstrengths below the Bottom-Up Review
levels, the Administration's long-term defense plan funds Army
and Air Force end strengths at reduced levels due to budget
constraints. The effects of reducing end strengths for an
already over extended force would have devastating impacts on
personnel tempo and retention rates. Army Chief of Staff
General Reimer recounted a story from one of his visits to
troops in the field: ``I said good-bye to a young soldier at
Fort Bliss, Texas, about a year ago, and he was on his seventh
deployment since Operation Desert Shield. His family, with a
wife and two young kids, were out there [saying good-bye]. That
is tough on them.''-
The committee finds any erosion in the quality of military
life to be intolerable and believes that it is already
jeopardizing the services' ability to recruit, develop and
retain the high quality of military professional this nation
requires and has come to expect. In the committee's view,
providing a decent quality of life is simply a matter of
keeping faith with the men and women who serve the nation in
uniform.
Accordingly, the committee has approved the requested three
percent pay raise in full, and added substantially to the
Administration's request for the basic allowance for quarters
and for several initiatives to reduce out-of-pocket costs
incurred when military personnel make permanent change of
station moves under government orders. In addition, the
committee was deeply concerned with the Administration's
reduction of eighteen percent in spending on military
construction. Fully three-quarters of the construction funds
added in this bill will be spent on quality-of-life projects
such as family housing, barracks, and child care centers. Given
the continuing reports of a slipping quality of life and the
Administration's reductions in spending on these important
initiatives, the committee is compelled to take these remedial
steps.
MODERNIZATION
The pillar of a sound American defense policy most in need
of revitalization is the modernization of equipment,
particularly weapons procurement. Despite the committee's
concern, the Administration has done nothing to remedy the
problem. In fact, the procurement request for fiscal year 1997
was $5 billion lower than last year's Administration projection
for fiscal year 1997. Moreover, the Administration has proposed
spending amounts totaling more than fifty percent of the funds
added for modernization by Congress last year to pay for the
growing costs of the Bosnia operation, increased counter-
narcotics efforts, the transfer of F-16 aircraft to Jordan, and
other foreign policy initiatives. As a result, the
recapitalization of U.S. military forces continues to be
sacrificed and postponed.
The drop in procurement funding has been dramatic since
1990, especially during the past four years. By the
Administration's own reckoning, there has been a real decline
of 60 percent in procurement spending from fiscal year 1990 to
fiscal year 1997. This year's requested level of procurement
funding of $38.9 billion is the lowest since before the Korean
War and reflects a substantial cut from the $42.3 billion in
procurement authorized by Congress just last year.
According to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, this level of
procurement spending is only about two thirds of that needed to
equip the current force structure. This past fall, the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shalikashvili, concluded
that beginning in FY 1998 the Department of Defense required
$60 billion annually to keep the force modernized. Secretary of
Defense William Perry acknowledged this problem in testimony
before the committee, admitting that he ``would like to see,
and General Shali would like to see, the increase in
modernization reached sooner than we have in this budget.''
This pattern of postponed procurement makes it difficult
for the committee to have confidence in the Administration's
future-years defense plan, which delays attainment of the $60
billion-per-year goal for procurement spending until after the
turn of the century. Moreover, the prospect of achieving this
goal even by the year 2001, as currently projected by the
Administration, is based upon optimistic assumptions of
internal Pentagon savings generated through acquisition reform
and base closings. While the committee will continue to work
aggressively on such long-term cost-saving efforts, it is
doubtful that the anticipated savings will be realized as fully
or as rapidly as assumed. Accordingly, the need for more robust
procurement spending is a pressing matter that must be
addressed sooner, rather than later, and independent of process
and overhead savings. Adequate funding for the modernization of
aging equipment cannot depend upon assumed savings that may or
may not materialize.
In sum, the committee remains deeply concerned by the
Administration's continuing lack of resource commitment to the
modernization of our forces, which, if allowed to continue,
will rapidly translate into obsolescent equipment that falls
below the standards of performance, reliability and battlefield
superiority established in the 1980s and demonstrated during
the Gulf War. In his testimony before the committee, Admiral
Boorda, Chief of Naval Operations, perhaps best summarized what
modern equipment means to U.S. service members: ``Our men and
women . . . don't ask you for very much and they don't ask us
for very much. They want and require ships and weapon systems
that are effective, and they need that not only today but they
need it in the future. We talk about quality of life--that is
the ultimate quality of life if you go in harm's way . . .''
Because it is often the job of U.S. soldiers, sailors,
airmen and Marines to go in harm's way, the current procurement
program is untenable and indefensible. Consequently, the
majority of the committee's actions taken to reshape the
Administration's defense budget request are in the area of
procurement. The committee has devoted substantial additional
funding to modernization shortfalls, giving high priority to
those programs identified by the services themselves as
unfunded requirements. Fully ninety-five percent of the
committee's increased procurement funding is for programs
contained in the current future-years defense plan or
identified as unfunded requirements by the service chiefs of
staff.
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE
The most glaring shortfall in the Administration's
modernization program results from its antipathy to effective
ballistic missile defenses. In light of the increasing
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the missiles
to deliver them over great distances, the lack of urgency in
the Administration's missile defense program is startling.
Congressional attempts to instill purpose, direction and focus
in the Administration's moribund missile defense efforts were
stymied last year by the President's veto of HR 1530, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996.
For the strategic reasons highlighted at the outset of this
introductory section, the committee strongly believes that
deployment of a national missile defense should be of the
highest priority. Protection of the American homeland must be
the first object of any national defense policy, as well as the
cornerstone of any broader security strategy. The
Administration's failure to aggressively pursue a national
missile defense program that will field a viable, cost-
effective missile defense system to discourage the development
of ballistic missile threats or to defeat them is a grave
concern. Consequently, the committee has added substantial
funding to the Administration's underfunded request for
ballistic missile defense programs, including national missile
defense.
The committee is equally disturbed by the Administration's
retreat from even its own efforts to develop and deploy more
robust theater missile defenses. Americans will not forget how
a crude, conventionally-armed Scud missile resulted in the
greatest single loss of American lives during the Gulf War. Yet
the Administration has chosen to scale back efforts and reduce
funding necessary to develop and deploy the most robust theater
missile defense system possible. The result will be to leave
American forces exposed to threats that are a clear and present
danger today. Consequently, in response to the Administration's
inexplicable spending reductions in several key theater missile
defense programs, the committee has provided additional funding
for the Army's THAAD system and the Navy's ``Wide Area''
theater defense concept.
INNOVATION
The committee's commitment to modernization extends beyond
bolstering inadequate levels of procurement spending. While it
is essential to maintain the marked technological advantage
enjoyed today by U.S. military forces, it is equally important
to ensure that edge in the future. In the committee's judgment,
the increasing pace and shifting pattern of technological
change may well portend parallel changes in the conduct of war.
These new technologies will not constitute a substitute for
traditional military power and tactics. Rather, they represent
an opportunity to leverage the effectiveness and adaptability
of U.S. military forces into the next century.
U.S. military forces already have begun to explore the
effects of these new technologies, especially the effects of
information technologies, on military affairs. They were
clearly visible in Operation Desert Storm, for example, when
the exploitation of the Global Positioning System of satellites
provided the precision capability to conduct the ``left hook''
that became the attack in the ground campaign. The Department
of Defense has continued this effort to develop and exploit the
military applications of information technology since the Gulf
War.
The committee recognizes both the need and the opportunity
to support efforts within the military services to pursue
innovative concepts and technologies as a hedge against an
uncertain future and a rapidly changing global security
environment. Consequently, the committee has made selected
investments in two important areas to help determine the full
promise of these new technologies and to realize their military
applications. The first is in the technologies themselves, and
particularly in those technologies that allow for the rapid
collection, processing and dissemination of information and
intelligence throughout the operational battlefield. Applied to
current military systems and organizations, the more effective
networking of available information can dramatically enhance
the effectiveness of existing systems.
A second set of initiatives will fund promising experiments
designed to understand the operational and organizational
implications of the technologies and their applications on the
battlefield. Accordingly, the committee recommends funding a
set of promising experiments designed to understand the
operational and organizational implications of new technology
and its application on the battlefield. These experiments are
highly practical, putting new technologies directly in the
hands of service members to allow them to create new tactics,
new doctrine, and new types of units in an operational setting.
The committee included substantial funding for initiatives
such as the Army's ``Force XXI,'' the Marine Corps'
Commandant's Warfighting Lab, the Navy's Arsenal Ship, an array
of joint-service programs designed to explore the possibilities
of a ``tactical internet'' for the sharing of intelligence and
targeting data among units of all services and for command and
control. Paralleling these ``internet'' technology efforts is a
complementary set of programs to develop practical techniques
and tactics for employing this information network to get the
right information to the right units at the right time.
Importantly, the committee also has recommended the creation of
a ``Concept Development Center'' under the Department's Office
of Net Assessment to conduct operational research to test new
concepts, doctrines and organizations.
The committee believes that maintaining American military
supremacy is a key to the United States' standing as the
world's sole superpower. This military supremacy rests on the
technological edge U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines
enjoy on any battlefield, and the innovative ways in which they
employ advanced technologies. As the nature of war and military
thought evolves from the influences of the industrial age to
those increasingly reflective of the information age, the
United States must continue to lead the way.-
CONCLUSION
This bill represents the second year that the committee has
reshaped and reprioritize the Administration's defense budget
in order to continue revitalizing the U.S. military following a
decade of decline. However, the long-term revitalization of the
U.S. military will be hard to sustain without a coherent
national military strategy that responds to the world as it is
rather than the world as some might wish it to be, and without
an Administration committed to devoting the resources necessary
to execute that strategy. In the interim, the committee is
restricted to the difficult challenge of preserving the core
competencies and capabilities needed to maintain U.S. military
power as a force for peace and stability in the post Cold War
World. Under the Constitution, this is the committee's and the
Congress's fundamental responsibility.
HEARINGS
Committee consideration of the Defense authorization bill
for fiscal year 1997 results from hearings that began on
February 28, 1996 and that were completed on April 17, 1996.
The full committee conducted 11 sessions, including markup
meetings. In addition, a total of 34 sessions were conducted by
five different subcommittees and two panels of the committee on
various titles of the bill.
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
OVERVIEW
The committee's deep concern for the deterioration in
defense modernization has been previously articulated in the
``Rationale for the Committee Bill'' section of this report.
Clearly, modernization continues to be the one area of the
defense budget most in need of thorough repair. This point is
appropriately emphasized by the following statements from the
Army's 1996 Modernization Plan:
Overall, the assessment of the Army Modernization
Program's ability to maintain capabilities required by
the Modernization Objectives is rated AMBER in the Near
Term, and becomes RED by the year 2000. Unless there is
an infusion of new funds, the Army is clearly
mortgaging its future technological edge, delaying
fielding of key weapon systems well into the second
decade of the twenty-first century, and placing its
capability to fight at an unacceptably high risk. If
the fiscal trends are not reversed, procurement of
modern systems will be virtually non-existent during
the current Program Objective Memorandum years.
This state-of-affairs is equally true and publicly
acknowledged by the other services. In fact, if the recent
acknowledgment by the Marine Corps that it does not have enough
ammunition to fight two major regional contingencies can be
used as a barometer for measuring modernization woes, the
situation among the other services may be even worse.
Last year, the Department's underfunding of the procurement
accounts compelled the committee to add more than $5.0 billion
in modernization funding. This year, the committee has added
more than $6.0 billion to these accounts--a robust 15 percent
increase above the budget request. More importantly, however,
is the fact that this year, like last, the committee will once
again be required to add weapons and other critically needed
items to properly address the vast inventory of unfunded
priorities identified by the Department's uniformed leaders
during testimony before the committee.
The committee strongly identifies its actions with the
admonishment of the immediate-past Vice Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, who, in his last public testimony to the
Congress, declared that: ``We've got to stop promising
ourselves (about increasing the procurement accounts) and start
doing something.'' The committee emphatically agrees.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Aircraft Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $970.8 million for Aircraft
Procurement, Army in fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends
authorization of $1,556.6 million for fiscal year 1997.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Items of Special Interest
AH-64D longbow apache -
The budget request contained $357.0 million to modify 26
AH-64A aircraft and procure 24 fire control radars. The request
also contained $22.5 million in advance procurement.
The committee has been advised that the Army intends to
convert the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment from a light to a
heavy force. Conversion of the regimental aviation squadron
requires the procurement of 12 new AH-64Ds. The committee
recommends an additional $260.0 million for this purpose and
recommends a legislative provision (sec. 111) that would modify
current law to permit this procurement. The committee also
recommends $53.0 million for training devices to accelerate the
delivery of these devices in accordance with the updated AH-64D
fielding review.
Airborne reconnaissance low (ARL)
The budget request contained $24.7 million to procure the
final ARL-M aircraft and mission equipment.
The committee understands the Army reprogrammed fiscal year
1996 funds which were authorized and appropriated for
converting ARL-I and ARL-C aircraft to the multi-disciplined
ARL-M configuration. These funds were applied to incorporate a
moving target indicator (MTI) radar into the ARL. Although the
reprogramming action was within the scope of the Department's
authority, the committee is concerned with the Army's failure
to inform the Congress of what it considers a major reorienting
of the funds. The committee does, however, support the
validated requirement for MTI on ARL, and is aware that funds
have not been budgeted to complete the MTI purchase.
Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $5.2
million for completing the MTI upgrade. The committee directs
the Army to provide the necessary funding to complete the ARL-
I/-C conversion to ARL-M from within available resources.-
CH-47D modifications-
The budget request contained $7.8 million for CH-47D
modifications.
The CH-47D Chinook, the Army's only heavy lift cargo
helicopter, will be 40 years old at the turn of the century. As
modifications have added additional weight to the baseline
configuration over its many years of service, the aircraft's
lift capability has steadily decreased.
The committee understands that upgrading the CH-47D engines
will increase the aircraft's payload-carrying capability by up
to 3,900 pounds. Additionally, aircraft safety will be enhanced
and pilot workload reduced by adding the Full Authority Digital
Electronic Fuel Control system as part of this engine upgrade.
Consequently, the committee recommends an additional $52.0
million to accelerate the CH-47D engine conversion and begin
upgrading the active component contingency corps aircraft.-
Depot maintenance plant equipment (DMPE)
The budget request did not contain any funding for DMPE.
The committee recognizes the importance of depot-level
maintenance and other logistics support to the warfighting
capability of the armed forces and is concerned about
significant deficiencies in depot maintenance plant equipment
modernization at several installations. Accordingly, the
committee recommends $5.6 million for aviation DMPE. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to conduct a
comprehensive study of depot maintenance plant equipment
modernization requirements and submit a report of his findings
and recommendations to the congressional defense committees not
later than March 1, 1997.
OH-58D armed kiowa warrior-
The budget request contained $9.1 million to fund the
fielding of Kiowa Warriors procured in prior years.
The committee notes that the current inventory of Kiowa
Warriors is still well below the requirement for 507 aircraft.
While the Army has sufficient Kiowa Warriors to equip all
active component divisional cavalry squadrons, regimental
cavalry squadrons, and light attack battalions, there are
insufficient quantities to support active component target
acquisition and reconnaissance platoons, as well as Army
National Guard units.
For these reasons, the committee supports continuation of
the Armed Kiowa Warrior upgrade and recommends $190.0 million
to fund an additional 24 aircraft. The committee also
recommends a legislative provision (sec. 111) that would modify
current law to permit this procurement.-
Missile Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $766.3 million for Missile
Procurement, Army in fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends
authorization of $1,027.8 million for fiscal year 1997.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Items of Special Interest
Avenger-
The budget request did not contain any funds to procure
Avenger fire units for the Army National Guard.
The Army has procured 674 Avenger fire units, which
completes fielding of the Avenger in the active component and
fields Avenger in one battalion of the Army National Guard.
The committee notes that there are 93 Avenger fire units
remaining on the fiscal year 1996 Avenger contract option and
that most of the long lead items required for production of
these remaining fire units have been purchased under the
existing multiyear contract. Since purchasing the remaining 93
fire units for the Army National Guard will fully utilize over
$26 million of residual hardware and save $6 million in
termination costs, the committee recommends $59.4 million for
this purpose. The committee recommends a legislative provision
(sec. 112) that would grant an extension of the Avenger
multiyear procurement authority to accommodate the contract
buyout. The committee agrees to this extension with the
understanding that there will be no additional costs for
stretching the delivery schedule. Finally, the committee
directs the Secretary of the Army to maintain the mix of Army
National Guard Avengers at levels appropriate to support
current doctrine.--
Javelin
The budget request contained $162.1 million to procure
1,020 Javelin antitank missiles. -
The Javelin will be procured jointly by the Army and Marine
Corps to replace the Dragon, which is no longer capable of
defeating current armor threats. Although both services have
urgent requirements to field the Javelin, the committee
understands that combined procurement quantities do not support
cost efficient production rates of the missile. The committee
therefore recommends $196.0 million, an increase of $33.9
million, to procure 300 additional missiles as well as to
accelerate the production of command launch units and training
devices.
Multiple launch rocket system (MLRS)-
The budget request contained $24.4 million for MLRS rockets
and $38.0 million for MLRS launchers.
The extended range MLRS rocket, with improved lethality and
a new self-destruct fuze to minimize unintended casualties,
enters production in fiscal year 1996. However, the committee
notes that fiscal year 1997 production falls far short of an
economic rate and does not leverage planned foreign military
sales funding. Consequently, the committee recommends an
additional $17.0 million to procure 822 more rockets and thus
prevent a dip in production from fiscal year 1996 levels.
The committee also recommends an increase of $66.2 million
to complete the fielding of the MLRS to Army National Guard
units--$36.3 million to rebuild 36 MLRS launchers and $29.9
million for training equipment.
Stinger modifications-
The budget request contained $16.9 for Stinger missile
modifications.
The Stinger missile air defense weapon is deployed on a
variety of platforms in the United States and 16 allied
nations. The latest version of Stinger is the Block 1
configuration, which provides an aviation user-friendly missile
with greater lethality and improved resistance to
countermeasures against unmanned aerial vehicles, cruise
missiles, and attack helicopters operating in clutter.
The committee notes that the request for the Block 1
retrofit program does not sustain an economic production rate
and does not allow for any platform modifications.
Consequently, the committee recommends a $20.0 million increase
for Stinger modifications--$15.0 million to retrofit an
additional 1,000 missiles to the Block 1 configuration and $5.0
million to modify both ground and airborne platforms to employ
these missiles.
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $1,102.0 million for
procurement of Army weapons and tracked combat vehicles for
fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends authorization of
$1,334.8 million for fiscal year 1997.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Items of Special Interest
Bradley fighting vehicle modifications-
The budget request did not contain any funding for
procurement of advanced reactive armor tiles for the Bradley.
These tiles provide additional protection for the M2
infantry and M3 cavalry fighting vehicles against direct-fire,
chemical-energy munitions. The Army's current goal is to
procure 178 sets of armor tiles to support a brigade combat
team.
Congress added funds in fiscal year 1995 to initiate
procurement of the first 18 advanced armor tile sets from a
foreign manufacturer. Congress again added funds in fiscal year
1996 for technology transfer to and a limited production of
advanced tiles by a domestic source. However, an immediate need
for armor tiles in Bosnia necessitated an emergency, off-the-
shelf buy of 50 sets from the current off-shore producer,
leaving only enough funds to complete the technology transfer.
The committee understands that buying out the remaining
armor tile requirement will result in an estimated savings of
$50,000 per set. Therefore, the committee recommends an
additional $35.5 million to complete the procurement of the
178-tile set requirement and to provide a U.S. source for the
Army's future armor tile needs.
M109A6 paladin/M992A2 field artillery ammunition support vehicle
(FAASV)-
The budget request did not contain any funds to procure
Paladins/FAASVs for the Army National Guard.
Despite the fact that within the next few years 75 percent
of the Army's field artillery resources will reside in the Army
National Guard, most guard 155mm self-propelled battalions will
still be equipped with technologically obsolete howitzers and
archaic M548 ammunition carriers. The committee notes that the
National Guard Bureau and the Office of the Army's Deputy Chief
of Staff for Operations and Plans have both stated that the
Paladin is the cannon of choice for the Army National Guard.
Consequently, the committee authorizes an additional $61.0
million for the production of a battalion set of Paladins/
FAASVs (24 of each) and directs that these systems be
exclusively for the Army National Guard.
M240B medium machine gun-
The budget request did not contain any funds for the M240B
medium machine gun.
The Army recently selected and type-classified the M240B to
replace its aging inventory of 7.62mm medium machine guns. The
committee understands that the initial requirement to field the
M240B to force packages 1-4 is a minimum of 11,000 guns. In
order to provide our early deploying forces with the most
modern weapons, the committee recommends $20.0 million to
procure 2,100 M240Bs and strongly encourages the Army to
consider a multiyear procurement of this medium machine gun.
M88A1E1 improved recovery vehicle (IRV)-
The budget request contained $28.6 million to procure 12
IRVs.
The M88A1E1 program was initiated in 1985 when the Army
realized that its then-current M88A1 recovery vehicle would not
be able to recover the heavier M1 tank. As demonstrated in
subsequent operations, including Desert Storm, M1s can be
safely recovered only by using either two M88A1s or an M88A1 in
tandem with another M1 tank. This problem creates a significant
operational deficiency as well as a safety hazard.
Noting the shortage of IRVs in the field, Congress added
$33.9 million to the Army's fiscal year 1996 budget request. In
order to sustain higher production rates until force packages 1
and 2 armored units are properly equipped, the committee
recommends an increase of $27.1 million to procure an
additional 12 IRVs.-
M9 armored combat earthmover (ACE)-
The budget request did not contain any funds for the M9
ACE.
The committee notes that the M9 ACE is a highly mobile
tracked engineer vehicle designed to provide the tactical
commander with earthmoving capability to prepare fighting
positions, create tank ditches and other obstacles, defeat
enemy barriers and obstacles, and maintain roads and supply
routes. The unique ability of the M9 ACE to survive and perform
these tasks in the forward battle area while keeping pace with
the combat forces' forward momentum provides an indispensable
combat multiplier.
The committee recommends $50.7 million to procure 54
vehicles in order to accelerate fielding to active component
heavy divisions.
Ammunition Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $853.4 million for Ammunition
Procurement, Army in fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends
authorization of $1,160.7 million for fiscal year 1997.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Item of Special Interest
Sense and destroy armor (SADARM)-
The budget request contained $60.3 million to procure 322
SADARM artillery projectiles.
The committee is aware of the significant increase in
combat effectiveness SADARM, the Army's first ``smart'' 155mm
artillery munition, adds to the field artillery battalions.
Because of its continuing concern with the Army's chronic
shortage of combat ammunition, the committee recommends an
increase of $33.5 million to produce an additional 316 SADARM
rounds. The committee understands that this increased
production will achieve significant price breaks from
suppliers, as well as move the first-unit-equipped date from
fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 1998.--
Other Procurement, Army-
Overview
The budget request contained $2,627.4 million for Other
Procurement, Army in fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends
authorization of $2,812.2 million for fiscal year 1997.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless other
specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on
affordability considerations.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Items of Special Interest
Army data distribution system (ADDS)-
The budget request contained $48.0 million for ADDS,
including 900 sets of the Enhanced Position Location Reporting
System (EPLRS).
The committee has consistently added funding in previous
fiscal years for the EPLRS because of its concern to eliminate
``friendly fire'' casualties on the battlefield. The committee
understands that the Marine Corps, the Air Force and the Air
Reserve forces have initiated an effort to integrate a modified
EPLRS, called the Situation Awareness Data Link (SADL), into
attack aircraft to increase the aviator's situational awareness
of forces on the ground. The committee strongly supports this
effort and recommends an additional $25.0 million for EPLRS/
SADL procurement.-
Forward area air defense ground based sensor (FAAD GBS)-
The budget request contained $51.2 million to procure 16
FAAD GBS systems.
The FAAD GBS radar system provides detection of fixed wing
aircraft, helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles and cruise
missiles and provides cueing to the Stinger MANPAD teams, as
well as Avenger and Bradley Stinger Fighting Vehicle platforms.
The committee recommends $68.8 million, an increase of
$17.6 million, to procure an additional 12 FAAD GBS systems.
This action is consistent with the committee's actions over the
past several years to accelerate FAAD GBS production.
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request contained $5,882.0 million for Aircraft
Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends
authorization of $6,669.0 million for fiscal year 1997.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Items of Special Interest
AV-8B remanufacture-
The budget request contained $282.0 million to procure 10
remanufactured AV-8B aircraft and $22.9 million for advance
procurement of 12 aircraft in fiscal year 1998.
The upgraded AV-8B, with its enhanced day/night, adverse
weather, survivability, and improved multi-mission
capabilities, will dramatically increase the Marine Corps'
ability to project combat power from its amphibious ready
groups. Moreover, the material improvements which result from
this remanufacture are projected to reduce the aircraft's
mishap rate dramatically. For these reasons, the committee
recommends an additional $112. 0 million to procure four more
AV-8B remanufactured aircraft in order to accelerate the
fielding of this much-needed and safety-related improvement.
EA-6B modifications -
The budget request contained $100.6 million for EA-6B
modifications.
Fleet aviation continues to require a robust electronic
warfare capability. The decision to retire the Air Force's EF-
111s and rely on the EA-6B for the Department's tactical
jamming mission makes it imperative that the EA-6B fleet be
structurally sound and modernized to meet current requirements.
The EA-6B's aluminum wing center sections have been found
to be subject to embrittlement, which has led to stress cracks
and resulted in the removal of a number of aircraft from active
service. As a result of a Congressional initiative to address
this problem, replacement wing center sections are currently
being produced. However the Navy has a requirement for twenty
more of these sections, since Congress added funds in fiscal
year 1996 to upgrade an additional 20 EA-6Bs to support the Air
Force's stand-off jamming needs. Consequently, the committee
recommends an additional $55.0 million to purchase ten of the
twenty new wing center sections in order to avoid a production
break in the manufacture of this component.
The current jamming transmitters on the EA-6B have not
changed substantially since originally designed in the 1960s.
There have been several generations of improved surface-to-air
and air-to-air missiles since then, and many of these new
systems operate at higher radio frequency signals than these
jammers. Also, the great majority of current anti-ship missiles
employ seekers in the band 9/10 frequency range. Since the EA-
6B is a key component of the Navy's Cooperative Engagement
Capability against these threats, equipping these aircraft with
Band 9/10 electronic countermeasure transmitters will provide a
potent and effective defensive screen against such missiles.
Consequently, the committee recommends an additional $40.0
million to procure 60 shipsets of these transmitters.
V-22 Osprey-
The budget request contained $500.9 million to procure the
first four V-22s and $57.8 million for advance procurement of
five aircraft in fiscal year 1998.
The committee remains concerned about the Department's
proposed 25-year V-22 production schedule. The Defense Science
Board recommended that the Department adopt a more efficient V-
22 production schedule, and the Department has stated that a
minimum of $8 billion could be saved by accelerating the
planned procurement and achieving a production rate of 36
aircraft per year by the year 2000. In order to increase
initial V-22 production rates, the committee recommends an
additional $232.0 million to produce two more aircraft and an
additional $10.0 million in advance procurement to maintain a
production rate of six aircraft in fiscal year 1998. The
committee recommends that the Department provide funds in the
Future Years Defense Program submitted with the fiscal year
1998 budget request to support V-22 accelerated production.
Weapons Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request contained $1,400.4 million for Weapons
Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends
authorization of $1,305.3 million for fiscal year 1997.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Item of Special Interest
Trident II sea-launched ballistic missile (SLBM)-
The budget request contained $267.5 million for procurement
of Trident II SLBMs.
The committee continues to strongly support the Trident II
SLBM program, but recommends $259.8 million, a reduction of
$7.7 million, to be applied against the reentry body
downloading/arms control subactivity.
Ammunition Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps
Overview
The budget request did not contain any funds for Ammunition
Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps in fiscal year 1997. The
committee recommends authorization of $599.2 million for fiscal
year 1997 as reflected in the following table.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Item of Special Interest
Ammunition
The budget request contained $68.9 million for procurement
of ammunition.
Notwithstanding corrective action taken by the Congress
last year to address the Corps' ammunition deficiency, the
committee understands that the Marines still do not have
sufficient ammunition to support the Administration's national
military strategy of being capable to fight two nearly
simultaneous major regional contingencies (MRCs). Therefore, to
ensure that the Marine Corps has adequate combat ammunition to
meet its two-MRC requirement, the committee recommends $449.9
million, an increase of $381.0 million, to be distributed as
follows:
[In millions of dollars]
5.56mm, all types................................................. 30.0
7.62mm, all types................................................. 8.0
.50 caliber....................................................... 7.0
81mm smoke screen................................................. 20.0
81mm illumination M853............................................ 10.0
Fuze, ET, XM762................................................... 40.0
Fuze, proximity................................................... 6.0
Ctg, 25mm, all types.............................................. 7.0
Ctg, 120mm, APFSDS-T, M829A2...................................... 12.0
Ctg, 120mm, 120mm HEAT-MP......................................... 21.0
9mm, all types.................................................... 1.0
Linear chg, all types............................................. 85.0
Chg, demolition................................................... 98.0
Grenades, all types............................................... 5.0
Rockets, all types................................................ 30.0
Items less than $2 million........................................ 1.0
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
Overview
The budget request contained $4,911.9 million for
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy in fiscal year 1997. The
committee recommends authorization of $5,479.9 million for
fiscal year 1997.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Items of Special Interest
Fast combat support ships
The budget request did not contain any funding for fast
combat support ships (AOE).
The committee is concerned that, despite a requirement for
a minimum of nine station ships to travel with and resupply the
carrier battle groups, the Navy continues to be one AOE short
of fulfilling this requirement and instead uses a combination
of several other ships for this purpose. Accordingly, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to re-examine the
requirement for fast combat support ships and report his
findings to the congressional defense committees by January 31,
1997. If such a requirement still exists, the Secretary should
include funding for the last AOE in the fiscal year 1998 budget
request.
Fast patrol craft
The budget request contained no funds for a fast patrol
craft.
The committee continues to support efforts to acquire an
advanced fast patrol craft for operations in littoral waters,
thus obviating the need to place cruisers and destroyers in
areas where they are vulnerable to shore-based cruise missiles,
mines, and quiet diesel submarines. A craft of this nature
would provide a highly capable, multimission adjunct to the
service's current fleet, and the committee urges the Navy to
move forward with the procurement of such a craft. However, the
committee understands that additional funding is necessary and
recommends $20.0 million for this purpose.
National defense sealift fund (NDSF)
The budget request contained $963.0 million for the NDSF,
including $90.0 million to purchase and convert existing
foreign-built, roll-on/roll-off (RO/RO) ships for the Ready
Reserve Force (RRF). No funds were requested for the second and
third of three additional Maritime Prepositioning Ships (MPS)
the Marine Corps wants to add to its MPS squadrons.
The committee notes that the first four of the Army's 19
Large, Medium-Speed RO/ROs (LMSR) will enter the fleet in 1996,
allowing the return of most, if not all, of the seven RRF RO/
ROs, which have been temporarily deployed as prepositioning
ships prior to the delivery of the LMSRs, to stand-by status
for future Army surge sealift requirements. The committee
further notes that these RRF ships have the capacity to meet
the Marine Corps' requirements for MPS.
The committee recommends $1,123.0 million for the NDSF, an
increase of $160.0 million, for the purpose of procuring a
second MPS. Unlike the first of these three additional MPS
ships, which, similar to recent purchases for the RRF, will
likely be a used, foreign-built hull converted for MPS use, the
committee intends that the second and third such ships be new
vessels constructed in U.S. shipyards. Therefore, the committee
recommends a provision (sec. 124) repealing the statutory
authority which allows the Marine Corps to purchase and convert
two additional foreign-built hulls.
Recognizing that construction of a new ship may take longer
than conversion of a used one, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to use the RRF RO/ROs, which will be
replaced by the LMSRs, to preposition Marine Corps equipment
until the Corps takes delivery of its three additional ships.
If these RRF ships are deemed adequate for the Army, then the
committee assumes they are also adequate for the Marines.
Finally, the committee notes that the Department is
currently prohibited from using NDSF funds for the acquisition
of ships for the RRF. Since the Department has requested $90.0
million for this purpose, the committee denies the request and
directs that this amount be combined with the $160.0 million
added for a second MPS. The Department is reminded that in the
statement of managers (H. Rept. 104-450) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public
Law 104-106) the conferees declared a willingness to revisit
this prohibition but only when the Department has established
and funded a national defense features program and the Congress
has had an opportunity to evaluate its effectiveness. -
Nuclear attack submarines
The budget request contained $699.1 million for continued
construction of the third Seawolf-class submarine (SSN-23) and
$296.2 million for advance procurement of the fiscal year 1998
New Attack Submarine (NAS). The budget request also contained
$489.4 million in Research and Development (R&D) funding to
continue detailed design of the NAS. The committee recommends
the requested amounts. In addition, the committee recommends a
legislative provision (sec. 122) which would segregate the
currently-existing cost cap on the three Seawolf-class
submarines into two components: (1) a combined cost cap on the
first two of these submarines and (2) a separate cost cap on
the SSN-23.
In its deliberations on the attack submarine program last
year, the committee was aware that former Navy officials had
originally intended to design several NAS prototypes,
emphasizing key technologies such as electric drive, before
settling on a final design for this submarine and that the
prototype program, with its plans for technological advances,
was stymied by the fact that the design of a new nuclear
reactor had already been completed. In an attempt to remedy
this situation, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) required the Secretary of
Defense to produce a plan, commencing in fiscal year 1998, to
begin construction of four transition nuclear attack
submarines, each of which would incorporate new technologies,
leading to the design of and culminating with the first ship of
a new class to be competed for construction in 2003. Although
the Navy's Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) also projects
commencing construction of four NASs between fiscal years 1998
and 2003, the Navy maintains that the plan Congress required
was unaffordable. Consequently, the Navy's FYDP does not fund
either the second or fourth submarines of this plan--the two
submarines that the plan required Newport News Shipbuilding
(NNS) to construct in order to introduce competition for
production of the first next-generation submarine in 2003. The
committee is disturbed by the Navy's actions, especially in
view of the fact that an LPD-17, not previously budgeted, was
added in fiscal year 1999 in lieu of a second submarine, and in
view of the fact that the LHD-7, previously budgeted in fiscal
year 2001, was moved forward and funded in fiscal year 1996,
thus making budget authority available for a fourth submarine.
The committee recommends $504.0 million for advance procurement
of the fiscal year 1999 transition submarine.
To its credit, the Navy did convene a panel of experts to
provide an independent evaluation of available and future
submarine technologies, and the committee notes that the panel
found the baseline NAS design ``lacked certain desirable
features which would probably be needed in the future and could
still be incorporated into an early NAS hull with vigorous
action.'' Again to its credit, the Navy has signed a Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) with the two nuclear-capable shipyards to
lay the groundwork for having both yards produce future nuclear
attack submarines. However, the Navy has not shown any
indications of responding to its independent panel's
recommendation for a stable infusion of R&D funding for
technology maturation by reprogramming fiscal year 1996 funds,
(since the panel's report was not finished in time to include
any funds in the fiscal year 1997 budget request). Neither has
the Navy indicated that there will be any incorporation of new
technology in the pre-competitive phase submarines, since the
MOA states that ``design improvements by the shipbuilders will
be reviewed by the Navy to determine which changes will be
included in follow ships'' (i.e., those built after the
competitive phase).
The committee is perplexed by the Navy's resistance to
recognize that the lack of sustained R&D funding has inhibited
the insertion of state-of-the-art technology in current
submarines and will prevent the maturation of advanced
technology for future submarines. The committee is similarly
puzzled that the shipyards are not more involved in the early
stages of submarine technology planning and development.
Finally, the committee is displeased that no efforts will be
made to incorporate new technologies into the ``pre-
competitive'' phase submarines.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision (sec.
121) which would take the following actions:
(1) Authorize $60.0 million to mature and transition
the technologies whose maturation the Navy's
independent panel recommended be addressed:
hydrodynamics, alternative sail designs, advanced
arrays, electric drive, external weapons, and active
controls and - - - - mounts. Of this amount, $10.0
million is to be provided to each of the shipyards to
ensure that they are principal participants in this
process. The committee intends that the shipyards be
allowed access to naval intelligence data and that
there be continuing interaction among the shipyards,
the Navy laboratories, and the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency;
(2) Authorize $38.0 million to fund development and
testing of Category I and II - - - technologies, as
described in the Secretary of Defense's March 1996
report to the - - Congress on NAS Procurement and
Submarine Technology;
(3) Authorize $40.0 million, equally divided between
the two shipyards, to fund design - - improvements
proposed by them for incorporation into the four
transition submarines. - - - Furthermore the provision
stipulates that there will be four separately-
maintained - - configurations, rather than the single
design the Navy plans to ``update'' for the ``post-- -
competitive'' phase of its NAS program; and
(4) Authorize $50.0 million, equally divided between
the two shipyards, to initiate the - - design of a
completely new next-generation nuclear attack submarine
in order to - - - - follow the independent panel's
recommendation that the Navy overcome its aversion - -
to investigate revolutionary technology options,
despite instances in the past when it - - has been
surprised by Russian innovation and advances.
The committee has been impressed with the results of the
Air Force's acquisition streamlining efforts, the so-called
``Lightning Bolts'' initiatives begun in May 1995. In less than
a year, these initiatives have already led to approximately $13
billion in savings and cost avoidance by reducing military
specifications and standards, contract data requirements lists,
and program office manpower. These impressive results have been
achieved by, among other things, creating centralized teams of
contracting, manufacturing, logistics, engineering, finance,
test and evaluation, safety, and legal experts which are sent
to program offices to help them in their streamlining efforts.
Consequently, the committee directs a similar type of team be
constituted by the Secretary of the Navy for the purpose of
reducing costs of the nuclear attack submarine programs. With a
congressionally-imposed cost cap on the SSN-23 and the
overabiding emphasis on NAS affordability, the committee
believes the Secretary should be sufficiently induced to
embrace this undertaking.
Other Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request contained $2,714.2 million for Other
Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends
authorization of $2,871.5 million for fiscal year 1997.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Items of Special Interest
Aegis support equipment -
The budget request contained $30.4 million for Aegis
support equipment.
The committee supports the Aegis program's ongoing effort
to utilize interactive electronic technical manuals (IETMs)
that store paper manuals in electronic format. The committee is
aware that the Navy is investigating the possibility of hosting
the IETMs on flexible wearable computers. This system allows
repair technicians to perform their tasks with hands-free
access to the IETM maintenance information, while affording
them maximum mobility to operate in confined spaces. In order
to gain at-sea experience with the combined IETM/flexible
wearable computer system, the committee recommends an
additional $3.0 million to procure flexible wearable computers
for deployment on Aegis ships as well as other ships that have
IETMs available.
Airborne mine countermeasures-
The budget request contained $13.5 million for airborne
mine countermeasures.
The committee is aware of the progress and success of Magic
Lantern, a helicopter-mounted laser mine detection system.
Magic Lantern, as a prototype, was deployed in Desert Storm and
provided unparalleled airborne mine detection and
classification capability for moored and floating contact
mines. Since that time Magic Lantern test results have met or
exceeded specifications and demonstrated a greater probability
of detection and classification, higher area coverage, and
lower false alarm rate than any other mine countermeasure
system. Magic Lantern is the Navy's only proven airborne laser
mine detection system and the only effective counter against
contact mines.
Despite an urgent requirement for effective contact mine
detection, the Navy requested no funds for Magic Lantern
procurement. The committee views such action as short-sighted
and recommends $25.0 million to procure three Magic Lantern
systems and associated spares.
AN/BPS-16 submarine radar--
The budget request did not contain any funding for the AN/
BPS-16 submarine radar.
The committee recommends $16.0 million to complete the
backfit of the AN/BPS-16 commercial-off-the-shelf radar into
the SSN-688 Los Angeles-class submarine fleet. Installation of
the AN/BPS-16 will dramatically improve the operational safety
of the 688 fleet by providing a state-of-the-art, all-weather
radar for navigating into and out of ports and for performing
tactical operations at sea in adverse weather conditions.
Moreover, additional procurement of this radar in fiscal year
1997, rather than fiscal year 1998 or later, will result in
significant cost savings to the Navy by ensuring its continuous
production.
Doppler sonar velocity log-
The budget request did not contain any funding for a
Doppler Sonar Velocity Log.
The Navy has informed the committee that it has identified
a need to develop a new Doppler Sonar Velocity Log for use on
its next-generation attack submarines and warships. However,
the committee has learned that there may be commercially-
available systems that can satisfy the Navy's requirement for
accuracy and shallow water performance. Therefore, the
committee recommends an additional $1.0 million to purchase and
test a non-developmental doppler velocity log.
Integrated navigation, information, and ship control system -
The budget request did not contain any funding for
integrated navigation, information, and ship control systems.
The Navy has an urgent requirement to modernize, automate,
and fully integrate bridge and machinery monitoring and control
systems on its cruisers and other surface ships with
commercial-off-the-shelf, military-qualified systems. These
systems include an Integrated Bridge System, Integrated
Condition Assessment System, Damage Control System, and
Standard Monitoring and Control System. The procurement and
installation of these proven, demonstrated systems on surface
combatant ships will offer major improvements in performance
and reduce the size of the crew required to safely operate
them. The committee understands that 45 to 55 positions can be
eliminated from the present 370-person cruiser crew, and life
cycle cost reductions of 50 percent are estimated for the
systems replaced or augmented. Accordingly, the committee
recommends an increase of $32.0 million for procurement and
installation of four identical integrated navigation,
information, and ship control systems on CG-47 class cruisers.
Safety and survivability items-
The budget request did not contain any funds for safety and
survivability items.
Congress provided funds in fiscal year 1996 to purchase
commercial-off-the-shelf, non-developmental item (COTS/NDI)
life safety items identified for priority procurement by the
Navy's Office of Safety and Survivability (OSS) and the
operational commands. As a result, OSS initiated the retrofit
of flight data recorders (FDRs) on early model F/A-18 aircraft
that do not have these crash-survivable instruments. The
committee recognizes that additional funds are required to
complete the F/A-18 FDR retrofit and to initiate retrofit of
COTS/NDI FDRs on all Navy and Marine Corps passenger-carrying
military aircraft but believes that such COTS/NDI applications
provide a high return on investment. Consequently, the
committee recommends $14.2 million to support the continued
retrofit of FDRs on F/A-18 and other Navy and Marine Corps
aircraft lacking them, as well as to accelerate the
introduction of other life safety items identified for priority
procurement.
Shipboard stabilized platform system (SSPS)
The budget request did not contain any funds for an SSPS.
The committee understands that the Navy has not yet
conducted the demonstration of a U.S. industry-developed
shipboard gun system that was funded in fiscal year 1995.
However, the committee notes that a fiscal year 1996 SSPS
demonstration is planned, the results of which are to be
available in fiscal year 1997. The committee also notes that
both the U.S. Coast Guard and the Special Operations Command
(SOCOM) have stated requirements for an SSPS. Consequently, the
committee strongly urges the Navy, the Coast Guard, and SOCOM
to select and fund production start-up in fiscal year 1998 of
the non-developmental system which the planned demonstration
indicates best meets their collective needs. Selection should
be based on current and projected requirements for performance,
survivability, and applicability to additional weapons. The
selected gun mount should require no additional development
funding except to accomplish service-unique tailoring.-
Surface ship torpedo defense (SSTD) -
The budget request contained $5.7 million for SSTD.
The Navy informed the committee in 1995 of its restructured
SSTD program, whose charter is to develop and produce a torpedo
defense capability that contributes to surface ship survival.
At that time, the Department stated that both the cost and the
technical risk of the restructured effort had been
significantly reduced. Consequently, the committee is perplexed
that no funds were requested in fiscal year 1997 to move
forward on this program. Accordingly, the committee recommends
an additional $12.5 million to procure torpedo defense
equipment for combatant, amphibious, and auxiliary ships,
including towed array sensors, torpedo alertment processors,
launched expendable acoustic devices, and torpedo
countermeasure transmitting sets.
Surface tomahawk support equipment-
The budget request contained $75.6 million for surface
Tomahawk support equipment.
The Tomahawk afloat planning system (APS) successfully
underwent extensive operational test and evaluation in 1994,
and production system installations have been completed on the
USS Carl Vinson and the USS George Washington. The APS
significantly reduces Tomahawk strike planning response times.
The APS also provides the centerpiece of the Joint Service
Imagery Processing System-Navy which provides deployed planners
real-time capability to receive, process, analyze and exploit
tactical sensor imagery.
The committee notes that the Congress has previously
encouraged the Department to continue support and funding for
the APS and to consider extending the APS's targeting and
mission planning capabilities to other tactical command
echelons. The committee is pleased with the APS program's
development and production efforts, which have been on
schedule, within cost, and have met or exceeded all
specifications. Therefore, the committee recommends an
additional $10.0 million to support continued fielding of the
APS.
WSN-7 Ring Laser Gyro (RLG)-
The budget request contained $17.2 million for navigation
equipment.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for
the procurement and installation of ten WSN-7 RLGs. This
increase will allow the Navy to accelerate the replacement of
obsolete, maintenance-intensive ship navigation systems in the
surface and submarine fleets with the WSN-7 RLG ship navigator,
which has been selected as the common RLG for all surface and
submarine fleets. According to the Atlantic and Pacific fleet
commanders, this accelerated procurement will not only improve
fleet performance but also maximize cost savings to the Navy.
Procurement, Marine Corps
Overview
The budget request contained $555.5 million for
Procurement, Marine Corps in fiscal year 1997. The committee
recommends authorization of $546.7 million for fiscal year
1997.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Items of Special Interest
AN/TPQ-36 firefinder radar upgrade
The budget request contained $30.4 million to upgrade the
AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder radar sets.
The committee understands that, due to the non-standard
configuration of these radar sets in Marine units, the program
to upgrade all Firefinders is currently underfunded. Therefore,
the committee recommends $34.2 million, an increase of $3.8
million, to fully fund this upgrade.
Javelin
The budget request contained $28.2 million to procure 148
Javelin antitank missiles and 48 command launch units (CLUs).
As noted elsewhere in this report, the Javelin will be
procured jointly by the Army and Marine Corps to replace the
Dragon, which is no longer capable of defeating current armor
threats. Although both the Army and Marine Corps have urgent
requirements to field the Javelin, the committee understands
that combined procurement quantities do not support cost
efficient production rates of the missile. The committee
therefore recommends $48.2 million, an increase of $20.0
million, to procure an additional 120 missiles and 16 CLUs.
Training devices
The budget request did not contain any funds for
procurement of the Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System
(MILES) 2000.
The committee understands that the Marine Corps has a
requirement for 10 battalion sets of MILES 2000 training
devices and plans to begin procurement of these aids in fiscal
year 1998. To accelerate procurement of these systems, the
committee recommends $10.6 million to fund the first two
battalion sets.
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request contained $5,779.2 million for Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 1997. The committee
recommends authorization of $7,271.9 million for fiscal year
1997.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Items of Special Interest
B-1B conventional mission upgrade program
The budget request contained $84.4 million for B-1B
modifications.
The committee is pleased with the improvements in mission
capable rates of the B-1B fleet. However, the committee is
discouraged by the slow pace of the effort to integrate
conventional precision guided munitions (PGM) with the B-1B.
Although additional funding was provided in fiscal year 1996 to
accelerate arming of the B-1B with the Joint Direct Attack
Munition (JDAM) and other PGM capabilities, the committee is
not aware of any significant progress toward this objective.
Consequently, the committee urges the Air Force to accelerate
PGM integration with the B-1B and recommends an increase of
$15.0 million for this purpose. Elsewhere in this report, the
committee has also addressed this concern by accelerating
production of the Sensor Fuzed Weapon (SFW) and the JDAM in
order to provide increased quantities of PGMs for the bomber
force.
The committee understands that the Air Force is currently
modifying existing conventional bomb modules (CBM) to carry SFW
and other conventional submunitions dispensers. The committee
supports the CBM modification and recommends an increase of
$57.0 million to procure enough CBMs to equip two B-1B
squadrons with SFW capability.
C-17
The budget request contained $1,919.3 million for
procurement of eight C-17 aircraft.
The committee commends the Department's continued emphasis
on strategic airlift, is pleased with the current progress of
the C-17 program in reducing costs and maintaining timely
aircraft deliveries, and is supportive of the decision to
procure an all-C-17 fleet to fulfill the Department's strategic
airlift requirements.
However, the committee understands that the C-17 budget
request was prematurely reduced, based on the assumption that
the committee would authorize the Administration's
unprecedented request for a seven-year multiyear procurement of
80 C-17s. While the committee strongly supports modernization
of the strategic airlift fleet, it is disturbed by the
unorthodox approach taken by the Administration in requesting
authority to begin the largest and longest multiyear
procurement in defense acquisition history as an attachment to
a small supplemental appropriations request rather than await
completion of the normal defense authorization and
appropriations process.
The committee is aware of an alternative multiyear option
which saves at least $300 million more than the
Administration's proposal and completes the C-17 program one
year sooner. Such earlier completion not only enables faster
fielding of the aircraft to redress serious airlift
deficiencies, but also avoids the C-17 having to compete for
procurement funds at the same time the F-22 fighter is
scheduled to begin full-rate production. Therefore, the
committee recommends a legislative provision (sec. 142)
authorizing a six-year multiyear procurement of 80 C-17
aircraft. The committee also recommends an increase of $380.0
million to procure two additional aircraft in fiscal year 1997
and to provide sufficient advance procurement funding for 12
aircraft in fiscal year 1998. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional
defense committees by February 1, 1997, specifying the actions
necessary to achieve savings of at least $300 million greater
then the amount offered in the Administration's seven-year
proposal.
Digital terrain system
The budget request did not contain any funds for the F-16
digital terrain system (DTS).
The committee notes that although the Air Force has
procured over 100 DTSs, approximately fifty have been leased to
U.S. allies and the remainder put in storage. The committee is
concerned that the Air Force has no plan to utilize this system
on its own aircraft.
The committee recommends $3.0 million to procure additional
DTSs and directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a
report to the congressional defense committees by December 31,
1996, which provides a utilization plan for this system.
E-3 airborne warning and control systems (AWACS)
The budget request contained $287.9 million for
modifications to the E-3 AWACS aircraft and to ensure
operational effectiveness of the 32-aircraft fleet.
The committee notes that TF-33 engine failures currently
account for unacceptably large numbers of AWACS mission aborts,
but the budget request contained no funds for reengining
efforts to address this problem. Therefore, the committee
recommends $361.9 million for AWACS modifications, an increase
of $74.0 million, to begin procurement of replacement engine
kits.
E-8C Joint surveillance and target attack radar system (JSTARS)
The budget request contained $417.8 million to procure two
E-8C JSTARS aircraft and $111.1 million advance procurement for
two aircraft in fiscal year 1998.
The committee notes the successful deployment of JSTARS to
Bosnia and the strong endorsements provided by theater
commanders in support of accelerating the procurement of these
aircraft. Consequently, the committee recommends $642.8
million, an increase of $225.0 million, to procure an
additional JSTARS aircraft.
F-15E
The budget request contained $185.4 million to procure four
F-15E aircraft.
The committee commends the Air Force for continuing F-15E
procurement, which was re-initiated by the committee in fiscal
year 1996. The committee notes that, although the Air Force has
a stated requirement for 12 more aircraft to replace attrition
losses, only four were requested due to budget constraints.
Consistent with its actions last year, the committee recommends
$305.3 million, an increase of $119.9 million, to procure two
additional aircraft and fund advance procurement for the six
aircraft remaining to be procured in fiscal year 1998. The
committee recommends a legislative provision (sec. 141) that
would modify current law to permit this procurement.
F-16 C/D
The budget request included $105.5 million to procure four
F-16 C/D aircraft.
The committee commends the Air Force for funding additional
F-16s in fiscal year 1997, thereby continuing the committee's
fiscal year 1996 initiative to restart F-16 procurement. The
committee recommends $164.9 million, an increase of $59.4
million, to procure six aircraft in fiscal year 1997 and
provide advance procurement for six more aircraft in fiscal
year 1998.
Joint primary aircraft training system (JPATS)
The budget request contained $67.1 million to procure 12
JPATS aircraft.
The committee notes that procurement of these aircraft has
suffered lengthy delays due to contract award protests. In
order to recover months of fielding schedule time lost because
of these delays, the committee recommends $82.2 million, an
increase of $15.1 million, to procure three additional
aircraft. Further, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Air Force to obligate funds appropriated for JPATS prior to
fiscal year 1997 to procure three additional aircraft in fiscal
year 1996.
Pacer Coin
The budget request contained $2.6 million for the C-130
PACER COIN special mission aircraft.
The committee notes that the Department has been directed
to determine if the PACER COIN aircraft could be configured to
perform both intelligence and airdrop missions. Preliminary
indications available to the committee indicate that
modifications which would result in a multi-mission aircraft
are not only possible but cost-effective as well. However, the
budget request did not include any funds for such
modifications. Accordingly, the committee denies the request
for PACER COIN-unique mission support equipment.
RC-135
The budget request contained $66.2 million for support of
the RC-135 fleet.
The committee notes the increased emphasis placed on this
intelligence collection asset and supports continuing the
effort initiated by Congress last year to enhance existing RC-
135s and augment the fleet with additional aircraft. The
committee understands that the theater commanders-in-chief have
a high priority requirement for two additional RC-135s and that
this requirement has been validated by the Joint Requirements
Oversight Council. To address this requirement, the committee
recommends an increase of $39.3 million to accelerate the
procurement of an additional aircraft. To continue the ongoing
reengining effort, the committee also recommends an increase of
$145.0 million to reengine six aircraft.
Ammunition Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request did not contain any funds for Ammunition
Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 1997. The committee
recommends authorization of $303.9 million for fiscal year 1997
as reflected in the following table.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Missile Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request contained $2,733.9 million for Missile
Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 1997. The committee
recommends authorization of $4,341.2 million for fiscal year
1997.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Items of Special Interest
Peacekeeper
The budget request contained $8.3 million for procurement
of missile replacement equipment, $72.8 million for procurement
of Minuteman III modifications, and $44.6 million for
procurement of spares and repair parts.
The statement of managers accompanying the conference
report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) directed the Secretary of the
Air Force to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees that outlines the Air Force's plans for retaining up
to 50 Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)
in an operational status beyond 2003, including the timing and
funding required to implement this plan. Although the committee
has not received the required report, the committee continues
to firmly believe that steps must be taken now to sustain the
Peacekeeper ICBM force in light of the fact that Russia has yet
to ratify the START II treaty. Therefore, the committee
recommends $32.0 million for Peacekeeper sustainment
activities. This includes an additional $3.4 million for
missile replacement equipment, $5.3 million for Minuteman
modifications, and $300,000 for replacement spares and repairs.
In addition, of the amounts authorized to be appropriated
pursuant to Title III for Air Force operations and maintenance,
$23.0 million is to be used for sustaining Peacekeeper
operations.
Precision guided munitions (PGMs)
The budget request contained $23.0 million to procure 937
Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM), $131.1 million to procure
400 Sensor Fuzed Weapons (SFW), and $18.4 million to procure
161 GBU-28 hard target penetrator bombs. No funds were
requested for procurement of the AGM-130 powered laser guided
bomb, the AGM-86B conventional air-launched cruise missile
(CALCM), or the AGM-142 HAVE NAP medium range tactical missile,
even though these weapons represent the only current stand-off
PGMs in the Air Force inventory.
The committee noted its concern about the lack of PGMs
during its fiscal year 1996 budget deliberations and continues
to have reservations with the Air Force's strategy for
procuring this much-needed capability. Therefore, the committee
recommends $95.0 million for procurement of 250 AGM-130 laser-
guided bombs, $15.0 million to modify 100 air-launched cruise
missiles to the CALCM configuration, and $39.0 million to
procure 50 HAVE NAP missiles. The committee also recommends an
increase of $12.0 for procurement of 100 additional GBU-28 hard
target penetrator bombs and $21.6 million for procurement of
100 additional SFWs.
Further, in order to accelerate deliveries of JDAM and
provide the earliest possible operational capability to the
bomber force, the committee also recommends an increase of
$50.0 million for procurement of up to 3,000 additional JDAM
kits. The committee notes that there is a requirement for more
than 87,000 of these munitions and the Secretary of Defense has
praised the JDAM program as one of the Department's most
successful examples of acquisition streamlining. Consequently,
the committee strongly urges the Department to consider
multiyear procurement of this PGM.
Other Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request contained $5,998.8 million for Other
Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 1997. The committee
recommends authorization of $6,117.4 million for fiscal year
1997.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Items of Special Interest
Predator unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)
The budget request contained $57.8 million for procurement
of two Predator UAV systems.
The committee is pleased with the performance of the
Predator in support of peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and
understands that the Department has determined that the
Predator's demonstrated military utility merits its fielding to
meet identified requirements.
The committee notes that theater commanders-in-chief
(CINCs) have requirements for 17 Predator systems, but that the
requested funding does not support production rates to meet
these requirements. Therefore, the committee recommends $107.8
million, an increase of $50.0 million, to procure up to four
additional Predator systems. Consistent with the legislative
provision recommended elsewhere in this report (sec. 217), the
committee recommends that these funds be transferred from
Procurement, Defense-Wide, to Other Procurement, Air Force.
The committee also understands that the Air Force has
identified a requirement to obtain a limited number of Predator
systems to establish a training base for its Predator
operators. The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force
to conduct a cost analysis to determine whether leasing such
systems (in addition to those procured) constitutes a cost-
effective strategy for meeting this immediate training
requirement. A report containing the details of this analysis
and the Secretary's recommendations should be provided to the
congressional defense committees not later than 60 days after
enactment of this Act. Further, if leasing Predator systems
proves to be a cost-effective solution to this requirement and
is recommended by the Secretary, the committee urges the
Secretary to immediately pursue such a lease arrangement.
Tri-band precision landing receiver
The budget request did not contain any funding for
procurement of the Tri-Band Precision Landing Receiver (PLSR).
The committee understands that the Air Force has invested
approximately $50 million to develop this all-weather,
worldwide landing capability for military aircraft but has not
yet initiated procurement of the PLSR. Elsewhere in this
report, the committee recommends $5.0 million in RDT&E funds to
complete development of the program. Therefore, the committee
recommends that the Secretary of the Air Force assess the cost
and operational effectiveness for procurement of the PLSR and
provide a report of the results of this assessment to the
congressional defense committees by February 1, 1997.
Procurement, Defense-Wide
Overview
The budget request contained $1,841.2 million for
Procurement, Defense-Wide in fiscal year 1997. The committee
recommends authorization of $1,890.2 million for fiscal year
1997.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Items of Special Interest
Automated document conversion system (ADCS)-
The budget request did not contain any funds for the ADCS.
-The committee is aware that the Department has made some
progress in following its direction to begin the purchase of
the UNIX-based software necessary to convert the Department's
more complex engineering documents from raster files to an
intelligent format. In addition, the committee is encouraged by
the initial results of the PC-based ADCS testing, which will
allow engineers to convert less complex and smaller engineering
drawings. However, as the committee has noted in the past,
significant cost savings can be achieved through the use of an
ADCS; thus, the committee is disappointed that no funds were
requested for this purpose.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $38.8 million for
ADCS, allocated as follows: $10 million for the purchase of
UNIX-based conversion software; $5 million to purchase video
tracing technology for those documents that require computer-
aided design perfect/accurate conversion; $10 million for bulk
conversion; and $3.8 million for system integration software.-
Pioneer unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)
The budget request contained $10.6 million for procurement
of attrition spares and support kits for the Pioneer UAV
system.
The committee understands that the Department has decided
to terminate procurement of the Hunter UAV system and use the
existing equipment for testing and maintaining a residual
capability. This decision results in the Pioneer being the only
UAV currently capable of meeting Navy and Marine Corps short-
range requirements. The committee further understands that
several initiatives necessary to ensure continued effectiveness
of the Pioneer are ongoing but have been underfunded in
anticipation of future fielding of the Tactical UAV, a new,
advanced concepts technology demonstration program.
Consequently, the committee recommends $40.6 million, an
increase of $30.0 million, to fund these initiatives and
maintain the Pioneer system at acceptable readiness levels.
National Guard and Reserve Equipment
Overview
The budget request did not contain any funds for National
Guard and Reserve Equipment for fiscal year 1997. The committee
recommends authorization of $805.0 million for fiscal year
1997.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense
Overview
The budget request contained $799.8 million for Chemical
Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense for fiscal year 1997.
The committee recommends authorization of $799.8 million for
fiscal year 1997.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Item of Special Interest
Chemical agents and munitions destruction
The budget request contained $799.8 million for operation
and maintenance, research and development, and procurement
activities of the defense chemical agents and munitions
destruction program.
The committee is aware of concerns raised by several
citizen groups about this program and whether there are
alternative technologies that should be pursued to reduce what
they consider to be the potential hazard of the Army's baseline
incineration process. The committee notes that the Army is
proceeding with the investigation of alternative technologies
for potential use in accordance with the recommendations of the
National Research Council (NRC). The committee believes there
is potential for the implementation of these processes at
selected future demilitarization and destruction sites.
However, the committee supports the NRC's recommendation that
the Army continue its current baseline incineration program
until such time as the evaluation of these alternative
technologies is concluded. Should the results of the
alternative technologies investigation indicate that certain of
them be adopted for particular sites or configurations of the
stockpile, the committee would support inclusion of these
processes in the program.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104-106) requires the Secretary of Defense to
conduct an assessment of the current chemical demilitarization
program and of measures that could be taken to significantly
reduce its cost, while ensuring maximum protection of the
general public, the personnel involved in the demilitarization
program, and the environment. The law requires the Secretary to
submit a final report on this assessment and recommendations
for revisions to the program with the submission of the fiscal
year Department's budget request. The committee expects that
should the Secretary recommend alternative technologies be
adopted for use at selected demilitarization sites, the
Department will submit a fiscal year 1997 reprogramming request
to immediately implement this decision. The committee intends
to review the status of the program and the Department's
recommendations for any changes to it as a part of the
committee's review of the fiscal year 1998 budget request.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Sections 101-108--Authorization of Appropriations
These sections would authorize the recommended fiscal year
1997 funding levels for all procurement accounts.
Subtitle B--Army Programs
Section 111--Repeal of Limitation on Procurement of Certain Aircraft
This section would repeal prohibitions on the procurement
of AH-64D Apache and OH-58D Armed Kiowa Warrior helicopters.
Section 112--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Army Programs
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
enter into a multiyear procurement contract for procurement of
the Army Tactical Missile System. This section would also
authorize the Secretary to extend the multiyear procurement
contract for the Avenger air defense missile system through
fiscal year 1997.
Subtitle C--Navy Programs
Section 121--Nuclear Attack Submarine Programs
This section would authorize funding for both the Seawolf-
class and the next-generation nuclear attack submarine
programs; provide certain restrictions on the obligation of
this funding; specify the basis for awarding of contracts for
the fifth and subsequent next-generation submarines; and
delineate design responsibility for the four transition
submarines--all as described elsewhere in this report.
Section 122--Cost Limitations for Seawolf Submarine Program
This section would establish a separate cost cap for the
final Seawolf-class nuclear attack submarine (SSN-23).
Section 123--Pulse Doppler Radar Modification-
This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to
fund the SPS-48E pulse doppler radar upgrade from prior years'
unobligated balances available to him.
Section 124--Reduction in Number of Vessels Excluded From Limit on
Purchase of Vessels Built in Foreign Shipyards
This section would repeal the statutory authority which
allows the Marine Corps to purchase, using funds in the
National Defense Sealift Fund, foreign-built hulls for
conversion to maritime prepositioning ships.
Section 125--T-39N Trainer Aircraft for the Navy
This section would repeal subsection (a) of section 137 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104-106), thereby enabling the Secretary of the
Navy to purchase the fleet of 17 currently-leased T-39N trainer
aircraft used for naval flight officer training. However, the
committee directs that the Navy pay a fair and reasonable price
for these 17 aircraft and that such price not exceed $45.0
million.
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs
Section 141--Repeal of Limitation on the Procurement of F-15E Aircraft
This section would repeal a prohibition on the procurement
of the F-15E.
Section 142--C-17 Aircraft Procurement--
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
to enter into a multiyear procurement contract for procurement
of the C-17.-
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
OVERVIEW
The budget request for fiscal year 1997 contained $34,745.7
million for research, development, test, and evaluation
(RDT&E). This represents a $396.0 million decrease from the
amount authorized for fiscal year 1996.
The committee recommends authorization of $35,537.4
million, an increase of $791.7 million from the fiscal year
1997 request.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 1997
RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major issues
are discussed following the table.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Defense-Wide Programs
Special Considerations
Ballistic missile defense
The budget request included $2,798.8 million in various
program elements (PEs) for research, development, test, and
evaluation (RDT&E), procurement, and military construction
activities of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
(BMDO). The committee-recommended changes to the request are
summarized below:
[In millions of dollars]
Corps SAM/MEADS (PE63869C).................................... ($56.2)
Navy Upper Tier (PE 63868C)................................... 246.0
National Missile Defense (PE 63871C).......................... 350.0
THAAD (PE 63861C)............................................. 140.0
Support Technology-AIT (PE 63173C)............................ 40.0
Cooperative Projects with Russia (PE 62XXXC).................. 20.0
Management (General Reduction)................................ (15.0)
A more detailed explanation is provided below.
Advanced interceptor technology
The budget request included $7.4 million in PE 63173C for
Advanced Interceptor Technology (AIT). The committee recommends
an additional $40.0 million in this PE for AIT. These
additional funds would support a more aggressive schedule for
development and testing of advanced kinetic kill vehicle
technologies with potential applicability to various future TMD
systems, such as THAAD and Boost Phase Interceptor.
Arrow
The committee continues to strongly support the U.S.-
Israeli Arrow program. The committee recommends full funding of
the Arrow and other U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense
projects contained in the budget request. The committee notes,
however, that $27.0 million in fiscal year 1996 and prior year
funding for the U.S. portion of the Arrow Deployability Project
remains unobligated as a result of the lack of a Presidential
certification that a memorandum of agreement exists with Israel
for the project, that the project provides benefits to the
United States, that the Arrow missile has completed a
successful intercept, and that the Government of Israel is
adhering to export controls pursuant to the Missile Technology
Control Regime.
Cooperative projects with Russia
The committee strongly endorses an expanded program of
cooperative BMD-related projects with Russia as a means of
building trust and confidence as both sides pursue development
and deployment of TMD and NMD systems. U.S.-Russian cooperative
BMD activities include various programmatic endeavors as well
as a series of joint TMD simulation exercises, the first of
which is to be held in June at the Joint National Test
Facility, Colorado Springs, Colorado. The Russian-American
Observational Satellite (RAMOS) program is one such high-
payoff, cooperative technology development program, a point
recognized by senior Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)
officials. For example, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology has written to the First Deputy
Minister of Defense in the Russian Ministry of Defense to
apprise him of U.S. government approval and support of the
program and to encourage timely final approval from the Russian
government. Other U.S.-Russian cooperative BMD activities
include the Active Geophysical Rocket Experiment (AGRE)
project, and small-scale projects such as electric thrusters
for spacecraft, photo-voltaic arrays, and energetic materials.
To promote and highlight expanded U.S.-Russian BMD
cooperation, the committee recommends establishment of a new
program element (PE) for cooperation with Russia. The committee
recommends consolidating all existing cooperation projects
within this new PE, and recommends $20.0 million be made
available within this PE.
CorpsSAM/MEADS
The budget request included $56.2 million for the Corps
surface-to-air missile/Medium Extended Air Defense System
(CorpsSAM/MEADS). The committee has in the past supported a
cooperative multinational program, but notes that: a memorandum
of understanding establishing the program has yet to be signed;
there is a high degree of uncertainty as to which U.S. European
allies will join in the project; and other programmatic changes
have significantly delayed formal initiation of the program. As
a result, the committee can no longer determine the total cost
of the program, the U.S. cost-share percentage, or the program
schedule, including key technical milestones. Furthermore, the
committee notes that senior DOD officials have thus far chosen
not to press support for the program during congressional
consideration of the fiscal year 1997 budget request.
Therefore, the committee recommends no funds for the program.
The committee also notes that the Department has yet to submit
a report on options associated with the use of existing systems
technologies and program management mechanisms to satisfy
validated CorpsSAM/MEADS requirements, as was requested in the
statement of managers accompanying the conference report on S.
1124 (H. Rept. 104-450). Therefore, only $5.0 million of the
$20.0 million authorized in fiscal year 1996 has been obligated
for CorpsSAM/MEADS. The committee urges the expeditious
completion and submission of this report.
Joint national test facility
The budget request included $5.8 million for Joint National
Test Facility (JNTF) modernization split among program elements
63871C, 63872C, and 63173C. The committee recognizes the
importance of the BMDO-sponsored JNTF as an essential joint
missile defense modeling, simulation, and test center of
excellence. The JNTF's focus is the joint inter-service,
interoperability, and integration aspects of missile defense
system acquisition. As the only missile defense modeling and
simulation facility which is staffed by all the services and
BMDO, the JNTF provides inter-service computational
capabilities and wide area network communication networks with
service-sponsored facilities such as the Army's Advanced
Research Center, the Naval Surface Warfare Center, and the Air
Force Theater Air Command and Control Facility. To adequately
satisfy the complex missile defense integration requirements
leading to successful joint tests, analysis, wargaming, CINC
exercises, and acquisition support, the committee recommends
$15.0 million be made available for modernization,
computational and wide area network capabilities in support of
the Ballistic Missile Defense Network (BMDN) within the program
elements listed above. This modernization program will also
support the JNTF's contribution to emerging international
efforts with friends and allies for interoperability and in
development of joint missile defense systems.
Management
The budget request did not contain a separate program
element for management. The committee believes that greater
management efficiencies can be achieved, and therefore
recommends a general reduction of $15.0 million for management.
National Missile Defense
The budget request included $508.4 million in PE 63871C for
National Missile Defense (NMD). The committee recommends an
additional $350.0 million for NMD in an effort to accelerate
hardware development, including a new common booster,
accelerate and increase the number of exoatmospheric kill
vehicle (EKV) flight tests, enhance systems engineering and
integration, and accelerate planning and siting activities
required for the deployment of an effective NMD system.
The committee commends the Under Secretary of Defense
(Acquisition and Technology) for his recent decision to
establish an NMD joint-service program office (JPO), and
directs the Director, BMDO to ensure full participation by the
Army, Navy, and Air Force in the JPO. In addition, the
committee directs the Director, BMDO to ensure that the EKV and
associated booster designs are compatible with the widest
possible range of NMD system architectures and basing modes.
The committee directs that the Director, BMDO inform the
committee of his plans in this regard not later than September
15, 1996.-
The committee notes that the prototype ground-based radar
(GBR-P) is an important NMD system element, and that GBR-P is
scheduled to begin testing at U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA)
in 1998. This schedule must be maintained, or accelerated, in
order to realize cost savings associated with leveraging the
THAAD radar program and test schedule. Of the amounts
authorized in PE 63871C, the committee recommends $68.0 million
for GBR-P in order to ensure that the radar is available for
integrated system testing in fiscal year 1998.
The committee recognizes the importance of the Midcourse
Space Experiment (MSX) for collecting and analyzing background
data of use to future midcourse sensors such as the Space
Missile and Tracking System. The committee is concerned,
however, that BMDO has failed to budget funds to continue
operations through the end of the expected lifetime of the
satellite. Therefore, the committee strongly urges the
Director, BMDO to provide adequate funds in the fiscal year
1998 budget submission and over the Future Years Defense Plan
(FYDP) for MSX satellite operations.
The committee understands the importance of an effective
battle management/command, control, and communications (BM/C3)
architecture to overall NMD system performance and reliability.
In this regard, the committee is aware of proposals to leverage
existing theater missile defense (TMD) BM/C3 capabilities,
including such capabilities being developed under the THAAD
program, to support an NMD system. The committee therefore
urges the Director, BMDO to study these proposals and inform
the committee not later than October 15, 1996, of his views in
this regard. -
Finally, taking into account the various architectural
options for providing a highly-effective defense of the United
States against limited missile attacks, the committee directs
the commander-in-chief, U.S. Space Command (CINCSPACE) to
ensure that the NMD concept-of-operations is flexible enough to
accommodate and support a wide range of NMD system
architectures and basing modes. CINCSPACE shall inform the
committee of his plans in this regard not later than September
15, 1996.
NATO cooperation
The committee is aware of recent progress made within the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance regarding
the threat posed to members of the Alliance by the
proliferation of ballistic missiles and response options,
including the development and deployment of effective missile
defenses. The committee strongly endorses this effort and
directs the Secretary of Defense to keep the Congressional
defense committees apprised of future activities and progress
in this area.
Navy upper tier
The budget request included $58.2 million for Navy Upper
Tier (PE 63868C). The committee recommends an additional $246.0
million this high-priority project. The additional funds shall
be used to accelerate the development, testing, and deployment
of the Navy's theater-wide TMD system.
The committee is dismayed by the Department's refusal to
include Navy Upper Tier as a ``core'' TMD program--as required
by section 234 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106)--and the Department's
proposal to reduce funding for this project in fiscal year 1997
by over $140.0 million as compared to the amount authorized by
Congress in fiscal year 1996. Furthermore, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to provide adequate resources
in the fiscal year 1998 budget request to accelerate the
schedule for Navy Upper Tier in accordance with previous
congressional direction.
New director, BMDO
The committee was initially concerned by reports that, upon
the retirement of the current Director, BMDO, the Department
was planning to downgrade this position to a two-star billet.
The committee is pleased to note that members of the committee
expressed concern and strongly urged that the position remain a
three-star billet. The Department has now agreed with the
committee's recommendation. The committee looks forward to
establishing a frank and open dialogue with the next BMDO
Director, and expects that this individual will continue and
expand upon the current, positive working relationship between
the committee and the Director.
Targets
The committee directs the Director, BMDO to submit a report
to the Congressional defense committees by December 1, 1996,
describing BMDO target missile requirements, by number and
types, and which target missiles are U.S.-built and which have
been or will be acquired through the Foreign Military
Acquisition (FMA) program. The report shall also discuss the
issues associated with increasing reliance on missiles acquired
through the FMA program for meeting BMDO target missile
requirements.
THAAD
The budget request included $269.0 million in PE 63861C for
THAAD demonstration/validation (dem/val), and $212.7 million in
PE 64861C for THAAD engineering and manufacturing development
(EMD). The committee continues to support the development,
production, and fielding of THAAD as a matter of highest
priority, and recommends an additional $140.0 million in PE
63861C for the THAAD program.
The committee endorses the acquisition, beginning in fiscal
year 1997, of a second THAAD radar, in order to reduce risk and
support operational ground-testing. Of the $140.0 million in
additional funds authorized for THAAD, $65.0 million shall be
used for long-lead funding for a second THAAD radar.
The committee strongly objects to the Department's plan for
THAAD that emerged from the BMD Program Review. That plan,
which involves delaying the initiation of low-rate initial
production (LRIP) and hence achievement of a first unit
equipped (FUE) date of 2006, violates the letter and the spirit
of section 234 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106). The committee directs
the Secretary of Defense to include the necessary resources in
the fiscal year 1998-2003 program objective memorandum (POM) to
significantly accelerate the THAAD schedule.-
Theater missile defense of U.S. territories
The committee strongly supports fielding highly effective
TMD systems that are capable of protecting U.S. territories
from ballistic missile attack, and directs the Secretary of
Defense to review the TMD requirements for U.S. territories.
The Secretary shall submit a report on the results of this
review to the Congressional defense committees not later than
November 15, 1996.
Chemical-biological defense program
The budget request included a total of $505.0 million for
the chemical-biological defense program of the Department of
Defense, including $296.8 million in research, development,
test, and evaluation and $208.2 million in procurement.
The continuing proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, the spread of chemical and biological weapons
technology and delivery capabilities, and the threat posed to
U.S. military forces by the potential use of chemical or
biological weapons on the battlefield have resulted in repeated
expressions of concern by the Congress about the chemical and
biological defense readiness of U.S. forces. In response to the
guidance provided in title XVII of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160),
the Department has executed a number of management, research,
development and acquisition, and training initiatives which
over time and with proper emphasis and funding support should
result in significant improvements in the chemical and
biological defense readiness of U.S. armed forces. The
committee is pleased that the Department has essentially
implemented the requirements of the public law. Great strides
have been made in establishing a consolidated chemical-
biological defense program; however, much remains to be done.
At the request of the Readiness Subcommittee, the General
Accounting Office (GAO) has assessed the chemical and
biological defense preparedness of early-deploying U.S. Army
and Marine Corps ground forces. In testimony before the
Military Research and Development Subcommittee in March, 1996,
the GAO acknowledged the progress made by the Department of
Defense, but stated that the Department had not done enough to
overcome the chemical and biological defense shortcomings U.S.
forces experienced in the Gulf War. The GAO concluded that
``U.S. forces still lack the ability to defend adequately
against chemical and/or biological agents and a degrading war-
fighting capability could still result from persistent
equipment, training, and medical shortcomings.'' Many of the
problems cited were similar to those cited in the ``Department
of Defense Nuclear, Biological, Chemical (NBC) Warfare Defense
Annual Report to Congress for fiscal year 1995.'' In the GAO's
view, the principal reason for these shortcomings is that
chemical and biological preparedness has a relatively low
priority on a DOD-wide basis relative to traditional
operational missions, as evidenced by the limited funding,
staffing, and mission priority that chemical and biological
defense activities receive. The committee understands that a
warfighting analysis is now underway within the Joint Staff
with input from the military services and the combatant CINCs
that will provide an assessment of chemical and biological
defense mission priorities in view of the evolving threat and
that will recommend funding levels for consideration in the
development of the fiscal year 1998 budget request and the
future years defense plan.
The committee strongly believes that some action must be
taken in the fiscal year 1997 defense budget to address
shortcomings in the current chemical and biological defense
program. The committee believes that unless the Secretary of
Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Department of
Defense as a whole, down to individual unit commanders, all
increase their emphasis on improving the armed forces' chemical
and biological defense preparedness, many of the issues
identified in the Department's annual report and by the GAO are
likely to remain unresolved.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a continuation of
increased emphasis on chemical-biological defense training in
units, joint training of commanders and chemical-biological
defense specialists, and training of medical units and
personnel which could be involved in the treatment of chemical-
biological warfare casualties. The committee recommends an
additional $16.2 million for shortfalls in operations and
maintenance identified by the GAO as follows, and directs the
Secretary of Defense to report to the Congressional defense
committees on the plans for expenditure of these funds prior to
their obligation:
Operations and Maintenance, Army (OMA)--$13.2 million
for chemical-biological equipment maintenance support.
Operations and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF)--$3.0
million for sustainment and replacement of Air Force
chemical protective equipment.
To address shortfalls in chemical-biological defense
research, development, testing, and evaluation, the committee
recommends increased authorizations to the budget request as
indicated below:
PE 62384BP-..................... Chemical/ $3.9 million
biological
defense.
Medical biological 1.7 million
defense.
PE 63884BP...................... Medical biological 2.2 million
defense.
PE 64384BP-..................... Contamination 2.0 million
avoidance.
Collective 6.6 million
Protection-.
Individual 200,000
Protection.
Medical biological 9.0 million
defense.
PE 65384BP...................... Management support 15.0 million
Dugway Proving 3.7 million
Ground.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to address
shortfalls in chemical-biological defense procurement,
identified by the GAO and to report actions taken to resolve
these shortfalls as a specific area of interest in the next
annual report to Congress on the NBC defense program.
Chemical-biological defense--counter-terror and crisis response
The Congress has repeatedly expressed its concern about
domestic readiness to respond to a terrorist attack,
particularly one that might involve the use of chemical or
biological agents. Title XVII of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160)
expressed the sense of Congress that ``. . . the President
should strengthen Federal interagency planning by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency and other Federal, State, and local
agencies for development of a capability for early detection
and warning of and response to (1) potential terrorist use of
chemical or biological agents or weapons; and (2) emergencies
or natural disasters involving industrial chemicals or the
widespread outbreak of disease.''
A Military Research and Development Subcommittee hearing on
March 12, 1996, reviewed the preparedness of the United States
to respond to the use of chemical or biological agents in
domestic terrorism, or to a natural disaster involving
industrial chemicals or the widespread outbreak of disease. The
hearing also addressed the preparedness of local jurisdictions
to respond to natural disaster and to terrorism in general, and
the federal response that could be provided in such situations.
Despite the magnificent response by federal, state, and local
emergency response agencies to the terrorist bombing of the
federal building in Oklahoma City, local law enforcement and
emergency response capabilities would, in the event of a
terrorist attack or natural disaster involving chemical or
biological agents, be overwhelmed by the magnitude of the
casualties that would result. The subcommittee heard testimony
that local agencies ``are simply not prepared to deal with a
chemical or biological terrorist incident. We have neither the
training nor the resources to allow us to mitigate this sort of
incident.'' Even in the most prepared local jurisdictions,
chemical/biological incident training is limited to a very few
highly specialized response teams, as is the availability of
protective equipment and chemical agent antidotes. The
capabilities of local medical teams and hospitals to treat
chemical agent casualties are likewise severely limited.
The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to assess
the advisability of establishing a program for enhancing the
capability of the Department of Defense to assist domestic law
enforcement agencies response to terrorism or natural disasters
involving chemical or biological agents. The Secretary of
Defense should report to the Congressional defense committees
by September 30, 1996, the Secretary's assessment and
recommendations for such a program, including a specific
discussion on the appropriate role of the Department of Defense
in this area. To preserve the option of initiating such a
program in fiscal year 1997, the committee recommends an
increased authorization of $12.0 million in PE 65760D, and
requests the Secretary to report to the Congressional defense
committees on the plans for expenditure of these funds prior to
their obligation.
Combat casualty care
The committee continues to support technology development
to improve combat casualty care to ensure that higher quality
medical treatment can be delivered. As a matter of policy the
committee believes that the military should utilize, to the
extent practical, commercial off-the-shelf technologies that
are rapidly emerging in the commercial sector. This is
particularly applicable with medical information and
telecommunications technologies, commonly referred to as
``telemedicine'', when medical information is transmitted over
long distances.
The committee believes that telemedicine provides a unique
opportunity to deliver combat care more rapidly, accurately and
efficiently than by current methods. The challenge for the
military is to tailor commercial equipment to meet the specific
needs of the warfighter. This will require a commitment to
pursue appropriate research and development initiatives to
address the specific medical needs of the services whether it
be on the battlefield, aboard ship, at remote air bases, or in
search and rescue operations.
However, the committee is concerned by the paucity of
research and development funding and lack of insertion plans to
move more actively to make military telemedicine a reality. The
committee also notes that there appears to be no funding
planned to transition to the services those high technology
medical programs being pursued by the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA). Initiatives in development such as the
personal status monitor, telesurgery, and other information
based field systems offer radical change in the way medical
monitoring, trauma assistance, clinical consultation, and
medical command and control is administrated, substantially
raising the probability of saving lives and optimizing
logistics and medical assistance development. Also disturbing
is the funding profile for the DARPA program which shows future
funding ceasing after fiscal year 1999.
The committee notes that establishing an institutionalized
infrastructure in the combat telecommunications arena is
mandatory if system integration is to be achieved smoothly.
Therefore, the committee recommends that the telemedicine
effort being pursued by the Army and DARPA be an active part of
the Force XXI Advanced Warfighting Experiments (AWE), in both
the simulated and full scale hardware experiments. The
committee recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE 63002A
for this purpose.
In addition to combat casualty care, the committee also
sees an opportunity to reduce costs and improve capability by
further fostering telemedicine in its overall military
composite health care system (CHCS). The committee is aware of
the ongoing support for a number of prototype programs and
centers acting as Department of Defense telemedicine testbeds
or participating in advanced patient care prototypes such as
the Center for Total Access and the Pacific Medical Network
(PACMEDNET). The committee recognizes that the integration of
telecommunications can drastically reduce the requirement for
medical evacuations as well as improve diagnostic
effectiveness. Therefore, the committee urges the completion of
the remaining phases of PACMEDNET, including the incorporation
of open standards and the testing of other evolutionary medical
information technology that can be integrated into the CHCS.
The committee is further aware of the desire on the part of
other civilian hospital facilities to participate in the
military's fledgling telemedicine effort. The committee
recognizes that trauma services delivery and management
activities account for a major component of health care cost in
the civilian sector as well as the military. In many ways,
disaster relief requires similar rapid response to high
casualty incidents as the military is geared to effectively
respond. Therefore, the Department should seize every
opportunity for technology transfer or co-development of some
facets of casualty care through the use of military-civilian
testbeds or demonstration projects.
Composite materials insertion for fielded weapons systems
The committee notes the substantial past and current
federally funded research investments in composite materials,
as well as the slow pace in which these materials are being
used in system upgrades and new systems. The committee believes
that a robust program by the Department to insert new materials
into fielded weapon systems would accelerate the potential for
advanced composites to lower the life cycle costs of weapons
systems by solving difficult and costly maintenance problems,
as well as strengthening the composite materials industrial
base. The Secretary of Defense is directed to institute a
composite materials insertion program in the military services
that includes projects that: propose lightweight metals,
intermetallics, superalloys, metal matrix composites, ceramic
and ceramics matrix composites; quantify mission benefits--
improved performance, readiness, or reduced supportability
costs; compare proposed new materials solutions with competing
component improvement or preplanned product improvement
programs; outline a design to cost approach; and incorporate
materials suppliers who are domestically based, preferably U.S.
owned, and committed to production. The technical and
programmatic management of the project should include both
laboratory technical and cognizant field authority (program
office or repair depot) personnel. Projects pursued through the
program should include design, prototype component fabrication,
testing, and technical data package preparation.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee
on National Security on the plan for the directed program by
April 1, 1997.
Countermine technology development and demonstration program
The budget request included $4.7 million in PE 62712A for
exploratory development of countermine technology; $15.2
million in PE 63606A for advanced development of countermine
technologies; $16.4 million in PE 63619A for development,
prototyping, and demonstration of advanced countermine systems;
and $7.7 million in PE 63120D for development and demonstration
of technologies for use in humanitarian demining. The fiscal
year 1997 budget request separates funding for the humanitarian
demining program from the Army's countermine advanced
technology development program where countermine development
for military operations other than war were previously managed.
The Congress has previously expressed concerns that the
military services lacked an effective means to address the
significant threat posed by anti-personnel land mines to future
force projection operations and military operations other than
war (H. Rept 103-499). In fiscal year 1995, $10.0 million was
added to the budget request to initiate an Army-led, integrated
mine countermeasure research program which would concentrate on
mine clearance in operations other than war. In the statement
of managers accompanying the conference report on S. 1124 (H.
Rept. 104-450), the conferees added $3.0 million to the fiscal
year 1996 budget request for land mine detection and clearance
technology development.-
In the wake of the President's decision to deploy U.S.
military forces to Bosnia as a part of the NATO peacekeeping
operation and heightened concerns about the threat to U.S.
forces posed by an estimated two million land mines left in
Bosnia by the opposing forces, the Military Research and
Development and Military Procurement subcommittees held a joint
hearing in January 1996. The hearing focused on the landmine
threat facing deploying U.S. forces and their capability for
dealing with that threat, and on research, development, and
acquisition programs and technologies that could improve the
capabilities of U.S. forces in Bosnia and in the future. The
hearing found that:
(1) The lessons of the Gulf War, Somalia, and Bosnia
are that the countermine problem is difficult and
improved countermine capabilities are required before
the troops deploy, not after the fact.
(2) Measures have been taken to improve the
countermine capabilities of U.S. forces deployed to
Bosnia; however, there is no single countermine system
or technology solution to the problem posed by non-
metallic anti-personnel landmines that will provide
near 100 percent detection with a near zero false alarm
rate.
(3) Historically, the U.S. tactical countermine
program has focused on ``breaching'' of landmine
barriers with little attention to technologies and
capabilities for area mine clearance. Increased
emphasis needs to be placed on the development of
countermine technologies and procedures for area
clearance.
(4) Area clearance is a problem common to tactical
countermine operations and to humanitarian demining.
The technologies and capabilities developed for one are
generally applicable to the other.
(5) Countermine, unexploded ordnance and humanitarian
demining programs within the Department of Defense are
fragmented among several different agencies. There is
no single agency representing the ``user'' that has
joint authority over policy, doctrine, or operational
requirements in these closely related areas; nor is
there a single developmental activity with authority
for oversight and coordination of the Department's
countermine program.
The committee strongly believes that increased emphasis
needs to be placed on the Department's countermine program.
There is a high probability that U.S. forces will encounter the
problem of uncleared landmines in most of the world's land
areas where U.S. forces might be employed. New technologies are
needed to detect and clear these weapons. The program must
address the development of feasible near-term improvements in
countermine capabilities and the longer term development of
advanced technologies which would promise more comprehensive
solutions to the countermine problem. Because evolving military
requirements for wide-area clearance of landmines parallel the
needs of many humanitarian demining operations, specific
emphasis needs to be placed on development of countermine
technologies that can be applied to both military wide-area
mine clearance requirements and humanitarian demining needs.
Developing solutions to the countermine problem will require
the best efforts of the military services; the Department's
countermine, unexploded ordnance clearance and explosive
ordnance disposal research and development activities;
industry; and academia. In particular, the committee encourages
the Department to use the resources of the National Research
Council of the National Academy of Sciences in attacking this
difficult problem.
The committee reiterates the view expressed in the
statement of managers accompanying the conference report on S.
2182 (H. Rept. 103-701) that the Department of Defense should
develop a coordinated program for countermine warfare, and
believes that an executive agent should be designated to
coordinate all aspects of the countermine program. The
committee believes that the actions taken by the Department
with regard to integration and coordination of the chemical-
biological defense program may provide an example of how the
countermine efforts of the Department could be better
coordinated and managed.
The committee recommends increases of $10.0 million in PE
62712A, $15.0 million in PE 63606A, and $25.0 million in PE
63619A for the development, demonstration, and validation of
near-term and far-term improvements in the countermine
capabilities of U.S. forces for tactical countermine and
demining operations. In order to facilitate the integration of
the program, the committee directs the reassignment of
humanitarian demining development from PE 63120D to PE 63606A.
The committee directs the Department to put increased emphasis
on developing technologies that can be applied to both military
wide-area clearance requirements and demining needs, as well as
on the other elements of countermine operations, and to consult
with both the combatant commanders-in-chief and the interagency
working group for humanitarian demining to ensure that
technologies are developed and shared that meet their
countermine, wide-area clearance, and demining needs.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a
plan for a countermine program which addresses the issues
discussed above and report this plan to the Congressional
defense committees by March 1, 1997.
Cruise missile defense
The committee recommends additional funding in fiscal year
1997 for various cruise missile defense activities. The
committee's recommendation builds upon the actions taken in
section 274 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) wherein the Congress
launched the cruise missile defense initiative.
Specifically, to enhance the ability of the Airborne
Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft to detect the
launch of cruise missiles, the committee recommends an increase
of $5.0 million in PE 63226E and $5.0 million in PE 27417F. The
committee also recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE
63226E and $5.0 million in program element 64770F, in order to
upgrade the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System
(JSTARS) and an additional $20.0 million in PE 23801A for
continued development of improved cruise missile defense
capabilities of the Patriot Advanced Capability-2 (PAC-2)
missile.
Finally, the committee notes with concern that the
Department has yet to provide the report required by section
274(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106), and strongly urges the
Department to complete and submit this report promptly.
Department of Defense justification of estimates
The committee continues to note the Department's lack of
timeliness in and the accuracy of the annual budget materials
submitted to the Congressional defense committees. Once again,
the materials were found to be less than satisfactory. Program
elements and budget activity placement continue to
miscategorize and misrepresent the content of the programs
requested. Funding data, particularly for fiscal year 1996, is
either missing or inaccurate. The committee again emphasizes to
the Department the need to provide accurate and timely
justification materials to the Congress if it expects full and
favorable consideration of the Department's request.
Department of Defense--Veterans' Administration (DOD-VA)
The committee notes with approval the beneficial research
conducted under the DOD-VA cooperative medical research program
and the benefits this program has provided our service
personnel and veterans. The committee expects the Department to
continue to fund this joint cooperative medical research
program in fiscal year 1997.
Dual-use and commercial integration programs
The budget request contained $250.0 million in PE 63805E
for dual-use, cost-shared programs managed by the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). In addition, the
budget request included $6,970.6 million for Department of
Defense science and technology programs, a significant portion
of which has dual-use application.
The civilian leadership in the Department of Defense has
continued to emphasize the importance of dual-use technologies.
The committee commends the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency for its leadership in this area. However, the committee
believes that to achieve its goals and objectives for dual-use
programs, the Department needs to make dual-use and dual-use,
cost-shared programs an integral part of each of the military
services' science and technology programs. This view is
supported by a recently completed report, ``Military and
Industry Panel Dual-Use Research Project,'' commissioned by
DARPA and conducted under the leadership of the Potomac
Institute. This would provide the ability to leverage billions-
of-dollars to the advantage of the Department's core
development programs instead of an independent office within
DARPA or the Office of the Secretary of Defense pursuing
relatively small, stand-alone dual-use projects that have
lesser service standing.
Various representatives of the Department have indicated
that a separate program is required to demonstrate to the
military services the advantage of dual-use technology. They
have indicated, in part, that this is the case because the
military services' ``acquisition cultures'' have been resistant
to embrace dual-use technologies and the innovative acquisition
authorities provided in title 10, United States Code.
The committee notes, however, that the Air Force has
already recognized the potential of dual-use, cost-shared
programs in leveraging its science and technology budget.
Through its leadership, the Air Force initiated an extensive
training and indoctrination program for its senior acquisition
personnel at field locations. As a consequence, the Air Force
has begun to change its acquisition culture, making relatively
extensive use of cooperative agreements and other innovative
acquisition procedures for science and technology programs.
During consideration of the fiscal year 1996 budget
request, the committee, in its report on H.R. 1530 (H. Rept.
104-131), encouraged the Department to, among other steps, use
authorities provided in sections 2371, 2501, and 2511 of title
10, United States Code for specific science and technology
programs to pursue dual-use projects, to leverage funding
available for dual-use programs by making cost-sharing an
element of solicitation criteria to be considered in making
project selections, to incorporate dual-use solicitations into
the normal technology project solicitation process, and to
appoint an individual, reporting directly to the Under
Secretary for Acquisition and Technology, to oversee all of the
Department's dual-use programs, and to conduct outreach
activities for communicating to the business community those
technologies and processes associated with the Department's
program.
Instead of following the committee's recommendation, the
Department has chosen to again request additional funds over
and above the nearly $7.0 billion in its science and technology
request for a stand alone dual-use applications program.
Therefore, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 203) that
would direct the Secretary of Defense to designate a senior
official, reporting directly to the Undersecretary of Defense
for Acquisition and Technology, whose sole responsibility would
be to develop policy and ensure effective execution of dual-use
programs and integration of commercial technologies into
military systems. This official would serve as the approval
authority for dual-use, cost-shared projects and would have the
authority to reprogram funds among the military services' and
defense agencys' budgets to achieve maximum leverage of
existing funds.
In addition, for fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000,
the provision would require that not less than five, seven,
ten, and 15 percent, respectively, of each service's science
and technology program be available only for dual-use, cost-
shared programs. This would result in approximately $350.0
million being available only for dual-use, cost-shared programs
in fiscal year 1997 and would result in at least an equal
amount being made available from non-federal sources to benefit
the Department's science and technology programs.
The committee recommends no authorization for PE 63805E and
recommends $5.0 million for the Office of the Secretary of
Defense Dual-Use Program Office.
Federally funded research and development university affiliated
research centers
The committee has provided significant attention to the
management of federally funded research and development centers
and university affiliated research centers (UARCs). Although
the committee supports the Department's need for FFRDCs, the
committee believes the FFRDCs should be assigned work
consistent with Federal Acquisition Regulation guidelines. The
committee commends the Department for its effort to meet the
requirements for competition for research work to facilitate
the acquisition and modernization process. The committee
insists on appropriate management of the centers, but agrees
not to burden the Department nor the centers with nonproductive
management ceilings and unneeded detailed reporting. The
Department is urged to recommend in its fiscal year 1998
legislative proposal more streamlined reporting procedures that
increase productivity, reduce management burdens, and provide
an assurance that work loads at the centers are essential,
defendable and definable. The committee believes that the
definition of ``core'' work for FFRDCs and UARCs may be subject
to change as work demands by the Department change. Therefore,
the committee directs that an unambiguous definitive
identification of ``core'' work for each FFRDC and UARC be
included as part of the Department's annual proposal. The
committee directs that a UARC be defined as a university
receiving more than $5.0 million in sole source non-competitive
contracts.
Intelligence data support systems
The budget request included the following amounts for
intelligence data support systems:
All Source Analysis System-..... PE 63745A......... $2.0 million
Joint Maritime Combat PE 64231N......... 11.3 million
Information System--.
Intelligence Analysis System.... PE 26313N-........ 1.2 million
Combat Information System....... PE 27431F-........ 7.7 million
These individual military service efforts provide the
specific combat users with similar, but uniquely tailored
intelligence systems, and are logical acquisitions. However,
the committee also believes there is a need to capitalize on
specific system strengths and increase service cooperation to
improve the collective capabilities of these individual
systems. Such synergies of effort could lead to better
interoperability, improved data fusion, reduced operator work
loads and possibly reduced development costs.
Therefore, the committee directs the Army to lead a joint
service intelligence system group to explore and initiate
efforts to improve such interoperability and determine the
applicability of, and where possible, implement existing
capabilities. Specifically, the committee recommends the
following increases for the Army's All Source Analysis System;
the Navy's Joint Maritime Combat Information System; the Marine
Corps' Intelligence Analysis System; the Air Force's Combat
Information System; and the Special Operations Command's
Research, Analysis, and Threat Evaluation System to examine and
integrate correlation/fusion algorithms such as the Integrated
Battlespace Server and the Generic Monitoring System
capabilities developed under the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency Warbreaker program:
[In millions of dollars]
PE 63745A......................................................... $2.0
PE 64231N......................................................... 1.0
PE 26313M......................................................... 1.0
PE 27431F......................................................... 1.0
PE 1160405BB...................................................... 1.0
Joint advanced strike technology (JAST) program
The budget request included $246.8 million in PE 63800N,
$263.8 million in PE 63800F, and $78.4 million in PE 63800E for
a total of $589.1 million for the Joint Advanced Strike
Technology (JAST) program and initiation of the Joint Strike
Fighter (JSF) program. An additional $71.0 million is
anticipated to be available for fiscal year 1997 from the
United Kingdom.
The committee remains concerned that the Department is
initiating a major acquisition program without adequate
consideration of other alternatives, acquisition strategy, and
roles and missions considerations. Accordingly, the committee
recommends a provision (sec. 220) that would provide the
requested amounts only for advanced technology development,
preclude the obligation of funds for the Advanced Short Takeoff
and Vertical Landing variant of JAST, and require an analysis
of force structure alternatives and associated costs.
Army RDT&E
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 1997 included $4,320.6
million for Army RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization
of $4,670.0 million, an increase of $349.3 million, for fiscal
year 1997.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 1997 Army
RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes
to the Army request are discussed following the table.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Items of Special Interest
122mm rocket/mortar threat
The committee has been apprised that the Army has a number
of opportunities to counter 122mm rocket and mortar threats for
which it now has no countermeasure. Several systems in
development could possibly be refined to meet this threat if
further development work were conducted. Among those competing
systems are the Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL), the Nautilus
laser and the Depressed Altitude Guided Gun Round (DAGGR)
program.
The committee believes that the potential performance of
these and other countermeasure system options should be
explored through a detailed systems analysis and a
recommendation made to the Secretary of the Army prior to any
actual evaluation.
The committee recommends an additional $1.0 million in PE
65103A to be available for this study by the Army's Rand Arroyo
Center.
155mm XM982 projectile
As a result of the lessons learned from Operation Desert
Storm, the Congress accelerated the development of a 155mm
extended range artillery projectile, the XM982, to provide
accurate, cost effective delivery of submunitions to 40
kilometers. Since the Crusader program is likely to be delayed
due to a significant program alteration, XM982 development is
the only way to achieve the extended range requirement of 40
kilometers. The committee recommends an additional $12.0
million in PE 63004A for accelerated development and cautions
the Department that its continued delay in releasing funds
authorized and appropriated for this program from prior years
is wasteful and causing unnecessary delays in achieving program
goals.
Advanced field artillery tactical data system
The advanced field artillery tactical data system (AFATDS)
is a multi-service program which will provide the fire support
command and control system for the Army and Marine Corps. The
committee is aware that the Army has a shortfall of $1.0
million to complete the common hardware porting effort which
was delayed due to fiscal year 1996 funding decreases. The
committee recommends an additional $1.0 million in PE 23726A
for this purpose.
Advanced individual weapon anti-armor system (ALAWS)
The committee strongly supports the development of the
advanced individual weapon system for the 21st Century as
outlined in the Joint Service Small Arms Master plan. The
committee recommends that the Secretary of the Army reprogram
sufficient funds to permit the demonstration and evaluation of
advanced warhead technologies that would significantly increase
the individual soldier capability for attack of light armored
vehicles. The committee notes that these technologies have been
proposed in the ALAWS concept. The committee believes that
these warhead technologies are appropriate for inclusion in the
objective individual combat weapon (OICW) program, or in a
stand alone or crew served system.
Assault breach marking system
Operation Desert Storm revealed a significant deficiency in
the current minefield breach marking capability that has yet to
be resolved. The committee recommends an additional $1.0
million in PE 64808A for rapid acquisition and fielding of an
assault breach marking system to mark safe paths through
minefields for the following forces.
Atmospheric and hydrologic research
The committee is aware of the Army Research Laboratory's
effort in atmospheric and hydrologic research to satellite
detect, decipher and model soil and weather conditions that
influence effective performance on the battlefield. The
committee understands that Army progress in these efforts has
been successful in considering rainfall and temperature
profiles only. The committee recommends an additional $3.0
million in PE 61102A for the Army Research Laboratory to expand
the measurement and predictive work to include more complex
atmospheric conditions such as fog and haze as well as other
remote sensing devices.
Battlefield combat identification system (BCIS)
The committee continues to follow with interest the Army's
plan to field a battlefield combat identification system (BCIS)
as a means of preventing friendly fire casualties through
electronic interrogation and identification of potential
targets as ``friend or foe''. The committee notes the
successful performance reported by Army field personnel who are
using the BCIS system, but find it difficult to understand the
Army's delay in initiating procurement beyond those units
identified for the Force XXI advanced warfighting experiments
(AWE). The Army has testified that situational awareness is
valuable in tactical situations so that operational decisions
can be enhanced, noting that knowledge of the location of
friendly forces can ``change the way we fight ground combat,''
further citing a desire to accelerate and field a combat
identification system ``as soon as possible.'' The Army,
however, believes that the current cost estimates for BCIS are
prohibitive and plans to wait until after the AWE with BCIS are
complete in late 1997 to make a procurement decision.
The committee reminds the Army leadership that further
postponement of a procurement decision will keep a friendly
fire capability out of the Army inventory in any significant
number until calendar year 2000. The committee urges the
Secretary of the Army to raise the priority of procurement and
fielding of the BCIS system so that early fielding can begin in
fiscal year 1998.
CH-47 system upgrade
The Chinook helicopter is the Army's only heavy lift cargo
helicopter. The original CH-47D programs to extend the life of
the CH-47 A, B and C models for another 20 years has reached
the point where the original air frames will be nearly forty
years old at the turn of the century.
The committee is concerned that, beyond overhauls, the Army
continues to consider a modernization program unaffordable. The
committee understands that the Army is seeking a replacement
for the Chinook as part of a joint service transport rotocraft
program to field a new cargo helicopter beginning in 2015.
These plans, however, are currently unfunded.
The committee is further concerned that future budget
pressures may force postponement of any new start development
program. Therefore, the committee believes that the CH-47 must
be sustained through the year 2025 to ensure readiness. The
committee recommends an additional $22.7 million in PE 23744A
to conduct the improved cargo helicopter program concept
formulation and technology demonstrations that includes system
health monitoring and vibration reduction technologies.
Comanche
The committee understands that the Army leadership is
satisfied with the current acquisition profile of the Comanche
in spite of attempts on the part of the Congress to accelerate
development. The current program will yield full system
development with initial operational capability (IOC) by the
year 2006, and with the field deployment of six experimental
operational capability (EOC) aircraft during fiscal years 2002-
2003.
The committee continues to believe there is an opportunity
to make an early determination of the value of an accelerated
Comanche program and recommends an additional $50.0 million in
PE 64223A for early flight performance demonstrations of one or
more of the EOC aircraft. Therefore, the Secretary of the Army
is directed to provide the Congressional defense committees a
report on early performance demonstration alternatives prior to
the obligation of the additional funding.
Combat vehicle laser warning equipment
The committee recommends an additional $4.9 million in PE
23735A for the continued remanufacture of combat vehicle laser
warning equipment as a part of the suite of survivability
enhancement systems.
Countermine system improvement
The Army countermine program is designed to maintain combat
maneuver unit mobility by detecting minefields and provide a
means to breach or mark the minefields. The committee
recommends an additional $1.5 million in PE 64808A for
battalion countermine set improvements.
Crusader program
The budget request for the Crusader program was $258.8
million. The committee has been informed of the decision by the
Army to change from liquid propellant for the cannon
projectiles to an advanced solid propellant. Although the Army
made an informed decision to change the development plan for
the projectile propellant, the committee believes that cost
savings can be realized in the program by utilization of the
lower risk propellant alternative.
The committee believes that the program should be
restructured and approved by the Congressional defense
committees before proceeding further into the demonstration/
validation (dem/val) phase. The importance of fielding a
superior field artillery system for the twenty-first century
cannot be overstated. The committee recommends a reduction of
$50.0 million in PE 63854A to take advantage of the cessation
of high cost liquid propellant development and directs the
Secretary of the Army to restructure the development program
and report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on National Security by March 1, 1997 the
results of the program restructure.
Diesel engine advanced development
The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million in PE
63005A to continue the industry cooperative agreement for the
advanced development of a four-stroke, direct injected, diesel
engine and modification of the standard 6.2 liter diesel engine
by the Army's National Automotive Center.
Diesel/gas turbine project
The committee recommends an additional $3.5 million in PE
63005A for continued development and Army testing of the
combined-cycle diesel/gas turbine engine program.
Force XXI initiatives
In testimony provided to the Military Procurement and
Military Research and Development Subcommittees, the Army
presented its program to rapidly move new technology
demonstrated in the Army's Force XXI initiative by, in effect,
streamlining the acquisition process by being able to fund
proven compelling technologies needed by the Army that result
from the program. The current time delay caused by the lead
time required in the development of the Department's Program
Objective Memorandum (POM) invites a missed opportunity in many
cases to rapidly field critical new capability to the forces.
The committee understands that the Army Systems Acquisition
Review Council (ASARC) will identify and approve for rapid
acquisition, those technologies that have warfighting impact.
The committee approves the request of the Army leadership
and recommends an additional $100.0 million in a new program
element for this purpose. The committee understands that the
Army will provide a similar funding line in its fiscal year
1998 and beyond requests. The committee directs that a report
of the fiscal year 1997 activity be provided to accompany
subsequent annual requests.
Hardened materials
The committee recognizes the work in advanced composite
materials conducted by the Army Research Laboratory that will
yield performance advantages in future Army systems. The
committee is concerned that adequate funding is not being
applied for the range of planned uses for hardened materials in
the Army's modernization plan. The committee recommends an
additional $4.0 million in PE 62105A for the hardened materials
development program and urges Army program managers to seek
opportunities for materials insertion into existing Army
systems to accelerate technical maturity and acceptance.
Heavy assault bridge
The current configuration of the Wolverine heavy assault
bridge is based on the M1A1 chassis configuration which will be
out of production for eight years before the first Wolverine
comes off the production line at the Lima Army Tank Plant.
However, the primary system that will be on that production
line at that point will be the M1A2 Abrams tank. In addition,
the primary tank system the Wolverine will support and be
fielded within the M1A2 program.
The committee understands that by aligning the
configuration of these vehicles, program efficiencies and cost
reduction can be realized.
The committee recommends an additional $12.3 million in PE
64649A to design Wolverine unique line replaceable units and to
integrate software for the new configuration.
High modulus polyacrylonitrile (PAN) carbon fiber
High modulus polyacrylonitrile (PAN) carbon fiber is a
critical component of the Theater High Altitude Air Defense
(THAAD) system's kill vehicle. In addition, it is a critical
material in the Atmospheric Interceptor Technology (AIT) kill
vehicle which is designed to advance lightweight technologies
necessary for future hypersonic hit-to-kill vehicles. In fiscal
year 1996, $4.0 million was added to the Army's manufacturing
technology program in order to fund the first year of a multi-
year program designed to support the development of a domestic
source for this material. The committee recommends an
additional $8.0 million in PE 78045A to complete the funding
requirements for this program.
Hydra-70 product improvement program
The Department of the Army continues to place insufficient
management attention on correcting Hydra-70 rocket problems.
Non-development composite rocket motors are available for
competitive evaluation, yet the Army has failed to act.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an additional $15.0
million in PE 23802A for testing and integration of at least
one composite motor type required to achieve an operational
capability on the Apache helicopter. The committee directs that
the Secretary of the Army provide a detailed progress report to
the committee by March 31, 1997, on its progress and to submit
additional funding requirements in the fiscal year 1998
request.
Instrument factory for gears
The committee is aware of the weapon systems being
supported by the industrial manufacturers participating in the
Army Manufacturing Technology programs through the Instrumented
Factory for Gears (INFAC) Technology Center of Excellence. The
committee is concerned that congressional support for the INFAC
and a number of other manufacturing technology programs has
been essentially ignored by the Department. The committee
believes that programs like INFAC provide a focal point for
industrial participation and a concentrated effort to solve
difficult manufacturing problems that when solved, contribute
to the control of acquisition cost of military systems. The
committee recommends an additional $3.0 million in PE 78045A
for the INFAC program.
Line-of-sight, anti-tank (LOSAT)
The committee believes continuation of the line-of-sight,
anti-tank (LOSAT) program is unaffordable in view of other Army
priorities. The committee recommends a reduction of $18.0
million in 63654A.
Liquid propellant
The committee has been informed that the Army leadership
chose to discontinue development of projectile liquid
propellant (LP) for the Crusader advanced field artillery
system. Although the committee concurs with this decision, it
believes that there should be an orderly conclusion to the LP
program, especially while technical teams and test equipment
are in place.
The committee recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE
62618A to conclude those experiments that are required to
enhance the program's orderly conclusion and documentation.
M1A2 tank compact autoloader program
The committee is aware of new technology to implement a
compact autoloader for the M1A2 Abrams tank. The committee
recommends an additional $3.0 million in PE 23735A for
insertion of a compact autoloader and the conduct of firing
demonstrations.
Manufacturing technology (MANTECH)
The committee is concerned that the Army is not focusing
sufficient MANTECH resources on key manufacturing cost drivers
in the organic maintenance of weapon systems. The committee
believes that the potential exists to address manufacturing
applications that could have a significant modernization and
cost reduction impact on the maintenance of mission essential
equipment and systems in the Department's depots. The committee
urges the Secretary of the Army to continue the industrial-
academic partnerships for repair technology development and
insertion for maintenance of rotary winged aircraft that was
identified in the statement of managers accompanying the
conference report on S. 1124 (H. Rept. 104-450).
MK-19 modifications
The committee recommends an additional $1.6 million in PE
64802A to develop a change barrel to adapt a 50 caliber machine
gun, and to develop an adaptor for a MK-19 installation in an
up-armored high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV).
MLRS extended range enhancement
The committee supports the Army's need to accelerate the
multiple launch rocket system, extended range (MLRS-ER)
enhancement. The committee recommends an additional $12.0
million in PE 63313A to support test flights and other risk
reduction efforts leading to engineering and manufacturing
development in fiscal year 1998.
Objective individual combat weapon (OICW)
The committee supports the development of the OICW as a key
element in the Joint Service Small Arms Program which is
designed to give the 21st Century land warrior a small arms
overmatch capability well into the next century. The committee
directs the Secretary of the Army to continue development of
current competing technologies through phase III of the program
and to down select to a final contractor at that point. The
committee recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE 63607A to
support this acquisition strategy.
Optical correlators
The committee is aware of the potential of optical
correlators for signal processing and anomaly detection in
military systems. The committee believes optical correlators
also have similar potential in medical research such as for the
detection of tumors. The Secretary of the Army is to provide a
report to the House Committee on National Security on potential
benefits of optical correlators in medical research. The report
shall be provided by March 1, 1997.
Precision guided mortar
The precision guided mortar is an Advanced Technology
Demonstration (ATD) within the Department of Defense's Rapid
Force Projection Initiative (RFPI). The basic purpose of the
program is to develop and demonstrate a 120mm mortar projectile
that bridges the range gap between existing mortars and field
artillery systems, and is capable of attacking with precision
important point targets in areas of high collateral damage
sensitivity.
The committee understands that the current development
schedule has been extended due to funding limitations within
the Army. The committee believes that the program can be
accelerated and recommends an additional $6.0 million in PE
63004A to provide precision munitions for testing in the RFPI
program.
Projectile detection and cueing (PDCue) acoustic fire finder system
The committee supports ongoing evaluations at the Army
Research Laboratory (ARL) to detect and localize sniper
gunfire. The committee recommends an additional $1.0 million in
PE 62120A for the procurement and testing of additional
projectile detection cueing systems.
Rapid battlefield visualization program
The budget request included $9.6 million in PE 63734A,
project DT 12, for the Joint Precision Strike Demonstration's
Rapid Battlefield Visualization program. The committee
recommends an increase of $4.5 million to continue the
development and evaluation of advanced large screen, automated
graphical displays; high performance computers and networks;
and terrain databases to provide enhanced situation awareness
for tactical commanders.
Starstreak missile evaluation
The budget request contained no funding for the
continuation of the air-to-air Starstreak missile evaluation on
the Apache attack helicopter. The committee is aware that the
Department is withholding $8.0 million of fiscal year 1995
funding and $4.0 million of fiscal year 1996 funding that is
planned for this evaluation. The phase one feasibility study of
the air-to-air assessment is due to be completed in May, 1996.
The committee anticipates the study results to be positive and
recommends proceeding immediately with the subsequent phase two
hardware evaluations. The committee directs the Department of
Defense to release the prior year funding to the Army for this
evaluation and recommends an additional $3.0 million in PE
63003A to conduct the phase two testing.
Solid state dye lasers
The committee recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE
62705A for continued research into advanced solid state dye
lasers.
Trajectory correctable munitions
The Army has been pursuing trajectory correctable munitions
(TCMs) as well as low cost competent munitions (LCMs) as
potential means of guiding artillery projectiles in flight. The
committee recommends an additional $2.0 million in PE 63004A
for continued development.
Trichloromelamine (TCM) testing
The Secretary of the Army is directed to conduct toxicity
studies of trichloromelamine (TCM) disinfectant that include a
90 day feeding study in a non-rodent species. The purpose of
this testing is to provide appropriate Environmental Protection
Agency registration for Army future procurement from TCM
suppliers, thus ensuring competition. The committee recommends
an additional $500,000 in PE 63003A for this purpose.
Under armor auxiliary power unit
The committee understands that the Army has encountered
higher than expected development cost for the under armor
auxiliary power unit for the SEP/GEN II FLIR for the Abrams
tank. The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million in
PE 23735A to meet this shortfall.
Unexploded ordnance remediation
The committee recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE
62720A for continuation of research, testing and analysis work
at the Army Environmental Center for unexploded ordnance
remediation programs.
X-ROD
The X-ROD is a millimeter wave guided, fire and forget,
rocket boosted, kinetic energy tank round. The committee notes
that significant progress has been made in seeker hardware,
acquisition and track, and kill round terminal velocity.
The committee believes the X-ROD can fulfill the emerging
requirement for a long range, highly accurate tank kill round
envisioned for the Tank Extended Range Munition-Kinetic Energy
(TERM-KE) advanced tank round and recommends an additional
$16.5 million in PE 63639A for continued development.
Navy RDT&E
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 1997 contained $7,334.7
million for Navy RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization
of $8,190.0 million, an increase of $855.2 million, for fiscal
year 1997.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 1997 Navy
RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes
to the Navy request are discussed following the table.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Items of Special Interest
Advanced amphibious assault vehicle (AAAV)
The budget request included $40.1 million in PE 63611M to
continue development of the advanced amphibious assault vehicle
(AAAV) for the Marine Corps. The committee recommends an
increase of $20.0 million to the authorization to accelerate
the schedule for engineering and manufacturing development, and
accelerate fielding of the AAAV. The committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to identify the additional funding
required to continue acceleration of the AAAV development and
insure its fielding at the earliest feasible date. The
committee directs that the program plan and funding required
for such an accelerated schedule be reported to the
Congressional defense committees with the submission of the
fiscal year 1998 defense budget request.
Advanced gun systems technology program
The budget request included $4.8 million in PE 62111N for
applied research in advanced gun and projectile technologies in
support of the naval surface fire support (NSFS) program. The
committee recommends an increase of $2.8 million to accelerate
development of advanced miniaturized, gun-hardened global
positioning system/inertial navigation (GPS/INS) guidance and
control technology and development of advanced technologies for
next-generation gun systems.
Advanced lightweight influence sweep system (ALISS)
The budget request included $42.8 million in PE 63782N for
development and demonstration of mine countermeasures advanced
technology, including $6.4 million for continued development of
the advanced lightweight influence sweep system (ALISS). The
committee understands that the Navy's shallow water system
threat assessment identifies an influence-fused sea mine threat
which cannot effectively be swept without a new sweep system,
and that the ongoing ALISS program has shown that
superconducting magnet technology can emulate ships' magnetic
signatures and is an essential part of an advanced mine sweep
system. However, funding shortfalls have seriously impacted the
ALISS development program. The committee recommends
authorization of an additional $5.0 million in PE 63782N to
complete development, fabrication and testing of a full-scale
superconducting magnet that is one of the two major subsystems
of the ALISS and recommends that the Navy provide funding in
future budget requests to complete advanced technology
development and demonstration of the ALISS. The committee
understands that with higher priority, an influence sweep
system based on conductively-cooled superconducting magnetic
technology could be available to the fleet in the near-term.
Advanced submarine technology and new submarines
In the statement of managers accompanying the conference
report on S. 1124 (H.Rept. 104-450), the conferees directed the
Secretary of Defense to develop a plan for a long-term
submarine research and development program aimed at ensuring
U.S. technological superiority. On March 15, 1996, the
Submarine Technology Assessment Panel (also referred to as the
Baciocco panel, after its chairman Vice Admiral Albert J.
Baciocco, Jr., U.S. Navy (retired)) submitted to the Assistant
Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and
Acquisition an independent evaluation of available and future
submarine technologies and an assessment of their feasibility,
cost and potential benefits or drawback with respect to their
incorporation into the new submarine, and recommended a
technology insertion plan for submarines. On March 26, 1996,
the Secretary submitted a report to the Congress, entitled
``Report on Nuclear Attack Submarine Procurement and Submarine
Technology,'' which identified specific emerging technologies
that could be pursued, the priority assigned to each
technology, and the estimated risk involved in accelerating the
technology. Recommended technology areas included
hydrodynamics, alternative sail designs, advanced arrays,
electric drives, external weapons, and active controls and
mounts.
The committee recommends an increase of $18.0 million in PE
63508N for applied research and exploratory development in
advanced submarine concepts, including Baciocco committee
recommendations, and transition of advanced ship and submarine
technologies developed under the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA). Of the additional amount provided in
PE 63508N, $8.0 million is to complete the transfer to the Navy
of the technology for actively controlled machinery platforms
demonstrated in DARPA Project ``M''.
The committee recommends an increase of $60.0 million to
the budget request for demonstration and validation of core
technologies identified in the Secretary of Defense's report
including improved acoustic sensors and processing,
hydrodynamics, structural acoustics (including active controls
and mount), and propulsors (including integrated stern and
electric drive). The recommended increase shall be distributed
as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
PE 63504N, Advanced submarine combat systems development:
Advanced Acoustic Sensors-.................................... 10.0
Advanced Acoustic Signal Processing-.......................... 10.0
PE 63561N, Advanced submarine systems development:
Hydrodynamics................................................. 5.0
Structural Acoustics.......................................... 15.0
Propulsors.................................................... 20.0
Of the recommended $60.0 million increase, a total of $20.0
million shall be equally divided between the two submarine
construction shipyards, Electric Boat Division and Newport News
Shipbuilding, for the purpose of ensuring that the shipyards
are principal participants in the process of addressing the
inclusion of considering the technologies in the design and
construction of the submarines at their respective shipyards.
The Secretary of the Navy shall ensure that those shipyards
have access for such purpose to the Navy laboratories and the
Office of Naval Intelligence.
The committee recommends a further increase of $38.0
million to the budget request for demonstration and validation
of the Category I and Category II technologies described in the
Secretary's report. The recommended increase shall be
distributed as follows:
PE 63504N: $19.0 million for demonstration and
validation of passive ranging/target motion analysis,
large aperture processing, matched environmental
processing, total ship monitoring system improvements,
near-term multi-line towed array, high gain multi-line
towed array, lightweight wide aperture array fiber
optics, and high gain hull array.
PE 63561N: $19.0 million for demonstration and
validation of electro-mechanical/electro-hydraulic
actuators, advanced welding processes, power electronic
building blocks, advanced propulsor fabrication,
advanced hybrid propulsors, advanced coatings, rim
driven motors, and elastomeric ejection system.
The committee also recommends an increase of $50.0 million
in PE 63563N, Ship Concept Advanced Design, to initiate the
design of new, next-generation nuclear attack submarines. The
design should represent a ``new start'' and is not intended to
be constrained by or to be an outgrowth of the designs for the
fiscal year 1998 submarine built by Electric Boat Division and
the fiscal year 1999 submarine built by Newport News
Shipbuilding, and previously designated by the Navy as the New
Attack Submarine. The $50.0 million in increased funding shall
be equally divided between the two shipyards for this purpose.
An increase of $40.0 million is recommended in PE 64558N,
New Design SSN, to support the development of improvements in
submarine design. Each of the two shipyards involved in the
design and construction of the four submarines described in
section 131, of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106), shall be allowed to
propose to the Secretary of the Navy any design improvement
that the shipyard considers appropriate for the submarines
being built at that shipyard as part of those four submarines.
The $40.0 million in increased funding shall be equally divided
between the two shipyards for this purpose.-
An increase of $2.0 million is also recommended in PE
11224N, SSBN Security and Survivability Program, for further
development and evaluation of wake trail sensors.
Advanced surface machinery program--intercooled recuperated engine
The budget request included $59.8 million in PE 63573N for
the advanced surface machinery program, including $34.1 million
to continue advanced development of the intercooled recuperated
(ICR) gas turbine engine. The ICR is the next generation marine
gas turbine for the DDG-51 destroyer and the SC-21 next
generation surface combatant. Current plans call for
introduction of the ICR into the fleet as the propulsion system
for the future DDG-51 class ships. The ICR promises 30 percent
propulsion fuel savings compared to the current Navy gas
turbine, increased range, and environmental emissions
compliance. The engine is also being considered as the
propulsion system for the multi-national European ``Horizon''
frigate. The program is a collaborative effort among United
States, British, and French navies.
The ICR has been in advanced development since December
1991, and is now undergoing development full scale system
testing at Pyestock, England. Tests to date confirm engine
design prediction and the 30 percent fuel savings benefits of
recuperation have been demonstrated. During the engine tests in
early 1995, the recuperator developed air leaks which required
its removal and return to the manufacturer. Intensive
investigation revealed both design flaws and manufacturing
process problems. A recuperator recovery plan was instituted by
the management team and full scale engine tests resumed in
January 1996 using a redesigned recuperator. A second test site
is to be established at the Navy's Ship Systems Land Based
Engineering Site (LBES) to support ICR engine endurance and
qualification testing in the United States, integration of the
ICR engine into the DDG-51, and integrated power system
development and integration for the SC-21.
The committee recommends an increase of $12.5 million to
the budget request to complete preparations for supporting ICR
engine endurance and qualification test at the LBES. The
committee is concerned that the Navy's decision to proceed with
the 500 hour endurance test and the final 1000 hour
qualification test at the LBES has not been funded adequately,
and directs the Secretary of the Navy to ensure that these
funds are included in the fiscal year 1998 budget request.
Success in the ICR program is dependent upon the successful
resolution of the recuperator design and manufacturing
problems. The committee notes the progress to date in the
recovery program. However, successful completion of the next
series of performance milestones will be key to the future of
the program. Accordingly, the committee directs that not more
than 25 percent of the fiscal year 1997 funds authorized for
the ICR program may be obligated until the Secretary of the
Navy reviews the results of the developmental testing and
progress in resolving the recuperator problem and reports the
results of this review to the Congressional defense committees.
The committee requests the Secretary's report no later than
December 31, 1996.
Advanced technology transition
The budget request included $104.4 million in PE 63792N for
the Navy's Advanced Technology Transition program, and reflects
a growth of approximately $33.0 million from the fiscal year
1995 program and $29.0 million from the fiscal year 1996
program. The purpose of the program is to demonstrate high-
risk/high payoff technologies that could significantly improve
the warfighting capabilities of the fleet and joint forces and
provides the opportunity to identify and move emerging
technologies quickly and efficiently from the laboratory to the
fleet. Demonstration projects are selected by a combined user-
laboratory team and are generally three years in duration and
cost approximately $15.0 million each. The fiscal year 1996
program includes 20 projects and 23 are proposed for fiscal
year 1997. The committee commends the leadership of the Navy's
science and technology community for this initiative and the
potential that it presents for accelerating the application of
technology base solutions to fleet and joint warfighting
requirements. The committee believes, however, that the program
should continue to be highly selective and sharply focused on a
relatively limited number of projects that are aimed at
solutions to some of the Navy's most critical problems. The
committee believes, therefore, that the growth in the program
should be capped, and recommends a reduction of $20.0 million
to the budget request.
Air deployed low frequency projector
The budget request included $5.2 million in PE 63254N for
development and demonstration of advanced anti-submarine
warfare sensors and processors, including $2.5 million for the
Advanced Deployable Low Frequency Projector (ADLFP). ADLFP is a
candidate for the active project source of the Advanced
Explosive Echo Ranging Sonobuoy. The committee recommends an
increase of $2.5 million in PE 63254N for the development and
demonstration of risk reduction technologies for the ADLFP to
insure that shallow water performance requirements are met and
system cost is minimized.
Air systems advanced technology development
The committee believes that the Advanced Anti-Radiation
Guided Missile (AARGM) that evolved from a Small Business
Innovative Research program provides the potential for a
critical capability to meet the military services suppression
of enemy air defense requirements.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to proceed
with this development program and recommends $50.0 million for
fiscal year 1997 in PE 25601N to continue seeker development,
analyses, demonstrations and test support. The committee
directs that use of these funds by the Navy be limited to
design reviews and support for test and evaluation. The
committee also encourages the Secretaries of the Navy and Air
Force to fund the fiscal year 1998 requirement for this
program.
AN/AQS-20 airborne mine countermeasures system
The budget request included $14.5 million in PE 64373N for
development of airborne mine countermeasures systems required
to counter known and projected mine threats in shallow and deep
water, including $13.2 million to continue development of the
AN/AQS-20 Sonar Mine Detecting Set for shallow and deep water
minehunting and reconnaissance for both bottom and moored
mines. The committee recommends an increase to the budget
request of $6.0 million to support completion of developmental
testing and technical evaluations.
Anti-submarine warfare technology initiative
The budget request included $49.6 million in PE 62314N for
exploratory development of advanced undersea warfare
surveillance technologies. The committee recommends an increase
of $21.0 million to the budget request to accelerate the
development of advanced anti-submarine warfare technologies,
including those leading to the development of more effective
and affordable towed arrays, long-endurance, off-board active
sources; environmentally adaptive active and passive sonars;
bi-static/multi-static active sonar systems; and anti-submarine
warfare (ASW) signal processors and algorithms for detection
and classification of submarines in high cluttered shallow
water environments. Of the amount authorized, the committee
recommends $10.0 million to accelerate the development of
bistatic/multistatic active sonar systems; $5.0 million for the
development of environmentally adaptive passive and active
sonar technology; $5.0 million for ASW data fusion and
integration; and $1.0 million for competitive research and
development of advanced low and low-low frequency active
sources. Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends
several measures to improve U.S. ASW capabilities and to place
higher priority on the development and demonstration of
advanced anti-submarine warfare capabilities for the Navy.
The committee notes that the concerns it expressed in the
classified annex to the report on H.R. 1530 (H. Rept. 104-131)
regarding the apparent decline in priority of the Navy's ASW
program have been echoed by the Chief of Naval Operations and
by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In the statement
of managers accompanying the conference report on S. 1124 (H.
Rept. 104-450), the conferees directed the Secretary of Defense
to conduct and report to the Congressional defense committees
an assessment of the current and project United States ASW
capability in light of the continuing development of quieter
nuclear submarines, the proliferation of very capable diesel
submarines, the sale of sophisticated submarine launched
weapons, and the declining trend in budget resources associated
with ASW programs. The committee understands that the Chief of
Naval Operations has assigned responsibility for such an
assessment to the Inspector General of the Navy. The committee
further understands that the assessment, which should be
completed by July 1, 1996, may recommend changes in the staff
of the Department of the Navy and potential realignment of ASW
program priorities. The committee intends to address the
results of the assessment during the conference between the
defense authorizing committees on H.R. 3230.
Arsenal ship
The budget request included $25.0 million in PE 64310N for
the Department of the Navy to initiate a ``new start''
development for the Arsenal Ship. The budget request for the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) also included
$16.4 million in PE 63226E for development of technologies for
application to future surface warfare and fast sealift ships,
including the Arsenal Ship.
Arsenal Ship development is a joint DARPA-Navy program to
develop a ``proof-of-principle'' prototype for operational
demonstration and exercise with the fleet. In concept forward
deployed Arsenal Ships would combine the massive firepower and
virtually unsinkable characteristic of the battleship with the
relatively low cost and very small crew of modern commercial
tankers and cargo ships. The Arsenal Ship would contain 500
vertical launch system cells, accommodating weapons for strike,
anti-air warfare, and naval surface fire support. The
capability of the prototype would be limited to a small number
of vertical launch system (VLS) cells. At-sea test and trials
of the prototype would begin in fiscal year 2000. A successful
operational demonstration would be followed by refitting of the
prototype and installation of the remaining VLS cells and by
construction and deployment of up to five additional Arsenal
Ships to the fleet beginning as early as fiscal year 2001. The
estimated cost of the program for development of the prototype
Arsenal Ship is $500.0 million.
The committee commends the Navy's leadership and
development community and participating activities of the
Department of Defense for the innovative way in which the
concept for the Arsenal Ship has been developed. Maximum use of
available weapons systems, newly demonstrated command and
control capabilities, automation, best commercial practices,
advanced design and simulation tools, and the best features of
acquisition reform could lead to the development of a
significant operational capability for support of the regional
joint combatant commanders-in-chief.
The committee has a number of concerns about the concept,
however, which lead it to recommend that the budget request for
$25.0 million to begin development of the Arsenal Ship be
included in PE 63563N, Ship Concept Advanced Design, rather
than PE 64310N. The committee does not believe the Arsenal Ship
concept is ready for engineering and manufacturing development.
Although committee reviews of the fiscal year 1997 budget
request for the program indicate overall agreement of the
combat capability being sought for the Arsenal Ship, there
appears to be a lack of general agreement on how to get there.
Estimates that have been made of the cost of the Arsenal Ship
(in excess of $1.0 billion per ship, including weapons load)
indicate that the Arsenal Ship will be a major defense
acquisition program. The committee believes that there are a
number of issues that must be answered before a decision is
made to proceed into engineering and manufacturing development,
including analysis of the operational requirement, tradeoffs
against existing operational capabilities, force structure,
realism of the development schedule, system cost,
affordability, and others.
The committee strongly supports the concept of the advanced
concept technology demonstration and the desirability of early
user involvement in the development and evaluation of emerging
technologies. The committee also supports the need to break out
of bureaucratic practices, and make maximum use of best
commercial practices, streamlined acquisition procedures, and
modern design and analytical tools to develop new defense
acquisition paradigms. This, however, does not relieve the DOD
and the DON of the need to answer the issues outlined above.
Their challenge is to establish new paradigms for operational,
technical, and fiscal analysis which will provide the answers
to the continuing questions of ``what is the operational
requirement and what is the most cost-effective way of
fulfilling that operational requirement?'' The committee
expects the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy
to review these and other core acquisition management issues
identified in DOD Directive 5000.1 and DOD Regulation 5000.2
during the conduct of the Arsenal Ship program. The committee
directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit the initial results
of this review with the fiscal year 1998 budget request.
Battle group passive horizon extension system--surface terminal
The budget request included $1.9 million in PE 64721N for
continued research and development of the Battle Group Passive
Horizon Extension System--Surface Terminal (BGPHES-ST)
capabilities.
The committee is convinced of the utility of the BGPHES-ST
and is gratified that the Navy has elected to procure ground
station capabilities already developed by the Air Force to keep
costs down. However, the committee is concerned that the Navy
has not yet provided a capability to fully exploit the ability
of airborne systems to collect the class of threats known as
``PROFORMA.'' Therefore, the committee recommends an additional
$1.0 million be provided for the Navy to procure existing USAF
processing capabilities and algorithms. Specifically, this
funding will be used to integrate EPR-157 or EPR-208 functional
capabilities in existing BGPHES-ST hardware.
Blood storage research
The committee is aware that the Navy has supported
development of a process which would freeze-dry blood platelets
for the purpose of extending shelf life, destroying potential
contaminating viruses and reducing space required for storage
of blood stocks. The committee recognizes the potential of this
technology in treating combat casualties and encourages
continued funding of this research.
Commandant's warfighting laboratory
The budget request included $24.2 million in PE 63640M,
including $3.5 million for the Commandant of the Marine Corps
Warfighting Laboratory. The committee recommends an increased
authorization of $5.0 million for this initiative.
Communications technology
The budget request included $56.2 million in PE 62232N to
continue development of key communications technologies for
air, ship and submarine platforms. The committee recommends an
increase of $2.0 million for support of wireless and satellite
communications research in the areas of integrated antenna
systems, communications hardware design, communication
algorithm development and high-frequency device modeling and
measurements.
Composite engineered materials
The committee supports research and development of new long
life, low maintenance materials to address the future needs of
naval shore facility maintenance and repair. The committee
recommends an additional $1.0 million in PE 62234N to be
matched with an equal or greater level of private sector in a
dual-use partnership for material research that includes coal
and/or pitch derived carbon fiber-reinforced thermoplastic
engineered lumber.
Cooperative engagement capability
The budget request included $164.5 million in PE 63755N to
continue development of the cooperative engagement capability
(CEC), focusing on the development of shipboard and airborne
cooperative engagement systems (CES), initial operational test
and evaluation of shipboard CES, and development of organic
integrated logistic support for the CES. The committee
recognizes the CEC as a top priority program for the Navy and
for the Department of Defense. The committee notes the superb
results of the Mountain Top experiment and demonstration of the
ability of CEC to provide a common tactical engagement picture
to ground, sea, and air systems. The committee urges the
continued acceleration and expansion of joint service
integration efforts, including application to the Airborne
Warning and Control Systems (AWACS) aircraft; Patriot and
Theater High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) missile systems;
Marine Corps TPS-59 radar and HAWK missile system; and among
other efforts planned by the Navy. The committee recommends an
increase of $27.0 million for the CEC program.
CV-22 special operations tiltrotor aircraft
The budget request included $576.8 million in PE 64262N for
development of the V-22 tiltrotor aircraft to meet the medium
lift amphibious/vertical needs of the Marine Corps and the
special operations needs of the Special Operations Command
(SOCOM). The committee understands that the Navy and the SOCOM
have reached agreement on a program that will develop an
aircraft capable of meeting the SOCOM's needs for the CV-22.
The committee also understands that this program provides for
remanufacture of a MV-22 test aircraft to CV-22 standards for
test and evaluation, rather than providing a new aircraft off
the production line. This represents a significant challenge
for the program office to complete the CV-22 program with the
agreed on capabilities by the date of the required special
operations initial operational capability. Notwithstanding the
agreement between the Department of the Navy and SOCOM
Acquisition Executives, the committee considers this to be an
unacceptable risk to CV-22 program, and recommends an increase
to the authorization of $37.0 million for development of the
special operations variant of the V-22. The committee expects
the Secretary of the Navy to include the total of $47.0 million
required to complete the CV-22 test and evaluation aircraft in
the Navy's budget requests for fiscal years 1998 and 1999.
CVX-78 technology development and demonstration
The budget request included $12.7 million in PE 63512N for
carrier systems development, including $8.3 million for
development and demonstration of technologies that may be used
in the future aircraft carrier (CVX-78), now planned to begin
construction contract award in fiscal year 2006. To accelerate
development and demonstration of technologies for the CVX-78
and to establish a more reasonable ramp to ship design,
component development, and the production decision for the CVX-
78, the committee recommends an increase of $23.0 million to
the budget request. Based on information provided by the
Department of the Navy, the committee expects that the
increased authorization would be used for development of
technologies for advanced aircraft launch systems, and advanced
armor concepts, integrated topside design, initial computing
plant systems architecture analysis, and development of
advanced modeling and simulation tools for analysis of ship
alternatives.
Doppler sonar velocity log
The committee recommends an additional authorization of
$1.0 million in PE 64562N for evaluation of a commercially
available, non-developmental doppler sonar velocity log as a
potential replacement for standard Navy electromagnetic logs on
next generation submarines and surface ships.
Dredge spoil disposal
One of the elements of the Department's mobilization plan
is the assurance of the continuous availability and expeditious
use of port facilities. The Navy cites 15 port locations that
will require dredging in the next 15 years which will result in
the generation of an estimated 44 million cubic yards of dredge
material from both construction and maintenance dredging. Of
this amount, approximately eight million cubic yards are
estimated to be contaminated and require specialized disposal
or reclamation, both of which are extremely costly.
The committee recommends an additional $2.5 million in PE
62233N to investigate potential low cost alternatives to the
current methods of disposal or reclamation of dredge spoils.
The investigation should consider a continuing program of
investigation with the Army Corps of Engineers and other
relevant agencies.
Explosive ordnance disposal
The budget request included $7.3 million in PE 64654N for
the joint services Explosives Ordnance Disposal (EOD)
development program. The program provides for the technical
development and validation of EOD render-safe procedures for
all known domestic and foreign conventional and nuclear
ordnance. The committee recommends an increase to the
authorization of $1.1 million for the accelerated development
of EOD procedures for countering high threat unexploded
ordnance found in the field.
Fixed distributed system
The budget request included $35.2 million in PE 64784N for
continued development of the Distributed Surveillance System.
The committee recommends an increase of $35.0 million to the
budget request for a Fixed Distributed System commercial-off-
the-shelf/non-development initiative fiber optics upgrade.
Free electron laser
The budget for fiscal year 1996 included $8.5 million in PE
62111N to continue design, fabrication, and activation of a one
kilowatt average power free electron laser operating in the
infrared spectrum for evaluation for ship defense. The
committee recommends $9.0 million for fiscal year 1997 to
continue this effort.
Helicopter ground proximity warning systems
The budget request included $24.7 million in PE 64215N for
engineering and manufacturing systems development of joint
service and Navy standard avionics components and subsystems.
The committee is aware that helicopter ground proximity warning
system (GPWS) technology is maturing into a useable end product
which has faired well in both developmental and operational
tests. Flight tests of GPWS have demonstrated a real potential
for GPWS to warn pilots of an impending impact with the ground
during controlled flight, thus saving lives and aircraft. The
committee recommends an increase of $2.4 million in PE 64215N
to continue development of the GPWS in anticipation of its
fielding on Navy and Marine heavy and medium lift helicopters.
High speed anti-radiation missile
The committee is aware of shortfalls that exist in the
funding for the High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile program and
recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE 25601N and an
additional $3.5 million in PE 27161F to accomplish risk
reduction efforts to be accomplished for the block VI program
and ensure successful fielding of the block V software.
High temperature superconductivity propulsion
The committee recommends an additional $3.5 million in PE
62121N, $2.0 million to investigate large-scale superconducting
applications for shipboard propulsion and auxiliary systems and
$1.5 million for the fabrication of proof-of-principle
cryogenic power devices.
Insensitive munitions
The budget request included $7.3 million in PE 63609N for
insensitive munitions advanced development. The committee is
concerned that this level of funding is insufficient to
ultimately provide adequate levels of safety aboard ships and
recommends an additional $3.0 million for fiscal year 1997.
Integrated surveillance system improvements
The budget request included $14.0 million in PE 24311N for
research and development support of the Integrated Undersea
Surveillance System (IUSS,) including $3.3 million for research
and development support of the Surveillance Towed Array Sensor
System (SURTASS) and $10.7 million for the (IUSS) detection/
classification system. The committee recommends an increase of
$22.1 million to the budget request to continue development and
integration of SURTASS twin line arrays, reduction in the size
of transmit arrays, fiber optic array development; expanding
the frequency processing capability, and sea test of these
developments, for the low frequency array program and
development of more reliable low frequency active transmitters;
and for adoption of SURTASS software algorithms for submarine
sonar systems.
Joint target support system testbed
In the statement of managers accompanying the conference
report on S. 1124 (H. Rept. 104-450), the conferees agreed to
an additional authorization of $4.0 million in PE 24229N to
initiate development of a joint targeting support system
testbed (JTSST) for demonstration of potential joint targeting
operations. The conferees expected that the results of the
initial JTSST study and follow-on demonstrations would
contribute to the definition of long-term objectives,
guidelines, and schedule milestones for convergence of the
Navy/Marine Corps tactical aircraft mission planning systems
and the Air Force mission support system, and lead to the
development of a joint mission planning system architecture for
the military services. The conferees directed the Secretary of
Defense to report to the Congressional defense committees, as
soon as possible (but no later that the submission of the
fiscal year 1998 budget request), the Department's plan for
implementing the recommendations that resulted from the study.
The committee has not yet received the Secretary's report, and
in the absence of that report recommends an increase of $8.0
million to the fiscal year 1997 budget request to continue
development and demonstration of the JTSST.
Link 16 integration
The budget request included $6.7 million in PE 64231N to
continue development of the Navy Tactical Command System-Afloat
(NTCS-A). The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million
for development of an integrated two-way Link 16 processing
capability in the Joint Maritime Command Information System
(JMCIS) software. Integration of two-way Link 16 with all-
source intelligence fusion will provide a common tactical
picture between weapon systems and command, control,
communications and intelligence (C3I) systems and will permit
the exchange of tactical data with the C3I systems of the other
military services and U.S. NATO allies.
The budget also included $37.3 million in PE 25604N for
development of improvements in tactical data links in
operational Navy systems. The committee recommends an increase
of $11.6 million in PE 25604N for further development of Link
16 and related tactical data link programs for surface ship
applications; $13.6 million in Other Procurement, Navy; and
$2.2 million in Operations and Maintenance, Navy (OMN 0205604N
4B7N) to accelerate the installation of Link 16 tactical data
links in AEGIS surface combatants. Elsewhere in this report the
committee has recommended similar measures to accelerate the
development and fielding of Link 16 capability in tactical and
bomber aircraft.
Littoral warfare advanced technology demonstration
The budget request included $43.6 million in PE 63747N for
undersea warfare advanced technology development. The committee
encourages the Navy to continue its efforts in the development
and demonstration of advanced technologies for support of joint
littoral warfare. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million to the budget request for at-sea demonstration and
evaluation of broad band, low low frequency active (LLFA)
acoustic technology for the detection of quiet, slow moving
submarines operating in the widely variable environment of the
world's littoral regions. Of the $53.6 million authorized, $3.0
million is to be used only for at-sea testing of commercial-
off-the-shelf, multipulse LLFA technology.
Maritime avionics subsystems and technology program
The budget request did not include specific funding for the
maritime avionics subsystems and technology (MAST) program.
MAST is a program which focuses on the development of
scaleable, open, fault-tolerant and common avionics
architectures, and was a fiscal year 1995 ``new start''. In the
statement of managers accompanying the conference report on S.
1124 (H. Rept. 104-450), the conferees authorized $10.0 million
to continue the MAST program and recommended that the Secretary
of the Navy consider requirements for continuation of the MAST
program in the fiscal year 1997 budget request. The committee
believes that the Navy must continue to place emphasis on the
development of advanced avionics architectures and systems and
recommends an increased authorization of $10.0 million in PE
63217N to continue the MAST program in fiscal year 1997.
Because of the congressional interest that has been expressed
in this program and the importance of advanced avionics
architectures to future aircraft systems, the committee expects
the Secretary of the Navy to include funding for the program in
the fiscal year 1998 budget request.
Medical mobile monitor
The delivery of state-of-the-art, cost effective, medical
care to deployed forces continues to be a top priority for the
committee. A key to supporting this priority is the development
and deployment of portable technologies to assist physicians
and other medical personnel in the diagnosis and treatment of
injuries and illness. The committee is aware of technologies
that can provide vital sign monitoring that can be interfaced
with portable personal computers already being acquired by the
military services, and are logistically interfaced to existing
military communications systems. The committee recommends an
additional $4.0 million in PE 63706N to develop prototypes for
mission critical deployments.
Microwave power module research
The committee notes the progress made with the tri-service
vacuum electronics research program which resulted from the
1990 Special Technology Area Review (STAR) conducted by the
Department's Advisory Group on Electron Devices. This program
has advanced the development of microwave power modules (MPMs),
which are revolutionary devices linking advances in solid-state
and vacuum-electronics radio frequency power amplification
technologies. The effective performance of our military forces
now and in the near future is irrevocably linked to the
performance and availability of microwave tubes to provide the
high frequency, high power required for radars and satellite
communications.
The committee is concerned that the Department's declining
investment in MPM design and application research is both
threatening the industry and denying the military of the wider
variety of microwave tube designs for emerging systems. The
committee recommends that the Department vigorously review its
research and industrially funded developments to ensure that an
appropriate balance of its electronics investment is made. The
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report
on its MPM findings to the Congressional defense committees
prior to submission of the fiscal year 1998 budget request.
Mobile off-shore base
The budget request included $9.2 million in PE 63238N to
continue concept development of the mobile off-shore base
(MOBS). The committee has repeatedly expressed its concern
about the potential cost of the MOBS program, which has been
based upon estimates that a single MOBS system could cost
approximately $2.0 billion and that the next step in the MOBS
program, an advanced concept technology demonstration, could
cost an estimated $700.0 million. The committee notes that the
Secretary of Defense has not reported to the Congressional
defense committees the plan and schedule for incorporating MOBS
into the defense acquisition board process and accomplishing a
Milestone O review, as was directed in the statement of
managers accompanying the conference report on S. 1124 (H.
Rept. 104-450). The committee understands that MOBS program
funds have been identified by the Navy as a source for various
fiscal year 1996 unprogrammed funding requirements and that the
Navy is not seriously considering continuation of the MOBS
program. Accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction of
$9.2 million in the budget request.
Molecular design
The committee is aware of the initiatives of the Office of
Naval Research (ONR) in molecular synthesis and processing
research, making it possible to tailor new materials, atom by
atom, to achieve a desired set of properties. Molecular
manipulation at the atomic level into material nanostructures
requires a crosscut of biochemists, inorganic chemists,
physicists, and molecular biologists which can lead to a
``culture shift'' revolutionizing material science. The
committee commends ONR for its leadership in this nationally
important program. The committee recommends an additional $10.0
million in PE 61153N for continuation of the program in
molecular design.
Naval joint surveillance and targeting attack radar system
The budget request included no funding for providing U.S.
Naval forces the ability to receive, process, or utilize the
Joint Surveillance and Attack Radar System (JSTARS) moving
target indicator (MTI) synthetic aperture radar (SAR) system.
The JSTARS MTI will soon reach initial operating
capability. However, neither the Air Force nor Navy is
adequately prepared to make efficient use of the JSTARS
product. As a result, neither will be able to effectively
utilize the advanced, standoff weapons that will soon be
fielded to attack large numbers of mobile targets. In the Air
Force, the key technical limitation is the requirement to use
low-capacity and unreliable voice communications to provide
target and threat information to attack aircraft. The Air Force
is equipping JSTARS platforms with Link 16 and appropriate
message sets, but until this year showed little interest in
procuring data links sets for its ground attack aircraft.
The Navy, in contrast, is already committed to procuring
Link 16 capabilities for all of its tactical aircraft, but has
shown no appreciation of the enormous improvements that JSTARS
could make to Navy interdiction capabilities.
Furthermore, the Navy is seeking approval for so-called
``arsenal'' ships based in large part on their presumed ability
to help halt massed attacks with missiles such as the Tomahawk.
However, the Navy has almost no ability to acquire moving
targets at long range, pass the data to Tomahawk mission
planning cells, and update the missiles in flight as target
dispositions change. While the Tomahawk program office has
proposed a program to correct these deficiencies (including
JSTARS, Link 16, and smart submunitions), the corporate Navy
has yet to define an end-to-end architecture.
The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million in a
new PE 64770N to develop these capabilities aboard ship, and to
ensure that Navy attack aircraft can receive and display JSTARS
Link 16 data for use in standoff weapons targeting. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report
to the Congress on the status of this initiative by April 15,
1997, which includes an estimate of the total funding required
to equip appropriate Navy ships, aircraft, and missiles with a
JSTARS targeting capability.
Naval surface fire support program
The budget request included $42.2 million in PE 63795N for
the naval surface fire support (NSFS) program. The committee is
pleased that the Navy has addressed the overall funding
shortfall in the NSFS program that was evident in previous
budget requests, and has provided an increased level of funding
for the program through the period of the future years defense
plan. The committee notes the near-term focus of the program on
upgrading the capability of existing Mark 45 5-inch gun systems
and on the development and demonstration of an extended range
guided projectile (ERGM) which would incorporate advanced, low
cost global positioning system/inertial navigation system (GPS/
INS) guidance.
The committee is aware that some advanced gun concepts are
under consideration by the Navy's development community, but
notes little programmatic emphasis on the development and
demonstration of advanced gun propulsion and system
technologies that could be applied to next-generation gun
systems. To partially address this shortfall, the committee
recommends an increase of $2.8 million in PE 62111N. The
committee believes that increased emphasis must be placed on
this area in future budget requests.
The committee believes that the advanced GPS/INS guidance
and control technology is absolutely key to the NSFS program.
The success of this program, especially in terms of
affordability, can be significantly enhanced by micro-electro-
mechanical systems (MEMS) technology used in the guidance unit.
MEMS technology has the potential of significantly reducing the
cost of the GPS/INS guidance unit for ERGM and for other
Department of Defense programs. The committee recommends an
increased authorization of $5.0 million in PE 63795N to build
on the Navy's guidance risk reduction program; accelerate
development and qualification of MEMS-based GPS/INS guidance
and control; and ensure the availability of that technology for
the ERGM production program and for other guided munitions,
rocket, and missile programs.
Navy manufacturing technology (MANTECH)
The committee encourages the continuation of programs
currently funded in the MANTECH account designed to demonstrate
the effectiveness of comprehensive career analysis and
retraining models for military and civilian personnel who have
been or will be terminated as a consequence of base closure
decisions.
Navy mine countermeasures research
The committee notes the significance to the Navy's mine
countermeasures program of the oceanography program that is
discussed elsewhere in this report. The committee encourages
the Secretary of the Navy to consider the establishment of a
mine warfare undersea research program at the Mine Warfare
Center of Excellence that could promote oceanographic research
in areas of significance to the mine warfare program and
capitalize on the integrated efforts of the center, industry,
and academia.
Ocean nuclear dumping monitoring program
For decades, nuclear capable countries have dumped low
level nuclear waste into the oceans as a means of disposal.
This practice has ceased in recent years with exception of the
States of the former Soviet Union (FSU) who have continued to
dispose of radioactive materials in the northern seas,
particularly in the Arctic. It was revealed in a Military
Research and Development Subcommittee hearing that the FSU had
discontinued ocean dumping in the hope that Western assistance
would provide alternative disposal technology and facilities.
However, such assistance has been slow in coming. The committee
is concerned that without sufficient international assistance,
the FSU will have no alternative other than the resumption of
open ocean disposal.
Since the effect of undersea disposal of nuclear material
is not known, the committee directs the Office of Naval
Research to continue its assessment program and employ other
agency assistance to monitor ocean dumping activity, assess
impacts on ocean health, and ice structures, and other national
security elements. The committee recommends an increase of
$10.0 million in PE 62435N and an increase of $2.5 million in
PE 63716D for these purposes.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to
the Congressional defense committees not later than February 1,
1997 on activities to coordinate international assistance to
the FSU to find and implement an effective program for disposal
of nuclear waste stockpiled and generated during Cold War
activities.
Ocean research partnerships program
Knowledge of the ocean environment is essential for
successful military operations in both the open seas and in the
increasingly important littoral zone. Ocean acoustic paths are
strongly affected by surface and bottom characteristics,
currents, temperature, and other factors. In addition, the
effects of oceanographic phenomenon on climatology, both
diurnal and long-term, is becoming better understood and
predicted with degrees of accuracy that can impact future
military strategic planning. Many advanced weapons systems in
use today require accurate and timely environmental data to
effectively strike military targets. Therefore, by remaining on
the leading edge of oceanographic science, naval forces can
better use the ocean environment for military advantage.
Given the continued funding pressures for critical
oceanographic survey and research efforts, the committee
recognizes that non-military oceanographic capabilities exist
which, if leveraged, could also benefit or satisfy military
requirements. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision
(sec. 247) that would establish a National Oceanographic
Partnership Program for the purpose of leveraging all U.S.
oceanographic efforts to the benefit of the military. For
example, under this provision, the Navy would be able to
leverage the existing university oceanographic fleet to help
reduce its ocean survey backlog requirements of 240 ship-years.
This approach would expand the Navy's survey effort and
concurrently provide much needed research by academia who could
not otherwise afford the voyages.
While the committee recognizes that knowledge and mastery
of the oceans and its littorals are fundamental to naval
operations, numerous non-defense benefits are derived from
oceanographic research. For this reason, the Oceanographic
Partnership Program would also enhance ongoing survey and
research efforts of universities and industries involved in
oceanographic survey and research.
The committee finds that it is important that the
components of the oceanographic community within the United
States (university, government, and industry) maintain a close
working relationship to meet common national goals and provide
new capabilities. Therefore, the Partnership Program would
establish the following goals and initiatives:
(1) Establish a National Oceanographic Leadership
Council to coordinate national oceanography programs,
partnerships and facilities;
(2) Identify and build partnerships to leverage
resources among government, civil, academic,
industrial, allied and international oceanographic
organizations.
(3) Coordinate policy efforts of all federal
activities involved in oceanographic surveys and
research to maximize current financial investments and
ensure the wisest use of resources;
(4) Ensure the future of oceanographic research by
focusing recruiting, educating, and training a highly
skilled military and civilian work force which
complements all aspects of oceanography education,
including at-sea training and experience on board Navy
and university oceanographic survey and research ships;
(5) Preserve a robust ``at-sea'' research and survey
capability for the expressed purpose of expediting
naval survey and research in littoral regions deemed
critical;
(6) Provide a comprehensive plan to ensure
development of oceanography science and technology, and
modeling and simulation programs throughout government,
university and industry will be available to support
military requirements in the future;
(7) Create a national ocean data and remote sensing
center to centralize all unclassified, classified and
sensitive compartmented information databases, models
and product synthesis capabilities in support of
national oceanographic requirements, and
(8) Create a national natural littoral laboratory
that would lead to a deeper fundamental understanding
of these areas and act as surrogate models of foreign
coastal zones for military and research purposes.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an authorization of
an additional $15.0 million in PE 61153N and an additional
$15.0 million in PE 62435N for the National Oceanography
Partnership Program. The committee recommends that these funds
be used for the following purposes:
(1) $5.0 million to promote partnerships between
industry, universities and government agencies in
support of the goals outlined for the program. All
partnerships are to be cost shared by participating
organizations and awarded after peer-review.
(2) $7.5 million to fund 1\1/2\ ship-years in the
university research ship fleet to supplement U.S. Navy
oceanographic survey efforts. University survey efforts
should be conducted in international waters in an area
considered high priority by the Navy.
(3) $2.0 million to create a Federal Ocean Data and
Ocean Sensing Center for centralized ocean sensor
information (unclassified, classified sources) for
analysis and modeling by all U.S. Government and
government-sponsored civilian research. On-line
connectivity to databases approved for public release
shall be provided. Site selection shall be determined
by the council.
(4) $2.0 million to create a National Natural
Littoral Laboratory to coordinate U.S. Navy's modeling
and oceanographic analysis effort in support of unique
and emerging littoral warfare requirements.
(5) $1.0 million to continue the Medea Ocean Panel to
declassify and disseminate the Navy's ocean data.
(6) $2.5 million to create educational and cross-
decking opportunities; recruit, educate, and train a
highly skilled military and civilian scientific work
force; and complement military and civilian
oceanography education with at-sea training and
experience on board Navy and university oceanographic
survey and research ships.
(7) $500,000 to establish a program office to
administer partnership activities.
(8) The balance of funding shall be utilized for
other leveraged oceanographic activity that provides
military benefits as well as a strengthened research
program as determined by the council.
The committee urges the council to explore the potential
for international partnerships in the same thesis as has been
set forth in the National Oceanographic Partnership Program
that would be established herein.
Power electronics building blocks
The budget request for the power electronics building
blocks (PEBB) program contained $6.5 million. The committee
believes that the opportunity exists to manage electric power
systems efficiently and provide reliable uninterruptible power
with a tenfold reduction in size, weight and cost of military
systems. The committee recommends an additional $6.0 million in
PE 62121N for the PEBB program for the development of
prototyping tools and simulations to evaluate performance and
reconfigurable ship electric power systems.
Precision targeting and location
The committee is aware of the potential vulnerability of
the global positioning system (GPS) signals to collateral
interference and intentional jamming. The committee recommends
an additional $3.5 million in PE 64270N for the demonstration
of a flyable prototype of a currently available technology
capable of rapid, precision location of sources of GPS
interference to assess the technical feasibility and utility of
such a targeting system on operational aircraft and unmanned
aerial vehicles.
Safety and survivability
The committee recognizes the Navy's Office of Safety and
Survivability (OSS) for its high leveraged return on investment
by supporting the timely assessment and insertion of commercial
safety and survivability technology and systems into the Navy's
operational units. As an example, the OSS's non-developmental
item (NDI) program provided the leadership role in replacing
the 50-year-old oxygen breathing apparatus for shipboard
firefighting and accelerated the introduction of other critical
shipboard life safety items to the fleet at a significant cost
savings to the Navy. The committee recommends an additional
$2.0 million in PE 65864N to support ongoing NDI operational
assessments. Further, the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA) continues to examine high leverage technologies
for fire fighting and personnel protection. Accordingly, the
committee recommends as additional $4.0 million in PE 63226E
for the DARPA program.
SSBN security/survivability technology program
The budget request included $21.3 million in PE 11224N for
the SSBN Security and Survivability Program, a reduction of
$9.2 million from the amount authorized and appropriated for
the program in fiscal year 1996, and a two-thirds reduction in
the program since fiscal year 1993. In view of the critical
role of strategic deterrence in the U.S. national military
strategy provided by the U.S. SSBN force, the committee
considers this an imprudent reduction. The committee believes
that a sustained funding level of approximately $30.0 million
is required to maintain a credible SSBN security and
survivability program. Accordingly, the committee recommends an
increase to the budget request of $6.0 million, in addition to
the $2.0 million increase recommended as a part of the
committee's advanced submarine technology initiative. Further
guidance regarding the SSBN security program is contained in
the classified annex.
Standard missile ``Terrier'' target
The budget request included $1.6 million in PE 64366N for
development of improvements to the Standard missile. The
committee notes that the Navy's inventory of supersonic sea-
skimming targets (SSST) is insufficient to meet both test and
evaluation and fleet training needs. Development of a follow-on
SSST is necessary to ensure production units are available when
needed. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase to
the budget request of $8.0 million for a proof of concept
demonstration and evaluation of the potential effectiveness of
the Terrier missile as an SSST.
Submarine combat system multi-purpose processor
The budget request included $61.4 million in PE 64503N,
including $33.6 million for development of submarine sonar
improvements. The committee recommends an increase to the
budget request of $11.0 million for advanced development and
rapid introduction of Multipurpose Processor (MPP) technology
into the U.S. submarine fleet. The MPP is a clear success story
for the Small Business Innovative Research Program, for which
both the Navy and the developer should be commended. Using
commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) hardware and an open software
architecture, the MPP has capitalized on the exponential
improvement in commercial hardware and software to facilitate
rapid improvements in submarine acoustic data processing.
Fundamental to the MPP is the concept of protecting the Navy's
investment in processor software through software
transportability: the ability to transport new, advanced
software to existing hardware utilizing an open operating
system. The committee understands that the New Attack Submarine
Program and the Submarine Combat Systems Program have selected
the MPP as the cornerstone of sonar upgrades for the existing
SSN 688, 688I, and SSBN 726 class submarines.
Surface and shallow water mine countermeasures
The budget request included $87.0 million in PE 63502N for
development, demonstration, and validation of surface and
shallow water mine countermeasures. The committee recommends an
increase of $12.0 million in the budget request to accelerate
development of the integrated combat weapon system (ICWS).
Tactical electronic reconnaissance processing and evaluation system
The budget request included $2.5 million in PE 26313M for
upgrades to, and communications integration testing within the
Tactical Electronic Reconnaissance processing and evaluation
system (TERPES) system.
The committee is aware that TERPES is currently fielded to
Aviano Air Base in Italy and the Adriatic in support of multi-
service operations in Bosnia. The committee is also aware of
the unfunded and immediate need to improve TERPES
interoperability with the Global Command and Control System
(GCCS) and Tactical Air Mission Planning System (TAMPS).
Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $855,000 to
provide required communications software and interoperability
upgrades.
Towed array receive system (TARS)
The budget request included $4.9 million in PE 25620N for
the surface anti-submarine warfare systems improvement program.
To address shortcomings in the Navy's capability for detecting
slow-moving diesel-electric submarines in shallow water, the
committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million to the budget
request for integration of the Navy's towed array receiving
system (TARS) upgrade in the AN/SQQ-89 surface ship sonar
suite.
Training systems development
The budget request included $36.7 million in PE 24571N for
Consolidated Training Systems Development, including $3.4
million for continued development of the Navy's Surface
Tactical Team Trainer and $6.0 million for development of
training and training devices systems. Overall, the budget
request represents a reduction of $29.2 million from the fiscal
year 1996 budget for development of Navy training systems. The
committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to continue
integration and evaluation of the cryptologic systems trainer
in the Battle Force Tactical Training system, leading to a
decision of procurement of the trainer.
Undersea weapons advanced technology demonstration
The budget request included $43.6 million in PE 63747N for
undersea warfare advanced technology development. The committee
recommends an increase of $5.0 million for development and
demonstration of advanced technology prototype improvements to
current undersea weapon systems, including environmentally
compliant alternative torpedo fuels and advanced broadband
homing system technologies and software algorithms to improve
the countermeasure resistance of U.S. undersea weapons.
Undersea weapons technology
The budget request recommended $33.9 million in PE 62633N
for exploratory development of undersea warfare weapon
technology. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0
million to accelerate the development and demonstration of
technologies applicable to quick reaction anti-submarine
weapons for close-range engagements and to defensive systems
for protecting surface ships and submarines against torpedo
attack.
Wide bandgap semiconductors
The committee recognizes the potential of wide bandgap
semiconductors, that operate at higher power, higher frequency
and temperature and have the ability to operate in high
radiation environments. The committee recommends an additional
$10.0 million in PE 62234N for a wide bandgap electronics
program that involves industry and academia and that targets
gallium nitride and silicon carbide material growth,
characterization, surface behavior and device development.
Air Force RDT&E
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 1997 contained $14,417.5
million for Air Force RDT&E. The committee recommends
authorization of $13,271.1 million, a reduction of $1,146.4
million, for fiscal year 1997.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 1997 Air
Force RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major
changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the
table and in the classified annex to this report.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Items of Special Interest
Airborne warning and control system
The budget request includes $18.3 million of the $57.6
million in PE 27417F for the Airborne Warning and Control
System aircraft to correct deficiencies that reduce aircraft
availability. The Air Force indicates that significant
improvements could be made in aircraft availability,
performance and life cycle cost savings achieved if
reliability, maintainability and reengining initiatives
approved by the Secretary of Defense could begin in fiscal year
1997. Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $64.2
million for these purposes as recommended by the Chief of Staff
of the Air Force.
Aircraft ejection seats
The committee continues to be concerned that inadequate
emphasis is being placed on aircrew protection for light-weight
crew members, ejections at higher air speeds, and low altitude-
high sink rate ejections. Leadership is also lacking within the
Department of Defense to ensure military service coordinated
programs and adequate emphasis on correcting deficiencies in
currently fielded systems. It is incredulous that the Air
Force's recently published ``New World Vistas'' report
recommended the Air Force stop ejection seat research and
development.
The committee therefore provides an additional $5.0 million
in PE 63231F and $5.0 million in 64264N for testing of
potential upgrades to current ejection seats and an additional
$3.5 million in PE 64706F to evaluate the ACES II ejection seat
with stabilization, limb restraints, and expanded crew member
accommodation. The committee directs continued tests on
existing Navy, USMC, and Air Force front-line trainer and
tactical aircraft ejection seats for the purpose of verifying
their predicted performance and identifying problems and
required corrective action. In addition, up to $2.0 million of
the additional authorization in PE 64706F is authorized for a
competitively awarded study to gain additional information
regarding the integration of tactical aircrew-worn
technologies, such as helmets with helmet mounted visual
displays, chemical biological defense equipment, and sustained
acceleration protection with upgraded ejection seats. All
testing should be conducted at the most economical and readily
available government or commercial test facility. In conducting
these tests, high priority shall continue to be given to the
sustainment of the U.S. ejection seat industrial base. Finally,
the committee strongly believes that the Air Force should
continue its ejection seat research and development.
B-1B bomber
The budget request contained $220.9 million in PE 64226F
for research and development of the B-1B bomber. The committee
continues to strongly support a modern, capable long-range
bomber force, and recognizes that the B-1B will serve as the
workhorse of such a force well into the 21st century. In order
to enhance the warfighting capabilities of the B-1B, the
committee recommends an additional $8.3 million for the
defensive system upgrade.
B-2 conventional capability enhancements
The budget request contained $528.4 million in PE 64240F
for continued engineering and conversion of existing B-2 test
aircraft to the combat configuration.
Although the Department plans to equip the current B-2
fleet with a conventional precision guided munitions (PGM)
capability, the committee is concerned with the slow pace of
this effort. Furthermore, the committee understands that the
Air Force has identified initiatives which would provide
enhanced information distribution capability and improved
conventional weapons accuracy but these efforts are not funded
in the fiscal year 1997 request. Consequently, the committee
recommends $818.4 million, an increase of $290.0 million in PE
64240F, and directs the Air Force to use funds appropriated
pursuant to this additional authorization only for acceleration
of PGM integration and enhanced conventional capability for the
existing B-2 fleet.
Cryoelectronics for tactical systems
The committee is aware of the potential payoff in
electrical circuit efficiency, size and capacity if low
temperature circuits such as precision band pass filters can be
cost-effectively developed, manufactured, and operated.
The committee recommends an additional $3.0 million in PE
62203F for cryogenic power devices.
Digital data link
The budget request includes $11.1 million in PE 64754F for
a digital data link system known as ``Link 16'' that provides
high capacity, jam resistant communications and navigation
information among aircraft that greatly improve situational
awareness of the tactical environment, mission effectiveness,
and significantly reduces the likelihood of combat fratricide.
The committee recommends an additional $55.7 million in fiscal
year 1997 to accelerate fielding of this capability in F-15E,
B-1, F-16, and RC-135 aircraft as recommended by the Chief of
Staff of the Air Force.
In addition, the committee is concerned that the Air Force
has not given adequate consideration to the significantly
increased capability potentially provided to the F-16 for
beyond visual range weapons employment through the integration
of the APX-113, already developed in the F-16 mid-life upgrade
program. The committee therefore directs that the Secretary of
the Air Force provide a report to the committee by not later
than October 1, 1996, detailing the requirement, options and
plan, to include schedule and cost, for providing advanced
identification friend or foe or similar capabilities for its
tactical aircraft.
Electronic countermeasures
The budget request provided no funding for the F-15E ALQ-
135 electronic countermeasures system, lower band, because of
fiscal constraints even though the development is 90 percent
complete. The committee recommends an additional $17.0 million
in PE 27134F for completion of RDT&E for the system, to include
integration, developmental flight test, and modification of
intermediate level test equipment as recommended by the Chief
of Staff of the Air Force.
Global positioning system sensor
The budget request included $13.6 million in program
element 35913F for nuclear proliferation and detection sensors
aboard the Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite system.
The committee recommends an additional $13.9 million to be used
for electromagnetic pulse (EMP) sensor and ground system
development. This added capability will assist in detecting
foreign nuclear tests and, therefore, in monitoring a
comprehensive test ban treaty. The committee directs the
Secretary of the Air Force to include sufficient resources in
the fiscal year 1998 budget submission to continue this
important project.
Helmet mounted displays
The budget request included $19.7 million for the Air Force
and Navy for the Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System.
Integration of weapon systems and situational awareness data
into a pilot's helmet gives significant leverage to operational
capability. With a relatively small amount of additional
funding the program schedule can be advanced by nearly two
years. Accordingly, the committee recommends an additional $2.0
million for PE 64201F.
Joint air-to-surface stand-off missile
The budget request included $198.6 million in PE 27325F for
development of the Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile
(JASSM). The committee supports the budget request. The
committee also shares the belief expressed in the statement of
managers accompanying the conference report on S. 1124 (H. Rept
104-450) that JASSM could evolve from an existing, or planned
interim weapons systems. If the Department of Defense believes
that a new weapon development is appropriate, the new
development program should be based on technologies that have
already been developed in the Tri-Service Standoff Attack
Missile (TSSAM) program, or in other existing or planned stand-
off weapons systems, including technologies relating to low and
very low observability and stealth.
The committee believes that while affordability is a
central consideration in the development of JASSM, it expects
the program to yield a superior capability which includes a
highly maneuverable, low- or very low-observable airframe,
highly lethal warhead, and precision guidance. The committee
believes that this capability is necessary for Air Force bomber
and Navy carrier strike aircraft now and well into the 21st
Century. The JASSM development must be a truly joint program,
in which the Air Force and the Navy work closely together to
meet the requirements of the two services.
Joint situational awareness system
The committee is aware of the significant progress being
made in providing theater-wide situational awareness to joint
force decision-makers through fusion systems like the Joint
Situational Awareness System (JSAS). However, the committee is
concerned about the possible duplication of effort in other
programs. Accordingly, the committee directs that no funds be
obligated for the Battlefield Awareness System (BAS) until JSAS
has been fielded and evaluated to determine whether further
development of the BAS is required.
Landing systems
The budget request included $3.9 million in PE 35114F for
air traffic control, approach, and landing systems. The Air
Force and Navy are currently studying alternatives to determine
the best option for future precision landing systems using
commercial off the shelf technology or systems that would offer
minimal development cost for military use. The committee
recommends an additional $5.0 million to complete the
development of the precision landing systems receiver and
directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide the results
of the Joint Precision Approach Alternatives Study to the
Congressional defense committees upon its completion, currently
scheduled for September 1997.
Measurement and signal intelligence
The committee recommends an additional $3.0 million in PE
31315F for developing an integrated measurement and signature
intelligence (MASINT) software maintenance and training
facility.
Metal fatigue monitoring
The committee recommends an additional $2.5 million in PE
63112F for the metal fatigue monitoring program.
Milstar automated communication management system
The budget request included $700.3 million for the Milstar
satellite communications system. The committee recommends an
additional $20.0 million in PE 64479F for the automated
communication management system (ACMS), which will perform
essential network planning and management of Milstar
communications resources for a wide range of users. The Army's
tactical terminal field operators and planners, in particular,
will benefit from a capability to directly task the satellite
constellation, move antennae, and change network
configurations. ACMS will enable all users to fully utilize the
flexibility and responsiveness of the Milstar system.
Minuteman safety enhanced reentry vehicle
The budget request included $198.6 million in PE 64851F for
intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) engineering and
manufacturing development (EMD). The budget request did not
include funds for the safety enhanced reentry vehicle (SERV)
program, however.
The Minuteman guidance replacement program (GRP) currently
preserves the option of incorporating the Mark-21 safety
enhanced reentry vehicle on Minuteman III if Peacekeeper
intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are retired.
However, no hardware or software prototyping has been
accomplished to date for this purpose as part of GRP. In fact,
integrating this effort with current design and development
work in GRP would save money and provide greater confidence in
the overall system design and performance. Therefore, the
committee recommends an additional $13.7 million in PE 64851F
to perform hardware and software prototyping and testing
associated with incorporation of the Mark-21 reentry vehicle on
the Minuteman III ICBM. The committee directs the Secretary of
the Air Force to submit a report to the committee not later
than September 15, 1996, on the Air Force's plan to deploy the
Mark 21 reentry vehicle on Minuteman and on the status of
funding for this effort.
Missile conversion
The National Space Transportation Policy requires Secretary
of Defense approval for the use of excess ballistic missiles
for the launch of U.S. Government research and development
payloads into orbit. The converted excess ballistic missiles
would provide relatively low cost flight opportunities for
research and scientific payloads as well as training and
readiness opportunities for military personnel.
The committee views with concern the significant delay that
has occurred in the Secretary of Defense's approval of a pilot
program requested by the Secretary of the Air Force that would
convert five excess ballistic missiles for such purposes. This
delay has imposed an unnecessary planning burden on potential
users.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
immediately approve, as a pilot case, the use of five excess
Minuteman missiles to launch small government research and
development satellites and encourages the Secretary to delegate
future approval authority for all similar uses to the Commander
of the Space and Missile Systems Center.
Munitions adaptor kit
The Air Force is currently conducting tests as the result
of a competitive evaluation, of a promising non-developmental
adaptor kit for in-inventory munitions that could provide low
cost increased stand-off employment and accurate guidance
capability to current unguided direct attack munitions. There
is no budget request for fiscal year 1997 to conduct
developmental or operational testing should these tests prove
successful and the Air Force concludes further development is
warranted. Accordingly, the committee recommends an additional
$28.5 million in PE 64602F, for further developmental and
operational testing of 90 adaptor kits with in-inventory
munitions on F-16, F-15, B-1, and/or B-52 aircraft. Testing
should provide full envelope aircraft certification,
statistical verification accuracy, operational validation of
weapon use and mission planning verification.
National polar-orbiting operational environmental satellite system
The budget request included $34.0 million in PE 63434F for
the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
System (NPOESS). As a result of significant delays in the
schedule for this converged national weather satellite program,
the committee recommends $19.0 million for NPOESS, a reduction
of $15.0 million.
Reusable launch vehicles
The committee is committed to supporting the potential of
``triple-use'' reusable launch vehicle technologies that
demonstrate the potential of high payoff benefits to military,
civil, and commercial space launch capability and associated
sectors of the U.S. industrial base. The committee supports the
NASA-DOD-industry team effort for a reusable launch vehicle
program by recommending an additional $50.0 million in PE
63401F for fiscal year 1997.
Sensor fuzed weapon
The committee recommends an additional $19.1 million in PE
27320F for the sensor fuzed weapon as recommended by the Chief
of Staff of the Air Force to accelerate pre-planned product
improvement.
Space and missile rocket propulsion technology
The budget request included $46.0 million for rocket
propulsion technology, including the Integrated High Payoff
Rocket Technology (IHPRT) initiative. The committee commends
the Department for its leadership in establishing a government-
industry cost shared program for rocket and missile
technologies similar of the successful Integrated High Payoff
Turbine Engine Technology (IHPTET) program. However, if the
IHPRT initiative is to be successful, all government agencies
as well as private contractors that expect to benefit from
government programs must be willing to be active participants
in the program. The committee notes that the Army is the only
military service not actively participating in the program and
cautions that in the future the committee will not accept
military services conducting totally independent rocket
technology development efforts. The committee also notes the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration's interest in
integrating elements of its rocket technology program with
IHPRT and supports this initiative. The committee recommends an
additional $19.0 million for launch vehicle and tactical
missile rocket technology programs to be authorized as follows:
$7.0 million for PE 62601F, project 1011; $5.0 million for PE
63302F, projects 4373, 6339, and 6340; $2.0 million in PE
63302F for disposal of highly toxic obsolete pentaborane rocket
fuel; $3.0 million for PE 62111N and $2.0 million for PE
63217N, project R0447. The additional authorization shall only
be used for direct support costs of these technology projects.
Space architect
The budget request included $15.0 million in PE 63855F for
the space architect's office. The committee is disappointed
that the Secretary of Defense would create yet another office
to do studies on space architecture without consolidating the
responsibility for military and intelligence space requirements
in one office. The committee finds the justification material
inadequate to justify the request and recommends a reduction of
$4.0 million to include any ``pass-through'' funding intended
for the Office of the Secretary of Defense for which there was
no request.
Further, the committee is following with interest the DOD
Space Architect's on-going reviews of the appropriate military
satellite communications (milsatcom) architecture and the
architecture for space control. The committee expects to be
kept apprised of progress during the conduct of these important
reviews. The committee also strongly urges the Architect to
consult closely with the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Space Command
during these reviews.
Space-based infrared system program
The budget request included $113.2 million for the low
component of the space-based infrared system (SBIRS) program
and $6.9 million for Cobra Brass in PE 63441F, and $173.3
million in PE 64441F for the high component. The committee
recommends $247.2 million, an increase of $134.0 million, for
SBIRS low (the Space and Missile Tracking System), $180.3
million, an increase of $7.0 million, for the high component,
and the requested amount for Cobra Brass.
The committee reaffirms support for the Space and Missile
Tracking System (SMTS) program baseline established in section
216 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996 (Public Law 104-106). However, the committee is dismayed
by the Department's continued withholding of $51.0 million of
the total amount authorized and appropriated by Congress in
fiscal year 1996 for SMTS. These funds are needed to support
and implement the Department's own strategy of increasing
competition within the program. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to release these funds immediately.
The statement of managers accompanying the conference
report on S. 1124 (H. Rept. 104-450) endorsed giving the Block
I SMTS a missile defense focus. The committee is interested in
learning more about how the Department has interpreted this
guidance. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to provide a report to the Congressional defense
committees on the functional allocation of requirements among
the highly-elliptical orbit (HEO), geosynchronous (GEO), and
low earth orbit (LEO) components of SBIRS. The report shall
describe the planned design configuration of the SMTS Block I
satellite constellation, and the HEO and GEO components,
including the extent to which each component will be capable of
performing portions of the missile warning, missile defense,
technical intelligence, and battlespace characterization
missions, and the assumed lifetime of these satellites. The
report shall be submitted not later than October 30, 1996.
Finally, the committee understands that the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council is reviewing the appropriate
level of system survivability and nuclear hardness for the
elements of the SBIRS program. The committee believes that
adequate nuclear hardness should be a design feature of the
SBIRS program, given the critical importance of assured
tactical warning/attack assessment for national decision
making. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
inform the committee promptly of the Department's plan for
providing a sufficient amount of nuclear hardness for the SBIRS
program. The Secretary is strongly urged to consult closely
with the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Space Command and the
Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Strategic Command before rendering a
decision on this matter.
Test and evaluation investments
The committee recommends an additional $7.0 million in PE
64759F for wind tunnel and air induction system improvements
and engine test facility data acquisition and processing
systems.
Further, the committee is aware that the Air Force uses
different procedures and criteria for funding real property
maintenance (RPM) for its test and evaluation bases and
facilities than that used for those installations which receive
RPM funds through the operation and maintenance accounts. This
practice results in these bases getting significantly less in
RPM funding, as a percent of the facility present value,
annually for maintenance and repair of these facilities. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to fund the
RPM requirements of its test and evaluation facilities, using
the same procedures and criteria as that used for all other
bases. Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision (sec.
241) that would require the Secretary of the Air Force to use
the same procedures and criteria for allocating RPM to test and
evaluation installations as it does for its other non-test and
evaluation installations.
Variable stability in-flight simulator test aircraft
The committee recommends an additional $1.4 million in PE
64237F for the Variable Stability In-Flight Simulator Test
Aircraft program to complete and test phase I of the program.
Defense Agencies RDT&E
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 1997 contained $8,672.8
million for Defense Agencies RDT&E. The committee recommends
authorization of $9,406.4 million, an increase of $733.5
million, for fiscal year 1997.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 1997
Defense Agencies RDT&E program are identified in the table
below. Major changes to the Defense Agencies request are
discussed following the table.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Items of Special Interest
Common imagery ground/surface system
The budget request included $47.0 million in PE 35154D for
continued migration of the numerous ground stations to the
Common Imagery Ground/Surface System (CIGSS) compliant
standards.
The committee strongly supports both the technical
solutions and the management approach for migrating the various
imagery ground stations to the CIGSS configuration and
standards as outlined in the published handbook. The committee
is aware that insufficient funds are available in fiscal year
1997 to modify core components to ensure the CIGSS common,
interoperable baseline is achieved by fiscal year 1998. The
committee therefore recommends an additional $11.0 million for
this purpose. The committee directs the Defense Airborne
Reconnaissance Office (DARO) to provide a report to the
Congressional defense and intelligence committees on
specifically how this funding would be used, and on how and
when the CIGSS baseline will be realized. The committee further
directs the DARO to ensure full funding for this program is
provided in future requests.
Command intelligence architecture program
The budget request included $2.0 million in PE 35898L for
the Command Intelligence Architecture Program (CIAP) program to
provide the unified commands with an intelligence planning
process that documents and links requirements, intelligence
operations and future intelligence capabilities.
The committee is pleased with the success of this effort
and, more so, by the fact that the Command and Control,
Communications and Computers Integration (C4I) Support Activity
(CISA) has expanded CIAP to include C4I, surveillance and
reconnaissance (C4ISR) programs. The committee endorses this
broader CIAP focus designed to maximize joint service
operations and intelligence support. In view of the expanded
role of the CIAP, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0
million to ensure the CIAP effort is fully expanded to all DOD
services and agencies.
Defense experimental program to stimulate competitive research
(DEPSCoR)
The committee recommends continuation of the DEPSCoR
program to strengthen infrastructure, enhance research, and
develop human resources to assist the EPSCoR states to become
more competitive for regular research and training grants. The
committee recommends an additional $20.0 million in PE 61103D.
Defense mapping agency
The budget request included $100.0 million in PE 35139B for
continued research and development of Defense Mapping Agency
(DMA) production systems and capabilities.
The committee is aware of a recent Defense Science Board
(DSB) recommendation that DMA re-engineer its production
processes to focus on creating and maintaining digital
geospatial databases vice its current primary production of
paper maps. One of the DSB's most critical findings was that
DMA should focus its development funding on a course that
continues to provide for the near-term paper products, but that
provides an evolutionary path that moves the DMA to becoming a
center for maintaining digital products. While the committee
understands that DMA cannot discontinue map production in the
near-term, it does believe DMA must pursue a course for the
digital future. The fiscal year 1997 budget submission appears
to continue research and development focus on improved
production of government developed products, therefore the
committee recommends a $10.0 million reduction in new mapping,
charting and geodesy products. Of this reduction, none is to be
applied to the alternate source development effort. The
committee stresses its belief that DMA, as the DSB recommended,
should evolve to a digital geospatial product server vice a
paper product developer.
Defense modeling and simulation program
The budget request included $60.0 million in PE 63832D for
the Joint Wargaming Simulation Management Office. The committee
recommends the budget request.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense
continues to improve its management of modeling and simulation.
Establishment of service headquarters' modeling and simulation
management offices and their cooperation in inter-service
initiatives are commendable. Adoption of a common DOD-wide,
high level modeling and simulation architecture should
facilitate interoperability among the services and reduce the
proliferation of service-unique models. Efforts by the
Department to ensure that individual modeling and simulation
programs work cooperatively and support joint needs should
contribute to the establishment of a common modeling and
simulation framework for the evaluation and development of new
weapons systems concepts and force structure assessments, to
more effective intra-service and joint training, and to
operational planning. The interlinking of these new service
models and simulations, which are funded separately in the
service and joint budgets, means that the potential impact on
other service's efforts must be considered and coordinated
among the proponent activities when changes are considered in
individual service programs. The committee also notes that the
Department has designated modeling and simulation executive
agents in the Defense Mapping Agency, the Air Force, and the
Navy to support the common needs of the community in
coordinating and standardizing terrain, aerospace, and ocean
data bases.
Just as in the acquisition of materiel systems, the
committee considers modeling and simulation to be an area to
which acquisition reform initiatives may be applied. The
committee encourages the Department to adopt methods used
successfully within the commercial sector to keep pace with
rapidly evolving software technology. The committee believes
that the Department has made considerable strides in its
modeling and simulation management and will continue to monitor
the Department's program.
Defense nuclear agency
The budget request included $195.1 million in PE 62715H and
$26.2 million in PE 63711H for a total of $221.3 million for
the Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA). The committee recommends a
total of $192.1 million in PE 62715H, a reduction of $3.0
million from the requested amount, and $26.2 million, the
requested amount, in PE 63711H.
The budget request included $6.0 million in PE 62715H for
the electrothermal (ETC) gun technology program, which supports
Navy and Army applied research in next-generation gun
technologies. During consideration of the fiscal year 1996
budget request for DNA, all four of the Congressional defense
committees recommended an increase of $4.0 million to the
agency's request of approximately $10.5 million for the ETC gun
technology program. The committee notes that DNA's fiscal year
1996 program plan for the ETC gun technology program fails to
reflect the $4.0 million in additional funding for the program
that was authorized and appropriated. The committee expects DNA
to use these funds for the purpose for which they were
authorized and appropriated and to sustain the ETC gun
technology program at a funding level of approximately $10.0
million per year through fiscal year 1998.
Section 217 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) also provided $4.0
million to initiate a counterterrorist explosives research
program. The objective of this program was to make available to
U.S. law enforcement authorities DNA technology and expertise
in the prediction and analysis of explosive effects. The fiscal
year 1997 budget request did not include funds to continue the
program. The committee believes that the extensive data base
and expertise on nuclear and conventional weapons effects
acquired by the agency over the last fifty years constitute a
unique foundation for predicting explosive and blast effects
and for assisting forensic investigations of terrorist
incidents. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increased
authorization of $4.0 million in PE 62715H to continue the DNA
program. The committee further directs the Secretary to submit,
no later than February 28, 1997, a report to the Congressional
defense committees which provides recommendations for
continuation of the program and appropriate levels of funding
for the period covered by fiscal year 1998 budget request and
the future years defense plan.
The committee recommends that the Department take
additional steps to sustain nuclear expertise within the
military and civilian personnel of the Department. Archival of
data, manufacturing processes, and test procedures, while
important, cannot in themselves assure future nuclear
expertise. Immediate action should be taken by the Department
to establish attractive career paths, including formal
education and training, in the services and DOD civilian
workforce to ensure that the future nuclear deterrent can be
responsibly supported. Whereas DOE's stockpile stewardship and
management program focuses on the nuclear device itself, the
DOD effort should focus on the remaining components of the
nuclear weapon system and should be complementary rather than
duplicative of the DOE effort. The committee is encouraged by
and strongly supports the Alliance for Nuclear-Related Defense
Technologies in its efforts to sustain the scientific and
engineering skills underlying the nation's nuclear deterrent.
DNA, Sandia National Laboratory, Los Alamos National
Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, and Phillips
Laboratory are commended for their initiative in creating the
Alliance to ensure that the nation retains its core
competencies in the nuclear-related defense technologies and
successfully passes this knowledge base and critical skills to
future nuclear defense-oriented scientists, engineers, and
weapon system developers. This effort is a timely response to
both an aging nuclear workforce and an aging nuclear deterrent.
The Alliance is encouraged to find ways of introducing relevant
science and technology to appropriate undergraduate and
graduate educational institutions, including making use of
scholarships and fellowships. Training programs for service and
industry personnel at DNA's Defense Nuclear Weapons School and
other Alliance organizations should also be explored. The
Departments of Defense and Energy are expected to build upon
the progress made to date by the Alliance.
Finally, the committee remains unconvinced of any technical
or ``defense conversion'' benefits that would accrue to the
United States from the Topaz International Program (project
AX). Therefore, the committee denies the $7.0 million request
for this project.
Digital battlefield medical x-ray system
The committee believes that current commercial development
of direct digital x-ray detection for mammography combined with
current telemedicine initiatives, offers a ``spin on''
opportunity to direct digital battlefield imaging to reduce
combat mortality through timely and accurate diagnosis and
earlier, more efficient treatment. The committee recommends an
increase of $5.0 million in PE 63226E to build a compact,
portable direct detection digital x-ray system with
telemedicine access, and to conduct evaluations of this
filmless technology.
Direct fuel cells
The committee recognizes the potential of carbonate-based
direct fuel cells for high efficiency power plants for future
naval ships. The committee recommends an additional $2.4
million in PE 63226E to complete the fixed base power plant
development and an additional $4.0 million in PE 63573N for
competing conceptual ship service power plant design studies.
Electric drive for combat vehicles
The committee believes that the next generation of military
vehicles will contain electric prime power and drive mechanism
for a number of reasons; among them arrangements, weight
savings, stealth and supportability. The committee believes
that there is a broader range of electric power applications
for military uses than have been requested in this budget. The
committee hopes to see this technology addressed in the fiscal
year 1998 budget request.
The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to seek
immediate release of fiscal year 1996 funding for these
technologies, which is being withheld by the Comptroller of the
Department of Defense and apply them to the continued
development of military electric vehicle technologies.
Electronic commerce resource centers
The budget request for electronic commerce resource centers
(ECRC) in PE 63739E is $20.7 million. The ECRC program has been
directed by the Department to support implementation of the
electronic commerce component of the Federal Acquisition
Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-355). The committee
understands that the ECRC program has been very successful in
fostering innovative acquisition processes with industry,
especially small businesses, and the Department. The committee
believes that the ECRC concept should be expanded to facilitate
access to a broader range of industrial suppliers. The
committee recommends an additional $15.0 million in PE 63739E
for the creation of five new centers.
Electronic materials research
The committee understands the importance of advanced
materials for microchip modules that enhance miniaturization,
dissipate heat and reduce the cost of microcircuit
manufacturing. The committee recommends an additional $8.0
million in PE 62712E for Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD) and
Chemical Vapor Composite (CVC) synthetic diamond.
Electro-optic camera framing technology
The committee believes there is demonstrated potential for
electro-optical (EO) framing technology with on-chip forward
motion compensation (FMC) for providing precision point target
imaging and location. The committee strongly supports the
continuation of this technology and the earliest application of
these sensors on manned and unmanned tactical reconnaissance
platforms.
The committee recommends an additional $15.0 million in PE
35154D for continuation of the EO framing technologies with on-
chip FMC. Specifically, $3.0 million is provided for the
operational insertion and testing of the medium altitude wide
area coverage ``step frame'' sensor, $2.2 million is provided
to develop enhanced data compression algorithms that provide
higher compression ratios and provide equal or better video/
image fidelity and at equal or higher throughput rates than
currently fielded technologies to support the ultra high
resolution EO framing reconnaissance sensors, $5.8 million is
to fund an initial study and device development of a high
quantum efficiency large area EO framing infrared charge
coupled device with on-chip FMC, and $4.0 million is for multi-
spectral EO framing technologies with on-chip FMC.
Flat panel displays
The budget request included $45.0 million in PE 62708E for
flat panel displays. The committee believes that opportunities
exist for acceleration of development of display devices that
focus on cost and performance goals. The committee endorses the
work of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency industry
teams and recommends an additional $20.0 million in PE 63739E.
Joint Airborne Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) System (JASS)
The budget request included $51.8 million for the
continuation of the Joint Airborne SIGINT System (JASS).
The committee is concerned about the current and long-term
capability of airborne SIGINT reconnaissance assets. These
platforms provide not only direct tactical support, but also
provide valuable products used by the national intelligence
community. These systems require continuous sensor and system
improvements to maintain pace with the constantly evolving
threats against which they are tasked.
Past SIGINT upgrades have been inadequately coordinated
between the military services and defense agencies. The costs
of independent upgrades, even when similar capabilities were
being developed, were borne individually by each service and
platform. The intent of the statements of managers accompanying
the conference report on H.R. 2401 (H. Rept. 103-357) and S.
1124 (H. Rept. 104-450) was that the architecture of existing
SIGINT platforms be evolved to a common architecture and that
the Department of Defense develop a testbed aircraft which
could be used to evaluate commercial and evolving SIGINT
architectures, standards and interface protocols such that all
airborne SIGINT systems could benefit from the sensor upgrades
developed by any service or agency. The statements of managers
also endorsed ``maximum commonality'' of equipment to minimize
duplication and enhance interoperability. There was no
congressional intent for the Department to choose, or exclude,
any architecture, including those already fielded, for
application on the existing operational platforms.
The Department's current development approach for JASS has
been controversial, appears to be extremely costly and has not
been well supported by the military services primarily due to
cost concerns. Concern also exists that the current approach
does not satisfy near-term operational needs, and the technical
approach does not appear to fully capitalize on commercial
standards and developments. The committee believes the current
JASS acquisition strategy could benefit from the early
establishment of commercial standards, thereby allowing rapid
evolution of capability through the use of commercial
components to satisfy changing requirements. Additionally, the
committee understands that even under the current schedule,
JASS will not provide new functional capabilities until after
the turn of the century. The committee believes this does not
constitute an effective upgrade program for the resources being
spent, nor does it believe there is sufficient use of
commercial, off-the-shelf technologies. Finally, the committee
understands that JASS is better defined as a sensor function or
subsystem that could be applicable to the various SIGINT
systems as all the functional subsystems including the sensors,
the antennas, the radio frequency distribution systems, the
recorders, and the operator consoles. JASS does not include
these other functions, and therefore should be appropriately
defined as such, particularly in terms of budget requests and
total system costs submitted to the Congress.
The committee fully supports the tenets of a Joint Airborne
SIGINT Architecture (JASA) and believes there is a need to
develop a formal set of standards and interface protocols that
allow the platform program offices to build open architecture
systems. The committee also believes that, as capabilities are
developed or procured off-the-shelf that meet the established
platform requirements, these functions must comply with
established architectural and technical guidelines. This would
allow these capabilities or functions to be portable from one
platform to the next without separate development efforts and
associated costs. Finally, the committee also believes there
must be a central authority to enforce such commonalities.
There is a need for a centralized architecture standards
vision and joint development of new capabilities, with
decentralized procurement and system integration. Fiscal
constraints and threat phasing suggest an evolutionary upgrade
approach to systems, based on specific and enforced interface
standards. The approach should build on the strengths of each
of the fielded systems and should be focused on the individual
mission requirements. The committee is committed to ensuring
the services and agencies share these sensor developments and
believes this approach will increase industry competition by
focusing on commercial products, decrease risk, and most
importantly, effectively ensure near and mid-term requirements
satisfaction and decrease costs.
Finally, due to the amounts of money already expended on
the JASS high band prototype (HBP) and its predecessor, the
committee does not believe terminating this prototype effort
prior to test would be appropriate.
Therefore, the committee authorizes up to $25.1 million of
the request to continue and conclude JASS HBP functional
development and testing. The committee does not authorize the
obligation and expenditure of any funding for a follow-on JASS
high band effort until the HBP has completed flight test, and
has effectively proven its utility. The Department of Defense
is authorized to obligate and expend fiscal year 1997
appropriated funds for airborne SIGINT functional or subsystem
developments provided they are coordinated through, and for use
by, multiple services and agencies. However, the committee
directs the Secretary not to obligate or expend any fiscal year
1997 funds for such airborne SIGINT system research and
development upgrades until the Secretary provides the defense
and intelligence authorization committees a report which:
(1) clearly identifies the airborne SIGINT system
standards and protocols which the platform offices will
use to build their architectures and functional
capabilities;
(2) provides a plan for ensuring the operational and
intelligence requirements communities have the final
authority for expending intelligence funds;
(3) provides a plan for maximizing use of commercial
off-the-shelf technologies;
(4) provides a plan for ensuring the services
collaborate on sensor improvements;
(5) provides an upgrade plan which satisfies both the
near-term and long-term operational requirements in a
coordinated architectural approach;
(6) provides a plan for the National Security Agency
(NSA), under its Executive Order 12333 tasking, to
review and approve platform sensor developments to
ensure technical standards compliance;
(7) provides a ``level of effort'' funding necessary
to ensure continuous upgrades to the existing
platforms; and
(8) provides a detailed description of those
functional capabilities, resulting from the HBP efforts
which could be effectively used by the various platform
offices.
An interim copy of this report should be provided to the
Congressional defense committees before June 10, 1996 and a
final report will be provided not later than April 1, 1997.
Joint and commercial technology insertion
The budget request included $14.5 million in PE 63726D and
$48.4 million in PE 63752D for the Department of Defense to
make greater application of commercial technology in its
military systems. The committee fully supports programs
designed to reduce life cycle costs as well as enhance system
reliability, maintainability, and capability. The committee
views this type of activity as integral to the acquisition
process for individual programs and projects and not as a
distinct type of activity. However, as with dual use technology
programs, personnel from the Office of the Secretary of Defense
cite the need for these additional funds because the
``acquisition culture'' within the military services refuses to
adequately embrace what is in its own best interests. The
committee recommends a provision (sec. 203) that would require
the Secretary of Defense to designate a senior official,
reporting directly to the Undersecretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology whose sole responsibilities would be
to develop policy and ensure effective execution of dual-use
programs and integration of commercial technologies into
military systems to the maximum extent practicable. The
committee further recommends that the civilian and military
leadership in the Department consider personnel promotion,
bonus, and pay incentives to further the use of commercial
technologies in weapon system development and modernization
programs. No authorization is provided for either PE 63726D or
PE 63752D.
Joint command, control, communications, and computers/intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance
The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in PE
33149K for development of improved capabilities for concept
development, analysis, and evaluation of advanced technologies
and concepts for joint command, control, communications, and
computers/intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
(C4ISR). Of this amount $10.0 million is recommended for the
establishment of a C4ISR Battle Laboratory and $5.0 million for
the development of advanced C4ISR modeling and simulation.
These programs are designed to investigate improvements in
collection and distribution of targeting and intelligence data
among commanders and weapons systems of all the military
services, with the goal of permitting joint commanders to
conduct operations as swiftly and effectively as possible.
Joint surveillance targeting attack radar system
The committee is committed to properly classifying those
systems which are logically classified as tactical, joint or
national intelligence systems. The Joint Surveillance Targeting
Attack Radar System (JSTARS) platform and associated ground
stations are currently contained in the Tactical Intelligence
and Related Applications (TIARA) aggregation. While the
committee realizes there are direct intelligence applications
of the JSTARS associated Ground Support Modules (GSM) and the
follow on Common Ground Stations (CGS), the committee believes
the JSTARS aircraft is a direct battle management and targeting
applications weapon system, and not an intelligence system.
While it is true the JSTARS moving target indicator (MTI) radar
system provides critical data to the operational and
intelligence communities, the committee believes the primary
mission is direct weapon system targeting and should,
therefore, not be contained within the TIARA aggregation.
Conversely, since the associated ground stations are direct
multi-source intelligence support applications with a
definitive need to remain part of the entire intelligence
support architecture, the committee believes these must
continue to be funded within TIARA aggregation.
Lithography
The budget request included $51.4 million for
microelectronic lithography. The committee recommends an
additional $10.0 million in PE 63739E for the support of
ongoing nanofabrication and extreme ultraviolet (EUV)
lithography activities aimed at the fabrication of 100
nanometer design rule device structures. Key to these
developments are support for nanowriters, nanofabrication
prototypes, and the facilities for short wavelength
metrologies, calibrations and standards.
In addition, the committee believes there are benefits to
pursuing ion beam research related to its potential as a future
technology for advanced lithography. The committee believes
that there are several technical challenges that include mask
and reticle systems, overlay accuracy and scattering effects
that should be addressed by industry in collaboration with
university researchers. The committee recommends an additional
$1.0 million in PE 61101E for this purpose.
Materials nanostructures
The committee recognizes the potential of the emerging
field of material nanostructures. This regime of science offers
the opportunity to integrate inorganic and organic chemistry
and physics at a material formative dimension that will have
impact in micro-electronics, micromachines, molecular level
controllers and switches, among many other applications, and
that have the potential to revolutionize military technological
superiority in the future.
The committee recommends an additional $1.0 million in PE
61101E to accelerate the Defense Advanced Research Agency's
nanostructures program.
Metal castings
The budget request for metal castings was $1.0 million. The
committee has been apprised of the return on the military's
investment in metal casting technology as a replacement for
many machined and welded parts. Metal casting provides an
opportunity to realize cost and weight savings in military
component fabrication. The committee recommends an additional
$2.0 million in PE 78011S for the Defense Logistics Agency to
continue its program at prior year levels.
Mobile detection assessment response systems--exterior
The committee recommends an additional $8.0 million in PE
63709D for the advanced robotics program to continue
development of the mobile detection assessment response system
(MDARS).
Multifunction self aligned gate technology
A total of $18.0 million dollars has been authorized and
appropriated in prior years to develop active array ``smart
skins'' for unmanned aerial vehicles that permit high density
packaging of multi-function communications and radar antennae.
The committee recommends an additional $8.0 million in PE
35154D to demonstrate multifunction self aligned gate
technology on unmanned aerial vehicles and to complete this
program.
Non-acoustic antisubmarine warfare
The budget request included $24.0 million in PE 63714D for
the Advanced Sensor Applications Program (ASAP), the
independent non-acoustic antisubmarine warfare (NAASW) research
program managed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The
committee has repeatedly expressed its views of the need for
two viable, independent, and coordinated NAASW programs, one in
the Navy and one in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The
committee notes that the funding level requested for the ASAP
program is approximately $6.0 million or 20 percent less than
the level appropriated for fiscal year 1996 and approximately
10 percent of the level originally programmed in the fiscal
year 1996 future years defense plan for fiscal year 1997. In
view of the increased capabilities of advanced nuclear
submarines, the proliferation of modern, quiet diesel
submarines and advanced non-nuclear submarine technology, and
significant strides in submarine operational proficiency being
made by several Third World submarine navies, the committee
believes these reductions are imprudent. Increased emphasis
needs to be placed on improving the anti-submarine warfare
capabilities of U.S. forces in general, and on the NAASW
program in particular. Accordingly, the committee recommends an
increase of $6.0 million to the budget request for the ASAP
program. Of this increase, $1.0 million shall be used for
additional investigations of foreign technology and systems
relevant to the missions of the ASAP program. The committee
directs that plans for expenditure of the increased
authorization be reported to the Congressional defense
committees before the additional funds are obligated.
The committee believes that the ASAP program office should
begin transitioning the more mature technology it has developed
to the Navy. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy
and the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control,
Communications, and Intelligence) to develop plans for such
transition and report the plans to the Congressional defense
committees with the submission of the fiscal year 1998 Defense
budget request.
Passive millimeter wave camera
The committee recognizes the early development by the Army
of the passive millimeter wave camera and recommends an
additional $12.0 million in PE 63226E for integration on an
aircraft with specific application to airborne wide-area
surveillance.
Quiet Knight advanced technology demonstration
The budget request did not include any funding for
continuation of the Quiet Knight advanced avionics technology
demonstration program. In its consideration of the fiscal year
1996 budget request for Special Operations Tactical Systems
Development, the committee expressed strong support in the
committee report on H.R. 1530 (H. Rept 104-131) for a Phase I
(component development and demonstration) of an advanced
concept technology demonstration of Quiet Knight low
probability of intercept/low probability of detection (LPI/D)
avionics for both fixed and rotary wing aircraft and
continuation to a Phase II full scale demonstration and flight
test of the Quiet Knight capability. In the statement of
managers accompanying the conference report on S. 1124 (H.
Rept. 104-450), the conferees supported completion of the Quiet
Knight technology demonstration, and encouraged the Department
of Defense to validate the requirements for advanced LPI/D
avionics for special operations aircraft.
The committee understands that initial studies on
requirements for low-level penetration aids have been completed
which recommend reducing aircraft electronic emissions and that
further LPI/D studies will be completed by December 1996.
Flight demonstrations will follow in the Summer of 1997. The
committee understands that sufficient funds are available from
prior years to support the completion of the advanced
technology demonstration and that no additional funds are
required for the program through fiscal year 1997. The
committee understands that the program will compete for funding
in the fiscal year 1998 budget request.
Rapid acquisition of manufactured parts
The Rapid Acquisition of Manufactured Parts (RAMP) program
is being transferred from the Department of the Navy to the
Defense Logistics Agency. As a consequence, the Department
failed to request funding for fiscal year 1997. Accordingly,
the committee recommends an additional $12.0 million in PE
63736D for fiscal year 1997 to provide transition funding to
support the program until fiscal year 1998.
Rigid hull inflatable boat
The budget request included $5.0 million for procurement of
special warfare equipment, including $4.1 million for
procurement of the Naval Special Warfare 10 meter Rigid Hull
Inflatable Boat (RHIB). The committee recommends an increase of
$2.75 million in PE 1160404BB to complete development and
operational testing of competing prototype RHIBs, a downselect
decision to a single contractor, and other activities relative
to a Milestone III decision in fiscal year 1997. To offset the
increase, the committee recommends a corresponding reduction in
the procurement account for special warfare equipment.
Special operations M4A1 carbine modifications
The budget request included $2.0 million in PE 1160404BB
for Special Operations Weapons and Support Systems Advanced
Development, including $1.7 million for development of the
integrated night/day/observation/fire control device (INOD) for
the M4A1 carbine. The committee recommends an increase of $1.9
million to the budget request to accelerate the development of
the INODS and provide integrated day/night target acquisition
and fire control out to a range of 500 meters for the special
operations version of the M4 carbine.
Specialty metals
For several years the committee has provided both guidance
and funding for specialty metals development such as alloys of
beryllium and titanium to ensure that the unique properties of
these metals could enhance the effectiveness of military
systems and strengthen the industrial base as a by-product. The
committee has relied on the programs of the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency in its advanced material partnerships
program which has been very successful in achieving those
objectives.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to continue
these partnerships in its fiscal year 1997 materials program
and to effectively transition the specialty metals program to
an appropriate military service applied science program element
in fiscal year 1998.
Tactical fiber optic communications
The committee recommends an increase to the budget request
of $3.0 million in PE 32019K to investigate the military
applications of the planned world wide commercial fiber optic
grid. This increase is intended to support the Defense
Information Systems Agency proof of concept demonstration of
the ability to establish Department of Defense ``splices'' into
the planned worldwide fiber optic grid before it is fully
deployed. The committee also recommends an increase $1.75
million in PE 63640M for the Navy and the Marine Corps to
exploit commercial advances in lightweight fiber optics for
communications purposes and demonstrate the use of lightweight
tactical fiber optics for communications in a littoral
scenario.
U-2 aircraft
The budget request included $28.3 million in PE 35154D for
sensor upgrades to the U-2 aircraft.
The committee is deeply concerned about the technical
health of the various sensors carried on the U-2. The special
sensors, for example, have not been upgraded since 1991 and are
currently in several different configurations. Also, the multi-
sensor role of the aircraft is limited because the Advanced
Synthetic Aperture Radar System (ASARS) and Senior Year
Electro-optical Reconnaissance Systems (SYERS) sensors cannot
operate simultaneously. Finally, because of older technologies
and implementations, geolocation accuracy for precision strike
targeting is insufficient for required operations.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $57.0
million for critical U-2 sensor upgrades. Of this amount, $10.0
million is specifically for improving and downsizing the SYERS
sensor such that SYERS and ASARS can be flown simultaneously.
These funds should also be used to improve geolocational
accuracies. The committee directs that up to $7.0 million be
used for the ASARS Improvement Program (AIP) to ensure this
upgrade can be fielded by fiscal year 1998. The remainder of
the funding is to be applied to SENIOR RUBY, SENIOR SPEAR, and
SENIOR GLASS commonality upgrades. Specifically, the committee
directs that the Air Force upgrade the SPEAR/RUBY sensors to
the GLASS configuration, and upgrade the SENIOR GLASS systems
to an open architecture configuration consistent with an
architectural approach approved by the Defense Cryptologic
Program manager.
Further, the committee directs the Department to determine,
and program for, the necessary future years level-of-effort
funding to continue evolutionary U-2 sensor upgrades.
Unmanned aerial vehicles
The committee has been and continues to be concerned about
the Department's UAV program because of the lack of validated
requirements and the frequency with which ``requirements''
change; lack of substantive analysis or the failure to provide
the analysis, if it exists, to the Congress; affordability of
the UAV program within the context of the Department's overall
reconnaissance program; the ineptness and lack of preparation
of the Department in preparing for the transition of the
Predator UAV from an advanced concepts technology demonstration
(ACTD) to a procurement program; and the claims made by the
Department regarding ``joint'' programs versus the reality of
very different requirements for those programs.
Major changes were made to the Department's priority for
UAV programs in 1995. Following what became the final change in
the Fall of 1995 as a result of a Joint Requirements Oversight
Council (JROC) meeting, the committee twice requested and was
refused the analysis from which the JROC recommendations were
based.
The committee understands that what at one point was the
first priority for the UAV program, the Hunter UAV, was
canceled by the Department. The Maneuver Variant UAV and Hunter
UAV requirements were merged to become the JTUAV, and
notwithstanding the claim of jointness, the Army and Marine
Corps requirements for this system are significantly different.
In an attempt to incorporate the Navy requirement, the range
has been increased four-fold. The acquisition strategy calls
for a down-select from nine to one contractor with no apparent
concern over maintaining competitiveness in the program. The
committee has to question that, if the Department's contention
is correct that the payload and not the vehicle is what is
important, if there is to be a JTUAV, why would it not be
prudent to select two contractors to proceed to procurement? A
heavy fuel engine for the tactical UAV's has been a continuing
requirement for several years, yet the Department appears
several years away from achieving this requirement. Close to
$1.0 billion was expended on the Hunter UAV before it was
canceled. The budget for the JTUAV is $900.0 million. Yet,
there is uncertainty with regard to the requirement and its
affordability.
The Predator UAV ACTD has been relatively successful, but
has become a symbol of bureaucratic ineptness as a procurement
program. Fiscal year 1995 funding for procurement of additional
vehicles has yet to be put on contract and the Department
indicates it will be August 1996, before contract negotiations
can be concluded. Further, the Department has requested funding
for ``marinization'' of Predator. Other than ensuring that
Predator UAV data is made available to ships in an area of
operation, the committee opposes any modification of Predator
for the purpose of operating the vehicle from ships.
The committee also notes that the UAV program has been
limited solely to reconnaissance payloads and questions whether
adequate consideration has been given to operational
applications such as laser target designators for UAV's for use
with stand-off delivery of precision guided munitions. Such use
would provide significant advantages to the operational users
in high threat environments.
Because of these numerous concerns with regard to the
Department's UAV program, the committee recommends a provision
(sec. 217) that would prohibit the obligation of funds for the
Joint Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle until the Secretary of
Defense meets several certification requirements to the
Congress, prohibit the obligation of funds for marinization of
the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle, require an advanced
concept technology demonstration of a laser technology
designator with a Pioneer, Predator, or Hunter unmanned aerial
vehicle with air-to-surface precision guided munitions,
transfer the management and resources for the Predator UAV to
the Department of the Air Force, and for fiscal year 1998,
transfer the responsibility for UAV procurement to the military
departments.
Dark Star unmanned aerial vehicle
The budget request included $17.4 million in PE 35154D for
the ``Dark Star'' unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).
Notwithstanding the recent loss of the first Dark Star
vehicle, the committee continues to support the objectives of
the Dark Star program. The committee remains convinced that the
Dark Star UAV holds significant promise for providing unique
UAV support to the operational users.
The committee is aware that the current linear scanning
array sensor does not provide the integrated multi-disciplined
imagery capabilities nor geolocation accuracies that an
integrated electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) framing camera
could provide. The committee therefore recommends an additional
$3.5 million for integrating existing EO framing with on-chip
forward motion compensation technology into the aircraft and
associated ground processing equipment. Further, the committee
is aware of the synthetic aperture radar (SAR) coverage problem
due to the use of a non-developmental antenna. The committee
understands the required design is completed, but no funds to
implement the correction are available. Because the committee
believes there is a need to ensure full ground coverage within
the radar's field of view, it recommends an additional $10.0
million be provided to develop and install the necessary radar
antenna.
Finally, in the statement of managers accompanying the
conference report on S. 1124 (H. Rept. 104-450), the conferees
directed the Department to assess user needs against a more
capable Dark Star air vehicle. The Defense Airborne
Reconnaissance Office (DARO) responded specifically to this
directed action by stating that major improvements could be
realized. However, the DARO has shown no further interest in
pursuing such improvements. As representatives from several
committees were told, the DARO wanted to fly and test this
aircraft before they would consider any improvements. Yet, this
same philosophy does not seem to pertain to the Global Hawk
UAV, as the DARO is pursuing many upgrades to this vehicle's
capabilities--long before its first scheduled flight in
December 1996.
The committee authorizes an additional $4.0 million for
developing a concept of operations and design of an improved
Dark Star UAV. This funding is to be specifically used to
pursue the designs necessary to develop a Dark Star aircraft
with a unit fly away cost of $20.0 million. The intent of this
additional authorization is to provide the option for a more
capable aircraft to potential users that satisfies the
survivable long dwell reconnaissance need in a high threat
environment.
Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle
The committee directs that no funds authorized for
appropriation for the Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)
be used to develop, procure, integrate or install a signals
intelligence UAV until the vehicle has completed Phase III of
the advanced concepts technology demonstration (ACTD) and a
system procurement decision has been made. Accordingly, all
funds for such sensor development and procurement should be
applied to the upgrade of U-2 sensors. All U-2 upgrades are to
be fully designed and built for compatibility with the Global
Hawk vehicle.
Further, the committee is aware of existing state-of-the-
art imagery technologies which provide both electro-optic (EO)
and infrared imagery within the same camera. The committee is
concerned by the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office's
(DARO) decision to allow the Global Hawk contractor to develop
a new EO-only camera for the UAV rather than using off-the-
shelf technologies. The committee directs the DARO to provide a
report to the Congressional defense and intelligence committees
that details the analysis that went into this decision, and
furthermore, provides the rationale establishing why existing
camera(s) could not be more cost effectively procured. This
report should be transmitted to the Congress no later than July
1, 1996.
Joint tactical unmanned aerial vehicle
The budget request included $51.4 million for the Joint
Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (JTUAV). As previously noted,
the program has evolved from the close range UAV and maneuver
UAV to the current program. It is one of at least six UAV's
under development or operational use.
The Department has issued requests for proposals and
intends to make an award in May 1996, for the joint tactical
unmanned aerial vehicle--a program for which there has been no
authorization or appropriation.
The committee recommends $33.4 million for this project, a
reduction of $18.0 million, because of the availability of
prior year funds.
Vectored thrust technology development
The committee is aware of the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency's outyear interests in the Vectored Thrust
project. The committee understands that the DP-2, as part of
this project, requires additional funding to complete testing
and demonstration. Accordingly, the committee recommends an
additional $12.0 million in PE 62702E to complete testing of
the DP-2 project.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 201--Authorization Of Appropriations
This section would authorize Research, Development, Testing
and Evaluation (RDT&E) funding for fiscal year 1997.
Section 202--Amount For Basic And Applied Research
This section would specify the amount authorized for fiscal
year 1997 for technology base programs.
Section 203--Dual Use Technology Programs
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
designate a senior official, reporting directly to the
Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, whose
sole responsibility would be to develop policy and ensure
effective execution of dual use programs and integration of
commercial technologies into military systems. Further, the
provision would require that not less than five, seven, ten,
and fifteen percent, respectively for fiscal years 1997-2000,
of each service's science and technology program be available
only for dual-use cost-shared programs.
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations
Section 211--Space Launch Modernization
This section would authorize $50.0 million for a
competitive reusable space launch vehicle (RLV) program and
permit obligation of the authorized funds only to the extent
that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's
current operating plan allocates at least an equal amount for
the RLV program.
Section 212--Live-Fire Survivability Testing of V-22 Aircraft
This section would permit the Secretary of Defense to waive
the survivability testing requirements of section 2366, title
10, United States Code, notwithstanding the fact that the V-22
tilt-rotor aircraft program has already entered engineering and
manufacturing development. The section would also require the
Secretary to the report to the Congress on how the Secretary
plans to evaluate the survivability of the V-22 aircraft, his
assessment of possible alternatives to realistic survivability
testing of the aircraft, and alternative survivability test
requirements for the conduct of any alternative live-fire test
program.
Section 213--Live-Fire Survivability Testing of F-22 Aircraft
This section would amend section 2366(c) of title 10,
United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to
exercise the waiver authority in such section, with respect to
the application of survivability tests for the F-22 aircraft,
notwithstanding that such program has entered full-scale
engineering development.
Section 214--Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions, Rockets, and
Explosives
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a five-year program for the development and
demonstration of environmentally compliant technologies for the
disposal and demilitarization of conventional munitions,
explosives, and rockets, and would authorize an appropriation
of $15.0 million in fiscal year 1997 for that purpose.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104-106) made available $15.0 million to establish
an integrated program for the development and demonstration of
environmentally compliant technologies for the demilitarization
and disposal of conventional munitions, explosives, and
rockets. In the statement of managers accompanying the
conference report on S. 1124 (H. Rept. 104-150), the conferees
expressed their concern about requirements for disposal of
growing numbers of unserviceable, obsolete, or non-treaty
compliant munitions, rocket motors and explosives. As
environmental constraints increasingly restrict the traditional
disposal methods of open burning or open detonation,
development and demonstration of environmentally compliant
technologies for this purpose become even more urgent. The
conferees directed the Secretary of Defense to submit a report
to the Congressional defense committees of the DOD plan for
establishment of such a program. That report has not yet been
received, nor have the funds for this program that were
authorized and appropriated by the Congress been released by
the DOD Comptroller.
The committee notes that the report ``Joint
Demilitarization Study'', September 1995, prepared by the Joint
Ordnance Commanders Group (JOCG), forecasts growth in the
current U.S. inventory of excess, obsolete, and unserviceable
conventional munitions, tactical missiles and large solid
propellant rocket motors from 449,308 tons (as of March 31,
1995) to 730,420 tons by the end of fiscal year 2001, if the
then current demilitarization funding trends were maintained.
This obsolete stockpile occupies 4.1 million square feet of
storage space in 27 states and costs an estimated $12.0 million
per year to store.
The committee is aware that procurement funding for
conventional munitions demilitarization has decreased annually
since fiscal year 1995. The committee notes that with the
exception of funding provided for the Joint Service Large
Rocket Motor Demilitarization Program and congressionally
directed activities, less than $5.0 million has been available
annually since fiscal year 1992 for research and development of
technologies for the demilitarization of conventional munitions
and explosives. The committee is also aware that in response to
direction from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the
Joint Ordnance Commanders Group (JOCG) developed a five-year
plan for conventional ammunition demilitarization research and
development and recommended a $15.0 million annual program,
although the annual requirement was $30.0 million. The JOCG
proposal was approved but was not funded.
The committee believes that procurement funding must be
provided to support ongoing demilitarization programs; however,
a sustained and adequately funded demilitarization technology
development and demonstration program must be established as a
matter of urgency in the Department of Defense. In such a
program, the committee encourages the consideration of a range
of competitively selected potential resource recovery and
alternative demilitarization technologies, including (but not
limited to) cryogenic washout, supercritical water oxidation,
molten metal pyrolysis, plasma arc, catalytic fluid bed
oxidation, molten salt pyrolysis, incineration, critical fluid
extraction and ingredient recovery, and underground contained
burning. The committee believes that an annual funding level of
approximately $15.0 million is required for the duration of
such a program.-
Section 215--Research Activities of the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency Relating to Chemical and Biological Warfare Defense
Technology
This section would amend the provisions of section 1701 of
the National Defense Authorization Action for Fiscal Year 1994
(Public Law 103-160) and clarify the role of the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency in the Department of Defense
chemical and biological warfare defense technology research and
development program. The intent of the amendment is to
capitalize on the traditional function and flexibility of the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in research,
development, and exploitation of advanced technologies for the
most difficult defense problems, while insuring that the DARPA
program is coordinated and integrated with the overall defense
chemical and biological warfare defense research and
development program.
Section 216--Limitation on Funding for F-16 Tactical Manned
Reconnaissance Aircraft
This section would limit total obligations for research,
development, test, and evaluation; procurement; and
modifications for the F-16 Tactical Manned Reconnaissance
aircraft to $50.0 million, plus the amounts required for
incorporating the Common Data Link into the system.
Section 217--Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
This section would prohibit the authorization of
appropriations for the Joint Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle,
prohibit the authorization of appropriations for marinization
of the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle, and require an
advanced concept technology demonstration of a laser technology
designator with a Pioneer, Predator, or Hunter unmanned aerial
vehicle with air-to surface precision guided munitions.
Section 218--Hydra-70 Rocket Product Improvement Program
This section would authorize $15.0 million for completion
of the Hydra 70 rocket product improvement program.
Section 219--Space-Based Infrared System Program
This section would authorize funds for the Space-Based
Infrared System (SBIRS) program, prohibit the obligation or
expenditure of funds until the Secretary of Defense issues a
certification to Congress, and direct the Secretary to consider
the appropriate management responsibilities for the Space and
Missile Tracking System program.
Section 220--Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) Program
This section would authorize funding for the Joint Advanced
Strike Technology program only for advanced technology
development, preclude obligation of any development funding for
the Advanced Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing derivative
aircraft, and require an analysis of alternative force
structures and program costs.
Section 221--Authorization for Joint United States-Israeli Nautilus
Laser/Theater High Energy Laser Program
This section would state that the Congress strongly
supports the Joint U.S.-Israeli Nautilus Laser/Theater High
Energy Laser programs and encourages the Secretary of Defense
to request authorization to develop these programs as agreed to
April 28, 1996, in the statement of intent signed by the
Secretary of Defense and the Prime Minister of the State of
Israel.
Section 222--Nonlethal Weapons Research and Development Program
This section would authorize $3.0 million of the funds
requested in PE 63640M to be used only for nonlethal weapons
research and development.
Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense Programs
Section 231--Funding for Ballistic Missile Defense for Fiscal Year 1997
This section would authorize funding for ballistic missile
defense research and development activities in fiscal year
1997.
Section 232--Certification of Capability of United States to Defend
Against Single Ballistic Missile
This section would require the President to submit to the
Congress a certification stating whether the United States has
the military capability to intercept and destroy a single
ballistic missile launched at the territory of the United
States.
Section 233--Policy on Compliance With the ABM Treaty
The current dispute between the Congress and the President
over theater missile defense (TMD) ``demarcation'' hinges
largely on the issue of whether U.S. obligations under the
Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty as a whole and under
article VI(a) of the Treaty in particular are sufficiently
clear such that the Secretary of Defense, who is charged by the
President with the responsibility, can certify in good faith
that the TMD systems currently under development by the United
States can be tested and deployed in compliance with those
obligations. In Article VI(a), each party undertakes not to
give non-ABM systems ABM capabilities and not to test non-ABM
systems in an ABM mode.
The Secretary of Defense in the previous Administration
took the position that the obligations of the parties under
article VI(a) of the Treaty were sufficiently well understood
that a standard of compliance could be developed unilaterally
so as to enable the development and deployment of TMD systems
then under development by the United States, including the
Theater High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system and Navy
Upper Tier. Furthermore, this approach would have allowed full
exploitation of data derived from space-based sensors, such as
the Space and Missile Tracking System (SMTS), for TMD purposes.
The current Administration has rejected adopting on a
unilateral basis the compliance standard recommended by the
Secretary of Defense from the previous Administration. Instead,
it chose to revise the standard and then seek Russian agreement
to that revised standard in order to permit the development and
deployment of U.S. TMD systems such as THAAD and Navy Upper
Tier. By choosing to seek Russian concurrence in what should
have been a unilateral decision, the Administration has
effectively granted Russia a veto over the technical
capabilities of U.S. TMD systems. Further, pending the outcome
of the negotiations, the Administration has artificially
constrained the design and performance of THAAD and Navy Upper
Tier, in effect ``dumbing down'' these systems in order to
comply with alleged, perceived obligations under article VI(a)
that do not exist.
Therefore, the committee once again endorses the approach
to a compliance standard recommended by the Secretary of
Defense in the previous Administration, and which was adopted
by the 103rd Congress in section 234(a)(7) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-
160) and reaffirmed by the 104th Congress in section 235 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public
Law 103-337). The committee recommends a provision (sec. 233)
that would codify this standard for assessing compliance of
systems with the ABM Treaty, state certain prohibitions, and
define an ABM-qualifying flight test. The committee notes that
this standard is entirely consistent with U.S. obligations
under the Treaty. Finally, the committee finds that
continuation of negotiations with the Russians on this subject
is both unnecessary and potentially deleterious to U.S.
national security interests.
Section 234--Requirement That Multilateralization of the ABM Treaty Be
Done Only Through Treaty-Making Power
The committee remains deeply concerned by the
Administration's proposal to multilateralize the Anti-Ballistic
Missile (ABM) Treaty by adding a dozen or more signatories from
the states of the former Soviet Union. To date, the
Administration has failed to provide a compelling case for why
multilateralization is necessary or in the security interests
of the United States.
Among the republics of the former Soviet Union, only the
Russian Federation has fielded an ABM system or possesses the
technological capacity to develop and deploy such a system. The
remaining former Soviet republics have no equities in the
Treaty. In addition, multilateralizing the Treaty would
increase the probability that a single former Soviet republic
could block any amendment, modification, or clarification to
the Treaty, including agreements that the United States and
Russia might find in their interest to adopt. The
Administration's proposal to multilateralize the ABM Treaty
would grant to Russia and other former Soviet republics a right
of veto over any Treaty modifications needed to permit
deployment of a highly-effective NMD system.
For these reasons, the committee recommends a provision
(sec. 234) that would state that any addition of a new
signatory party to the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty (in
addition to the United States and the Russian Federation)
constitutes an amendment to the treaty that can only be agreed
to by the United States through the treaty-making power of the
United States. This section would prohibit the obligation or
expenditure of funds for any fiscal year for the purpose of
implementing or making binding upon the United States the
participation of any additional nation as a party to the ABM
Treaty unless that nation is made a party to the treaty by an
amendment to the Treaty that is made in the same manner as the
manner by which a treaty is made. Finally, the committee notes
that this section is fully consistent with section 232 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public
Law 103-337).
Section 235--Report on Ballistic Missile Defense and Proliferation
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to Congress by December 31, 1996, on ballistic
missile defense and proliferation. In requiring the report, the
committee directs the Director, Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization to address the various relationships between
theater ballistic missile defense, national ballistic missile
defense, and U.S. counterproliferation objectives.
The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including
nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and the missiles
that can be used to deliver them, constitutes a serious and
growing threat to the security of the United States and U.S.
allies. To date, traditional arms control and nonproliferation
measures to prevent proliferation have met with limited
success. The committee believes that insufficient attention is
being given by the Administration to the role that ballistic
missile defense can play in preventing proliferation. The
ability to counter ballistic missiles once launched devalues
the political and military utility of these weapons as
instruments of terror or military significance. This was
recognized by former Secretary of Defense Les Aspin, who noted
that ``effective missile defenses can reduce incentives for
proliferators to develop, acquire, or use ballistic missiles
and weapons of mass destruction.'' In the committee's view, it
is reasonable to assume that nations with scarce resources may
think twice about investing in expensive military means that
can be easily countered.
In addition to its role as a preventive, ballistic missile
defense can also protect against the effects of proliferation
should efforts to prevent it fail. However, the
Administration's Defense Counterproliferation Initiative,
announced in December 1993, failed to consider the role that a
national missile defense can play in achieving the
counterproliferation mission. In addition, the Administration's
recent report on ``Proliferation: Threat and Response'' notes
that proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the
missile that can deliver them ``presents a grave and urgent
risk to the United States and our citizens * * *.'' However,
the report makes no mention of national missile defense.
Section 236--Revision to Annual Report on the Ballistic Missile Defense
Program
Section 224(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 101-189) established
a reporting requirement for the Strategic Defense Initiative
program. With the changed focus of the program, several of the
reporting requirements are no longer valid. This provision
would update the requirement for the annual ballistic missile
defense report to Congress.
Section 237--ABM Treaty Defined
This section would define the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM)
Treaty for the purposes of this subtitle.
Section 238--Capability of National Missile Defense System
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
ensure that any national missile defense system deployed by the
United States is capable of defeating the threat posed by the
Taepo Dong II missile of North Korea.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Section 241--Uniform Procedures and Criteria for Maintenance and Repair
at Air Force Installations
This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force
to allocate real property maintenance and repair funds for all
of its bases and facilities using the same procedures and
criteria. Under current procedures and criteria the test and
evaluation bases and facilities within the Air Force are at a
significant disadvantage in the allocation of resources for
this purpose.
Section 242--Requirements Relating to Small Business Innovation
Research Program
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
ensure that the Small Business Innovation Research program be
managed and executed, for each program element for research and
development for which $20.0 million or more is authorized, by
the program manager for the program element.
Section 243--Extension of Deadline for Delivery of Enhanced Fiber Optic
Guided Missile (EFOG-M) System
This section would extend the time for the conduct of the
EFOG-M program to include critical field evaluation testing
that occurs after September 1998.
Section 244--Amendment to the University Research Initiative Support
Program
This section would propose changes in the data base for
calculation of university eligibility for the University
Research Initiative Support Program. Current law requires the
Department of Defense to use prior fiscal year data in
determining eligibility. Since complete data is not available
until the second quarter of the current fiscal year, the
program is forced to expend funds in the next fiscal year. The
proposed change would remove this restriction and allow the
Department of Defense to use the most recent complete fiscal
year data in determining eligibility. In practice, the two
years to be used would be the third and second years prior to
appropriations. This would allow ample time for a competitive
award cycle with expenditures in the year of appropriations.
Section 245--Amendments to Defense Experimental Programs to Stimulate
Competitive Research
This section would allow the Department more flexibility to
customize the defense experimental program to stimulate
competitive research (DEPSCoR) program for defense needs and
help to improve the administration of the program. The
eligibility analysis can be performed within the Office of the
Director, Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) using the
same data as the National Science Foundation, thus allowing for
more timely execution of the program.
Section 246--Elimination of Report on the Use of Competitive Procedures
for the Award of Certain Contracts to Colleges and Universities
This section would eliminate the annual reporting
requirement on the use of competitive procedures for award of
research and development contracts, and the award of
construction contracts, to colleges and universities. This
report is of limited value and duplicates action required on
the part of the Department to inform the Congress of contracts
and awards made to those entities non-competitively prior to
the award.
Section 247--National Oceanographic Partnership Program
This section would establish a mechanism whereby federal
agencies and the Department of the Navy can leverage all U.S.
oceanographic efforts to the benefit of the Department of
Defense, other federal agencies, and non-federal organizations.
This section would also establish a National Oceanographic
Leadership Council to coordinate national oceanography
programs, partnerships and facilities; establish an Oceans
Research Partnership Coordinating Group; and an Ocean Research
Advisory Panel to conduct the program management activities of
the partnership program.
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OVERVIEW-
Less than two years ago, members of the committee uncovered
troubling indications that defense budget cuts, force structure
reductions, increased operating tempo, and the diversion of
readiness funds to pay for unplanned and unbudgeted
contingencies, were resulting in what could only be described
as the early stages of a downward readiness spiral. Routine
training was being canceled, maintenance of weapons, equipment
and facilities was being deferred, spare parts were not being
bought, and overall readiness levels were suffering.
Readiness is a perishable commodity and sustaining it
demands constant attention. Consequently, the committee
embarked on a multifaceted strategy for maintaining readiness
which included addressing funding shortfalls in key readiness
accounts, improving internal Pentagon readiness reporting,
crafting mechanisms for funding contingency operations in order
to preclude the diversion of funds from readiness accounts, and
pushing for reform of the defense support infrastructure
necessary to free additional resources for readiness and
modernization efforts.
The committee's actions have helped to address the
unacceptable trends in short-term readiness. Nevertheless, the
committee notes that the underlying root causes that led to
recent readiness problems still exist today. The Administration
continues to reduce defense spending while it struggles with a
severely underfunded defense program. Force structure is still
declining and for the first time, the President's budget
envisions reducing endstrength below the Bottom-Up Review
levels. The pace of military operations has not slowed and is,
in fact, higher than during the Cold War. The result is a shell
game where modernization of the forces--future readiness--is
sacrificed to protect near-term readiness. The committee does
not believe that funding near and long-term readiness can be
mutually exclusive propositions.
While intended to shore up near term readiness, this shell
game strategy has a debilitating effect on key readiness
accounts. In response, for fiscal year 1996 the Congress added
approximately $1.1 billion in the areas of real property
maintenance, depot maintenance, base operations support,
mobility enhancements and reserve readiness. However, the
President's request reduces funding in these accounts by over
$1.5 billion from fiscal year 1996 levels. The committee is
disturbed by the degree to which Congress' attempts to bolster
readiness funding in key accounts last year was ignored in the
budget request.
The committee believes that continued underfunding of these
key readiness accounts will only perpetuate the degradation of
force readiness. Therefore, to address these and other
shortfalls, the committee recommends a funding increase of $1.9
billion above the operation and maintenance budget request of
$88.9 billion for a total of $90.7 billion. In key readiness
accounts, the committee has added $1 billion for real property
maintenance, $190 million for depot maintenance, $190 million
for base operations support, $100 million for mobility
enhancements, and $90 million for reserve component training.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Intelligence Programs
Defense Mapping Agency (DMA)
The budget request included $698.9 million for continued
operations of the DMA. Of this amount approximately $30 million
was designated for funding a future National Aeronautics and
Space Agency (NASA) Space Shuttle (STS) to conduct earth
imaging operations for mapping purposes.
The committee supports this STS mission effort, but is not
aware of a firm availability of a shuttle flight to carry the
mapping payload. Therefore, the committee fences $30 million of
DMA operations and maintenance funding until DMA has a firm
commitment and date for the STS mapping mission from NASA.
Additionally, the Defense Science Board (DSB) recently
provided some study recommendations for improving DMA business
practices and operations. Specifically, the DSB recommended DMA
production processes be reengineered to move away from making
maps and toward maintaining multi-source digital geospatial
information data bases--this includes incorporating commercial
products. While the committee recognizes that DMA cannot
terminate its paper map products in the short-term, it does
recognize the fact that the DSB stressed that DMA needs to move
in this direction. Therefore, the committee directs DMA to
provide the Congressional defense and intelligence committees
with a detailed evaluation of the DSB report, and a plan for
implementing those DSB recommendations it considers
appropriate. An interim report of this plan should be provided
to the Congressional defense and intelligence committees prior
to the fiscal year 1997 defense authorization conference, with
a final report provided no later than April 1, 1997.
Finally, the committee notes the budget request for DMA did
not include funding for the lease of the DMA Reston Center
which had, prior to fiscal year 1997, been included in the
National Reconnaissance Program (NRP).
The statement of managers accompanying the conference
report on S. 1124 (H. Rept 104-450), directed that costs for
this facility should not be maintained in the NRP, and directed
that these funds be moved from the NRP into the Joint Military
Intelligence Program (JMIP) DMA accounts. Therefore, the
committee recommends this program be increased by $27.1 million
from funds transferred from the NRP.
Over The Horizon Backscatter (OTH-B) Radar System
The budget request included $5.693 million for continued
``warm storage'' maintenance of the two OTH-B radars. These
radars are being maintained as part of NORAD's ``reconstitution
assets.''
The committee understands that it will require at least 24
months to bring these first generation OTH-B radars out of
caretaker status and into an operational status--if such a
decision were made. The committee also understands that major
upgrades, costing millions of dollars, will be necessary to
bring out-dated technology up to modern standards.
When considered with the totality of terrestrial and space
based warning systems, the committee is not convinced the
projected threat, or the technical capabilities of these older
systems, warrants continued caretaker maintenance. The
committee does, however, understand the potentially high costs
to the U.S. Government of closing these systems down and
returning the lands to the individual states.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to conduct a study that determines the viability of retaining
or terminating these radars. This study should include fully
identified costs for all recommendations. The Secretary is to
provide an interim report on the results of this study before
the fiscal year 1997 defense authorization conference, with a
completed report no later than April 1, 1997.
Pacer Coin
The budget request included $8 million for operations of
the PACER COIN special missions C-130.
In the statement of managers accompanying the conference
report on S. 1124 (H. Rept 104-450), the conferees directed the
Department of Defense to determine if PACER COIN could be
configured to perform multiple missions including the PACER
COIN, SENIOR SCOUT and airdrop missions. This direction was
based on the condition that a PACER COIN-only mission would not
be supported by the House.
Preliminary indications are that such modifications are not
only possible, but cost effective and would provide a viable
and unique multi-role aircraft. However, the President's
request included no funds for such modifications, and this
committee has received no indication from the National Guard
Bureau that this was an effort they wished to pursue.
Therefore, the committee denies the PACER COIN funding request.
Senior Scout
The budget request included $1.3 million for operations of
the SENIOR SCOUT intelligence support system.
The committee recognizes the capability provided by the
SENIOR SCOUT system, and also recognizes that this system could
be effectively used to backfill systems such as the RC-135 and
EP-3 that are being pressed into crisis and contingency areas.
The committee therefore recommends an additional $600,000 be
provided for the National Guard CINC's ``initiative fund'' to
pay for C-130 transport flying hours to carry the SENIOR SCOUT
package.
Morale, Welfare and Recreation Issues
Appropriated Fund Support For Morale, Welfare And
Recreation Programs.
The military services' morale, welfare and recreation (MWR)
programs are a vital part of the overall quality of life
offered our servicemen and women. These programs are also
fundamental to force readiness.
In reviewing the MWR program for the coming fiscal year,
the committee received testimony from the military services'
MWR managers and noted a disparity in the degree of
appropriated fund support afforded these programs by each of
the services, particularly in the area of Category A, mission
sustaining, and Category B, community support programs. While
MWR programs are funded through a combination of appropriated
and nonappropriated funds, the committee understands that it is
Department of Defense (DOD) policy guidance to use appropriated
funds for 100 percent of Category A requirements and 65 percent
for Category B requirements. While the committee notes that the
services all increased appropriated fund (APF) support in the
budget request over the fiscal year 1996 level, only the Air
Force comes close to meeting the DOD goals, funding 98.6
percent of Category A and 57.3 percent of Category B.
Shortfalls in APF support for MWR programs authorized to
use APF requires the use of nonappropriated funds (NAF) to meet
requirements. It is the committee's view that the use of NAF
resources--soldier, sailor, airmen and Marine money--to
subsidize APF activities should be minimized, and encourages
the services to meet the DOD policy goals. To address these
quality of life shortfalls, the committee recommends an
increase of $60 million for the military services to help
offset APF shortfalls in the budget request for Category A and
B MWR programs. These funds may only be used for those programs
for which appropriated fund support is authorized, and are not
to be used to replace already budgeted funds thereby releasing
those funds for other purposes. The committee recommends that
these additional funds be used, in part, to address shortfalls
in the areas of fitness centers, libraries, child development
and other service priorities and directs the military service
secretaries to report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and House Committee on National Security no later than March
31, 1997 on how these additional funds have been allocated. The
committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to report
annually to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on National Security, no later than when the
budget is submitted to the Congress, describing how each
military service is progressing with maximizing APF support to
Category A and B programs.
On a related matter, the Defense Science Board's Task Force
on Quality of Life, in its October 1995 report, recommended
reinstatement of appropriated fund reimbursement of non
appropriated fund services performed in support of activities
authorized to receive APF support, such as staffing for fitness
and day care centers. This recommendation was viewed as a means
to maximize quality of life services. This practice was
terminated in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1989 (Public Law 100-456) based on concerns about improper
reimbursements and fund accountability and a lack of
definitive, uniform guidance by the Secretary of Defense to the
military services.
The committee is sensitive to the challenges that exist in
managing MWR programs in a budget constrained environment and
wants to provide the necessary tools to facilitate the delivery
of these critical programs. Therefore, the committee directs
the Secretary of Defense to report to the Senate Committee on
Armed Services and the House Committee on National Security no
later than June 15, 1996, on a policy for how the Department of
Defense would implement reinstatement of appropriated fund
reimbursement, including the circumstances under which such a
practice would be appropriate and the necessary procedures to
ensure adequate oversight, control and accountability of
appropriated funds.
Defense Commissary Agency/Performance Based Organization
The committee notes the nomination of the Defense
Commissary Agency (DeCA) to be a Performance Based Organization
(PBO) as part of the Vice President's National Performance
Review government-wide reinvention program. The committee
understands that PBO's are designed to generate efficiencies
through the removal of restrictive regulations and statutes and
the facilitation of best business practices.
The committee has long recognized the imperative to
generate efficiencies in the delivery of the commissary,
exchange, and morale, welfare and recreation (MWR) benefits.
Streamlining operations, improving business practices, gaining
efficiencies, and reducing the need for taxpayer support are
goals which the committee not only strongly supports, but has
acted upon to provide the tools to accomplish. The committee
believes that if there are options for delivering these
benefits that require less appropriated fund support, then they
should be identified, investigated, validated and implemented.
The PBO model for DeCA may be such an option.
As important as the imperative is to generate efficiencies
in the delivery of these benefits, a more important imperative
is the protection of these benefits for our servicepeople and
their families. As the Department of Defense continues to
pursue the DeCA/PBO concept, the committee expects to be a full
partner in the decision-making and implementation process. As
such, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report
to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on National Security on any action to implement any
aspect of the DeCA/PBO concept prior to its implementation.
Distribution Of Distilled Spirits
Section 333 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) required the computation
of the full cost to the military exchanges for the distribution
of distilled spirits, including the costs associated with
management, logistics, administration, depreciation and
utilities. The purpose of this provision was to ensure that
distilled spirits are distributed in the most economical
manner. The committee is interested in the extent to which this
requirement has resulted in a change in distribution methods.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
report by December 31, 1996, on the extent to which distilled
spirits sold on military installations are distributed through
the exchange distribution system or through private
distributors, and any costs savings which have resulted from
this requirement. Additionally, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense, in the same report, to discuss the
advantages and disadvantages of requiring purchases and
delivery of distilled spirits, for resale on a military
installation located in the United States, to be made from a
source within the state in which the military installation is
located.
Other Issues
Abrams Integrated Management XXI
The committee notes with interest that the Army has adopted
a comprehensive strategy for M1A1 tank fleet sustainment. To
address the possibility of latent deficiencies in M1A1 tanks
that are not detected during readiness inspections, but, due to
the age of these tanks, could affect their operational
capabilities during a conflict, the Abrams Integrated
Management XXI (AIM XXI) proof of principle test program was
begun in fiscal year 1996. This program would bring 17 M1A1
tanks to a public depot which, in a partnership with the
private sector, would completely rebuild and update them with
the latest modifications. The Army intends to place these re-
built tanks at the National Training Center along with other
tanks that have not received any depot level maintenance for a
test and evaluation period of approximately nine months. On the
basis of this test, the Army would decide whether to continue
with this program.
The committee commends the Army for providing the funding
in the fiscal year 1996 operation and maintenance account to
begin this innovative and potentially cost effective
initiative. If the proof of principle tests are successful, the
committee expects the Army to provide adequate funding in
fiscal year 1998 and beyond to continue the AIM XXI program.
Ammunition Management Program
The budget request funds the Army's Ammunition Management
Program at only 74 percent of the requirement, down from the 96
percent of the requirement funded in fiscal year 1996. The
impact of this funding shortfall, if not addressed, will be
increased backlogs of inspections and maintenance which will
degrade the confidence of ammunition stockpile managers in the
readiness of the war reserve stockpile. This situation will
also preclude efforts to improve the efficient management of
the ammunition stockpile. Therefore, to address this shortfall
the committee recommends an increase of $50 million.
Army After Next
The committee is concerned about long-term direction of the
Army's future modernization and innovation efforts. While it is
generally supportive of the Army's ``Force XXI'' program, the
committee notes that the process of fielding the Force XXI Army
is a long and laborious one. Current Army plans will not result
in the fielding of any substantial units--even for the Army's
``Force Package One'' rapid-response units--under the current
Force XXI program until the year 2012, just at the point when
major systems will be in danger of block obsolescence. Moving
``Force Package Two''--the rest of the active-duty Army--to the
Force XXI design would not occur until 2023.
These projections conflict with the Army's estimates on the
emergence of potential ``peer competitor'' threats capable of
challenging the position of the United States as global leader.
Thus, around the year 2010, the Army foresees the possibility
of a fundamental shift in the nature of land combat, yet its
modernization program allows only for the partial fielding of
Force XXI initiatives throughout the service.
Therefore, the committee directs the Army that, of the
amounts authorized for Operations and Maintenance, Army, Force-
Related Training/Special Activities under Budget Authority 1,
$5 million be made available to conduct an analysis for ``The
Army After Next.'' This will allow Army Training and Doctrine
Command to investigate the possibilities of more radical
change, both in strategic and operational requirements for land
combat, than envisioned under Force XXI. The committee
considers the small amount of funding required to conduct
wargame analysis of potential concepts a wise investment to
ensure that the Army's modernization program is fully
responsive to future threats.
Base Closure Transition
The committee supports a study to determine the need for a
pilot project to evaluate the personnel implications of
transitioning Department of Defense employees at facilities
directed to be privatized by the 1995 Base Realignment and
Closure Commission. These installations include the Naval
Surface Warfare Center, Louisville, Kentucky and the Naval Air
Warfare Center, Indianapolis, Indiana. The Base Realignment and
Closure Commission recommended that highly skilled employees be
retained to facilitate the successful transition of these
facilities to commercial enterprise. The committee believes
that a pilot project may be useful in addressing personnel
issues involved with the privatization of highly specialized
military facilities.
Base Operations Support Costs
The committee is aware that, subsequent to the closure of
the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard and Naval Station, the Navy has
not adequately budgeted for the base operations support (BOS)
costs of the remaining tenant commands at the Philadelphia
Naval Base. The committee is concerned that the Navy has failed
to identify adequate financial resources to properly fund the
BOS costs at the Philadelphia Naval Base and urges the Navy to
act expeditiously to resolve these BOS shortfalls and to ensure
adequate funds are available in the future to support common
base services.
Concept Development Center
The committee is concerned about the manner in which the
Department of Defense, specifically the Office of the Secretary
of Defense, will manage and evaluate the process of innovation
tied to new technologies, operational concepts and military
organizations, especially those innovations linked to
information processing and ``information warfare.'' The
committee has learned that initial, experimental efforts
conducted by the services are being judged by traditional
measures of effectiveness. The committee is concerned that
these measures may not be appropriate for evaluating what may
be a fundamental shift in the paradigm of warfare.
Therefore, the committee directs that the Department make
available $10 million of the amounts authorized for Operations
and Maintenance, Defense Wide, for Washington Headquarters
Services in Budget Authority 4, to establish a ``Concept
Development Center'' (CDC) under the Office of Net Assessment.
Like the RAND Corporation of the early 1950s, the CDC would
facilitate the intellectual breakthroughs in operational
concepts, military systems and organizations needed for future
warfare. Such an office is a necessary bureaucratic device both
to foster innovation and to contest established bureaucratic
mechanisms which will seek to tailor revolutionary ideas to
meet current paradigms of strategy, analysis, testing and
evaluation. The CDC staff also would be charged with assessing
the impact of innovation on Pentagon restructuring, service
roles and missions, alliance relationships, defense structures
and budgeting processes, and will report to the Secretary of
Defense.
Contractor Operated Civil Engineering Supply Stores
The Contractor Operated Civil Engineering Supply Stores
(COCESS) program was initiated in 1970 to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of material management, and
relieve the military from maintaining large inventories of
parts and supplies needed for repair and maintenance of
facilities. The COCESS contractors maintain centralized stores
located on military installations to provide off-the-shelf
parts and supplies, similar to the commercial equivalent of a
hardware store, needed for the day-to-day operations and
maintenance of real property primarily on Air Force
installations. The committee is concerned that after many years
of successful and less costly operation of these stores by
commercial contractors, the Air Force intends to return these
stores to government operation without competition. The
committee understands the existing contracts for these stores
have been competitively awarded through the OMB Circular A-76
process with the commercial contractor consistently providing
this service at a savings to the government of 10 percent or
higher. At a time when there is great emphasis on outsourcing
functions that are not inherently a governmental function, the
committee questions the wisdom of returning these stores to
government operation. Further, given the apparent and proven
cost savings of this program, the committee questions the
failure of the Air Force to initiate a COCESS or other similar
cost savings programs at all of its U.S. installations, and
also questions the failure of the other military departments to
consider COCESS or other cost reduction programs.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide a report to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on National Security not later
than January 30, 1997, that details the current and future
plans, to include economic analyses, for the operation of civil
engineering supply stores on Air Force installations. Further,
the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to not
change the current operation of these stores, or to permit any
alternative procurement methods in violation or circumvention
of the tenets of any COCESS contractual agreement. In addition,
the committee directs the Secretary of the Army and the
Secretary of the Navy to consider the application of the COCESS
program as a means to further reduce the cost of essentially
non-governmental functions.
Department Of Defense Milk Plants
Since the end of World War II, the Department of Defense
(DOD) has operated government-owned, contractor operated milk
plants in Okinawa, Japan, mainland Japan, and Korea. Operation
of these milk plants was deemed necessary because fresh milk
and other dairy products, being highly perishable, could not be
economically shipped from the United States without spoiling,
and local dairy sources did not meet U.S. health standards.
Recent technological advances have led to the development of
extended-shelf-life milk, with a shelf-life of more than 60
days. This development provided the DOD with a viable
alternative to operating the Pacific milk plants.
The Air Force, which is responsible for managing the
Okinawa milk plant, decided to close the plant when the current
contract expired. The Air Force decision was based on the
availability of the extended-life fresh milk from the United
States and was viewed as a quality of life issue. The DOD
Inspector General (IG) conducted an audit and validated the Air
Force decision. On March 31, 1996, the milk plant on Okinawa
closed.
The committee is concerned that U.S. military personnel and
their families serving in Korea and mainland Japan receive
equal consideration with respect to their quality of life as it
relates to access to fresh milk. The committee understands that
the DOD IG is currently reviewing the requirement to operate
the remaining DOD milk plant operations in Korea and Japan.
Given the ability to provide U.S. produced fresh milk in an
economical manner to U.S. forces on Okinawa, the committee
questions the need for the remaining milk plants. Therefore,
the Secretary of Defense is directed to report to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on National
Security, no later than December 31, 1996, on the requirement
for further operation of milk plants in Korea and Japan and
plans to provide military personnel and their families the same
quality of life considerations with respect to access to fresh
milk and dairy products being afforded to U.S. personnel in
Okinawa.
Depot-Level Maintenance And Repair
While the committee supports privatization of some depot
maintenance and repair activities, it does not support the
wholesale privatization of those functions. Current law
(sections 2466 and 2469 of Title 10, United States Code)
requires that not more than 40 percent of all funds provided to
a military department for depot-level maintenance and repair
may be expended in the private sector, and that prior to the
movement of any workload valued at $3 million or more presently
being accomplished by a public depot, competitive procedures
must be used.
After significant debate, Congress laid the groundwork for
the repeal of these provisions with the enactment of section
311 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996 (Public Law 104-106), pending the Department of Defense
(DOD) providing Congress with a new depot maintenance policy.
The primary objective of this provision was to provide the DOD
with increased flexibility to manage its depot-level
maintenance and repair requirements while ensuring the
readiness of military forces.
The requirements of section 311 included a comprehensive
policy on depot maintenance activities which met certain
criteria. These included a clear definition of the core
workload that must be performed in public depots, providing for
sufficient public depot workload to ensure cost-efficiency and
technical proficiency, providing for competition for above core
workloads between public and private entities to achieve cost
savings, and providing for the maintenance and repair for new
weapons systems defined as core in public facilities. The
committee is disappointed that the DOD failed to address these
and other issues. Additionally, the committee regrets that the
DOD failed to provide the Congress with information regarding
the detailed methodology used to determine core requirements
and specific weapons systems and equipment which support
mobilization, contingency and emergency scenarios under the
National Military Strategy, and failed to provide mandated data
on workload as measured by direct labor hours. The committee
believes that the DOD response to section 311 appears to have
been developed without proper consideration of future readiness
implications.
Further, DOD has assumed cost savings will be achieved by
privatization and outsourcing of depot-level maintenance, but
has offered no concrete data to support that assertion. The
only data provided to Congress on this matter shows that costs
savings are achieved when there is competition between the
public and private sector. In fact, in those competitions, more
than 50 percent were won by the public sector. Yet, the DOD
policy does not provide for such competitions. The committee
believes that competition rather than direct privatization may
achieve the greatest degree of potential savings.
Accordingly, the committee will consider changes to
existing limitations when the DOD provides Congress with an
acceptable policy for the future accomplishment of depot-level
repair and maintenance.-
Electron Scrubber Technology
The Department of Defense (DOD) has developed electron
scrubbing technology, which may be used to eliminate or reduce
pollutants causing acid rain, air toxins, and volatile organic
compounds from off gas generated by incinerators, including
those employed in the chemical demilitarization process. This
technology may also be a cost effective treatment for waste
water, such as red/pink water found in trinitrotoluene (TNT)
manufacturing, storage and disposal facilities. The technology
involves combining electron beam flue gas scrubbing treatment
with high average electron beam technology. Developmentally,
electron scrubbing technology has met its technical milestones
and is now ready for prototyping and demonstrations at major
DOD maintenance and operations facilities, most of which face
significant air and water pollution problems as a result of
military operations. The committee directs the Department to
spend up to $10 million for the purpose of demonstrating the
validity of electron scrubbing technology and its utility for
large scale application at military installations. The
committee expects that any contracts awarded pursuant to this
direction would be made on a fully competitive basis.
General Purpose Tents
During the initial deployment of forces to Bosnia in
support of Operation Joint Endeavor, U.S. troops experienced a
leaking problem with the general purpose tents being used. The
apparent cause of the leakage was a design flaw that
incorporated seam construction intended for cotton fabric,
rather than for polyester, which has been in use since 1990 and
does not have the same self-sealing properties that cotton has
when exposed to moisture. The approximately 3,000 tents
deployed to Bosnia were field-repaired with heat-sealed tape
and enhanced with weather resistant fly covers. However, there
are approximately 20,000 of these general purpose tents in the
Department of Defense inventory which require a permanent fix
to avoid the problems experienced by U.S forces in Bosnia.
When deployed to the field, tents become a fundamental
quality of life issue for our forces. The committee understands
that the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) is reviewing several
options for addressing this leakage problem. The committee
urges DLA to utilize the method that best achieves the repair
of these tents in the most economical and effective manner and
recommends an increase of $5 million for this purpose.
Integrated Computer Framework
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
may not be taking advantage of currently available computer
software technology that could be useful in coordinating its
environmental activities. Therefore, the committee directs the
Department to spend up to $5 million for the acquisition and
installation of a computer software framework for defense
environmental activities that has the capability to integrate,
analyze and communicate cleanup cost, risk and other related
information to site managers, regulatory agency personnel, the
public and others involved in the cleanup decision making
process. The committee expects that any contract for such a
system would be awarded on a competitive basis.
Manganese Dust Exposure Levels
The committee is aware of the Department of Defense's (DOD)
initiative to utilize commercial specifications and standards
whenever possible. The committee is also aware of the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist's
recommendation to lower the Permissible Exposure Level (PEL)
for all forms of airborne manganese dust and fumes. Manganese
is a key alloying ingredient in nearly all grades of steel and
stainless steel as well as most grades of aluminum and
magnesium, and as such, is used in aircraft, ship and vehicle
construction, as well as providing power systems for computers
and communications equipment.
The committee is concerned that a significant lowering of
the manganese dust standard may have a serious impact on DOD in
the area of cost, material availability, flexibility, and
productivity. Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of
Defense to consult with the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) as it proceeds with its rulemaking
process to reduce the current PEL for manganese. The Department
should make efforts to avoid costly mandates where they may not
be necessary. In addition, the committee recommends that the
DOD provide OSHA with any existing manganese studies to include
current worker exposure and protective measures currently
employed, and to begin discussions with industry
representatives to ascertain how industry can be helpful in
determining the cost of compliance should a lower PEL be
adopted by OSHA.
Military Traffic Management Command's Reengineering Personnel Property
Initiative Pilot Program
The statement of managers accompanying the conference
report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106), directed the Secretary of
Defense to initiate a pilot program to reengineer household
goods moves. Congress, the Department of Defense and the
household goods moving industry recognized the requirement to
take action to reform the current system in order to improve
the quality of service to military personnel and their
families, and, therefore, their quality of life. The conferees
further directed the Secretary of Defense to report on the
pilot program and to include comments from industry prior to
implementation of any aspect of the pilot program.
After reviewing the required report on this matter, the
committee is concerned that the Military Traffic Management
Command's (MTMC) Reengineering Personnel Property Initiative
Pilot Program does not satisfactorily address concerns raised
by the small moving companies which comprise much of this
industry. The committee understands the Department's desire to
proceed with its pilot program, and remains committed to the
reengineering effort. However, the committee also believes that
the concerns of small businesses need to be addressed.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to establish a working group of military and industry
representatives from all facets of the industry to develop an
alternative pilot program. The working group shall be chaired
by the MTMC commander, and shall include those Department of
Defense representatives he deems necessary, not to exceed six
in number. Industry shall be represented by no more than six
people, including one each from the American Movers Conference
and the Household Goods Forwarders Association of America. The
working group shall submit the alternative program, along with
the current pilot program proposed by MTMC, to the General
Accounting Office (GAO) by June 15, 1996 for review. The
committee directs the GAO to report to the Congressional
defense committees by July 15, 1996 the results of its review.
The Department of Defense may not proceed with the formal
solicitation for, or implementation of, any pilot program prior
to August 1, 1996.
The committee further directs that the working group
established by the Secretary of Defense review the execution of
the pilot program as it proceeds and recommend solutions to
problems that might emerge. The committee directs GAO to
monitor implementation of the pilot program, and any
recommendations or alternative approaches identified by the
working group, industry or others, and analyze its
effectiveness in improving service to military personnel and
its impact on components of the industry providing moving
services to military personnel. The committee directs GAO to
report to the Congressional defense committees the results of
its analysis as soon as feasible.
Mobility Infrastructure Enhancement
The committee recommends authorization of $100 million to
improve deployment and mobility of military forces and supplies
through investment in en-route infrastructure, including
ammunition loading areas, cargo staging areas, pier and port
facilities, railheads, aerial port facilities, fuel systems
repairs, runway, taxiway, ramp repairs, and automated
information systems and automatic identification technology
equipment, such as radio frequency tags and bar codes, to
improve intransit visibility. The funding is authorized in the
operation and maintenance defense-wide accounts for high
priority projects with the potential for multiple mobility
improvements. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
report on the expenditure of these funds to the Congressional
defense committees prior to the allocation of these funds, and
should seek the views of the Commander in Chief, U.S.
Transportation Command, in determining how these funds should
be applied.
Operational Support Aircraft
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
(DOD) is prematurely rushing to implement a reduction of
operational support aircraft (OSA) as recommended by the
Commission on Roles and Missions (CORM) and reviewed by the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. The committee continues to support the
overall reduction in OSA aircraft and the need to establish OSA
needs based on war time requirements. However, the Army appears
to be making significant program cancellations and re-
alignments of its aircraft without a clear understanding of the
impact caused by these actions. The committee is concerned that
insufficient attention has been given to current missions that
are cost effective and provide significant flexibility. It also
appears to the committee that the Army is retiring, replacing,
or cannibalizing OSA aircraft that have just completed
significant and expensive upgrades and modernization and
replacing them with less capable aircraft in need of
modernization.
To insure there is no premature and costly loss of
government assets and capabilities due to the changes currently
under consideration by the DOD, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide to the Congressional defense
committees, a detailed plan for the reduction and re-
distribution of all OSA aircraft to include a cost analysis and
rationale for each action to be taken. Further, the committee
directs the Secretary of the Army to make no changes in the
Army OSA program, in existence on March 31, 1996, until the
submission of the report by the Secretary of Defense.
Real Property Maintenance
The committee is disappointed in the President's request
for real property maintenance (RPM). As the backlog of
maintenance and repair of facilities has grown to nearly $13
billion, the budget request for RPM continues to decrease. The
RPM budget request for each military service is lower than that
requested for fiscal year 1996 and ignores the priority
Congress placed on RPM in adding $700 million in additional
funding last year. The committee views this situation as a
serious quality of life issue which demands increased resources
to reduce the backlog of maintenance and repair of facilities
that are critical to force readiness and the safety of military
and civilian personnel.
The budget request contained $4.6 billion for RPM. The
committee recommends an increase of $1.0 billion, for a total
of $5.6 billion. The committee further recommends that the
increase be distributed as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
Army.......................................................... 320.0
Navy.......................................................... 200.0
Marine Corps.................................................. 180.0
Air Force..................................................... 200.0
Army Reserve.................................................. 20.0
Navy Reserve.................................................. 15.0
Marine Corps Reserve.......................................... 2.0
Air Force Reserve............................................. 16.0
Army National Guard........................................... 29.0
Air National Guard............................................ 18.0
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Increase.......................................... 1,000.0
The committee directs the military services to apply the
recommended increase in funding for RPM to required repair and
maintenance of barracks and dormitories, critical health and
safety deficiencies, and mission critical operational
deficiencies.
Reserve Readiness
Reserve forces are increasingly and successfully being used
to augment active duty units experiencing high operational
tempo. These forces also provide critical support capabilities
needed for mission accomplishment. The importance of these
forces, however, is not reflected in the budget request where
funding for training falls short. For example, the budget
request funds Army Reserve and Army National Guard ground
OPTEMPO at 61 percent and 63 percent respectively, compared to
92 percent and 80 percent respectively, in fiscal year 1996.
Therefore, to alleviate these shortfalls, the committee
recommends an increase of $40 million for the Army Reserve and
$50 million for the Army National Guard.
Standard Missile Maintenance
The committee is concerned that the Navy has not requested
sufficient funds for Standard missile intermediate level
maintenance to meet peacetime operational requirements.
Additionally, the committee understands that the Navy is
considering abandoning its current practice of maintaining a
facility on each coast and consolidating all Standard missile
maintenance activities at a single site . In order to ensure
that the Navy has a sufficient number of Standard missiles
available for deploying ships in peacetime and that adequate
capacity is maintained on both coasts to support surge
requirements in time of war or mobilization, the committee
directs that $8.5 million of the additional funds provided for
weapons maintenance shall only be available for Standard
missile intermediate level maintenance processing to be
performed at both facilities.
Total Asset Visibility Program
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in
Operations and Maintenance, Army for the development of joint
applications of commercial standards and practices to service
logistics systems and improve the tracking of personnel,
materiel, and other shipments. The committee notes the progress
made in the Army's Total Asset Visibility Program and believes
this initiative should be extended throughout the Department of
Defense. Commercial firms such as Federal Express have
pioneered the electronic tracking of parcels both to improve
service and cut cost. The committee believes that adoption of
similar practices and technologies throughout the Department of
Defense can lead to personnel and logistics efficiency, reduced
costs, and greater operational effectiveness.
Unobligated Balances
The committee notes that the level of unobligated balances
from prior year operations and maintenance appropriations
continues to increase, totaling $2.2 billion for all three
military departments, as of September 30, 1995. The committee
believes that most of the unobligated funds emanate from
liquidation of prior years' contracts for which the amount
initially obligated was in excess of requirements. For this
reason, the committee recommends a reduction in operations and
maintenance funding of $50.0 million for the Army, $ 37.5
million for the Navy, and $37.5 million for the Air Force, to
be applied to the services' contracts and services budget
request. The committee expects that this reduction will result
in the services focusing more attention on the estimating of
their contract and services needs so that their budget requests
more accurately reflect requirements.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding
This section would authorize $90.7 billion in operation and
maintenance funding for the Armed Forces and other activities
and agencies of the Department of Defense.
Section 302--Working Capital Funds
This section would authorize $947.9 million for the Defense
Business Operations Fund (for DeCA) and $1.1 billion for the
National Defense Sealift Fund.
Section 303--Armed Forces Retirement Home
This section would authorize $57.3 million from the Armed
Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund for the operation of the
Armed Forces Retirement Home, including the U.S. Soldiers' and
Airmen's Home and the Naval Home.
Section 304--Transfer From National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
transfer not more than $250 million from the amounts received
from sales in the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund
to the operation and maintenance accounts of the military
services.
Subtitle B--Depot-Level Activities
Section 311--Extension of Authority for Aviation Depots and Naval
Shipyards to Engage in Defense-Related Production and Services
This section would extend through fiscal year 1997 the
authority provided by section 1425 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for 1991 (Public 101-510) for naval shipyards
and aviation depots of all the services to bid on defense-
related production and services.
Section 312--Exclusion of Large Maintenance and Repair Projects From
Percentage Limitation on Contracting for Depot-Level Maintenance
This section would exclude from the restrictions contained
in section 2466 title 10, United States Code, a single
maintenance or repair project that represents five percent or
more of the total amounts made available to a military service
for depot-level maintenance and repair. When there is a large
single maintenance project, such as the complex overhaul of a
nuclear aircraft carrier, the size of the project alone can
cause an unintended imbalance in the mix of workload between
the public and private sector. Under current law, not more than
40 percent of the total funds allocated to a military service
for depot-level repair and maintenance may be expended for work
in the private sector. The committee is concerned that a large
single project should not cause inadvertent disruptions in the
mandated percentages.
Subtitle C--Environmental Provisions
Section 321--Repeal of Report on Contractor Reimbursement Costs
This section would repeal subsection (c) of section 2706 of
title 10, United States Code. That section requires an annual
report to Congress on the environmental restoration activities
of the Department of Defense. Subsection (c) requires the
submission of a report detailing payments made by the Secretary
of Defense to contractors for the costs of environmental
response actions. Compiling the data has proved unduly
burdensome and costly for both contractors and the Department
of Defense. Moreover, the data provided has not proved
particularly useful in assessing the Department's management of
its contracting process or the extent to which contractors may
be seeking exorbitant or inappropriate reimbursement for
response action costs.
Section 322--Payments of Stipulated Penalties Assessed Under CERCLA
This section would authorize the payment from the Defense
Environmental Restoration Account (DERA) of stipulated civil
penalties assessed under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA)
(Public Law 96-510) at five military installations--Fort Riley,
Kansas ($34,000), the Massachusetts Military Reservations
($55,000), F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming ($10,000), the
Naval Education and Training Center, Newport, Rhode Island
($30,000), and the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant, Missouri
($37,500). This section would also allow the Department of
Defense (DOD) to complete environmental restoration projects in
lieu of stipulated penalties at the Massachusetts Military
Reservation. Civil penalties are assessed upon a failure to
achieve cleanup milestones that have been established in
agreements between DOD, the state, and the Environmental
Protection Agency. Pursuant to these agreements, separate
legislation authorizing the payment of such penalties is
required.
Section 323--Conservation and Readiness Program
This section would permit the Secretary of Defense to
establish and execute a ``Conservation and Readiness Program''
in order to address natural resources and cultural issues
affecting military installations or operations on a regional or
national scale. With the disestablishment of the Legacy
Resource Management Program, each military service inherited
the responsibility to manage the natural and cultural resources
under its jurisdiction. However, many such conservation-related
activities cut across services lines and have Department of
Defense-wide significance or are necessary to support joint
military requirements. For example, assessing bird migratory
patterns so that operational flights may avoid high bird volume
transit areas at certain times of the year enhances the safety
of flight operations for all the services, and it would not
make sense for each service to perform its own separate study
of such migratory patterns. Section 323 would allow the
Department of Defense to conduct regionally significant, multi-
component, operationally or legally compelled natural and
cultural activities in a coordinated and uniform and efficient
fashion.
Section 324--Navy Compliance With Shipboard Solid Waste Control
Requirements
The MARPOL Convention (an international treaty) requires
countries who are parties to that agreement to adopt measures
requiring their warships to comply with certain garbage
discharge restrictions to the extent reasonable and practical.
However, in the United States, the Act to Prevent Pollution
from Ships (Public Law 96-478) requires Navy surface ships to
comply with MARPOL special area (the Baltic Sea, the North Sea,
and the Antarctic Ocean) discharge requirements by the end of
2000. These special area discharge requirements prohibit all
but food waste discharges from surface vessels. The Navy is
required to submit to Congress a plan for achieving compliance
with this law by the end of 1996.
Analysis shows that cost of achieving full compliance with
MARPOL and U.S. standards creates significant problems of
expense, weight and space aboard ships. For example, the fleet-
wide cost of installing incinerators would approach $1.2
billion. Installing compactors would cost approximately $1.1
billion and could hinder naval operations because of the need
to rely on garbage collection ships. The Navy has identified
the use of pulpers and shredders as the preferred alternative
for special area shipboard solid waste management. This
approach has the advantages of affordability ($300 million
fleet-wide) and the preservation of operational capability. In
addition, this approach is consistent with American obligations
under international law.
Section 324 would amend the Act to Prevent Pollution from
Ships to authorize discharges resulting from the use of pulpers
and shredders, consistent with the MARPOL Convention. Pulpers
and shredders would be used by U.S. naval vessels in non-
special areas, as well as special areas, rather than discharge
unprocessed trash. All plastics and hazardous garbage materials
would be returned to shore.
Section 325--Authority to Develop and Implement Land Use Plans for
Defense Environmental Restoration Program
This section would permit the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a limited pilot program to develop and implement, as a
part of the Defense Environmental Restoration Program, a land
use plan for up to ten defense sites where the Secretary is
planning or implementing environmental restoration activities.
In developing these plans, the Secretary would be required to
consult with technical review committees, restoration advisory
boards, local land use redevelopment authorities or other
appropriate agencies knowledgeable about the site and land use
planning. The committee expects that reaching agreement with
local authorities about the anticipated future land use
associated with contaminated sites once they are remediated
should result in cleanup activities that are appropriate to
that future land use and more expeditious transfer of the
property upon completion of the remediation. This section would
require the submission of a report to Congress on the success
of this program by December 31, 1998.
Section 326--Pilot Program to Test Alternative Technologies for
Limiting Air Emissions During Shipyard Blasting and Coating Operations
The committee is aware of the development of a new
technology that would allow the control of pollutant by-
products of abrasive blasting and coating of Navy ships during
periodic overhaul work. This section would direct the Secretary
of the Navy to establish a pilot program to test this
alternative technology, which is designed to capture, destroy
or remove particulate emissions and volatile air pollutants
that occur during abrasive blasting and coating operations at
naval shipyards. The Secretary would be required to test the
validity of this technology, assess its cost effectiveness and
the extent to which its use would facilitate compliance with
environmental laws and regulations, and report back to Congress
with a recommendation about whether the technology can or
should be implemented at naval shipyards on a large scale.
Section 327--Navy Program to Monitor Ecological Effects of Organotin
The Organotin Antifouling Paint Control Act of 1988 (OAPCA)
(Public Law 100-333) was enacted by Congress to protect marine
life by reducing the quantities of organotin, a highly toxic
ingredient in antifouling paints used on Navy and other
vessels, entering the waters of the United States. Despite the
fact that the Act imposed a March 30, 1989 deadline on the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the certification of
organotin release rates and water quality criteria, such
criteria have yet to be established. As a result, states and
the military are left without uniform national guidance about
water quality standards for organotin.
OAPCA also directed the EPA to implement a 10 year
organotin monitoring program and to submit to Congress annual
reports on that program. Only one report has ever been
submitted. The committee is concerned with the lack of progress
in meeting the requirements of the law.
This section would require the Secretary of the Navy, in
consultation with the EPA, to develop and implement a program
to monitor the concentrations of organotin in the water column,
sediments, and aquatic organisms of representative estuaries
and near-coastal waters of the United States, as described in
OAPCA. The program would be designed to produce high quality
data to enable the EPA to develop water quality criteria
concerning organotin compounds. In addition, the Secretary of
the Navy would be required to submit to Congress, no later than
June 1, 1997, a report explaining the monitoring program and
describing the results of the analysis performed pursuant to
that program.
Subtitle D--Civilian Employees and Nonappropriated Fund
Instrumentalities
Section 331--Repeal of Prohibition on Payment of Lodging Expenses When
Adequate Government Quarters Are Available
This section would provide Department of Defense civilian
personnel with the flexibility to make more efficient lodging
decisions based on overall mission requirements by considering
overall travel costs. Under current law, the DOD is prohibited
from paying lodging expenses to a civilian employee who does
not use adequate available government quarters while on
temporary duty. The committee believes that this prohibition
can actually increase DOD costs because consideration is only
given to lodging costs rather than overall travel costs. There
are instances when temporary duty requirements involve business
on and off-base. In those instances, the cost-effective
business decision, when other factors such as rental car costs
are considered, may be to use commercial lodging
accommodations. Additionally, in those instances where there is
a mix of military and civilian personnel and group integrity is
deemed important, the use of commercial lodging accommodations
may be required. The provision would repeal the current
restrictions and allow civilian personnel to make cost
efficient decisions when on official travel.
Section 332--Voluntary Separation Incentive Pay Modification
This section would allow civilian employees who have
previously received separation or incentive pay to leave
federal employment to volunteer for government service without
the loss of their separation or incentive pay. Under the
Federal Workforce Restructuring Act (Public Law 103-226),
civilian employees who receive separation or incentive pay must
return these payments if they return to government employment
within five years after separation. There are instances,
however, where employees are asked to return to government
service, on a voluntary basis, to serve as advisors or as
participants on special boards or councils. These employees
serve without compensation (salary) but do receive
reimbursement for travel expenses and for per diem. The
provision would allow such appointments and provide for the
waiver of the repayment of incentive pay previously received.
Section 333--Wage-Board Compensatory Time Off
This section would provide federal managers of wage-board
employees the same flexibility to use compensatory time off
afforded federal managers of general schedule employees. Under
current law, federal employees who are paid wages determined by
prevailing rates in a particular geographical area are
prohibited from receiving compensatory time off in lieu of
overtime pay. Such compensatory time off has been a cost
effective method for compensating federal employees paid under
the general schedule. The committee believes that the provision
would assist in meeting work demands while reducing costs and
increasing the morale and safety of employees.
Section 334--Simplification of Rules Relating to the Observance of
Certain Holidays
This section would allow the head of an agency within the
Department of Defense to change the federal day off from Monday
to an alternate day for those employees who would normally have
Monday off under a compressed work schedule. Under compressed
work schedules, some federal employees have Monday or Friday as
a normal day off. When a federal holiday falls on a Monday,
those employees who would normally have the Monday off are
required to take the previous Friday off resulting in a
manpower shortage on Fridays. The Department of Defense has
reported that the current statutory requirements governing the
observance of holidays that fall on nonworkdays of employees on
compressed work schedules has seriously disrupted the operation
of depots and other industrially-funded organizations. With
this change, the Secretary of Defense would be able to
promulgate regulations or policies to deal with such problems
in all or any individual components of the Department. Other
agency heads would have similar authority, but those who have
experienced no problems with the status quo would not be
required to alter existing procedures.
Section 335--Phased Retirement
This section would authorize the Department of Defense to
establish a pilot program to encourage some civilians to retire
in stages by changing current annuity offset rules. Under
current law, financial penalties are imposed on federal
civilians who wish to mix retirement with part-time federal
employment. This section would allow an employee to continue to
receive his or her full annuity while working 20 to 30 hours
per week. The re-employed annuitant would also receive a salary
without offset until reaching a maximum total income, salary
plus annuity, equal to what the annuitant would have made
before full-time without retiring. The pilot program would
allow the period of phased retirement to be limited to no more
than two years, would be limited to 50 participants at any one
time, and would terminate on September 30, 2001.
Section 336--Modification of Authority for Civilian Employees of
Department of Defense To Participate Voluntarily in Reduction in Force
This section would allow employees who are not affected by
a reduction-in-force (RIF) action to volunteer to be separated
in place of other employees who are scheduled for RIF
separation. The provision is designed to determine whether
providing employees with the opportunity to volunteer to be
part of a RIF action would be an effective downsizing tool.
Section 1034 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) provided this authority
for a period of one year. The provision would extend this
authority through September 30, 2001.
Subtitle E--Commissaries and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities
Section 341--Contracts With Other Agencies and Instrumentalities for
Goods and Services
This section would provide authority for exchanges and
morale, welfare and recreation systems (MWR) to enter into
contracts or other agreements with another department, agency
or instrumentality of the Department of Defense or another
federal agency to provide goods and services beneficial to the
efficient management and operation of exchange and MWR systems.
Greater efficiencies in the operation of the military exchanges
and other morale, welfare and recreation activities are
required. These activities engage in commercial activities that
can be more efficiently conducted if contracts and agreements
are permitted among all the activities and with other federal
agencies. Current law allows contracts with other agencies and
instrumentalities for the benefit of the commissary system.
This section would remove impediments to methods for gaining
efficiencies in the exchange and MWR systems.
Section 342--Noncompetitive Procurement of Brand-Name Commercial Items
for Resale in Commissary Stores
Brand-name, commercial items are excepted from competition
in contracting requirements when their procurement is for
resale in the commissary system. This section would clarify
that, in order to receive the exception, the commercial item
has to be regularly sold outside the commissary store under the
same brand-name as it would be sold in the commissary store.
Section 343--Prohibition of Sale or Rental of Sexually Explicit
Material
This section would prohibit the sale or rental of sexually
explicit written or videotaped material on property under the
jurisdiction of the Department of Defense to include
commissaries, all facilities operated by the Army and Air Force
Exchange Service, the Navy Exchange Service Command, the Navy
Resale and Services Support Office, Marine Corps exchanges, and
ship stores.
Subtitle F--Performance of Functions by Private-Sector Sources
Section 351--Extension of Requirement for Competitive Procurement of
Printing and Duplication Services
Section 351 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) directed the Defense
Printing Service (DPS) to competitively procure from private
sector sources at least 70 percent of its printing and
duplication work. The late enactment of Public Law 104-106
precluded full implementation of section 351. The section would
extend section 351 for one additional year and would require a
report on DPS compliance.
Section 352--Requirement Regarding Use of Private Shipyards for Complex
Naval Ship Repair Contracts
This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to
award complex ship repairs and overhauls only to qualified
shipyard contractors. This section would not apply to repairs
and overhauls performed on the Pacific Coast of the United
States. Currently, the Navy has a policy for the complex repair
and overhaul of ships based on a Master Ship Repair Agreement
(MSRA) system whereby private sector shipyards wanting to
compete for these repairs are inspected and certified by the
Navy as being qualified to accomplish the intended ship
repairs. This pre-qualification of ship repair contractors has
saved the Navy the expense of having to qualify private
contractors each time it needs repairs or overhauls for its
ships. The committee is supportive of this program as it has
incentivised many private shipyards to make the necessary
investments in infrastructure and facilities, such as dry-
docks, additional pier space to accommodate large ships, and
crew support facilities. The committee believes these upgraded
shipyards will ensure a ready access to capable and qualified
repair facilities during times of emergency.
The committee is concerned that the Navy will soon revise
its requirements for MSRA shipyards, allowing private shipyards
who do not have the extensive facilities and capabilities to
compete for complex overhauls. The committee believes that
legislatively establishing the current Navy policy for the
establishment of MSRA requirements will provide stability to
the Navy ship repair and overhaul program.
Subtitle G--Other Matters
Section 360--Termination of Defense Business Operations Fund and
Preparation of Plan Regarding Improved Operation of Working-Capital
Funds
This section would terminate the operations of the Defense
Business Operations Fund (DBOF) effective October 1, 1998. It
also would require the Secretary of Defense to submit to the
Congress a plan to improve the management and performance of
the industrial, commercial, and support activities currently
managed by the DBOF not later than September 30, 1997.
The committee takes this strong action in order to focus
the attention of the Department of Defense (DOD) upon serious
problems created for operational commanders and government
owned DBOF service providers by the current system. While the
committee is fully supportive of the concept of providing full
visibility of the total costs of industrial and support
services, some consistent level of activity by service
providers must be maintained in order to provide stability to
both providers and customers. The committee strongly urges DOD
to develop a plan which replaces the DBOF with a successor
activity to provide such stability while protecting unique
capabilities critical during war or mobilization.
Section 361--Increase in Capital Asset Threshold Under Defense Business
Operations Fund
This section would raise the capital asset threshold in a
Defense Business Operations Fund (DBOF) activity from $50,000
to $100,000. Currently, there is a difference in the capital
asset threshold between DBOF funded activities and operation
and maintenance funded activities. Historically, these
thresholds have been standardized in order to simplify training
and management requirements. The Department of Defense
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-61)
established the capital asset threshold, the maximum unit cost
of an item that can be purchased using operation and
maintenance appropriations, at $100,000. The higher threshold
reflects the impact of inflation upon equipment and software
purchases. The provision would standardizes the capital asset
threshold for DBOF and operations and maintenance activities at
$100,000.
Section 362--Transfer of Excess Personal Property To Support Law
Enforcement Activities
This section would provide permanent authority for the
Department of Defense (DOD) to provide excess personal property
to state level law enforcement agencies. This property includes
vehicles, helicopters, weapons, ammunition and other property
that is needed by law enforcement agencies. Section 1208 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1990 and
1991, (Public Law 101-189) established a one year program to
provide excess personal property to law enforcement agencies
for use in drug enforcement activities. This provision was
extended until September 30, 1997 by section 1005 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991,
(Public Law 101-510).
The committee believes that this program has been
successful and notes that the overall program responsibility
was recently moved from the DOD Drug Policy Office to the
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). The committee is pleased to
note that several programmatic changes have been made by DLA
that appear to strengthen the overall program. As this programs
appears to be beneficial to many law enforcement agencies, the
committee recommends that the program be made permanent and
that it be expanded to include all law enforcement activities
with a priority for drug enforcement activities.
Section 363--Storage of Motor Vehicles in Lieu of Transportation-
This section would provide storage, at government expense,
of privately-owned vehicles for service members when there are
restrictions on the normal shipment of these vehicles, and
would also provide storage of vehicles for service members who
are deployed between 30 and 180 consecutive days. When a
service member is transferred to an overseas location and is
authorized to ship his privately-owned vehicle to that
location, there are times when the location the service member
is being transferred to prohibits the entry of the particular
vehicle, or requires extensive modifications be made to the
vehicle. In these cases, the government does not pay for the
storage of the service members vehicle if he elects not to ship
or modify the vehicle. Additionally, when a service member is
deployed for an extended period of time, usually more than one
month and less than six months, there currently are no
provisions for the storage of privately-owned vehicles. The
committee is aware that frequently, especially for single
service members, privately-owned vehicles have been vandalized
and/or stolen while they are on these extended deployments.
Section 364--Control of Transportation Systems in Time of War
This section would shift the responsibility for all systems
of transportation during the time of war from the Secretaries
of the Army and the Air Force to the Secretary of Defense.
Current law provides that during times of war, the Army and the
Air Force assume control independently of transportation
systems for its service members, munitions, and equipment,
exclusive of the other services. For efficiency purposes, the
Department of Defense has established the United States
Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) as the single manager for
transportation. The committee believes that the provision is in
keeping with the single manager for transportation concept.
Section 365--Security Protection at Department of Defense Facilities in
National Capital Region
This section would permit the Defense Protection Service
(DPS) to provide emergency protection and security services to
sensitive defense activities in the National Capital Region
(NCR). Currently, the DPS provides security services for the
Pentagon. If emergency protection and security services are
required at any of the other sensitive defense activities in
the NCR, the Department of Defense is required to meet these
needs on a case-by-case, patchwork basis by a variety of legal
methods. One of these methods is obtaining special deputation
of DPS officers by the US Marshal Service. Another is by
requesting delegation of authority for specific functions from
the Administrator of General Services. Each time these services
are required, substantial administrative expenses and process
are involved. The committee is concerned that the present
situation is not conducive to emergency responses and urgently
required security requests by NCR defense activities. The
provision is revenue neutral and would improve responsiveness
in providing emergency security assistance in the NCR.
Section 366--Modifications to Armed Forces Retirement Home Act of 1991
This section would amend the Armed Forces Retirement Home
Act of 1991 (Pubic Law 101-510) to update the terms of office
for members of the armed forces or federal civilians who are
appointed as members of the Retirement Home Board, authorize
the disposal of real property, and establish annual evaluation
procedures for the directors of the individual retirement
homes.
Section 367--Assistance to Local Educational Agencies That Benefit
Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense
Civilian Employees
This section recommends the authorization of $58 million
for educational assistance to local education agencies where
the standard for the minimum level of education within the
state could not be maintained because of the large number of
military connected students or the effects of base realignments
and closures.
The Department of Education impact aid program provides
supplementary funds to school districts nationwide to support
the education of over 540,000 military dependents. The quality
of the education within the school districts that receive
impact aid is directly dependent on the payments from the
program. The committee notes that the level of impact aid
benefits has been eroded by inflation and that school districts
impacted by military connected students receive only 40 percent
of the impact aid that would be paid if the program were fully
funded.
The committee supports the recent effort by the Secretary
of Defense to seek greater support for the impact aid program
by the Department of Education. The committee believes that the
ultimate responsibility for providing support for the education
of the nation's children rests with the Department of
Education. The committee recognizes there are unique problems
within the military impact aid program and this section would
address those concerns. However, the committee does not support
an increased level of support for the program beyond that
already addressed in this section.
Section 368--Retention of Civilian Employee Positions at Military
Training Bases Transferred to National Guard
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
retain civilian employee positions at installations being
transferred to the National Guard during fiscal year 1997 to
provide transitional support to active and reserve component
training missions on the installations. The maximum number of
employees retained at each installation would not exceed 20
percent of the federal civilian workforce employed at the
installation as of September 8, 1995. The requirement to
maintain a civilian employee position would terminate upon
departure or retirement of the employee filling the retained
position, or upon certification by the Secretary of Defense
that the position is no longer required to support a training
mission on the installation.
Section 369--Expansion of Authority To Donate Unusable Food
This section would expand the list of eligible recipients
for donations of unusable food items from the Department of
Defense to include state and local governments, many of whom
operate their own shelters and food kitchens to assist local
efforts to feed homeless citizens. The section would also allow
the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to participate in this
program. Currently, section 2485 of title 10, United States
Code, does not include state and local governments among the
entities eligible to receive donations of unusable and surplus
food items such as meals-ready-to-eat (MREs), and only allows
the individual military departments to donate unusable food.
This section would allow DLA to donate MREs and other excess
food items from various Defense agencies to cities and states
who, in turn, could distribute them to homeless individuals and
families.
MILITARY PERSONNEL OVERVIEW
The committee believes that the military personnel budget
submitted by the President reflects the growing stress of
attempting to fund a military strategy to fight and win two
Major Regional Contingencies (MRCs) without the commitment to
provide the funding necessary to implement it. As a result, the
Administration's budget request shortchanges the military
personnel accounts and denies, delays or diminishes manpower,
compensation, and quality of life initiatives known by the
administration to be so critical to promoting and protecting
the quality force needed for a smaller military to win
decisively on the battlefield. The overall effect of an
underfunded defense budget is a repeated inability by the
Administration's military and civilian leaders to keep the
promises they have made.
The most glaring example of this can be found in the
statements of numerous Administration witnesses before the
committee. While touting that the nine-year military personnel
drawdown was nearly over, these witnesses also acknowledged
that the President's budgets for 1998 and 1999 were likely to
require Army manpower reductions of at least 20,000, and Air
Force reductions of at least 6,000 below the end-strength
floors required by law and recommended by the Administration's
Bottom Up Review (BUR).
Other trends also illustrate the committee's concern
regarding the inadequacy of the overall military personnel
budget request. For example, while the committee is gratified
that the President, for the first time, is requesting a
military pay raise that keeps pace with inflation, the
committee is disappointed that the proposed pay raise appears
to be funded at the expense of one of the Administration's most
visible and enlightened 1996 quality of life initiatives: The
much touted Secretary of Defense commitment to a six-year
effort to reduce out-of-pocket housing expenses by at least one
per cent annually. Unfortunately for the 70 percent of military
members and their families who reside off base in local
communities and depend on their basic allowance for quarters to
at least keep pace with housing cost increases, the fiscal year
1997 defense budget request largely reneges on that commitment.
Similarly, despite a vocal commitment to improving quality
of life, the Department remains unable due to lack of funds to
relieve the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by service members
who are reimbursed for only two of the three dollars they
expend during permanent change of station (PCS) moves.
An inadequate fiscal year 1997 budget request also
undercuts the Department's oft-stated commitment to quality
health care. The internal Department struggle to find
modernization funding resulted in nearly a $500 million
shortfall in the Defense Health Program. Such a shortfall, if
left unchanged, would guarantee that most space-available care
for military retirees at military treatment facilities would
disappear.
In contrast to public claims by the Department that the
fiscal year 1997 budget preserves readiness, the Army personnel
budget, for example, is underfunded for the second year in a
row by more than $100 million. To find internal savings to make
up the difference, the Army, as it did in 1996, proposes to
delay non-commissioned officer (NCO ) promotions causing
readiness levels in Army divisions to drop. Also, the Army
would increase the rate of officer separations and delay
promotions, thereby exacerbating a 30% officer shortage that
Congress identified last year. In addition, the Army would also
delay paying 1996 Congressional initiatives in housing and
special pays for recruiters.
Another indicator of the Administration's inadequately
funded personnel accounts is the absence of initiatives to
address long-standing major problems confronting personnel
managers within the Pentagon. For example, even as the United
States increases the use of the reserve components to augment
and supplement the active forces in a range of operations, the
level of full-time manning in the reserve components remains
insufficient to provide adequately for reserve readiness.
The committee fears that the ``robbing peter to pay paul''
budget philosophy pursued by the Administration will ultimately
destroy the morale of service members and their families, lead
to a hemorrhage of quality career members and a decline in the
quality of recruits. In the end, without Congressional action
to intercede, the committee is concerned that the
Administration unwillingness to adequately fund military
personnel needs will ultimately undermine readiness by setting
the military on the same course to a hollow force as was
experienced in the late 1970s.
The committee has acted to reverse the major shortfalls in
the Administration's fiscal year 1997 military personnel budget
request. Among the committee initiatives are:
(1) A 4.6% increase in the Basic Allowance for
Quarters in lieu of the 3% increase sought in the
President's budget, and the establishment of a floor on
variable housing allowance payments to protect the
adequacy of housing for junior enlisted families in
high cost areas.
(2) Restrictions on end-strength reductions below
the floors set in 1996.
(3) A package of enhanced reimbursements for
permanent change of station moves that reduce out of
pocket expenses.
(4) Restoration of the nearly $500 million shortfall
in the Defense Health Fund.
Details of these and other initiatives are contained in the
report that follows related to the military personnel titles of
the bill.
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Air National Guard Fighter Aircraft
The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to
increase the Air National Guard personnel end strength
authorizations (576 part-time personnel, 249 active guard/
reserves, 343 military technicians) above the budget request
and recommends an increase of $9 million to the personnel
authorization to provide Air National Guard fighter squadrons
with 15 primary authorized aircraft (PAA) per squadron vice the
requested 12.
Army Military Personnel Account Shortfall for Fiscal Year 1997
To help rectify a nearly $500 million shortfall, the
Congress approved an $130 million addition to the Army military
personnel accounts in the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106). Much to its dismay,
the committee again finds itself confronted with serious
underfunding in the Army. Despite efforts to find internal
savings and efficiencies, the Army's fiscal year 1997 military
personnel budget request is approximately $190 million short of
required levels. As a result, the Army declined to fund a range
of quality of life and recruiting initiatives authorized by
Congress last year, and has opted for reduced readiness in a
number of active duty divisions because of an inability to
promote sufficient non-commissioned officers. Moreover, the
Army chose to accelerate officer reductions and slow the pace
of promotions, thereby exacerbating officer manning shortages
that the committee identified during fiscal year 1996 as being
as high as 30 percent across the Army.
In order to minimize the readiness impact of continued Army
military personnel account shortfalls, and to provide the Army
the ability to fund key quality of life and recruiting
initiatives, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to
increase the Army military personnel account and recommends an
increase of $148 million over the President's budget request.
Army Reserve Full Time Manning Increase
In recognition of the expanded role of the Army Reserve in
the early-deploying contingency forces and the chronically low
levels of full time support within the Army Reserve, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to increase the
number of Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) by 254 personnel and
recommends an increase of $8 million above the President's
request for reserves on active duty to support the reserves.
With this increase, the committee believes that the Army
Reserve will better be able to support increased operations
tempo and readiness requirements.
Navy Maritime Patrol Aircraft
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to increase
the number of Navy P3C maritime patrol aircraft squadrons by
two (1 active, 1 reserve) above the 12 active and 8 reserve
squadrons requested in the President's budget. As a
consequence, the committee directs the following increases:
Navy active personnel accounts (End Strength: 418 personnel,
and $7 million); Naval Reserve personnel accounts (End
Strength: 97 Training and Administration of the Reserves (TAR)
personnel, 266 part-time personnel, and $3 million).
Reserve Component Individual Training Funds
One of the overriding lessons learned from the experience
of reserve components during Operation Desert Storm was the
fundamental r