Find a Security Clearance Job!

Military

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 requirement that individuals be properly trained in 
their particular military occupations, and that non-
commissioned officers (NCO) receive the required professional 
development. Reserve component individual training remains 
significantly underfunded in the President's budget request. 
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 
increase funding by $31 million over the President's budget 
request for national guard personnel account to fund schools 
and special training for military occupational skill training, 
new equipment training for the Multiple Launch Rocket System 
and Bradley Fighting Vehicle training, as well as NCO 
professional development. In addition, the committee directs 
the Secretary of the Army to increase funding within the Army 
Reserve personnel account to provide troop program unit 
professional development training, as well as individual skills 
training, by $30 million.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
                       Subtitle A--Active Forces
              Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces
    This section would authorize end strengths for active 
forces as indicated in the table below:
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
    Section 402--Permanent End Strength Levels to Support Two Major 
                         Regional Contingencies
    The committee was disturbed to learn that the Secretary of 
Defense is now planning end strength levels for active forces 
in fiscal year 1998 and beyond that are well below the floors 
mandated by 
Congress in the fiscal year 1996 Defense Authorization Act 
(Public Law 104-106). In mandating these floors at the end 
strengths developed as a result of the Administration's Bottom 
Up Review (BUR), Congress sought to ensure that the military 
manpower levels remained at the absolute minimums necessary to 
implement national military strategy. In addition, Congress 
sought to retain sufficient manpower so that the military 
services could more adequately manage the negative effects of 
high operations and personnel tempos. Finally, the Congress 
sought to ratify the message that the Administration and the 
military services had repeatedly conveyed to service members 
and their families: The nine-year drawdown that had eliminated 
more than 600,000 active duty personnel was over. Without that 
ratification, Congress believed that a continuing, open-ended 
free-fall of active end strength would exacerbate tensions and 
uncertainties within the force and lead to serious negative 
consequences for recruiting and retention.
    For these reasons, the committee finds it difficult to 
understand why the Secretary of Defense has consented to allow 
the Air Force, beginning in fiscal year 1998, to drop 6,000 
below the mandated BUR end strength level. Equally mystifying 
to the committee is the Secretary of Defense's plan to 
underfund the Army manpower accounts by nearly $300 million in 
fiscal year 1998 and $230 million in fiscal year 1999. Such 
underfunding would require the Army to reduce end strength by 
at least 20,000, unless the Army can find internal savings and 
efficiencies to buy back the manpower. The committee finds such 
a strategy as unrealistic because it would require, by 
Congressional Budget Office estimates, the Army to find savings 
in excess of $770 million over two years. Therefore, in an 
effort to provide Congress a full opportunity to examine the 
rationale for any end strength reductions below the BUR levels, 
this section would require that annual defense budget requests 
submitted to Congress must provide at least enough funding to 
maintain the minimum active end strengths prescribed in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public 
Law 104-106). In addition, no funds appropriated to the 
Department of Defense could be used to implement a reduction in 
the mandated end strengths unless specifically authorized by 
law.
    Section 403--Authorized Strengths for Commissioned Officers on 
ActiveDuty in Grades of Major, Lieutenant Colonel, and Colonel and Navy 
         Grades of Lieutenant Commander, Commander, and Captain
    The President's budget request included a provision that 
would modify section 523 of title 10, United States Code to 
raise the grade ceilings of active duty Army, Air Force, and 
Marine Corps majors and lieutenant colonels and active duty 
Navy lieutenant commanders, commanders, and captains relative 
to the total number of commissioned officers on active duty. 
The committee recognizes that there has been an increase in 
requirements for officers in grades 0-4, 0-5, and 0-6 since the 
tables were implemented in 1980. Further, the committee notes 
that the increase in officer requirements, when coupled with 
the force reductions since 1990, has limited the ability of 
services to comply with statutory requirements for promotion 
timing and opportunity rates.
    Sections 402 and 403 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337) authorized the 
Army and the Marine Corps, respectively, to temporarily vary 
from end strength limitations for majors and lieutenant 
colonels. Similarly, section 402 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) 
authorized the Navy and the Air Force to vary from end strength 
limitations for lieutenant commanders, commanders, and 
captains, in the case of the Navy, and majors and lieutenant 
colonels, in the case of the Air Force.
    This section would permanently raise the grade ceilings of 
active duty Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps majors and 
lieutenant colonels and active duty Navy lieutenant commanders, 
commanders, and captains relative to the total number of 
commissioned officers on active duty, as requested by the 
President.
                       Subtitle B--Reserve Forces
            Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve
    This section would authorize selected reserve end strengths 
as indicated in the table below:
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
 Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in Support of 
                              the Reserves
    This section would authorize the end strengths of reserves 
on active duty in support of the reserves as indicated in the 
table below. These end strengths are included within the total 
end strengths authorized for the selected reserve above.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
          Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians
    This section would authorize military technician end 
strength as indicated in the table below:
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
    The committee notes that the above authorizations include 
both dual-status and single-status technicians. As redefined in 
section 1214 of this act, only those federal civilian employees 
hired under title 5 or 32, United States Code, who are required 
to maintain a dual status as drilling reserve component members 
as a condition of their federal employment shall henceforward 
be considered military technicians for the purpose of annual 
authorizations. Thus, this section would also require the 
Secretary of Defense to provide in subsequent annual budget 
requests military technician end strengths that delineate the 
numbers of both single- and dual-status technicians. Subsequent 
military technician authorizations and floors shall only be 
based on the number of dual status technicians.
              Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations
  Section 421--Authorization of Appropriations for Military Personnel
    This section would authorize $70,206 million to be 
appropriated for military personnel, an increase of $423.2 
million from the budget request.
                   TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
        Collection of Comparison Data on Gender-Neutral Training
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 
(Public Law 103-160) required the Secretary of Defense to 
ensure that entrance into any military occupational career open 
to both men and women be evaluated on the basis of common, 
relevant performance standards without different standards or 
evaluation on the basis of gender. Congressional concern 
focused then, and continues to focus, on the question of 
whether standards are being reduced in order to move women into 
roles that traditionally have been closed to them.
    In response to growing Congressional concerns about 
maintaining adequate performance standards to ensure the safe 
and effective accomplishment of demanding combat or combat-
related missions only recently opened to women, the committee 
requested the Comptroller General of the United States to 
assist in determining how the increasing role of women is being 
managed by each of the services. Unfortunately, efforts to 
evaluate the services' use of gender-neutral performance 
standards and the effectiveness of coed basic training have 
been hindered by the Department of Defense and each of the 
services' substantial lack of comparison data. The dearth of 
information is so significant it almost implies an intention to 
dissuade comparison of the performance of integrated units with 
those of non-integrated units.
    In response to the concerns raised by the services' 
apparent lack of efforts to collect effective data to support 
their contentions that training standards have not been 
compromised, the committee directs Secretary of Defense to 
establish uniform requirements for collecting and evaluating 
data on the performance of recently integrated units, coed 
basic training and aviation training. To facilitate comparison 
between integrated and non-integrated units, the information 
collected shall include performance data on non-integrated 
training and operational units.
      Guidance to Commanders on Unexplained Absences of Personnel
    The committee is concerned that unit commanders are not 
routinely seeking the assistance of professional criminal 
investigators when evaluating the circumstances surrounding 
unexplained absences of service members under their command. 
Particularly in cases in which reliable individuals with 
exemplary service records disappear without explanation, common 
sense would seem to dictate that commanders should do more than 
handle the case administratively as though it were a routine 
unauthorized absence. The committee's investigation suggests 
that unit commanders who fail to involve criminal investigators 
at the beginning of cases in which the circumstances 
surrounding an unexplained disappearance are suspicious run the 
risk of losing important investigative leads and of not 
discovering or preventing criminal activity that could result 
in harm to their subordinates. The committee notes that 
existing regulatory guidance for commanders does not even 
mention the option of enlisting professional investigative help 
for cases of this nature.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review 
the regulations of the Department of Defense and the military 
departments applicable to this problem. The committee further 
directs that the Secretary require, as necessary, amendments to 
those regulations urging commanders to seek the assistance of 
professional criminal investigators when the commander's 
preliminary investigation suggests that a service member's 
absence is inconsistent with the member's prior record or 
behavior, or when the commander does not develop sufficient 
information upon which to make an informed judgment about the 
nature of the absence. Additionally, the committee directs the 
secretaries of the military departments to modify the curricula 
of unit commander training programs to ensure that commanders 
and those selected to become commanders understand the 
importance of seeking professional investigative assistance in 
appropriate cases.
                Increased Funding for Off-Duty Education
    The committee, responding to letters from both the Chief of 
Staff of the Air Force and the Commandant of the Marine Corps 
which identified service funding needs, recommends the addition 
of $4.5 million in off-duty education funds for the U.S. Marine 
Corps, and $9.5 million in tuition assistance for the U.S. Air 
Force.
                    Increased Funding for Recruiting
    For the last several years, the committee has taken a range 
of action, including substantial increases over the requested 
amounts for recruiting advertising funds, to improve the 
ability of the military services to recruit quality people in 
sufficient numbers. The committee attributes the ability of the 
services to meet recruiting goals in a very difficult market in 
no small part to increased advertising that has helped to 
mitigate the public perception that the military was no longer 
hiring. Nevertheless, the committee believes a targeted effort 
is required to address areas of concern conveyed to the 
committee by the services. Therefore, the committee directs the 
Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Navy to increase 
funding for recruiting and advertising above the amount 
requested in the President's budget by $11 million for the U.S. 
Army Reserve and by $4.7 million for the U.S. Marine Corps, 
respectively.
          Minority Representation in Special Operations Forces
    The committee is aware that there may be a significant 
under-representation of minorities in certain areas of the 
special operations forces of the Department of Defense. The 
committee desires to understand better the reasons for and 
implications of any under-representation. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to assess the racial 
representation, both officer and enlisted, in the special 
operations forces of each of the military departments. In 
addition, if the Secretary determines that a significant racial 
imbalance exists, the committee directs the Secretary to report 
the reasons for the imbalance to the Congress, together with a 
plan to correct the imbalance.
                       New Parent Support Program
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 
(Public Law 104-106) added $25.6 million to fund the New Parent 
Support Program (NPSP). The statement of managers accompanying 
the conference report (H. Rept. 104-450) on the act explained 
that the conferees took this action because they ``consider the 
. . . NPSP critical to the readiness and retention of quality 
people.'' The statement of mangers also stated that, ``if the 
Department or a service attempt to reduce, divert, or reprogram 
the . . . NPSP funding for some other purpose, the conferees 
would consider such an action to be in direct contravention of 
congressional intent.'' Despite this unequivocal guidance, the 
committee understands that the Secretary of Defense reduced 
NPSP funding as part of internal Department reprogramming 
efforts. Moreover, the fiscal year 1997 budget request 
contained no funding for the NPSP.
    Both these actions show contempt for Congressional intent, 
and help to highlight the inability of the Department 
leadership, in the face of inadequate defense budgets, to 
fulfill promises to protect the quality of life of service 
members and their families. To correct the funding shortfall, 
the committee authorizes an increase of $20 million for NPSP, 
and directs that it be allocated as follows: Army, $7.8 
million; Navy, $5.5 million; Marine Corps, $2.9 million; Air 
Force, $3.8 million. In addition, the committee unequivocally 
restates its previous position that the NPSP funds shall not be 
diverted, reduced or reprogrammed and strongly urges the 
Department not to allow another violation of Congressional 
intent.
                            Personnel Tempo
    The committee is concerned that marked increases in the 
time key units are spending away from home on deployments--
commonly called PERSTEMPO--is undermining morale and readiness. 
In testimony before the committee, General Dennis J. Reimer, 
Chief of Staff, United States Army, stated ``Excessive time 
away from home is often cited by quality professionals as the 
reason for their decision to leave the military. . . .'' Yet, 
recent reports by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the 
Defense Science Board Task Force on Quality of Life found that 
Department of Defense (DOD) systems are not adequate to measure 
PERSTEMPO's full scope and impact, and DOD does not have a 
clear policy to provide the guidance needed for its long term 
management.
    For example, unit officials and combatant commanders in 
chief told GAO that while many personnel were coping with the 
divorces, missed birthdays and holidays, and other hardships, 
some may have reached their saturation point. Any further 
increases in PERSTEMPO could create significant retention, 
substance abuse, and family problems. In addition, DOD 
officials acknowledged that many commanders believed that 
turning down deployments would reflect negatively on their 
units and/or their own careers, and others may have been 
competing for deployments to underscore the value of their 
units during the current drawdown. However, these concerns 
generally did not manifest themselves in the statistics GAO 
reviewed. Many of the statistics DOD compiles are not useful 
for analyzing the impact of PERSTEMPO on high-deploying units 
because they are not collected consistently across the services 
or are compiled only at major command levels. Similarly, while 
DOD has taken a number of actions to study and mitigate the 
impact of high PERSTEMPO, it has not directed the services to 
have goals or policies to limit PERSTEMPO, and the services--
with the exception of the Navy--have no clear regulations on 
this issue. There is also no DOD-wide definition of a 
deployment, and credit for deployments is granted 
inconsistently across the services.
    These reports provided a variety of recommendations. For 
example, the Defense Science Board recommended that DOD issue a 
single, simple formula for counting deployed time: one day away 
equals one day away. GAO recommended that DOD develop the data 
needed to improve its research on the effects of PERSTEMPO, and 
issue regulations to guide service management of PERSTEMPO, 
including whether each service should have goals or policies 
stipulating the maximum amount of time units and/or personnel 
may be deployed. DOD's position on many of these issues is not 
clear to the committee. Accordingly, 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 
policies DOD plans to establish to better monitor and manage 
high PERSTEMPO, no later than December 31, 1996.
             Reduction in Permanent Change of Station Moves
    The committee is encouraged that each of services has 
conducted in-depth analyses of their respective permanent 
change of station (PCS) programs and launched independent 
initiatives to reduce the number of PCS moves. The committee 
believes that a reduction in PCS moves will not only reduce 
military personnel costs, but will also enhance morale by 
increasing stability in the force that would be much welcome to 
service members and their families. The committee was most 
impressed with the Navy's program to encourage sailors to 
homestead at locations where the service member can serve more 
than one tour of duty. The committee also believes that the 
Secretary of Defense should take action to develop and manage a 
joint service program to share information about initiatives 
that successfully reduce the number of PCS moves.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to consolidate military service data on efforts to reduce the 
number of PCS moves and to study the feasibility of developing 
a joint system to share information about initiatives that 
successfully reduce the number of PCS moves. The committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to report the consolidated 
data and the findings of the feasibility study to the Congress 
not later than September 30, 1997.
    The Secretary is also directed to include in the report 
information on locations within the contiguous United States 
where service members are mandatorily moved after a specified 
maximum tour. The committee is concerned that such maximum 
tours detract from efforts to reduce the number of PCS moves 
and stabilize the force. For example, the committee is aware of 
service policies that require members to leave the Washington 
D.C. region after a specified tour has been served. The report 
should identify locations and units with maximum tours and 
provide the rationale to support such tours.
            Report on Sentence Enhancements for Hate Crimes
    The committee has concerns regarding crimes against persons 
or property committed in the military motivated by the victim's 
status as categorized by the Hate Crimes Statistics Act (Public 
Law 101-275). The U.S. Supreme Court, in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 
ruled that in the case of a crime where the person or property 
was intentionally selected because of the victim's status or 
the status of the owner or occupant of a property, the sentence 
for the underlying crime may be enhanced.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study the 
efficacy of sentence enhancement as it would apply to service 
members if such enhancements as allowed under Wisconsin v. 
Mitchell were incorporated into the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice, and to submit to Congress the results of this study no 
later than February 1, 1997.
        Retention Standards for Permanent Medical Nondeployables
    The committee notes that there are considerable differences 
in the retention standards for permanent medical nondeployables 
employed by the military departments for medical conditions 
other than HIV-positive status. Of the 5,734 permanent medical 
nondeployables currently serving on active duty (other than 
HIV) reported to the committee in June 1995, only 237 (4 
percent) were assigned to the Navy and Marine Corps. Of the 
remaining 5,497, 1,883 (33 percent) were on active duty in the 
Air Force and 3,614 (63 percent) were on active duty in the 
Army. The committee is very concerned that the differences in 
retention standards demonstrated by these statistics is 
creating inequities as to the treatment of similarly situated 
service members and their families.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense, in coordination with the secretaries of the military 
departments, to study the retention standards being employed by 
the military departments and report the results of the study to 
the Congress not later than March 31, 1997. The report shall, 
at a minimum, address the differences in retention standards, 
the reasons given by the military departments to justify the 
differences, an assessment of the scope of inequitable 
treatment of service members by the military departments, and 
the position of the Secretary of Defense regarding his 
willingness to continue to allow the services to employ 
different retention standards for permanent medical 
nondeployables.
 Survey of Attitudes Towards Expansion of Roles of Women in Combat and 
                     Combat Related Military Skills
    The committee believes that before the Secretary of Defense 
undertakes any further attempts to move women into new direct 
ground combat specialties, to which they have not heretofore 
been permitted, the impact of such an effort should be 
thoroughly evaluated. Therefore, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to obtain an independent study on this 
impact by a federally funded research and development center 
(FFRDC) and to report the results of this study to Congress by 
March 1, 1997.
    The study shall include, but not be limited to, a written, 
anonymous survey based on a statistically-valid sample of all 
military personnel, including company grade officers, field 
grade officers and senior non-commissioned officers in both 
direct ground combat units such as infantry, armor, artillery, 
special operations and combat engineering, and combat support 
units to assess the potential impact of assigning women to 
combat and other specialties traditionally closed to them. The 
study should address the impact of such an effort on unit 
readiness, cohesion, morale, recruiting and retention.
    Furthermore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to report to the Congressional defense committees by January 1, 
1997, on the Department's plans to advance the assignment of 
women in direct-combat and direct-combat support roles, and 
report on the rationale of excluding ``risk of capture'' as a 
criteria for determining assignment of women to both combat and 
non-combat positions.
    The committee also directs the Secretary to obtain an 
independent study by an FFRDC evaluating the performance of 
each military service in integrating women into military 
occupations previously closed until the enactment of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1992 (Public 
Law 102-190), the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160), and the Secretary's January 
1994 action rescinding the Department's ``risk rules'' 
governing the assignment of women to non-combat military 
positions.
    As part of the study, the FFRDC shall evaluate the effect 
on defense readiness and morale of integrating women into 
newly-opened occupations and positions as well as factors 
affecting the pace at which the military services are 
integrating women.
    The Secretary shall report to the Congressional defense 
committees on the finding of this study no later than March 1, 
1997.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
                    Subtitle A--Personnel Management
 Section 501--Authorization for Senior Enlisted Members to Reenlistfor 
                      an Indefinite Period of Time
    Currently, title 10, United States Code, authorizes the 
service secretaries to periodically reenlist military 
personnel, including senior non-commissioned officers (NCO) for 
periods of at least two but not more than six years. Thus, 
several reenlistments are necessary to complete a 20-year or 
longer career. This section would permit the secretaries of the 
military departments to reenlist NCOs with 10 or more years of 
service for indefinite periods of time.
  Section 502--Authority to Extend Entry on Active Duty Under Delayed 
                             Entry Program
    At present, the secretaries of the military departments can 
the delay for up to a year the entry to active duty of a person 
who has signed an enlistment contract. Thus, the Delayed Entry 
Program typically permits high school students to be contracted 
at the end of their junior year and to enter active duty upon 
graduation from high school. If for some reason (delay in 
graduation, for example) active duty entry is delayed beyond 
one year, the enlistment contract must be renegotiated. This 
section would permit the secretaries of the military 
departments, on a case-by-case basis, to extend to 18 months 
the maximum period that a person can remain in the Delayed 
Entry Program.
 Section 503--Permanent Authority for Navy Spot Promotions for Certain 
                              Lieutenants
    This section would make permanent the authority for the 
Navy to temporarily promote certain lieutenants in skills for 
which there is a shortage of qualified officers.
    Section 504--Reports on Response to Recommendations Concerning 
      Improvements to Department of Defense Joint Manpower Process
    In November 1995, the Department of Defense Inspector 
General issued a highly critical report as a result of its 
inspection of the Department of Defense joint manpower process. 
The report raised serious questions regarding the department's 
ability to effectively determine, validate, approve and manage 
military and civilian manpower requirements and resources in 
joint organizations. The section would require the Secretary of 
Defense to provide a semi-annual report to Congress on the 
status of actions taken to implement the Inspector General 
recommendations. The section would also require that the 
General Accounting Office assess the adequacy and completeness 
of the Department's corrective actions and report to Congress 
not later than one year after enactment of this act.
    Section 505--Frequency of Reports to Congress on Joint Officer 
                          Management Policies
    The current provisions of the Goldwater-Nichols Department 
of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-433), 
require the Secretary of Defense to make semi-annual reports to 
Congress on promotion rates of officers who are serving in, or 
have served in, joint duty assignments. This section would 
amend the requirement so as to provide for an annual report.
    The committee notes that this change implements a 
recommendation of the Department of Defense Inspector General 
contained in a November 1995 report on the joint officer 
management process. That report also found that the Secretary 
of Defense, starting with the fiscal year 1993 report on joint 
officer promotions, had discontinued providing complete 
promotion statistics for all categories of officers as required 
by the law. The committee directs that, beginning with the 
first annual report under the revised requirement, the 
Secretary of Defense report the full range of data required by 
law.
   Section 506--Repeal of Requirement That Commissioned Officers Be 
                 Initially Appointed in a Reserve Grade
    This section would remove the barrier to officers receiving 
initial appointments in the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular 
Air Force and Regular Marine Corps by repealing subsection (e) 
of section 532 of title 10, United States Code as added by 
section 501 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993.
Section 507--Continuation on Active Status for Certain Reserve Officers 
                            of the Air Force
    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force 
to retain beyond dates of mandatory retirement for years of 
service up to 50 reserve officers who are designated judge 
advocates. This authority would expire on September 30, 2003.
                 Subtitle B--Reserve Component Matters
       Section 511--Individual Ready Reserve Activation Authority
    Under current law the President may involuntarily recall to 
active duty, at times other than during war or national 
emergency, up to 200,000 reservists for up to 270 days from 
units of the Selected Reserve. This authority is known as the 
Presidential Selective Reserve Call-up (PSRC). However, under 
PSRC, individuals who are members of the Individual Ready 
Reserve (IRR) cannot be recalled to active duty.
    During Operation Desert Storm, the lack of authority to 
recall members of the IRR as part of the PSRC compelled the 
mobilization of portions of late-deploying selected reserve 
units in order to fill manpower shortfalls in early deploying 
units. This strategy had two major disadvantages. First, unit 
cohesion of the later deploying units was damaged. Second, the 
military services, particularly the Army, faced the significant 
challenge of having to rebuild the late deploying units upon 
their mobilization.
    This section would build on the lessons learned from 
Operation Desert Storm by authorizing the President, under 
PSRC, to recall up to 30,000 members of a new category of the 
IRR that would be created by this section. The new category of 
the IRR would consist of those personnel, in the military 
skills and occupations designated by the Secretary of Defense, 
who had volunteered prior to leaving active duty to become part 
of this new IRR category. Such volunteers could remain in the 
new IRR category for no longer than 24 months and could be 
provided such benefits (less pay and training) as the Secretary 
of Defense deemed appropriate.
  Section 512--Training for Reserves on Active Duty in Support of the 
                                Reserves
    This section would clarify that a reservist on active duty 
in support of the reserves may receive training and 
professional development in the same manner as any other member 
on active duty. Current law limits such a reservist to only 
receiving periodic refresher training.
       Section 513--Clarification to Definition of Active Status
    This section would expand the definition of the term 
``active status'' in section 101(d)(4) of title 10, United 
States Code to include both officers and enlisted members of 
the reserve components.
        Section 514--Appointment Above O-2 in the Naval Reserve
    This section would permit members of the Naval Reserve who 
are selected for commissioned service as part of the Seaman to 
Admiral Program to be promoted above the grade of lieutenant 
(junior grade) even though they have not completed the 
baccalaureate degree requirements which normally must be met by 
the time Naval Reserve officers are considered for promotion to 
lieutenant (O-3).
 Section 515--Report on Number of Advisers in Active Component Support 
                       of Reserves Pilot Program
    Section 414 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-190), as amended, 
requires the Secretary of the Army, after September 30, 1996, 
to assign no fewer than 5,000 active component advisors to the 
reserve components. This section would require the Secretary of 
Defense to determine the appropriate number of active component 
advisors and recommend changes to Congress.
Section 516--Sense of Congress and Report Regarding Reemployment Rights 
         for Mobilized Reservists Employed in Foreign Countries
    Approximately 2,000 members of the U.S. reserve components 
now live in foreign countries and work for U.S. or foreign 
companies. If mobilized, these people would not qualify for the 
reemployment rights extended to other mobilized reservists by 
chapter 43 of title 38, United States Code, known as the 
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. This 
section would express the sense of Congress about the lack of 
reemployment rights facing these reservists and direct the 
Secretary of Defense, together with the Secretaries of State 
and Labor, to provide the Congress with recommendations to 
alleviate the reemployment problems of this group of 
reservists.
Subtitle C--Jurisdiction and Powers of Courts-Martial for the National 
                   Guard When Not in Federal Service
Section 531--Composition, Jurisdiction and Procedures of Courts-martial
    This section would amend section 326 of title 32, United 
States Code, to clarify the composition, jurisdiction and 
procedures of courts-martial for the National Guard when those 
components are not in federal service. This section would 
clarify that such courts-martial do not have jurisdiction over 
service members who may be tried pursuant to section 802 of 
title 10, United States Code. National Guard courts-martial 
would be required to substantially follow the forms and 
procedures required in courts-martial in the active components. 
Finally, this section would clarify that the jurisdiction and 
powers of National Guard courts-martial not in federal service 
are established by state law.
                  Section 532--General Courts-martial
    This section would amend section 327 of title 32, United 
States Code, to provide for the convening of a general court-
martial for the National Guard not in federal service in a 
manner more like courts-martial conducted in the active 
components. State adjutants-general, in addition to the 
President and state and territorial governors, would be 
authorized to convene general courts-martial. In addition, 
punishments that could be imposed by such courts-martial would 
be modernized to increase authorized fines, allow bad conduct 
discharges to be adjudged, clarify that all enlisted personnel 
may be reduced in rank by a general court-martial, and allow 
confinement for not more than 180 days to be adjudged. Finally, 
this section would authorize the adjudication of punitive 
discharge only in cases in which counsel was detailed to 
represent the accused and a military judge was detailed to the 
trial. As is the case in courts-martial conducted pursuant to 
title 10, United States Code, a verbatim record of trial would 
be required in cases in which the adjudged sentence includes a 
punitive discharge.
                  Section 533--Special Courts-Martial
    This section would amend section 328 of title 32, United 
States Code, to modernize the punishments that may be imposed 
by National Guard special courts-martial conducted when those 
components are not in federal service. In addition, this 
section would clarify that these special courts-martial may try 
a commissioned officer. Finally, this section would incorporate 
the same requirements for the imposition of a National Guard 
bad conduct discharge as is the case for those adjudicated by 
active component special courts-martial.
                  Section 534--Summary Courts-Martial
    This section would amend section 329 of title 32, United 
States Code, to modernize the punishment authority of summary 
courts-martial conducted by the National Guard when those 
components are not in federal service. The limit on fines that 
may be imposed by these courts-martial would be increased. In 
addition, this section would clarify that all enlisted members, 
not just noncommissioned officers, may be reduced in rank and 
that a summary court-martial may not try a commissioned 
officer. As is the case with respect to summary courts-martial 
convened under title 10, United States Code, an accused would 
have the right to object to trial by summary court-martial. In 
that event, a special or general court-martial could be 
convened.
    Section 535--Repeal of Authority for Confinement in Lieu of Fine
    This section would repeal section 330 of title 32, United 
States Code. That section permits a court-martial to sentence 
an accused to confinement in lieu of a fine at the rate of one 
day for each dollar of the authorized fine. This procedure is 
obsolete and does not comport with modern court-martial 
practice.
     Section 536--Approval of Sentence of Bad Conduct Discharge or 
                              Confinement
    Section 536 would amend section 331 of title 32, United 
States Code, by adding a requirement that the governor of a 
state or territory approve a sentence that includes a bad 
conduct discharge or confinement of three months or more before 
that sentence may be executed. Under current law, governors 
approve only sentences that include a dismissal or dishonorable 
discharge.
               Section 537--Authority of Military Judges
    This section would amend section 332 of title 32, United 
States Code, to authorize military judges to compel the 
attendance of the accused, witnesses, or the production of 
documents at National Guard courts-martial. Current law vests 
this authority only in the president of a court-martial or a 
summary court officer. The inclusion of military judges is 
consistent with modern court-martial practice.
                 Section 538--Statutory Reorganization
    This section would administratively reorganize title 32, 
United States Code, by creating a new Chapter 4 of that title. 
Chapter 4, titled Courts-Martial for the National Guard when 
not in Federal Service, would consolidate all those sections of 
title 32 related to the military justice process for the 
National Guard into a single chapter, making reference and use 
by practitioners easier.
                      Section 539--Effective Date
    This section would cause the amendments made by this 
subtitle to be effective upon the date of enactment of this 
Act, except that for an offense committed before that date, the 
maximum punishment would be the maximum punishment in effect at 
the time of the commission of the offense.
 Section 540--Conforming Amendments to Uniform Code of Military Justice
    This section would make a clarifying amendment to sections 
820 and 854 of title 10, United States Code.
              Subtitle D--Education and Training Programs
  Section 551--Extension of Maximum Age for Appointment as a Cadet or 
   Midshipman in the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps and the 
                           Service Academies
    This section would increase the maximum age for appointment 
in the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC), 
permitting the appointment of persons under 27 years of age 
(vice under-25 years of age). The section would also permit 
former enlisted members who had served on active duty to be 
appointed in the Senior ROTC program even though they were 
older than 27, so long as on the date of their commissioning 
they would be under 30 years of age. Current law requires such 
persons to be under 29 when commissioned.
    With regard to the service academies, this section would 
increase the maximum allowable age at entry from 22 to 23.
   Section 552--Oversight and Management of Senior Reserve Officers' 
                         Training Corps Program
    This section would clarify existing law with regard to the 
operation of Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) 
programs. It would give priority for enrollment in ROTC to 
students who were qualified for advanced training, and would 
prohibit anyone who was ineligible for advanced training from 
participating in practical military training, field training, 
or practice cruises, unless the ineligibility was waived by the 
service secretary. The section would also permit civilians 
attending ROTC or other course of military instruction to wear 
military uniforms only when the individual service regulations 
specifically authorize such wear.
  Section 553--ROTC Scholarship Student Participation in Simultaneous 
                           Membership Program
    This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a program to permit ROTC scholarship cadets to serve 
simultaneously as a member of a Selected Reserve unit. At 
present, such simultaneous membership is precluded by 
Department policy.
  Section 554--Expansion of ROTC Advanced Training Program to Include 
                           Graduate Students
    This section would modify section 2107, title 10, United 
States Code, to permit the initial award of Reserve Officers' 
Training Corps (ROTC) scholarships to people who already have 
received a baccalaureate degree, provided the recipient 
executes the required contractual commitments, including 
enrollment in the ROTC advanced course.
    Section 555--Reserve Credit for Members of Armed Forces Health 
        Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program
    This section would amend title 10, United States Code, to 
provide discretionary authority to the secretaries of the 
military departments to award service credit toward a non-
regular retirement for certain members of the armed forces 
health professions scholarship and financial assistance 
programs.
Section 556--Expansion of Eligibility for Education Benefits to Include 
      Certain Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) Participants
    This section would expand the eligibility for the 
Montgomery GI Bill education benefits to include ROTC 
scholarship students who received scholarships with values of 
less than $2,000 annually.
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
    This section would require the Comptroller General to 
analyze and report to Congress the cost and policy implications 
of requiring that up to five percent of the graduating class of 
each of the service academies to serve in the reserve 
components, and that there be a corresponding increase in the 
number of ROTC graduates each year placed on active duty.
                       Subtitle E--Other Matters
                Section 561--Hate Crimes in the Military
    This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to 
require each of the military services to conduct human 
relations training designed to promote a thorough awareness of 
equal opportunity issues, as well as a sensitivity to ``hate 
group'' activity. It would also require the Secretary to ensure 
that prospective recruits, both officer and enlisted, 
understand the full implications of the oath of office or oath 
of enlistment in terms of the equal protection and civil 
liberties protection of the Constitution. Finally, this section 
would require the Secretary to conduct an annual survey on race 
relations, gender discrimination and hate group activity.
 Section 562--Authority of a Reserve Judge Advocate To Act as a Notary 
                                 Public
    This section would amend section 1044a of title 10, United 
States Code, to authorize all judge advocates of the military 
services, adjutants, assistant adjutants, and other service 
members designated by regulation to act as notaries public, 
without regard to whether they are on active duty or are 
performing inactive duty for training. Under current law, 
reserve component judge advocates and other authorized 
personnel such as adjutants do not have the general powers of a 
notary public unless they are on active duty or are performing 
inactive duty for training. However, National Guard and reserve 
judge advocates frequently are asked to perform notarial acts, 
both on and off duty, in preparing other reserve component 
service members for mobilization or deployment. If civilian 
authorities question a notary's authority or duty status in 
order to assure compliance with section 1044a before accepting 
a power of attorney, will or other notarized document, service 
members often have no way of learning the whereabouts of the 
individual who notarized a document and cannot provide 
information on that person's duty status, resulting in 
rejection of the document. This section would authorize 
appropriate personnel to have the general powers of a notary 
public regardless of duty status, resulting in greater 
uniformity and flexibility among the services and eliminating 
litigation, particularly in cases involving will contests.
  Section 563--Authority to Provide Legal Assistance to Public Health 
                            Service Officers
    This section would amend section 1044 of title 10, United 
States Code, to authorize active duty or retired officers of 
the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service and their 
dependents to be eligible for legal assistance at military 
installations. These individuals perform valuable public 
service and often serve in remote localities such as Indian 
reservations where legal advice on personal affairs may not be 
readily obtained. This section would allow these persons to 
receive legal advice at military bases, subject to the 
availability of legal staff resources.
  Section 564--Excepted Appointment of Certain Judicial Non-Attorney 
    Staff in the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
    This section would amend Article 143(c) of the Uniform Code 
of Military Justice (section 943(c) of title 10, United States 
Code) to allow judges of the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Armed Forces to make excepted service appointments to non-
attorney positions on the personal staff of a judge. Under 
current law, only attorney positions with the court are 
excepted from the competitive service. Non-attorney positions 
established on a judge's personal staff would include such 
positions as confidential assistant, secretary, paralegal, and 
law student intern.
 Section 565--Replacement of Certain American Theater Campaign Ribbons
    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
replace upon request the American Theater Campaign Ribbon 
awarded to certain veterans of World War II
    Section 566--Restoration of Regulations Prohibiting Service of 
                    Homosexuals in the Armed Forces
    This section would rescind the current Department of 
Defense policy and relative directives and regulations 
concerning homosexuality in the armed forces and related 
Department of Defense and military department regulations and 
would reinstate the regulations that were in effect on January 
19, 1993. The provision would also require the Secretary of 
Defense to resume the questioning of potential new entrants 
into the armed forces about homosexuality and would repeal a 
provision included in section 571 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160) 
that expressed the Sense of Congress that the questioning of 
potential new entrants about homosexuality could be resumed 
upon the decision of the Secretary of Defense. The provision 
would also clarify that in the event of a perceived conflict 
between the reinstated regulations and section 654 of title 10, 
United States Code, the provision of law, including application 
of well-settled rules of statutory construction, shall be given 
effect.
    The committee notes that an April 5, 1996 decision by the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the 
case of Paul G. Thomasson, Lieutenant, United States Navy, 
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William J. Perry, Secretary of Defense; 
John H. Dalton, Secretary of the Navy, Defendants-Appellees, 
included a concurring opinion written by Judge Luttig (Five of 
the remaining twelve judges joined Judge Luttig in his 
opinion). The following quotes are taken from Judge Luttig's 
opinion.
           ``Despite Congress' clear mandate requiring the 
        discharge of all known homosexuals, the Department of 
        Defense has, by it regulatory redefinition of the 
        statutory term `propensity,' created what is in effect 
        a sanctuary for known homosexuals whom the military 
        determines are not likely to engage in homosexual 
        acts.''
          ``The requirement that, in order to be discharged, 
        one must at least demonstrate a likelihood to engage in 
        homosexual acts exists only in a regulation promulgated 
        by the Administration, ostensibly in implementation of 
        the statute.''
          ``Through this regulation the Administration has 
        effectively secured the very policy regarding military 
        service by homosexuals that it was denied by the 
        Congress.''
          ``Rather than continue to indulge the politically 
        expedient fiction that the congressionally-mandated 
        policy bars from service only those known homosexuals 
        who are likely to engage in homosexual acts--a fiction 
        that both parties urge upon us because it serves their 
        mutual interest in creating a sanctuary for homosexuals 
        within the military--I would simply invalidate the 
        Administration's regulation as in excess of its 
        statutory authority.''
    The committee believes that Judge Luttig has presented a 
compelling argument to reinstate the regulations that were in 
effect on January 19, 1993. The committee considers the failure 
to reinstate the January 19, 1993 regulations as a betrayal of 
the policy and principles that were so clearly specified by the 
Congress in section 654 of title 10, United States Code.
Section 567--Reenactment and Modification of Mandatory Separation From 
             Service for Members Diagnosed With HIV-1 Virus
    This section would restate, with modifications, section 567 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 
(Public Law 104-106) to require the separation of members 
determined to be HIV-positive. The modifications include the 
following:
          (1) In lieu of requiring separation of HIV-positive 
        service members not later than the last day of the 
        sixth month following determination that the service 
        member is HIV-positive, they would be required to 
        separate not later than the last day of the second 
        month following determination that the service member 
        is HIV-positive.
          (2) In lieu of requiring separation of previously 
        identified HIV-positive service members not later than 
        the last day of the sixth month following the date of 
        enactment of the provision, they would be required to 
        separate not later than the last day of the second 
        month following the date of enactment of the provision.
          (3) In lieu of authorizing the retention of HIV-
        positive service members within two years of retirement 
        eligibility, this provision would require separation of 
        HIV-positive service members with less than 15 years of 
        service as of the date the service member is determined 
        to be HIV-positive.This provision would not address the 
        authority to provide the service member the same 
        medical benefits as would be provided to a member 
        granted a disability retirement.
    The committee recommends separation within 60 days of the 
determination that the service member is HIV-positive because 
such period is more consistent with the separation notice 
provided to many service members who are involuntarily 
separated for other reasons. The committee recommends that 
service members with 15 or more years of service be excluded 
from the requirement to be separated because it would maximize 
the training and experience that these service members possess 
at a point in their careers when the need to deploy is 
generally diminished.
    The committee believes that it is important to provide 
separating HIV-positive service members with the full 
complement of benefits associated with disability retirement. 
In particular, the committee is concerned that separating HIV-
positive service members receive monthly incomes and individual 
and family medical benefits to assist in their transition from 
active duty. The committee believes that the most appropriate 
method for achieving these objectives is to mandate disability 
retirement for separating HIV-positive service members under 
sections 1201 and 1204 of title 10, United States Code. 
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
designate a disability rating of 30 percent for separating HIV-
positive service members, unless the service member is 
otherwise entitled to a higher rating. The committee also 
directs the Secretary of Defense to deem separating service 
members determined to be HIV-positive as meeting all other 
requirements for disability retirement under section 1201 or 
1204 of title 10, United States Code, as applicable to the 
member.
          TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
                    Foreign Language Proficiency Pay
    The committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence both believe in the importance of recruiting and 
maintaining qualified linguists in the military services. The 
committees understand that proficiency pay, tied to achievement 
of agreed upon standards of competence, is an important 
ingredient in the linguistic readiness of both the active and 
reserve components.
    Three years ago, the committee considered, but did not 
adopt, a proposal to increase the maximum monthly amount of 
foreign language proficiency pay to $450 from $150. If 
implemented today, such an increase would cost the Department 
of Defense between $18 million and $24 million, according to 
the Congressional Budget Office. With such a price tag, the 
committee believes that any proficiency pay initiative must be 
incorporated into a comprehensive language program that has the 
necessary recruiting, training, and career development 
infrastructure, as well as the management oversight, to ensure 
any new financial incentives accomplish the intended effect. 
Although there have been positive developments in the 
Department of Defense language programs, the committee believes 
that the programs are not yet mature.
    Should progress continue and should the Secretary of 
Defense propose a comprehensive plan for an increase, including 
credible cost estimates and objective data, the committee will 
be prepared to give it fair consideration. -
 Privately Owned Vehicle Mileage Allowances During Permanent Change of 
                             Station Moves
    The committee is concerned that the mileage allowances set 
by the Administrator of General Services for reimbursement of 
federal civilian employees and military personnel for use of 
privately owned vehicles during permanent change of station 
moves cause most employees to personally absorb a portion of 
the cost of transporting their own vehicle. The committee 
recommends that the rates be increased to more appropriate 
levels such as the rates for use of privately owned vehicles 
accepted by the Internal Revenue Service.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense, in coordination with the Administrator of General 
Services, to study the appropriateness of increasing the rate 
per mile allowance for use of privately owned vehicles in lieu 
of actual expenses during permanent change of station moves. 
The study shall also address the requirement to provide a 
mechanism for the annual increase in the rate to compensate for 
increases in costs caused by inflation. The Secretary of 
Defense shall report the results of the study to the Congress 
not later than the September 30, 1997.
     Special Duty Assignment Pay for Army Special Operating Forces
    The committee understands that the Secretary of the Army 
and the Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command, have 
reached an agreement that will permit, for the first time, 
payment of special duty assignment pay (SDAP) to certain 
enlisted members of U.S. Army Special Operations Command 
beginning in fiscal year 1998. The agreement is contingent upon 
U.S. Army Special Operating Command providing all funding for 
the new payments in fiscal years 1998 through 2003.
    The committee strongly endorses this agreement, believing 
that the Army special operating forces, like the special 
operating forces of the other services, should receive the 
SDAP. Therefore, the committee authorizes a $6.4 million 
increase in the Army's military personnel authorization, and 
directs that the Army begin paying SDAP in fiscal year 1997.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
                     Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances
          Section 601--Military Pay Raise for Fiscal Year 1997
    This section would provide a 3.0 percent military pay raise 
as proposed in the President's budget. The committee welcomes 
the Administration's first request in four years for a pay 
raise that keeps pace with inflation as measured by the 
Employment Cost index. The committee hopes that this request is 
motivated by a genuine concern for the welfare of military 
members and their families and not the enhancement of the 
Administration's image in an election year.
    This committee notes that the President's budget request 
did not include an increase in the Basic Allowance for Quarters 
above the level of the pay raise as was included in the 
President's fiscal year 1996 budget request. The committee is 
disappointed that the Secretary of Defense has elected to defer 
his promise to continue a six year program to incrementally 
reduce out-of-pocket housing expenses for members and families 
from the 20.6 in 1995 to the Congressionally established 
objective of 15 percent. Accordingly, this section would 
provide a 4.6 percent increase in the basic allowance for 
quarters to fully fund a one percent reduction in out-of-pocket 
housing expenses to 18.2 percent in fiscal year 1997.
 Section 602--Availability of Basic Allowance for Quarters for Certain 
            Members Without Dependents Who Serve on Sea Duty
    This section would include the following actions:
          (1) A repeal of the current prohibition against 
        authorizing a single service member continuous basic 
        allowance for quarters and variable housing allowance 
        when they execute a permanent change of station to a 
        unit already deployed at sea.
          (2) An authorization for quarters ashore or basic 
        allowance for quarters for service members in the grade 
        of E-5 without dependents while they are assigned to 
        sea duty.
          (3) An authorization for the senior member of a 
        married couple comprised of two military members to 
        receive basic allowance for quarters at the without 
        dependents rate when both service members are assigned 
        to sea duty.
   Section 603--Establishment of Minimum Monthly Amount of Variable 
             Housing Allowance for High Housing Cost Areas
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a minimum amount of variable housing allowance to 
ensure all members are compensated at a level that is 
sufficient to acquire safe and adequate housing in high cost 
areas.
           Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays
      Section 611--Extension of Certain Bonuses for Reserve Forces
    This section would extend the authority for the selected 
reserve reenlistment bonus, the selected reserve enlistment 
bonus, the selected reserve affiliation bonus, the ready 
reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus, and the prior 
service enlistment bonus until September 30, 1998.
  Section 612--Extension of Certain Bonuses and Special Pay for Nurse 
     Officer Candidates, Registered Nurses, and Nurse Anesthetists
    This section would extend the authority for the nurse 
officer candidate accession program, the accession bonus for 
registered nurses, and the incentive special pay for nurse 
anesthetists until September 30, 1998.
   Section 613--Extension of Authority Relating to Payment of Other 
                        Bonuses and Special Pays
    This section would extend the authority for the aviation 
officer retention bonus, special pay for health care 
professionals who serve in the selected reserve in critically 
short wartime specialties, reenlistment bonus for active 
members, enlistment bonuses for critical skills, special pay 
for enlisted members of the selected reserve assigned to 
certain high priority units, special pay for nuclear qualified 
officers extending the period of active service, and nuclear 
career accession bonus. The provision would also extend the 
authority for repayment of educational loans for certain health 
professionals who serve in the selected reserve and the nuclear 
career annual incentive bonus until October 1, 1998.
 Section 614--Special Incentives to Recruit and Retain Dental Officers
    This section would amend title 37, United States Code, to 
increase the amount of special pay for dental officers, to 
establish an entitlement to special pay for reserve dental 
officers consistent with special pay entitlements for 
physicians, and to establish an accession bonus for dental 
officers. Additionally, this section would require the 
Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on the feasibility 
of increasing dental participation in the Armed Forces Health 
Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program.
    The military services continue to have severe problems with 
retention and recruitment of dentists. The significant decrease 
in retention, especially in the first 10 years of service, has 
occurred due to the steady decline in their military 
compensation relative to civilian earnings. In 1986, dentist 
earnings ratio (military/civilian) was 68 percent and retention 
through the first 10 years was 42 percent. By 1994, the ratio 
decline to 49 percent and retention is now 32 percent. 
Concurrently, recruitment has dropped from 75 percent to 38 
percent attainment.
    Furthermore, prior to 1980, dentists serving in the 
military reserves received a prorated portion of ``special 
pay'' when performing annual training (AT), active duty for 
training (ADT), or active duty for special work (ADSW). 
However, at the present time, reserve dentists can only receive 
special pay if called to active duty for more than 30 
consecutive days. Reserve physicians currently receive special 
pay when on AT, ADT or ADSW. Without this provision, authorized 
billets for reserve dentists will continue to be unfilled.
            Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances
 Section 621--Temporary Lodging Expenses of Member in Connection With 
                   First Permanent Change of Station
    The temporary lodging expense allowance partially offsets 
the cost of temporary lodging, meals, and incidental expenses 
for members and their families arriving at a new duty station. 
Currently, service members traveling to their first permanent 
duty station are not authorized to receive temporary lodging 
expense allowance. This section would authorize service members 
traveling to their first permanent duty station to receive a 
temporary lodging expense allowance.
  Section 622--Allowance in Connection With Shipping Motor Vehicle at 
                           Government Expense
    Current law only authorizes service members an allowance to 
reimburse the cost for one leg of a trip to either deliver a 
privately owned vehicle for transportation at a port of 
embarkation or to pick up a vehicle at a port of debarkation. 
This section would authorize an allowance to reimburse members 
for round-trip costs that are incurred in delivering a vehicle 
for transportation or picking up a vehicle after 
transportation.
Section 623--Dislocation Allowance at a Rate Equal to Two and One-Half 
                  Months Basic Allowance for Quarters
    This section would increase the amount of dislocation 
allowance paid to service members to partially offset otherwise 
non-reimbursable costs incurred during permanent change of 
station moves from two months of basic allowance for quarters 
to two and one half months basic allowance for quarters.
 Section 624--Allowance for Travel Performed in Connection With Leave 
                   Between Consecutive Overseas Tours
    This section would authorize service members assigned to 
critical operational missions, as determined by the secretary 
concerned, to defer government funded travel between 
consecutive overseas assignments until one year after their 
assignment to the critical operational mission is terminated. 
The committee is concerned that this provision apply to service 
members serving in the Former Yugoslavia during Operation Joint 
Endeavor. Accordingly, the provision would apply to members of 
the uniformed services participating, on or after November 1, 
1995, in critical operational missions designated by the 
Secretary of Defense.
    Subtitle D--Retired Pay, Survivor Benefits, and Related Matters
Section 631--Increase in Annual Limit on Days of Inactive Duty Training 
                 Creditable Towards Reserve Retirement
    Current law now limits the annual amount of retirement 
points that a reservist can earn as a result of inactive 
training to 60. In 1988, the Department of Defense's Sixth 
Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC) determined 
that at least 95 percent of the members in the selected reserve 
lose at least three points per year because of the 60 point 
limit. The sixth QRMC recommended that the annual limit be 
increased to 75. This section would implement that 
recommendation. In addition, it would direct the Secretary of 
Defense to evaluate the other recommendations of the sixth QRMC 
and to report to Congress with regard to their adoption.
 Section 632--Authority for Retirement in Grade in Which a Member Has 
   Been Selected for Promotion When a Physical Disability Intervenes
    This section would permit service members who have been 
selected for promotion to the next higher grade to be retired 
at that higher grade if a physical disability that intervenes 
between selection for promotion and retirement is the only 
reason preventing eventual promotion.
Section 633--Eligibility for Reserve Disability Retirement for Reserves 
   Injured While Away From Home Overnight for Inactive-Duty Training
    Section 702 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) authorized for reservists 
the same death and disability benefits as active duty members 
during off-duty periods between successive inactive duty 
training periods performed at locations outside the reasonable 
commuting distance from the member's residence. This section 
would authorize disability retirement benefits to reservists 
serving under the same conditions as those defined in the 
section cited above.
  Section 634--Retirement of Reserve Enlisted Members Who Qualify for 
  Active Duty Retirement After Administrative Reductions in Enlisted 
                                 Grade
    This section would permit a reserve enlisted member who 
qualifies for an active duty retirement and who is reduced in 
grade for reasons other than misconduct to retire in the 
highest enlisted grade held. Such a person's retired pay would 
be based on the highest grade held, rather than the base pay of 
the lower grade held at retirement.
  Section 635--Clarification of Initial Computation of Retiree Colas 
                            After Retirement
    This section would make a technical correction to the 
method used to calculate the initial cost-of-living adjustment 
for new retirees whose retirement pay was calculated using the 
average of the highest 36 months of basic pay.
  Section 636--Technical Correction to Prior Authority for Payment of 
                      Back Pay to Certain Persons
    This section would make a technical correction to section 
634 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1996 (Public Law 104-106) to clarify the level of compensation 
to be paid to certain veterans.
   Section 637--Amendments to the Uniformed Services Former Spouses' 
                             Protection Act
    This section would amend the Uniformed Services Former 
Spouses' Protection Act (Public Law 97-252) to simplify the 
processing of court orders related to retirement pay by 
allowing court orders to be delivered by facsimile, electronic 
transmission, or by mail instead of only by certified mail or 
registered letter, or in person. The section would also clarify 
that the Secretary of Defense could not accept a court order 
from a state that modifies a previous court order from another 
state unless the court issuing the modifying court order has 
jurisdiction over both the military member and the spouse or 
former spouse.
 Section 638--Administration of Benefits for So-Called Minimum Income 
                                 Widows
    The committee has noted that payments to widows of military 
retirees under the minimum income widows program have been 
disrupted because of difficulty in coordinating minimum income 
widows program payments from the Department of Defense with 
payments from pension programs for widows of veterans paid by 
the Department of Veterans' Affairs.
    This section would transfer the responsibility for making 
payments under the minimum income widows program to the 
Department of Veterans' Affairs. The Department of Defense 
would reimburse the Department of Veterans' Affairs for all 
costs associated with assuming responsibility for making such 
payments, including increased administrative costs. The 
committee believes that moving all related widows pension 
programs under a single agency will eliminate inter-agency 
coordination problems.
   Section 639--Nonsubstantive Restatement of Survivor Benefit Plan 
                                Statute
    This section would restate the Military Survivor Benefit 
Plan statute (subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 10, United 
States Code) in its entirety. This restatement is 
nonsubstantive and is intended to provide greater readability, 
clarity and organizational sense in the statute. The 
restatement would include amendments to the statute through the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public 
Law 104-106). Changes to current law that would be made by this 
section are technical in nature and consist principally of the 
use of headings, indentations, and the subdivision of existing 
sections. In order not to disturb or render inaccurate 
statutory references and citations in existing regulations, 
court decisions, and legal opinions, the order and numerical 
distribution of sections would not change. However, the order 
of paragraphs in the definition section (section 1447 of title 
10, United States Code) would be altered to put the definitions 
in a more logical order.
                       Subtitle E--Other Matters
Section 651--Technical Correction Clarifying Ability of Certain Members 
               To Elect Not To Occupy Government Quarters
    This section would clarify the authority for the 
Secretaries of the military departments to deny the election 
not to occupy inadequate government quarters made by a service 
member in the grade of E-6.
 Section 652--Technical Correction Clarifying Limitation on Furnishing 
     Clothing or Allowances for Enlisted National Guard Technicians
    This section would correct an erroneous reference included 
in section 1038 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106).
                   TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
                                OVERVIEW
    The committee has determined that the President's request 
for fiscal year 1997 did not provide adequate funding for the 
Defense Health Program (DHP)--it left it under-funded by nearly 
a half billion dollars. Without relief, there will be a serious 
degradation in the Department's ability to meet the medical 
needs of military beneficiaries, particularly military retirees 
who faithfully served their government with the understanding 
that their medical requirements would be adequately met.
    The committee understands that in an effort to identify 
additional funding for a decimated Army modernization program, 
unrealistic ``savings'' from the implementation of utilization 
management were factored into the DHP budget. This short-
sighted, ill-conceived action seriously shortchanges the DHP 
and ultimately military personnel and their families, both 
active and retired. This disingenuous effort will result in 
disastrous consequences to the military health services system 
and it's ability to meet the medical needs of all those 
entitled to care if not addressed by this Congress.
    The significant shortfall in the Defense Health Program 
reflects not only a serious lack of commitment to important 
quality of life issues--service members consistently rank 
medical care as a top quality of life issue--but rather, it is 
indicative of a budget request not fully supportive of national 
defense needs. The need for this ``steal from the healthy to 
heal the weak'' approach to budgeting clearly emphasizes the 
Administration's poor support of modernization efforts in 
recent years. If adequate efforts had been made to address the 
Department's modernization needs, the DHP would not have to be 
robbed to fill in the substantial gaps being experienced in 
military modernization.
    The committee is very concerned that the DHP not be viewed 
by the Department's leadership as a potential source of funding 
for programs under-funded in the President's budget. The DHP 
provides a critical benefit to millions of men and women who 
devotedly serve or have served our country. Therefore, the 
committee strongly urges the Secretary of Defense to ensure 
that the DHP is fully funded in fiscal year 1998 and the future 
year defense plan.
                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
     Army Medical Command (MEDCOM) Network--Information Technology
    The committee recognizes the potential benefits that better 
information technology can provide to the delivery of effective 
health care. The core thrust of the MEDCOM network is to ensure 
24-hour-a-day, seven-days-a-week support to the users of the 
health information system and to support network enhancements, 
network security and disaster recovery efforts. The committee 
supports the Department's execution of the program in fiscal 
year 1997 to overcome the noted shortfalls and to serve as a 
model for DOD and other federal agencies.
             Chiropractic Health Care Demonstration Program
    The committee commends the Department of Defense for 
establishing the Chiropractic Health Care Demonstration Program 
(CHCDP) at 10 military installations, and for the work of the 
Oversight Advisory Committee in ensuring that the demonstration 
has been well designed and implemented. Twenty chiropractors 
and 20 chiropractic assistants are providing treatment for 
those eligible beneficiaries who select chiropractic care for 
spine-related neuromusculoskeletal complaints. Early 
indications are that chiropractic care is proving to be a 
popular option for beneficiaries at the demonstration sites. A 
comprehensive evaluation plan has been developed to assess the 
feasibility and advisability of providing chiropractic care 
within the military health services system. The demonstration 
will continue through fiscal year 1998. The committee strongly 
encourages the Department of Defense to continue its positive 
work with the CHCDP and the Oversight Advisory Committee.
 Comptroller General Study on the Department of Defense Family Member 
                              Dental Plan
    The Department of Defense Family Member Dental Plan, which 
provides comprehensive dental benefits to family members of 
active-duty military personnel, has been a very popular and 
successful plan. However, the contract for the program recently 
was awarded to a new provider who began administering this 
benefit on February 1, 1996.
    Since the change in contractors occurred, the committee has 
heard concerns from military beneficiaries and dental providers 
about the ability of the new contractor to effectively 
establish a network adequate to support the needs of military 
active-duty dependents. Additionally, concerns have been raised 
about the manner in which the program is being administered.
    In response to these concerns, the committee directs the 
Comptroller General of the United States to evaluate the family 
member dental plan and to report its findings to the committee 
by February 1, 1997. The evaluation should:
          (1) assess the ability of the contract provider to 
        establish an adequate dental provider network;
          (2) evaluate the administration of the plan to 
        include the claims processing systems and its 
        effectiveness, marketing efforts and the accuracy of 
        dental provider lists;
          (3) review the Department's oversight 
        responsibilities and ability to ensure contract 
        requirements are being sufficiently met.
          (4) analyze the appropriateness of the provider 
        reimbursement rate structure.-
    The family member dental plan is a well-received, much-
needed quality of life benefit. The committee remains committed 
to ensuring its successful continuation.
      Congressional Budget Office Scoring of Medicare Subvention 
                         Demonstration Program
    The committee believes that legislation introduced in the 
House to conduct a demonstration of the concept of Medicare 
reimbursement to the Department of Defense for care provided to 
military Medicare-eligible beneficiaries is a critical step 
toward ensuring that the health care promised to our military 
retirees is available when they need it. This legislation would 
require the demonstration to be budget neutral and has been 
coordinated with the Department of Defense and the Health Care 
Financing Administration.
    However, despite provisions in the legislation designed to 
ensure the demonstration is budget neutral, the Congressional 
Budget Office (CBO) continues to score it with substantial 
direct-spending implications. The committee understands that 
these direct spending estimates are based upon the scoring of a 
demonstration ``concept'' using unsubstantiated assumptions.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Congressional Budget 
Office to:
          (1) score the specific Medicare subvention 
        demonstration bills introduced by Mr. Hefley (H.R. 
        3142) and Mr. Watts (H.R. 3151);
          (2) provide specific justification for any direct-
        spending implications identified in the score;
          (3) evaluate the impact that ``fencing'' the Medicare 
        dollars to ensure the Department cannot use the money 
        for other purposes would have on the scoring of the 
        demonstration program;
          (4) assess the impact on scoring the legislation, of 
        a provision that would direct the Comptroller General 
        of the United States to conduct an independent audit of 
        the demonstration.
          (5) provide recommendations to the Congress regarding 
        the specific measures required in the proposed 
        legislation to alleviate the direct-spending 
        implications.
    Making sure the medical needs of the millions of men and 
women who have served and who continue to serve are adequately 
met is of tremendous importance to this committee. The 
committee believes Medicare subvention may be a cost-effective 
method for meeting this need and therefore strongly supports a 
demonstration program to test this concept.
             Global Infectious Disease Surveillance Program
    The committee recognizes the need to minimize the negative 
effect that infectious diseases have on the combat readiness of 
the military force. Therefore, the committee encourages the 
Department of the Army to develop a global infectious disease 
surveillance and response program. This type of program could 
minimize the impact of disease on operational readiness by 
rapid communication of systematically gathered information and 
prompt intervention through a coordinated response program.
                        Pacific Medical Network
    The committee urges the immediate completion of the Pacific 
Medical Network (PACMEDNET) telecommunications test-bed program 
to develop an inclusive transportable computerized patient 
records and a network to transmit medical information which are 
indispensable capabilities of the Composite Health Care System 
(CHCS). Testing of evolutionary medical information technology 
which can be usefully integrated into CHCS should continue and 
work should be done to achieve the capability to transmit 
computer-based medical information between the systems of the 
Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs 
which will facilitate the resource sharing encouraged by the 
committee.
                          Provider Workstation
    The committee recognizes the importance of implementing a 
computer-based patient record (CPR) in the Department of 
Defense. Data derived from the CPR is critical to the success 
of TRICARE by assuring the delivery of the highest quality care 
at the lowest possible operational cost. The committee is aware 
of and encouraged by the prototype development of the Provider 
Workstation (PWS) at the Air Force Medical Center located at 
Scott Air Force Base (AFB), Illinois. The committee strongly 
urges the Department to build quickly on the successes at Scott 
AFB and rapidly incorporate the concepts validated under PWS 
into military health services system information systems.
                     TRICARE Alternative Financing
    The committee believes that the alternative financing 
concept for the TRICARE program should be fully developed and 
tested in one TRICARE region prior to being implemented 
program-wide. While the concept potentially offers a more 
appropriate and cost-effective approach to financing the 
TRICARE program in each of the sizable managed-care regions, 
there are many questions about the concept that remain 
unanswered. The committee believes the concept needs to be 
fully developed into an effective operational plan before 
attempting to implement it nationwide. Therefore, the committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to further develop and test 
the concept in one yet-to-be-procured TRICARE region, as 
originally planned, and for lessons learned to be incorporated 
prior to implementing alternative financing in additional 
TRICARE regions.
    Congressional concerns about the TRICARE program have 
centered around the pace under which the program is being 
implemented. Many have expressed concern that the Department is 
implementing the program so fast that lessons learned are not 
being incorporated into successive TRICARE regional contracts. 
The committee is concerned that rushing to refit any TRICARE 
contract with an untested, under-developed concept could 
adversely affect the success of the entire TRICARE program.
                       TRICARE Prime Portability
    The committee strongly believes that as the TRICARE program 
is implemented nationwide, beneficiaries should have seamless 
enrollment in the health maintenance organization (HMO) option, 
TRICARE Prime, of the program. Currently, active-duty 
beneficiaries who accompany their sponsor on a permanent change 
of station from one TRICARE region to another must disenroll 
from their current region and may not enroll in the new region 
until the sponsor has reported at the new duty station. Such 
beneficiaries are liable for the high deductibles and 
copayments of the TRICARE Standard (fee-for-service) option 
while in transit or on leave status.
    Further, retirees are unable to enroll family members 
residing in a different region than the retiree under the 
family enrollment fee. Retirees with college student dependents 
or dependent children from a prior marriage may actually have 
to pay two family enrollment fees to cover their dependents.
    Therefore, the committee strongly encourages the Secretary 
of Defense to publish policies to ensure that TRICARE Prime 
enrollees may transfer their enrollment from one TRICARE region 
to another in any area where the TRICARE program has been 
implemented. Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary 
to modify the TRICARE program to ensure that a sponsor with 
dependents who reside in one or more TRICARE regions different 
from the TRICARE region of the sponsor, shall pay no more than 
a single family enrollment fee to secure TRICARE coverage of 
the sponsor's entire family.
                        LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS-
                    Subtitle A--Health Care Services
Section 701--Medical and Dental Care for Reserve Component Members in a 
                              Duty Status
    This section would amend section 1074(a) of title 10, 
United States Code, to clarify the medical and dental care 
members of the reserve are entitled to while in a duty status 
or traveling directly to and from their duty location. The 
amendment defines the entitlement to medical and dental care 
for reserve component members in a specific military duty 
status and the authority to continue such care until the member 
is returned to full military duty, or if unable to return to 
military duty, the member is processed for disability 
separation. It clarifies that members on active duty, active 
duty for training, annual training, full-time National Guard 
duty or traveling directly to or from such duty may request 
continuation on active duty while hospitalized, and that all 
members receiving care are eligible to apply to receive pay and 
allowances.
                      Subtitle B--TRICARE Program
               Section 711--Definition of TRICARE Program
    This section would define the Department's managed-care 
TRICARE program.
    Section 712--CHAMPUS Payment Limits for TRICARE Prime Enrollees
    This section would permit health care providers who are not 
participating in the TRICARE network to be paid higher amounts 
than now permitted in the limited circumstances in which they 
might provide care to TRICARE Prime, the health maintenance 
organization (HMO) option, enrollees. This section would 
protect TRICARE Prime enrollees from ``balance billing'' by 
such providers. As is standard for HMOs, enrollees receive most 
care from network providers, but in limited circumstances 
receive covered services from non-participating providers. This 
section also would apply in cases where enrollees are referred 
to a non-network provider because no network provider is 
available.
 Section 713--Improved Information Exchange Between Military Treatment 
               Facilities and TRICARE Program Contractors
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
field a uniform version of the Composite Health Care System 
(CHCS) throughout the military health services system. It also 
would require the Department to amend one TRICARE regional 
contract to require the TRICARE contractor to use government 
furnished CHCS software for military treatment facility (MTF) 
provider appointments and to record TRICARE MTF enrollment. The 
committee believes that a successful TRICARE program must fully 
incorporate the successful features of CHCS to ensure an 
effective two-way exchange of information between the MTF and 
TRICARE civilian care contractors.
          Subtitle C--Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities
                        Section 721--Definitions
    This section would define various terms pertaining to the 
Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities.
 Section 722--Inclusion of Designated Providers in Uniformed Services 
                      Health Care Delivery System
    This section would provide for the inclusion of the 
Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities (USTFs) in the health 
care delivery system of the uniformed services. It would 
establish the terms under which the USTFs would become 
designated providers of managed health care services to 
military beneficiaries and would require the USTFs to comply 
with the administrative requirements established by the 
Secretary of Defense for health care providers.-
   Section 723--Provision of Uniform Benefit by Designated Providers
    This section would require the designated providers that 
would be established under section 722 of this act to implement 
the TRICARE uniform benefit, including the uniform cost-sharing 
requirements, upon implementation of TRICARE in the designated 
provider's region or October 1, 1996, whichever date is later.
            Section 724--Enrollment of Covered Beneficiaries
    This section would limit the number of beneficiaries 
enrolled in managed care programs of the designated provider in 
fiscal year 1997 to the number enrolled as of October 1, 1995. 
It also would provide the Secretary of Defense with the 
authority to waive the enrollment limit to accommodate 
enrollment of active-duty dependents. Additionally, this 
section would establish a permanent limitation on the number of 
enrollees in the programs of the designated providers, would 
prohibit the disenrollment of current participants except in 
certain, specified cases and would establish additional 
enrollment criteria for designated providers.
           Section 725--Application of CHAMPUS Payment Rules
    This section would amend title 10, United States Code, to 
clarify a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) to ensure that it 
applies to military beneficiaries, rather than active-duty 
members. It would also clarify that the Civilian Health and 
Medical Care Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) rules 
may apply even in situations when the health care provided to 
military beneficiaries is not provided outside the Uniformed 
Services Treatment Facility's catchment area.
                   Section 726--Payment for Services
    This section would require the payments made to the 
designated provider to be full-risk capitation based on the 
utilization experience of enrollees and competitive market 
rates for equivalent health care services. It also would limit 
payments to a designated provider to no more than the 
government would pay if enrollees received their care through 
the TRICARE program or through Medicare.
             Section 727--Repeal of Superseded Authorities
    This section would repeal previous Uniformed Services 
Treatment Facilities (USTFs) legislative provisions effective 
October 1, 1997, the date on which the USTFs would become 
``designated providers'' under the TRICARE program.
   Subtitle D--Other Changes to Existing Laws Regarding Health Care 
                               Management
      Section 731--Authority To Waive CHAMPUS Exclusion Regarding 
 Nonmedically Necessary Treatment in Connection With Certain Clinical 
                                 Trials
    This section would amend section 1079(a) of title 10, 
United States Code, to permit the Secretary of Defense, 
pursuant to an agreement with the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services, to waive the exclusion of non-medically necessary 
treatment with respect to clinical trials sponsored or approved 
by the National Institutes of Health. Participation in these 
clinical trials will improve access to promising therapies for 
CHAMPUS-eligible beneficiaries when their conditions meet 
protocol eligibility criteria.
 Section 732--Authority To Waive or Reduce CHAMPUS Deductible Amounts 
    for Reservists Called to Active Duty in Support of Contingency 
                               Operations
    This section would amend section 1079(b) of title 10, 
United States Code, to provide the Secretary of Defense the 
authority to waive or reduce CHAMPUS deductible amounts in the 
case of the dependents of a member of a reserve component of 
the uniformed services who is on active duty under a call or 
order to active duty of less than one year. This provision 
would eliminate an existing inequity in the treatment of 
reserve component personnel and avoid unusual out-of-pocket 
costs, disruption of continuity in care, impaired access and 
problems with beneficiary satisfaction for activated 
reservists.
  Section 733--Exception to Maximum Allowable Payments to Individual 
                  Health-Care Providers Under CHAMPUS
    This section would amend section 1079 of title 10, United 
States Code, to provide the Secretary of Defense the authority 
to authorize the commander of a military treatment facility, a 
TRICARE lead agent, or a civilian, at-risk health care 
contractor to modify the CHAMPUS payment limitations to ensure 
the availability of care for military beneficiaries.
    In many rural or semi-rural communities, limited managed 
care providers limit the application principles. The CHAMPUS 
Maximum Allowable Calculation (CMAC) level, which frequently is 
viewed as too low, becomes a major stumbling block to securing 
contract providers for TRICARE Prime, the HMO option, and 
TRICARE Extra, the preferred provider organization. For those 
providers who refuse participation in TRICARE, reimbursement 
then reverts to the standard CHAMPUS rate which can be higher 
than the CMAC level for some services. Given the limited 
availability of certain providers in selected rural and semi-
rural regions, some flexibility in paying more than CMAC within 
the TRICARE system would facilitate the availability and 
accessibility of health care services, while at the same time 
implementing managed-care utilization and quality assurance 
measures.-
Section 734--Codification of Annual Authority to Credit CHAMPUS Refunds 
                     to Current Year Appropriation
    This section would amend chapter 55 of title 10, United 
States Code, to make permanent the authority outlined in 
section 8144 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act 
for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-335), which allows the 
Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services 
(CHAMPUS) to credit refunds and similar collections to the 
current-year appropriations and thus be available to pay 
current-year obligations.
      Section 735--Exceptions to Requirements Regarding Obtaining 
               Nonavailability-of-Health-Care Statements
    This section would amend title 10, United States Code, to 
prohibit the requirement for non-availability statements for 
outpatient services for military beneficiaries who chose the 
TRICARE Standard (fee-for-service) option. The committee 
believes that beneficiaries who decline enrollment in the HMO 
option of the TRICARE program do so in order to retain their 
freedom of providers, at a much greater cost to them in the 
form of deductibles and copayments. The requirement for 
obtaining non-availability statements may compromise these 
beneficiaries' freedom of choice, as well as their continuity 
of care when an extensive outpatient procedure is required. 
Additionally, beneficiaries unable to enroll in the HMO option 
of TRICARE, either because of space limitations or non-
availability in an area, should not have their choices further 
limited by the requirement for a non-availability statement.
   Section 736--Expansion of Collection Authorities From Third-Party 
                                 Payers
    This section would amend title 10, United States Code, to 
adopt several refinements to the Third Party Collection Program 
under which military medical facilities collect from third-
party payers for health care services provided to beneficiaries 
who are also covered by the third-party payers' plans, and to 
the related CHAMPUS Double Coverage Program, under which 
CHAMPUS is secondary payer to other health plans that also 
cover CHAMPUS beneficiaries. These refinements are consistent 
with the long-standing Congressional policy of containing 
health care spending by assuring that third-party payers, who 
generally have collected full premiums for coverage of insured 
persons who are also DOD beneficiaries, do not shift their 
costs to the federal taxpayers.
                       Subtitle E--Other Matters
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
    This section would amend title 10, United States Code, to 
establish new alternatives in cases of members of the Health 
Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program who do 
not, or cannot, complete their active-duty service obligations. 
Currently, the only alternative, assignment to a health 
professional shortage area designated by the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services, has never been used because neither 
the Department of Defense nor the Department of Health and 
Human Services has an effective mechanism to administer such an 
alternative obligation.
    This section would establish four options for alternative 
obligations for the member:
          (1) a reserve component assignment of a duration 
        twice as long as the remaining active-duty obligation;
          (2) service as a health professional civil service 
        employee in a facility of the uniformed services;
          (3) transfer of the active-duty service obligation to 
        an equal obligation under the National Health Services 
        Corps;
          (4) repayment of a percentage of the total cost 
        incurred by the Department under the program equal to 
        the percentage of the member's total active-duty 
        service obligation being relieved, plus interest.
   Section 742--Exception to Strength Limitations for Public Health 
         Service Officers Assigned to the Department of Defense
    This section would amend section 207, title 42, United 
States Code to exclude commissioned officers of the Public 
Health Service (PHS) assigned to duty in the Department of 
Defense from being counted when computing the maximum number of 
commissioned PHS officers authorized by law. This would 
facilitate a continuation of the long-standing practice of 
assigning a number of PHS officers to duty with the Department 
of Defense.
 Section 743--Continued Operation of Uniformed Services University of 
                          the Health Sciences
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 
(Public Law 104-106) directed the Secretary of Defense to 
budget for ongoing operations at the Uniformed Services 
University of the Health Sciences (USUHS). This section 
restates that directive.
    The service surgeons general have consistently reported on 
the importance of USUHS in effectively training military 
physicians to meet both peacetime and wartime medical readiness 
requirements. The committee believes USUHS is vital to the 
medical readiness training of a substantial number of military 
health-care providers and therefore strongly supports the 
continued operation of USUHS. Congress clearly stated its 
support of USUHS through actions taken in both the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 and the 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996 
(Public Law 104-61).
    However, the committee recently learned that the Department 
of Defense has been directed to not budget for the continued 
operation of the Uniformed Services University of the Health 
Sciences after fiscal year 1997. The Administration's decision 
to not budget for USUHS is yet another example of its 
inadequate commitment to ensuring the total readiness of the 
U.S. armed forces.
Section 744--Sense of Congress Regarding Tax Treatment of Armed Forces 
    Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program
    The Department of Defense has approximately 4,000 medical, 
dental, optometric, psychology and nurse anesthesia students 
enrolled in the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship 
Program. Prior to 1986, DOD payments for tuition and related 
expense to and on behalf of program participants were tax 
exempt. Only the monthly stipend was, and continues to be, 
treated as taxable income subject to withholdings and student 
payment of individual tax liability. However, as a result of 
section 117, title 26, United States Code, which was amended by 
the Tax Reform Act of 1986, DOD payments for tuition and 
related expenses became taxable income subject to withholdings.
    This section would express the sense of Congress that the 
Secretary of Defense should continue to work with the Secretary 
of the Treasury to seek relief from this problem from the 
Internal Revenue Service. The decision to tax health 
professions scholarships seems to be based on a selective 
interpretation of the law.
  Section 745--Report Regarding Specialized Treatment Facility Program
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
provide Congress with a report on the impact of reducing the 
catchment areas for specialized treatment facilities from 200 
miles to 100 miles.
  TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED 
                                MATTERS
                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
            Implementation of Acquisition Reform Legislation
    In a span of two legislative years, Congress has enacted 
three major acquisition reform initiatives: the Federal 
Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-355), the 
Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1996 (Division D of Public 
Law 104-106) and the Information Technology Management Reform 
Act of 1996 (Division E of Public Law 104-106). This assertive 
legislative effort reflects a recognition by the Congress of 
the urgent need to simplify, streamline and reduce the cost 
associated with the federal acquisition process. The Committee 
on National Security and the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight, in particular, have aggressively pursued such 
reforms to maximize the return on each taxpayer dollar used to 
procure the billions in goods and services the federal 
government procures annually.
    The committee strongly believes that the burden for 
continuing this effort has now shifted to the executive branch 
as it begins the lengthy and complex process of implementing 
the many statutory changes contained in the aforementioned 
legislation. The committee notes that this legislation, in 
general, intentionally refrained from prescriptive statutory 
direction in order to maximize flexibility and effective 
regulatory implementation. Therefore, the committee strongly 
urges the appropriate agencies of government to take maximum 
advantage of the flexibility and opportunity provided by this 
legislation during the process of developing and implementing 
the necessary regulations and guidance.
                 Truth in Negotiations Act Audit Rights
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 
(Public Law 104-106) eliminated certain rights by the 
government to audit information to be supplied by commercial 
suppliers in lieu of certified cost or pricing data. In taking 
this action, Congress clearly and willfully did not intend that 
this statutory change permit federal agencies to subsequently 
determine through agency supplements to the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation whether and to what extent post award audit access 
is appropriate on commercial item contracts. The committee 
strongly reiterates previously stated congressional intent that 
the only remaining authority for the government to pursue such 
information is the authority of the General Accounting Office 
to audit contractor records.
                     Tungsten Anti-Tank Penetrators
    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense 
entered into an agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany 
in 1979 concerning requirements for the next generation combat 
tanks. This agreement has led to the manufacture by Germany of 
tungsten anti-tank penetrator components for use in M1 Abrams 
anti-tank munitions manufactured in the United States. The 
committee is concerned with the potential impact that this 
arrangement could have on an important segment of the North 
American munitions industrial base. Therefore, the committee 
strongly urges the Secretary of Defense to review this 
situation and reconsider whether U.S. manufactured tungsten 
anti-tank penetrators should be used once the agreement between 
the United States and Germany expires in 1997.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
                   Subtitle A--Acquisition Management
  Section 801--Authority to Waive or Modify Certain Requirements for 
                   Defense Acquisition Pilot Programs
    This section would expand existing authorities provided to 
the Secretary of Defense to waive or modify certain acquisition 
laws in executing programs designated under the defense 
acquisition pilot program. The committee is aware of the 
initial results realized through the streamlined acquisition 
procedures utilized for those programs designated under the 
defense acquisition pilot program. The committee is pleased 
with the reported cost savings and urges the Department to 
continue aggressively pursuing this pilot effort to validate 
further reform concepts for possible broader application to the 
defense acquisition process.
Section 802--Exclusion From Certain Post-Education Duty Assignments for 
                      Members of Acquisition Corps
    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
exclude from the mandatory joint duty requirement military 
members of the acquisition corps who have graduated from the 
senior acquisition course at the Industrial College of the 
Armed Forces (ICAF). Such exemption would be permitted if these 
officers are assigned to critical acquisition positions upon 
graduation. The committee recognizes the conflict that exists 
between the dual imperatives of the Goldwater-Nichols 
Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (Public Law 
99-433) and the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act 
(title XII of Public Law 101-510) in how ICAF graduates should 
be assigned. The committee's action, however, should in no way 
be interpreted as a reduction of commitment to the joint 
officer management provisions of the Goldwater-Nichols Act.
  Section 803--Extension of Authority to Carry Out Certain Prototype 
                                Projects
    This section would reauthorize and expand to the military 
services the authority provided by section 845 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-
160) to allow additional flexibility in the acquisition of 
prototype technologies and systems.
      Section 804--Increase in Threshold Amounts for Major Systems
    This section would update the existing statutory threshold 
for the definition of ``major systems'' to fiscal year 1990 
constant dollars from fiscal year 1980 dollars. It would also 
allow the Secretary of Defense to further adjust this 
definition threshold to reflect inflation after notification to 
the Congressional defense committees. These changes would 
conform the definition for ``major systems'' to that used for 
``major defense acquisition program'' in title 10, United 
States Code.
   Section 805--Revisions in Information Required to be Included in 
                      Selected Acquisition Reports
    This section would adjust and improve the terminology and 
references used in the acquisition reporting process of major 
defense acquisition programs. The provision would add 
``procurement unit cost'' as an additional reporting element of 
the selected acquisition report to provide a more meaningful 
measure of recurring unit cost. The provision would also 
eliminate the reporting element for completion status for a 
program since, as presently defined, it provides statistical 
measures of marginal utility for program oversight.
     Section 806--Increase in Simplified Acquisition Threshold for 
                Humanitarian or Peacekeeping Operations
    This section would expand the current authority that 
doubles the simplified acquisition threshold for purchases made 
outside of the United States in support of a contingency 
operation to humanitarian and peacekeeping operations. The 
committee takes this action not as an endorsement of the 
expansion of these kind of operations by the Department of 
Defense, but as a recognition of the utility and benefit of 
allowing the Department additional contracting flexibility when 
engaged in such operations abroad.
 Section 807--Expansion of Audit Reciprocity Among Federal Agencies to 
                       Include Post-Award Audits
    The committee recognizes the need to avoid duplicative 
contract audit requirements arising from federal, state, and 
local government agencies. In order to reduce administrative 
burdens and duplication of efforts by different governmental 
entities, this section would expand upon current statutory 
authorities in two ways. First, it would extend audit 
reciprocity considerations to post-award audit to expedite the 
contract close out process and the issuance of final contract 
payments. Secondly, it would require the Office of Management 
and Budget to issue guidance to ensure that state and local 
entities accept cognizant federal agency audits in order to 
minimize duplication of effort and reduce cost for contractors 
engaged in contracting at various levels of government.
         Section 808--Extension of Pilot Mentor-Protege Program
    This section would extend the authority for the Department 
of Defense to conduct the Pilot Mentor-Protege program through 
fiscal year 1997.
                       Subtitle B--Other Matters
Section 821--Amendment to Definition of National Security System Under 
          Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1995
    This section would expand the definition of national 
security systems items waived for the purposes of application 
of the centralized management provisions of the Information 
Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 (Division E of Public 
Law 104-106) to include all classified systems.
   Section 822--Prohibition on Release of Contractor Proposals Under 
                       Freedom of Information Act
    This section would exempt contractor proposals provided to 
the federal government from release under the Freedom of 
Information Act (Public Law 89-554). The committee is aware 
that the current Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process 
imposes a significant administrative burden on federal agencies 
receiving requests for release of contractor proposals even 
though most if not all of the information is exempt under the 
FOIA process. This provision is intended to allow federal 
agencies to dispense with the lengthy line-by-line reviews 
which are presently required to arrive at the non-disclosure 
determination for this material. The committee does not intend 
for this provision to affect information available to be placed 
under a General Accounting Office protective order pursuant to 
section 3553(f) of title 31, United States Code.
    Section 823--Repeal of Annual Report by Advocate for Competition
    This section would repeal the requirement for agency 
competition advocates to submit an annual report to agency 
senior procurement executives.
   Section 824--Repeal of Biannual Report on Procurement Regulatory 
                                Activity
    This section would repeal the requirement for the 
Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy to publish a 
semiannual regulatory activity report on procurement 
regulations. The committee recognizes that much of the 
information contained in this report can already be found in 
the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations published 
semiannually in the Federal Register by the Office of 
Management and Budget.
     Section 825--Repeal of Multiyear Limitation on Contracts for 
                  Inspection, Maintenance, and Repair
    This section would repeal the current statutory limitation 
on multiyear contracts for inspection, maintenance, and repair 
functions allowing the multiyear policy provisions of the 
Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-
355) to govern such contracts.
    Section 826--Streamlined Notice Requirements to Contractors and 
 Employees Regarding Termination or Substantial Reduction in Contracts 
                      Under Major Defense Programs
    This section would streamline and simplify the notification 
process resulting from termination or substantial reduction in 
defense contract funding required by the Defense Conversion, 
Reinvestment, and Transition Assistance Act of 1992 (Division D 
of Public Law 102-484). The committee understands that the 
current process is unnecessarily cumbersome and complex. This 
provision would modify the notification process to occur upon 
actual contract termination or substantial reduction rather 
than prematurely during the budget process as currently 
required.
    Section 827--Repeal of Notice Requirements for Substantially or 
            Seriously Affected Parties in Downsizing Efforts
    This section would repeal the requirement for the Secretary 
of Defense to notify federal, state, county, local and labor 
officials if the annual budget of the President submitted to 
Congress, or long-term guidance documents, or public 
announcements of base or facility closures or realignments, or 
cancellation or curtailment of a major contract will have a 
serious and substantial effect. The committee concurs with the 
Administration's assessment that this statutory requirement is 
overly prescriptive, confusing, and unnecessary.
          Section 828--Testing of Defense Acquisition Programs
    This section would modify existing statutes governing live 
fire testing of major defense systems to provide additional 
flexibility without compromising the benefits accrued through a 
responsible testing program.
 Section 829--Dependency of National Technology and Industrial Base on 
             Supplies Available Only From Foreign Countries
    This section would direct the Department of Defense to 
conduct an assessment of the degree of dependency on foreign 
sources for key components of defense systems.
  Section 830--Sense of Congress Regarding Treatment of Department of 
             Defense Cable Television Franchise Agreements
    Section 823 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) directed the Chief Judge 
of the United States Court of Federal Claims to transmit to 
Congress a report answering certain questions concerning the 
treatment of cable television franchise agreements under part 
49 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the 
Communications Act of 1934. The report is to be submitted no 
later than August 10, 1996.
  Section 831--Extension of Domestic Source Limitation for Valves and 
                             Machine Tools
    This section would delay the expiration of the current 
statutory domestic source restriction for valves and machine 
tools from October 1, 1996 to October 1, 2001.
      TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
                          Unified Command Plan
    The committee is aware of the recent changes to the Unified 
Command Plan (UCP) which resulted in changes in the geographic 
area of responsibility for the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) 
and the U.S. Atlantic Command (USACOM). In particular, the 
committee notes that the proposed UCP changes would shift the 
responsibility for the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea and 
the island nations within these regions from USACOM to 
SOUTHCOM. The committee considers these proposed changes to be 
significant and wishes to have a better understanding of all 
possible implications. Therefore, the committee directs that 
the General Accounting Office (GAO) conduct a review of the 
issues reported by USACOM to the Secretary of Defense and to 
the Committee on National Security at its hearing of March 28, 
1996 regarding the proposed UCP changes. A report on the GAO's 
findings and conclusions should be provided to the committee no 
later than January 1, 1997.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
   Section 901--Additional Required Reduction in Defense Acquisition 
                               Workforce
    This section would require a reduction in the number of 
personnel assigned to defense acquisition organizations of 
25,000 during fiscal year 1997. This provision results from the 
committee's ongoing effort to reduce the size and cost 
associated with the Department's significant administrative 
overhead. The committee is disturbed that the Department has 
failed to produce the report required by section 906 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public 
Law 104-106) regarding downsizing and restructuring options for 
the defense acquisition infrastructure. The committee strongly 
believes that the Department must aggressively pursue such 
structural changes in order to reduce the significant overhead 
cost associated with the procurement of defense goods and 
services.
Section 902--Reduction of Personnel Assigned to Office of the Secretary 
                               of Defense
    This section would clarify that the 25 percent, five year 
reduction in personnel assigned to the Office of the Secretary 
of Defense required by section 901 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) 
must be implemented on an annual basis. The committee notes 
with concern that the Department has yet to submit the report 
and recommendations required by section 901 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-
106) regarding the downsizing and restructuring of the Office 
of the Secretary of Defense.
     Section 903--Report on Military Department Headquarters Staffs
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct a comprehensive assessment on the management and 
functional responsibilities of the offices of the military 
department secretaries and chiefs of staff. This provision also 
results from the committee's ongoing effort to reduce the size 
and cost associated with the Department's significant 
administrative overhead.
    Section 904--Extension of Effective Date for Charter for Joint 
                     Requirements Oversight Council
    This section would delay the effective date of the 
statutory charter for the Joint Requirements Oversight Council 
(JROC) from January 1, 1997 to January 1, 1998. The committee 
notes with concern the difficulties it has encountered in 
receiving the most cursory information associated with analysis 
performed by the JROC resulting in decisions to terminate or 
rephase military programs. Repeated attempts by the committee 
to conduct legitimate program oversight have been frustrated by 
consistent refusal by the Joint Staff to provide the committee 
with supporting rationale for recent decisions on theater 
missile defense and unmanned aerial vehicle programs. While the 
committee recognizes that direct involvement in acquisition 
program decisions is a relatively new role for the Joint Staff, 
the committee is nevertheless committed to pursuing all 
necessary information to carry out its constitutional oversight 
responsibilities. As such, the committee urges the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff to promptly revisit this matter and 
engage the committee in a dialogue to avoid similar occurrences 
in the future.
 Section 905--Removal of Secretary of the Army From Membership on the 
                        Foreign Trade Zone Board
    This section would repeal the requirement for membership by 
the Secretary of the Army on the Foreign Trade Zone Board. 
Participation on the Board is no longer necessary as a result 
of the changing nature of foreign trade zones and the fact that 
current issues facing the Board rarely involve engineering or 
construction issues of interest to the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers.
        Section 906--Membership of the Ammunition Storage Board-
    This section would amend section 172(a) of title 10, United 
States Code, to permit qualified civilian employees of the 
Federal Government to serve as board members on the ammunition 
storage board which is currently named the Department of 
Defense Explosives Safety Board. Section 172(a) limits the 
board membership to ``officers'' who, in accordance with the 
definition set forth in section 101(b)(1), must be commissioned 
or warrant officers and not civilian employees. This limitation 
restricts the secretaries of the military departments from 
selecting the most qualified person available to represent 
their departments. To ensure the secretaries have the 
flexibility to be represented by the most qualified 
professional, the option to select civilian board members must 
be available to them.
 Section 907--Department of Defense Disbursing Official Check Cashing 
                       and Exchange Transactions
    This section would permit Department of Defense disbursing 
officials to provide check cashing services and exchange 
services to U.S. chartered federal credit unions serving U.S. 
military personnel and their dependents in foreign countries 
where military banking facilities are not available.
                                TITLE X
                        Counter-Drug Activities
                                Overview
    The budget request contained $782.0 million for Department 
of Defense counter-drug activities. This represents a net 
decrease of $32.3 million from the fiscal year 1996 
appropriated level of $814.3 million. To ensure that the 
Department of Defense effort in this important national 
priority is not diminished, the committee recommends an 
increase of $40.0 million for fiscal year 1997 counter-drug 
activities for a total authorization of $822.0 million 
allocated as follows:
                        [In thousands of dollars]
FY97 Drug Interdiction & Counter-Drug Request.................  $782,019
    Source Nation Support.....................................   153,961
    Dismantling Cartels.......................................    57,055
    Detection and Monitoring..................................   232,129
    Law Enforcement Agency Support............................   254,979
    Demand Reduction..........................................    83,895
Recommended Increases:
    Laser Strike (Project #9497)..............................    10,000
    Riverine Operations (Project #9201).......................     4,900
    Southwest border support (Project #9499)..................     2,500
    Signal intelligence equipment (Project #1313).............     3,000
    SOUTHCOM support (Project #9497)..........................     1,500
    Enhanced JTF-6 DLEA support (Project #2435)...............     5,000
    Gulf States Counterdrug Initiative (Project #7406)........     4,800
    Multi-Jurisdictional Task Force (Project #7408)...........     1,000
    Spare TARS (Project #4110)................................     3,800
    C-26 reconnaissance upgrade (Project #7403)...............     3,500
Recommendation................................................   822,019
                       Items of Special Interest
National guard counter-drug program
    The committee continues to strongly endorse the 
contributions of the National Guard to the defense counter drug 
program. The unique role and status of the National Guard in 
the war on drugs makes the men and women of the National Guard 
an invaluable asset to the overall effort. National Guard 
counter drug activities take place in every state and virtually 
every community of the United States. Accordingly, with the 
exception of the increases noted above, the committee 
recommends the requested authorization for the fiscal year 1997 
National Guard counter drug program and fully expects the 
Department to execute the program at this level of 
authorization. The committee strongly believes that the 
National Guard component of the defense counter drug program 
should be properly resourced to ensure the continued successful 
contribution of the National Guard to this national priority.
C-26 aircraft photo reconnaissance upgrades
    The committee is aware of a shortfall in funding for the 
National Guard C-26 aircraft photo reconnaissance and infrared 
surveillance upgrade program. Therefore, the committee 
recommends an increase of $3.5 million to restore the number of 
aircraft involved in the C-26 photo reconnaissance upgrade 
program to its previous level.
Gulf states counterdrug initiative
    The committee continues to support the Gulf States 
Counterdrug Initiative (GSCI) and is pleased to note that the 
budget request contains $3.2 million for this initiative. 
However, the committee is concerned that this funding level 
does not adequately cover the required costs for the Regional 
Counterdrug Training Academy, integrating the state of Georgia 
into the program and other priority initiatives. Therefore, the 
committee recommends an increase of $4.8 million over the 
requested amount. The committee notes that none of these funds 
should be utilized for construction or other infrastructure 
related costs. The committee strongly believes that funds 
provided for this program should remain focused on training and 
improving command, control, communications and computer (C4) 
capabilities.
Southwest border fence project
    The committee continues to have a strong interest in 
facilitating support for the border fence project along the San 
Diego-Tijuana border area in Southern California. The committee 
is aware of the efforts of JTF-6 and the California National 
Guard in sustaining an adequate level of support to enhance 
this important barrier. The committee notes the growing support 
in Congress and within the Administration for upgrading the 
existing fence to a more capable design and endorses the 
decision to fund this effort from within the immigration 
control budget. However, to ensure that the existing program to 
extend the length of fence coverage is not unnecessarily 
interrupted, the committee recommends that, of the amounts 
authorized for Law Enforcement Agency Support, $5.0 million be 
made available for continued support of this national project. 
Further, the committee believes that improvements to the San 
Diego fence should receive priority consideration as Congress 
entertains Administration proposals to utilize up to $250 
million in fiscal year 1996 Department of Defense funds for the 
national counternarcotics effort.
                             Other Matters
               Defense Information Systems Network (DISN)
    The committee continues to strongly support the 
Department's efforts to upgrade its information technology 
infrastructure by rapidly transitioning to the Defense 
Information Systems Network (DISN). While the committee had 
hoped that the Department would have had the full DISN program 
in place and operational by now, the committee expects 
implementation of the DISN program to move forward 
expeditiously to ensure widespread availability of state-of-
the-art telecommunications for military users. Accordingly, the 
committee expects that the fifteen month extension of the 
current Defense Commercial Telecommunications Network (DCTN) 
end no later than the planned date of May, 1997.
    To facilitate the rapid migration of the Department's vast 
collection of telecommunication systems into DISN, the 
committee directs the military services to finalize plans to 
extend DISN operational concepts within their base 
infrastructure and within operationally deployed forces. The 
committee notes that DISN implementation must reflect the end-
to-end nature of the program and elimination and migration of 
legacy systems in order to for the program to attain its full 
potential. Further, the committee believes that the aggressive 
integration of land, space, and deployable assets is essential 
to this strategy and should receive priority consideration 
during future budgeting and implementation decisions.
                    Military Affiliate Radio System
    The committee notes that the Military Affiliate Radio 
System (MARS) provides the Department of Defense and U.S. armed 
forces with an auxiliary and emergency communications 
capability on a local, national, and international basis as an 
adjunct to normal communications. It has also been used to 
handle morale and quasi-official record and voice 
communications traffic for the armed forces and authorized U.S. 
government civilian personnel stationed throughout the world. 
The MARS program operates at little cost to the government and 
has provided the U.S. armed forces with a reserve of qualified 
and well-trained radio communications personnel, including 
civilian ``affiliates'' who volunteer their time to provide a 
valuable service to U.S. troops and their families at home or 
overseas. The committee further notes that the Army MARS 
support plan for Operation Joint Endeavor was held in abeyance 
due to the use of other communications means to meet morale 
support requirements for U.S. armed forces deployed in Bosnia. 
However, these other means may take time to establish, may not 
always be reliable or available, or may result in out-of-pocket 
costs to U.S. service personnel. Because of this, the committee 
supports the continuation and expanded use by all services of 
an active MARS program.
            National Defense University Chinese Translations
    The committee understands that the Director, Office of Net 
Assessment has acquired and translated open source articles and 
journals written by People's Liberation Army (PLA) military 
officers and officials. These articles provide important 
insights into the PLA's vision of the future of warfare, 
including the meaning of the revolution in military affairs. 
The committee further understands that the National Defense 
University (NDU) Press is planning to publish one or more books 
containing these articles, in the interest of broadening 
understanding of Chinese military thinking. The committee 
strongly supports this initiative, and directs the President, 
National Defense University to ensure that these important 
papers are published in a timely manner.
                Supercomputer Exports and Proliferation
    The committee continues to be troubled by the 
Administration's relaxation of export controls on sensitive 
items with military application and reiterates the directive 
contained in the statement of managers accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public 
Law 104-106) directing the Secretary of Defense to submit a 
report on the Administration's relaxation of export 
restrictions on supercomputers. The conferees expressed concern 
regarding the potential impact of the Administration's decision 
on United States nonproliferation efforts and the ability of 
the United States to maintain its military technological edge. 
Specifically, the Secretary was directed to submit a report 
that ``describes the impact of the export decision on the 
ability of nations to acquire and use high-performance 
computing capabilities to develop advanced conventional 
weaponry, weapons of mass destruction, and delivery vehicles.'' 
This report has not been submitted and is now overdue. The 
committee calls on the Secretary to submit the required report 
as soon as possible.
                   White House Communications Agency
    The committee is aware of ongoing work by the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, the Department of Defense 
Inspector General and the General Accounting Office to review 
the operations of the White House Communications Agency (WHCA). 
The committee is concerned that although funded exclusively 
through DOD appropriations of over $100 million a year, WHCA 
has functioned outside DOD operational control and with little 
or no Defense Department oversight.
    Operating under the direction of the White House, WHCA's 
budget requests have gone largely unreviewed, its annual 
performance plan has failed to meet DOD requirements, its 
acquisition planning has fallen short of the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation standards resulting in wasteful 
purchases, and the agency's staffing needs have not been 
adequately supported or justified. In addition, the agency's 
functions and activities appear to have expanded greatly beyond 
its initial mission of providing communications support to the 
President in his role as commander-in-chief.
    While the need for reform is clear, the committee is 
encouraged by the recent indications by the Assistant Secretary 
of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and 
Intelligence, the Director of the Defense Information Systems 
Agency, and the Commander of WHCA of a willingness to undertake 
corrective actions. Together with the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight, the committee will pursue a further 
review of the agency's operations in the coming year to ensure 
that necessary reforms are adopted.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
                     Subtitle A--Financial Matters
                    Section 1001--Transfer Authority
    This section would permit the transfer of amounts of 
authorizations made available in Division A of the bill for any 
fiscal year to any other authorization made available in 
Division A upon determination by the Secretary of Defense that 
such a transfer would be in the national interest. The 
provision would provide the authorization for reprogramming 
involving the transfer of authorization between amounts 
authorized as set out in bill language.
    The authority to transfer could only be used to provide 
authorization for higher priority items than the items from 
which authorization was transferred and could not be used to 
provide authorization for an item that was denied authorization 
by the Congress. The Secretary of Defense would be required to 
notify Congress promptly of transfers. The total amount of 
transfers would be limited to $2 billion. Historically, the 
transfer authority authorized has changed as follows:
                                                                Billions
Fiscal year:
    85-88......................................................... $2.00
    89-91.........................................................  3.00
    92............................................................  2.25
    93............................................................  1.50
    94-96.........................................................  2.00
            Section 1002--Incorporation of Classified Annex
    This section would incorporate the classified annex 
prepared by the Committee on National Security into the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997.
 Section 1003--Authority for Obligation of Certain Unauthorized Fiscal 
                    Year 1996 Defense Appropriations
    This section would authorize certain fiscal year 1996 
programs that received appropriations but no authorization.
      Section 1004--Authorization of Prior Emergency Supplemental 
                  Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996
    This section would extend authorization to those items 
appropriated by the fiscal year 1996 emergency supplemental 
appropriations legislation.
 Section 1005--Format for Budget Request for Navy/Marine Corps and Air 
                       Force Ammunition Accounts
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
request funding for Navy/Marine Corps and Air Force ammunition 
in separate appropriation accounts.
     Section 1006--Format for Budget Requests for Defense Airborne 
                         Reconnaissance Program
    The Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Program (DARP) budget 
currently consolidates all research and development projects 
within one program element and all procurement programs within 
four generic procurement line item numbers in the Air Force and 
Defense-wide procurement accounts. Therefore, to overcome this 
lack of budget justification presentation detail and provide 
the Congressional defense committees sufficient information to 
conduct appropriate oversight, the committee recommends a 
legislative provision (sec. 1006) that directs the Secretary of 
Defense to identify all DARP research and development projects 
and procurement programs by unique program element numbers and 
procurement line items, respectively, in all future budget 
requests beginning with fiscal year 1998.
                    Subtitle B--Reports and Studies
Section 1021--Annual Report on Operation Provide Comfort and Operation 
                        Enhanced Southern Watch
    This section would require an annual report on the conduct 
of Operations Provide Comfort and Enhanced Southern Watch over 
and within Iraq. Sections 1004 and 1005 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) 
conditionally authorized funding operations Provide Comfort and 
Enhanced Southern Watch over and in Iraq pending a report by 
the Department of Defense establishing the fundamental 
objectives and parameters of these ongoing operations. Despite 
this requirement and the fact that funding for these operations 
is being diverted from military service operational readiness 
accounts, the Department has not yet provided these reports.
    In response to the Department's casual response to the 
preparation and release of these reports and the enlarged scope 
of the operations in question, the committee recommends a 
provision (sec. 1021) that would require the Department to 
provide Congress with a consolidated annual report on Operation 
Provide Comfort and Operation Enhanced Southern Watch, for as 
long as the operations continue.
      Section 1022--Report on Protection of National Information 
                             Infrastructure
    Section 1053 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) established a requirement 
for a report from the President on national policy concerning 
protection of the national information infrastructure (NII) 
from strategic attack, and on the future role of the National 
Communications System (NCS) in implementing a strategy to 
protect the NII.
    To date, Congress has not received the required report and 
overall it is clear that the Administration's response to this 
statutory requirement has been lackluster at best. One 
encouraging development is the recent creation of a White House 
task force to establish policies for indications and warning, 
protection, assessment, and reconstitution with respect to a 
strategic attack on key sectors of the U.S. infrastructure 
through the nation's networked information systems.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1022) 
that would define what Congress expects from the President out 
of this task force process. The committee stresses that this 
effort cannot be regarded narrowly as a problem of counter-
terrorism, law enforcement, emergency preparedness, 
intelligence, or national defense. Rather, it is a problem in 
all of those domains, requiring central direction and 
coordination. The committee also believes that the mandated NCS 
assessment has concluded correctly that the focus for analysis 
and corrective action should be on the telecommunications, 
transportation, finance, power, and energy sectors of the U.S. 
national infrastructure.
Section 1023--Report on Witness Interview Procedures for Department of 
                    Defense Criminal Investigations
    The committee continues to receive allegations of illegal, 
unnecessary and inappropriate harassment and intimidation of 
individuals by the criminal investigative agencies of the 
Department of Defense. Such allegations deeply concern the 
committee. Therefore, this section would require the 
Comptroller General to survey and report on the policies and 
practices of the military criminal investigative agencies with 
respect to the manner in which interviews of witnesses and 
suspects are conducted, the views of persons who were subjects 
and witnesses in military investigations, as well as the degree 
to which actual practice deviates from Department policy. 
Furthermore, the section would require the Comptroller General 
to report on a range of potential corrective actions that have 
been suggested to the committee.
                       Subtitle C--Other Matters
           Section 1031--Information Systems Security Program
    Judging by the results of the large and steadily growing 
volume of studies originating within the Department of Defense 
and its various scientific advisory boards, and by the 
recommendations and testimony of DOD's functional managers for 
information systems and information security, the Department is 
devoting woefully insufficient resources to protecting the 
Department's information systems.
    The problem is a familiar one. Despite widespread 
recognition of a problem, there are no volunteers to provide 
funds to correct it. The senior DOD leadership is reluctant to 
impose a solution to a non-traditional threat, particularly 
when functional managers and information systems developers 
present plans that would require funding from outside their own 
budgets, and therefore entail difficult tradeoffs. In other 
words, the military services, and the managers of the 
logistics, medical, personnel, transportation, finance, and 
other functions within DOD have thus far chosen to maximize 
capabilities rather than sacrifice capabilities slightly in 
order to ensure minimum critical requirements are met in 
wartime conditions.
    As a result, over the last two years, the DOD leadership 
has added only modest resources for information security. The 
level of funding was not based on a rigorous analysis of 
requirements, nor were funds limited because advocates failed 
to make a strong case for additional resources. Rather, the 
allocation appears to have been determined by the amount of 
funds that could be easily extracted from the overall budget 
for command, control, and communications after the normal 
budget review process.
    The potential consequences are that DOD may not be able to 
generate, deploy, and sustain military forces during a major 
regional conflict in the event of information warfare attacks 
on critical support functions controlled by networked 
computers. According to various studies within DOD, including 
several recent Defense Science Board reviews, such a threat 
could be mounted by virtually any nation or even sophisticated 
non-governmental organizations, with inexpensive, commercially 
available equipment. Past and present Directors of the National 
Security Agency have expressed grave concerns about this 
emerging threat and likened it to ``an electronic Pearl 
Harbor.''
    The committee strongly believes that additional investments 
in information security are required given the growing 
dependence on networked computer systems. Therefore, in order 
to assure that DOD will sustain additional investments in 
future budget submissions, the committee recommends a provision 
(sec. 1031) that would require the Secretary of Defense to 
allocate an additional half-percent of the total appropriations 
for the defense information infrastructure (DII) to security 
each year through the remainder of the Future Years Defense 
Plan, for a total allocation of approximately 4.0 percent in 
fiscal year 2001. These funds are in addition to the funds 
available to the National Security Agency and the Defense 
Advanced Research Projects Agency for information security 
technology. This provision would also require a report from the 
Secretary annually through 2001 that describes specific, 
measurable goals and objectives, the progress made over the 
previous year in reaching them, and plans for the coming fiscal 
year.
    The committee would of course prefer that the Secretary of 
Defense develop a detailed information systems security 
investment plan and submit annual funding requests to the 
Congress. In the absence of executive branch leadership, 
however, the committee has no choice but to impose a specified 
funding allocation.
          Section 1032--Aviation and Vessel War Risk Insurance
    This section would authorize the Department of Defense to 
transfer funds to the Department of Transportation in the event 
of a loss incurred incident to aviation insurance issued by the 
Federal Aviation Administration pursuant to title 49, United 
States Code, or vessel war risk insurance issued by the 
Maritime Administration pursuant to title 46, United States 
Code, when reimbursement is required by those statutes or 
implementing agreements. In the case of a reimbursement 
required as the result of an aviation incident, reimbursement 
to the Secretary of Transportation is required within 30 days 
following the presentment of a valid claim to the Administrator 
of the Federal Aviation Administration. For vessel war risk 
claims, such reimbursement shall be made not later than 90 days 
following adjudication of the claim by the Administrator of the 
Maritime Administration. Because of the inability of the 
Department of Defense to promptly indemnify for claims arising 
out of activities or operations requested by the Department of 
Defense, a number of air carriers have withdrawn from the Civil 
Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF). Without continued significant 
participation by a number of carriers in the CRAF program, the 
ability to provide adequate airlift during critical periods 
will be in jeopardy.
          Section 1033--Aircraft Accident Investigation Boards
    As a result of concerns about military flight safety raised 
by the committee, the General Accounting Office (GAO) produced 
a report in February 1996 entitled ``Military Aircraft Safety: 
Significant Improvements Since 1975'' (GAO/NSIAD-96-69BR). The 
report concluded that since 1975, the annual number of serious 
DOD aviation accidents and the resulting fatalities and 
destroyed aircraft has declined significantly. In fiscal year 
1995, DOD reported its safest year in its aviation history in 
both the total number of Class A mishaps and the number per 
100,000 flying hours. Even though fiscal year 1995 was the 
safest year, the services still sustained 76 class A mishaps 
resulting in 85 fatalities and 67 destroyed aircraft. In fiscal 
year 1995, aircraft accidents cost the Department of Defense 
$1.3 billion in equipment losses and claims of damages against 
the government.
    As a result of the report, the committee believes there are 
several areas within the flight safety program where 
improvements could be made. First, the findings of the GAO 
review and an Air Force Blue Ribbon Panel on flight safety 
suggest that mishap investigation boards are perceived as 
lacking the necessary independence from the operational chain 
of command with management responsibility for the aircrew, 
support personnel, and aircraft involved in the accident. The 
GAO has made recommendations in the past to address concerns 
about accident investigation board independence and some 
changes have been made as a result. For example, the Air Force 
has recently changed its policy to require a representative 
from the Air Force safety center be included as a voting member 
of mishap investigation boards and to limit the authority to 
change mishap investigation board reports to the board members.
    Accordingly, this section would require the secretaries of 
the military departments to appoint a minimum of one 
representative of the service's safety center as a voting 
member on all accident investigation boards and to appoint a 
majority of the membership of accident investigation boards 
from units outside the chain of command of the unit involved in 
the mishap. The secretaries of the military departments are 
also encouraged to issue regulations specifying that the 
authority to change accident investigation board reports be 
vested only in the membership of the accident investigation 
boards.
    Second, the committee believes that the Secretary of 
Defense should take action to develop and manage a joint 
service effort to address flight safety issues which have 
application across service lines. For example, with human error 
reported as a contributing factor in about 70 percent of 
aircraft accidents, it may be appropriate for DOD to take the 
lead in assuring that the services jointly address the problem.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study the 
feasibility of operating a joint service program to address 
safety issues which have application across service lines and 
report the findings of the study to the Congress not later than 
March 31, 1997. At a minimum, the study should include an 
assessment of a joint program to require a standardized process 
for reporting and assessing the causes of accidents, 
disseminating universal lessons learned to help prevent 
accidents, and developing new approaches to reduce the 
incidence of recurring safety problems, such as human error.
    Finally, the committee recommends that the Secretary of 
Defense coordinate a review of the training of aviation 
managers, aircrew, and maintenance personnel to reduce the 
incidence of human error in flying operations by modifying 
aspects of training content, technique, and approach.
 Section 1034--Authority for Use of Appropriated Funds for Recruiting 
                               Functions
    This section would authorize the secretaries of the 
military departments to expend appropriated funds for small 
meals and snacks during recruiting functions.
Section 1035--Authority for Award of Medal of Honor to Certain African 
            American Soldiers Who Served During World War II
    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
award the Medal of Honor to African American former service 
members who have been found by the Secretary of the Army to 
have distinguished themselves by gallantry above and beyond the 
call of duty while serving in the United States Army during 
World War II.
 Section 1036--Compensation for Persons Awarded Prisoner of War Medal 
    Who Did Not Previously Receive Compensation as a Prisoner of War
    This section would require the secretaries of the military 
departments to pay subsistence and other allowances authorized 
to be paid to prisoners of war interned by a government of a 
nation with which the United States has been at war to former 
service members who were awarded the Prisoner of War Medal as a 
result of being interned by a nation with which the United 
States was not at war. The provision would establish a one year 
period for the submission of applications from former service 
members who believe they are eligible.
 Section 1037--George C. Marshall European Center for Strategic Studies
    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
accept contributions of money or services from any foreign 
nation intended to defray the cost of, or enhance the 
operations of the George C. Marshall European Center For 
Strategic Studies. The Secretary would be required to notify 
the Congress if total contributions of money exceed $2,000,000 
in any fiscal year. This provision would also authorize the 
Secretary of Defense to approve the participation of a European 
or Eurasian nation in Marshall Center programs if the Secretary 
determines, in cooperation with the Secretary of State, that 
such participation is in the national interest of the United 
States and would materially contribute to reform of the 
electoral process or development of democratic institutions.
 Section 1038--Participation of Members, Dependents, and Other Persons 
              in Crime Prevention Efforts at Installations
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
promulgate regulations to require service members, dependents, 
civilian employees and defense contractors working on a 
military installation to report to military law enforcement 
officials any criminal activity, to include pilferage, grand 
theft auto, underage drinking, embezzlement and rape or sexual 
assault, which occurs on a military installation. It also would 
require the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress by 
February 1, 1997, on efforts to implement this provision.
            Section 1039--Technical and Clerical Amendments
    This section would make a number of minor technical and 
clerical amendments.
       Section 1040--Prohibition on Carrying Out SR-71 Strategic 
             Reconnaissance Program During Fiscal Year 1997
    This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from 
obligating any funds during fiscal year 1997 to operate the SR-
71 strategic reconnaissance program. The committee is concerned 
that this program, while continuing to provide a unique 
capability, has outlived its affordability. Further, the 
committee notes that the Department of Defense has long sought 
to cease the operation of this aircraft and has been precluded 
from doing so by Congressional direction. The committee intends 
for this provision to serve as emphatic direction to the 
Department to cease the operation of this unaffordable 
intelligence collection program.
    The committee notes the recent letter from the Deputy 
Secretary of Defense informing the committee of the decision to 
terminate fiscal year 1996 SR-71 operations. The committee 
supports the Department's decision. While the Deputy 
Secretary's letter implied that this action was taken based on 
conflicting Congressional direction, the committee believes 
that it is fully consistent with the Department's position, as 
reflected by the lack of funding for this program in the 
President's fiscal year 1997 budget request.
                 TITLE XI--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION
                                OVERVIEW
    The budget request contained $327.9 million for cooperative 
threat reduction (CTR) activities, including $177.5 million for 
destruction and dismantlement, $119.5 million for fissile 
materials and nuclear weapons safety and storage, and $30.9 
million for other program support. The committee reiterates its 
support for the accelerated dismantlement and destruction of 
strategic offensive weapons in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and 
Belarus.
    The committee recommends a total of $302.9 million for CTR 
activities in fiscal year 1997, a reduction of $25.0 million 
from the requested amount. The committee recommends the 
requested amount for strategic offensive arms elimination 
activities in Russia, strategic nuclear arms elimination in 
Ukraine, fissile material storage containers in Russia, weapons 
storage and security in Russia, and defense and military-to-
military contacts. The committee recommends the following 
reductions to the requested amounts: chemical weapons 
destruction ($4.0 million); fissile material storage facility 
($20.0 million); and other program support ($1.0 million). The 
discussion below provides additional rationale for these 
reductions as well as other matters of interest and concern to 
the committee.
                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
                Lack of Updated, Multi-Year Program Plan
    Section 1205 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337) directed the Secretary to 
submit, together with the President's budget submission, an 
annual report on the Department's plans and funding required 
for the CTR program. This section also directed the Comptroller 
General to issue a report on the Secretary's report. The 
purpose of this reporting requirement for a multi-year program 
plan was to provide the Congress with greater visibility into 
the Department's long-term programmatic strategy and the 
resources required to implement that strategy. Unfortunately, 
the Department has failed to submit this report. Therefore, it 
is difficult for the committee to assess overall program costs 
and commitments, schedules, and milestones, and whether or how 
the funds requested for fiscal year 1997 fit into those plans. 
The committee once again directs that the Secretary promptly 
submit the requested multi-year plan.
    The committee also directs that future CTR multi-year plans 
should identify and explain significant cost, schedule, or 
scope changes from the preceding year's plan, and identify 
known uncertainties affecting project cost estimates and 
schedules. Finally, in order to better assess the impact of the 
CTR program on reducing the threat, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense, on an annual basis beginning with the 
multi-year plan submitted with the President's fiscal year 1998 
budget request, to include an assessment of the program's 
political and practical impact. This assessment shall include a 
listing of the number of missiles and launchers destroyed, the 
number of warheads safely stored, the quantities of chemical 
weapons destroyed, and the degree to which these actions 
resulted in an acceleration as compared to the schedule such 
activities would have otherwise occurred in the absence of U.S. 
assistance, as well as other appropriate measures of 
effectiveness that will allow the Congress to assess specific 
progress in the program.
                      Chemical Weapons Destruction
    The budget request included $2.2 million to initiate 
dismantlement of a chemical weapons production facility at 
Volgograd, Russia. The committee is concerned about 
establishing a precedent for a new U.S. commitment and program 
to assume responsibility for destroying Russian chemical 
weapons production facilities, especially given that Russia has 
both the resources and the technical capability to destroy such 
facilities. The committee believes that Russia should take 
immediate steps to destroy such facilities as a gesture of 
goodwill. Therefore, the committee denies the request to 
initiate this project.
    The budget request also included $3.3 million for the 
chemical weapons destruction support office in Moscow. The 
committee is not convinced of the need for such significant 
annual funding for what is essentially a clearinghouse for 
information on the chemical weapons destruction project. 
Therefore, the committee recommends $1.5 million for this 
activity, a reduction of $1.8 million from the request, and 
directs the Department to scale back the planned costs and 
operations of the support office to the minimum essential 
level.
    The Department has assured the committee that no fiscal 
year 1997 funds will be used to initiate actual construction 
activities associated with a pilot chemical weapons destruction 
plant. The funding recommended by the committee is based on 
this assurance, and therefore the committee expects that the 
fiscal year 1997 funds recommended herein will be used solely 
for planning and design activities.
    The committee also has a number of concerns regarding this 
project. First, although Russia recently completed and provided 
to the United States a comprehensive chemical weapons 
destruction implementation plan, questions regarding cost 
estimates, timelines, and overall credibility of that plan 
remain to be resolved. Second, the Department's plan for this 
project has been modified several times over the past year. 
Thus, the committee is unable to ascertain whether an 
appropriate U.S.-Russian cost-sharing arrangement has been 
finalized and, if so, what the U.S. responsibilities and 
obligations are for this project. Likewise, the committee is 
unable to determine whether the latest programmatic and 
technical milestones are in fact achievable. Third, the 
committee is aware of, but unable to assess any progress for, 
the Administration's effort to convince other nations to 
contribute funding for Russian chemical weapons destruction. 
Fourth, Russia has yet to ratify the Chemical Weapons 
Convention, has made no specific commitment to the United 
States to carry out the terms and conditions of the U.S.-Russia 
bilateral chemical weapons destruction agreement, signed in 
1990, and may still be developing offensive chemical weapons.
    In the absence of these details, and given the magnitude of 
the potential U.S. cost-share for this project (estimates range 
from several hundred million dollars to approximately $1.0 
billion), the committee cannot endorse proceeding with the 
actual construction of a chemical weapons destruction facility.
                   Fissile Material Storage Facility
    The budget request included $66.0 million for fissile 
material storage activities in Russia. The committee 
understands the Department plans to notify the committee of its 
intention to take $20.0 million in excess, prior-year funds for 
the fissile material storage facility and reallocate those 
funds for another CTR project. The committee directs that the 
$20.0 million in available, prior-year funds for the fissile 
material storage facility be applied toward fiscal year 1997 
fissile material storage activities. As a result, the fiscal 
year 1997 budget request can be reduced by this same amount 
without impacting program content. Therefore, the committee 
recommends $46.0 million, a reduction of $20.0 million, for 
this project in fiscal year 1997.
    The committee is aware that the U.S. government has 
insisted in negotiations with Russia that this new facility 
meet or exceed Western standards for safe and secure warhead 
and weapon component storage, and that Russia store all or the 
vast majority of its excess weapons-grade fissile material and 
warhead components there. Correspondingly, the U.S. government 
has sought to negotiate detailed and binding agreements with 
the Russian government on the quantity and type of components 
and fissile material that will be stored in the facility, and 
on the irreversibility of the dismantlements. However, the 
Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy (Minatom) has been unwilling 
to provide firm commitments on these points. In addition, the 
U.S. government has insisted on inspection provisions that 
would allow the United States to confirm that it is being used 
for its intended purpose, and to verify that the weapons 
components or fissile material placed there is not later used 
for weapons construction. Minatom has refused to agree to this 
demand as well. Other concerns with this project have been 
raised as well. For example, a recent Harvard University study 
noted that ``The storage facility will not begin operations 
until 1998 at the earliest, which raises questions about the 
wisdom of spending the largest single amount of money devoted 
to fissile material security from a very limited budget on a 
project that does nothing to meet the immediate needs for 
secure storage.''
    Based on these concerns, the committee directs that none of 
the fiscal year 1997 funds made available for fissile material 
storage may be obligated or expended until 15 days after the 
Secretary provides the congressional defense committees with a 
status report on the issues and concerns raised in the 
preceding paragraph.
    Finally, as with the chemical weapons destruction facility, 
the Department's plan for assisting in the design and 
construction of a fissile material storage facility in Russia 
has undergone significant changes recently, thereby making the 
description of this project contained in the 1995 multi-year 
plan no longer valid, according to DOD officials. Therefore, it 
is impossible for the committee to determine what obligations 
the United States now plans to assume for this project, the 
total project cost and planned completion date, and whether or 
how fiscal year 1997 funds fit into the overall plan. The 
committee notes again this situation could be rectified by 
prompt submission of the multi-year program plan.
                            Program Overhead
    The budget request included $20.9 million for other 
assessments/administrative costs. The committee recommends 
$19.9 million, a reduction of $1.0 million, for these 
activities. The reduction is made without prejudice, but 
expects the Department to identify efficiencies in program 
management and support services and contracts.
             Concerns Regarding Presidential Certification
    Section 211 of the Soviet Nuclear Threat Reduction Act of 
1991 (Public Law 102-228) requires that, as a condition of 
eligibility for U.S. assistance under the CTR program, the 
President must submit an annual certification that a proposed 
recipient country is ``committed to'' certain minimal actions 
and standards. For example, the President must certify that the 
proposed recipient country is committed to: making a 
substantial investment of its resources for dismantling or 
destroying such weapons; forgoing any military modernization 
program that exceeds legitimate defense requirements and 
forgoing the replacement of destroyed weapons of mass 
destruction; forgoing any use of fissionable and other 
components of destroyed nuclear weapons in new nuclear weapons; 
facilitating U.S. verification of weapons destruction; and 
complying with all relevant arms control agreements. The most 
recent certification was issued March 13, 1996, by the 
Secretary of State on the President's behalf.
    The committee strongly believes that the Russian Federation 
should promptly fulfill its obligations to honor all legal and 
political commitments to fully implement relevant arms control 
accords, including the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) 
Treaty, the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, the 
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), and agreements 
regarding chemical and biological weapons.
    The committee is frustrated that the Congress has yet to 
receive the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency's report to 
Congress on adherence to and compliance with arms control 
agreements, which is required to be submitted not later than 
January 31 of each year under which separate judgments are to 
be made regarding Russian compliance with relevant arms control 
accords.
    The committee believes that any certification judging 
Russia's commitment to complying with all relevant arms control 
agreements should be based on Russian actions, not rhetoric. 
The committee strongly believes it is not sufficient to refer 
to statements of Russian President Yeltsin and senior-level 
Russian policy officials as the sole evidence of Russia's 
compliance with arms control accords. In this regard, the 
committee notes that there is continuing evidence that the 
commitments made by President Yeltsin have not been implemented 
by the Russian Ministry of Defense.
    To this end, the committee expresses deep concern that the 
preponderance of the March 13, 1996 report referenced above 
raises numerous concerns and issues regarding Russian 
activities that are inconsistent with its obligations under 
various relevant arms control accords, and in one case outright 
noncompliance. Yet, in the face of such overwhelming evidence 
of Russian misbehavior and intransigence, Russia is still 
judged to be committed to complying with its arms control 
obligations.
    In this regard, the committee expects the Administration, 
as it deliberates on the 1997 certification for Russia, to 
ensure that such certification outlines a list of concrete 
steps and actions taken by Russia to fulfill its obligations 
under relevant arms control accords.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
  Section 1101--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs
    This section would specify CTR programs.-
           Section 1102--Fiscal Year 1997 Funding Allocations
    This section would allocate fiscal year 1997 funding for 
various CTR purposes and activities.
    Section 1103--Prohibition on Use of Funds For Specified Purposes
    This section would prohibit the use of CTR funds for 
specified purposes.
                   Section 1104--Limitation on Funds
    This section would prohibit obligation or expenditure of 
fiscal year 1997 CTR funds until 15 days after various reports 
are submitted to Congress.
                  Section 1105--Availability of Funds
    This section would make fiscal year 1997 CTR funds 
available for obligation for three fiscal years.
                TITLE XII--RESERVE FORCES REVITALIZATION
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
                Subtitle A--Reserve Component Structure
                Section 1211--Reserve Component Commands
    This section would establish separate reserve commands and 
commanders for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force 
reserves. The section would also delineate the forces to be 
assigned to each reserve command, as well as prescribe the 
subsequent assignment of the reserve forces to the commanders-
in-chief (CINCs) of the joint combatant commands.
                 Section 1211--Reserve Component Chiefs
    This section would establish separate offices of the 
military reserve chiefs as part of the staffs of the senior 
military headquarters of each of the services. In addition, the 
section would also prescribe the appointment criteria and 
procedures, and term of office for the reserve chiefs, and 
would also assign budget, annual reporting, and other 
management responsibilities to the reserve component chiefs.
   Section 1213--Review of Active Duty and Reserve General and Flag 
                         Officer Authorizations
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct a comprehensive review of the existing statutory 
reserve and active general and flag officer authorizations and 
report to Congress any recommendations for revisions to those 
authorizations, as well as recommendations for the statutory 
designation of other general and flag officers as part of the 
commands created in sections 1211 and 1212 of this title. The 
section would also require the Secretary to report on whether 
reserve component general and flag officers should be exempt 
from existing active duty general officer ceilings.
              Section 1214--Guard and Reserve Technicians
    This section would redefine military technicians as federal 
civilian employees hired under titles 5 and 32, United States 
Code, who are required to maintain dual-status as drilling 
reserve component members as a condition of their federal 
employment. The section would mandate that military technicians 
be authorized and accounted for as a separate category of 
civilian employees who are exempt from general civilian 
personnel reductions in the Department of Defense. The section 
would permit military technicians reductions only if the 
reductions were related to force structure changes.
Section 1215--Technical Amendment Reflecting Prior Revision to National 
                          Guard Bureau Charter
    This section would make a technical amendment to section 
641 of title 10, United States Code to correct an erroneous 
reference.
              Subtitle B--Reserve Component Accessibility
Section 1231--Report to Congress on Measures Taken to Improve National 
          Guard and Reserve Ability to Respond to Emergencies
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
report comprehensively on the measures taken or planned to 
improve the timeliness, adequacy and effectiveness of reserve 
component responses to domestic emergencies. The section would 
also require the Secretary of Defense to assess the 
recommendations of the 1995 RAND report, ``Assessing the State 
and Federal Missions of the National Guard.''
           Sections 1232 Through 1234--Reporting Requirements
    These sections would require the Secretary of Defense to 
report to Congress on tax incentives for employees of members 
of the reserve components, on income programs for activated 
reservists, and on small business loans for reservists released 
from active duty following contingency operation.
                 Subtitle C--Reserve forces Sustainment
 Sections 1251 Through 1256--Improvements to Reserve Component Quality 
                          of Life and Benefits
    These sections would require the Secretary of Defense to 
propose legislation on the tax deductibility of some 
unreimbursed expenses incurred by reservists, as well as 
legislative changes which would reduce the disparity of 
benefits between the active and reserve components. These 
sections would also authorize the Secretary of Defense to pay 
transient housing charges or provide lodging in kind for 
reservists in certain training situations.
             TITLE XIII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS
                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
                      Arms Control Implementation
    The Administration's fiscal year 1997 budget requests 
$282.3 million for arms control implementation programs. The 
committee notes that a number of arms control agreements have 
not yet been ratified or entered into force. For example, the 
Chemical Weapons Convention has been signed by both Russia and 
the United States, but neither country has ratified it and it 
lacks ratification by the requisite number of countries to 
enter into force. The START II Treaty has been ratified by the 
United States, but not by Russia. And the Comprehensive Test 
Ban Treaty is currently under negotiation. Delays in the entry 
into force of these treaties will likely allow some reduction 
in the amount of funding authorized for these arms control 
implementation programs. Accordingly, the committee will 
continue to monitor developments in these arms control areas 
with a view toward possible further adjustments to the 
Administration's budget request.
                      Chemical Weapons Convention
    The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) prohibits the 
production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons. Last 
year, the Congress expressed its sense that the United States 
and Russia, both signatories to the agreement, should ratify it 
promptly. However, the treaty has not yet entered into force to 
date for lack of the requisite number of ratifications.
    The committee supports the ratification and full 
implementation by all parties of the convention, as negotiated. 
However, the committee remains concerned that Russia continues 
to engage in chemical weapons activities inconsistent with the 
accord. In addition, Iran, a signatory to the convention, has 
been characterized by one U.S. official as having ``the most 
active chemical weapons program'' in the Third World. And a 
number of states that possess active chemical weapons programs, 
such as Libya, are not signatories to the accord. For example, 
the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central 
Intelligence have confirmed that Libya is engaged in the 
construction of an underground chemical weapons facility carved 
into a mountain near Tarhunah. This extensive project 
demonstrates the Libyan commitment to the acquisition of a 
significant chemical weapons capability and raises questions 
about the ability of arms control agreements like the Chemical 
Weapons Convention to substantively impair the ability of rogue 
regimes to acquire these types of weapons of terror.
    The committee believes the continued proliferation of 
chemical weapons capabilities raises serious issues with 
respect to the CWC, and directs the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to the Congressional defense committees no 
later than December 31, 1996, in both classified and 
unclassified form, that addresses the impact of the CWC on both 
the ability of U.S. forces deployed abroad to execute their 
missions and on the chemical weapons programs of other 
countries. The report should include:
          (1) an identification of the types of weapons or 
        chemical agents that can and cannot be used by U.S. 
        forces and under what circumstances;
          (2) an assessment of the impact of the CWC on the 
        chemical weapons ----programs of other signatory 
        states;
          (3) an assessment of whether the obligations 
        contained within the CWC can be met by other signatory 
        states within the time frames established by the 
        Convention;
          (4) an identification of states that are not 
        signatories and an assessment of the impact of the CWC 
        on the chemical weapons programs of those states;
          (5) a description of efforts being undertaken to 
        enlarge the number of ---signatories; and
          (6) a description and analysis of efforts by Libya to 
        construct an underground chemical weapons facility at 
        Tarhunah.
                         Comprehensive Test Ban
    The committee is concerned with the Administration's 
inclination to reach a conclusion this year of an international 
treaty banning all nuclear tests based on the rationale that it 
would strengthen U.S. efforts to halt the spread of nuclear 
weapons. The committee is troubled by this assumption. Several 
Third World nations that either presently have a nuclear 
capability or may be capable of assembling nuclear weapons on 
short notice have reached this level of development despite 
never having conducted a nuclear test of which the West is 
aware. In fact, the relatively crude weapons Third World 
countries are likely to develop may not require any nuclear 
testing.
    In addition, many experts believe that a Comprehensive Test 
Ban Treaty (CTBT) is unlikely to ever be effectively 
verifiable. Countries intent on cheating could identify and 
implement evasive measures that would make it virtually 
impossible for U.S. sensors to detect low-yield tests. This 
thesis is given additional credibility by reports that the 
Russians may have recently conducted a nuclear test, in 
violation of their self-imposed moratorium, at their nuclear 
test site on Novaya Zemlya. The Secretary of Defense has stated 
that there is ``some ambiguity in the evidence'' and that the 
intelligence community has ``some people saying yes and other 
people saying maybe.''
    In the committee's view, nuclear testing is needed to 
assure the safety, reliability, and effectiveness of U.S. 
nuclear weapons in the future. Despite progress in non-nuclear 
testing technology and applications, nuclear testing will 
ultimately be required to refine and validate these ``non-
testing'' technologies if the United States hopes to have 
confidence in them as viable alternatives to actual testing. 
Moreover, as confidence in the effectiveness of the U.S. 
nuclear arsenal declines, so does its credibility. If the 
credibility of the nuclear guarantee to U.S. allies is called 
into question, those allies may seek to develop their own 
nuclear capabilities.
    With these concerns in mind, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of 
Energy and the Director of Central Intelligence, to submit a 
report to the Congressional defense committees no later than 
December 31, 1996 describing the ability of the United States 
to monitor a CTBT and to detect low-yield nuclear tests. The 
report should also assess whether or not the Russians have 
conducted any nuclear tests since their self-imposed moratorium 
in 1992 and should detail any difficulties in making such 
determinations.
              Department of Defense Activities With China
    The committee recognizes that U.S.-China civilian-military 
and direct military-military contact are key components of the 
U.S. strategy of ``comprehensive engagement'' toward China. The 
committee also recognizes that as China continues to develop 
its armed forces, it could potentially evolve into a more 
direct threat to the national security of the United States and 
American interests in the Asia-Pacific region. Therefore, the 
committee finds it necessary to pursue a fuller understanding 
of all Department of Defense interaction with the Chinese 
government and military organizations. Particularly, the 
committee seeks a full accounting and detailed presentation of:
          (1) Department of Defense interaction with the 
        People's Republic of China, including meetings, 
        training, military technology-sharing or other related 
        events which took place during the period spanning 
        fiscal years 1994-1996, and those proposed for fiscal 
        years 1997 and 1998;
          (2) the rationale for any information or technology 
        sharing which took place during or as a result of any 
        of the previously identified forms of interaction;
          (3) costs incurred or other support provided by the 
        Department of Defense for the aforementioned 
        cooperative initiatives and related programs during the 
        fiscal years 1994-1996, and costs and funding 
        mechanisms anticipated for future or related 
        activities;
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to provide a classified and unclassified report to the 
congressional defense committees not later than February 1, 
1997.
                   Operation Joint Endeavor in Bosnia
    Since the original commitment by the Administration to 
deploy United States armed forces as part of the multinational 
peace implementation force (IFOR) in Bosnia, the committee has 
been concerned over the strategic rationale for American 
participation on the ground in Bosnia and the prospects for 
ultimate success of the NATO-led peace mission. As part of its 
oversight responsibilities, the committee held numerous 
hearings on the Bosnia deployment, taking testimony in open and 
closed sessions from Administration witnesses, former 
ambassadors, current and former senior military officials, and 
expert scholars and academics. In addition, the committee has 
received regular briefings from the Administration on the 
military and political situation in the former Yugoslavia.
    In the committee's view, the decision to deploy American 
ground troops as part of the peace implementation force lacked 
compelling strategic rationale. Nevertheless, once the 
deployment began, the committee's concerns shifted to the 
operational impacts of the mission. Specifically, the committee 
remains concerned on a number of fronts. First and foremost has 
been the safety and security of U.S. armed forces as they 
enforce the military aspects of the Dayton peace agreement. 
Second, the committee has been concerned that the military 
mission of IFOR not be transformed into a civilian ``nation-
building'' exercise, as was the case in Somalia. Third, the 
committee sought to ensure that the Department of Defense has a 
sound and clearly articulated exit strategy for withdrawing 
U.S. ground forces at the end of the one-year deadline imposed 
by the Administration. In these areas, the results have so far 
been decidedly mixed, and many of the committee's concerns have 
not been alleviated.
    The committee is extremely proud of the dedication and 
professionalism with which the American men and women in 
uniform have performed their missions in the former Yugoslavia. 
U.S. armed forces have worked under challenging political, 
military, and environmental conditions and have performed 
admirably. The committee takes pride in recognizing that the 
performance of U.S. armed forces in the former Yugoslavia 
demonstrates that the U.S. military is second-to-none. However, 
the committee is concerned that American soldiers still face 
threats to their safety, including threats from the presence of 
armed Islamic fundamentalists in Bosnia. The presence of these 
mujahedeen forces is a clear violation of the Dayton agreement. 
Moreover, the committee is disturbed that the Administration, 
by tacitly approving the shipment of Iranian arms through 
Croatia to the Bosnian Muslims during the time that the UN arms 
embargo was in effect, may have allowed these Islamic 
fundamentalists, including Iranian Revolutionary Guards and 
intelligence services, to establish a solid foothold in Bosnia 
and on the European mainland.
    While most of the military aspects of the Dayton agreement 
have been fulfilled, persistent violations of the accord 
continue to raise questions about the commitment of the parties 
to a just and lasting peace and to the endurance of the peace 
process after U.S. ground forces are withdrawn. For example, 
unauthorized checkpoints continue to impede freedom of 
movement, arson and looting are widespread, numerous violations 
of the zone of separation have occurred, soldiers and heavy 
weapons have not been withdrawn to barracks and storage sites 
as required, air defense weapons remain unaccounted for, 
prisoners of war continue to be held by all parties, and the 
incidences of civilian disturbances between Bosnian Serbs, 
Croats, and Muslims are increasing.
    In addition, IFOR troops are increasingly being tasked with 
duties that are more appropriately left to civilian 
authorities. NATO troops have been called on to put out fires 
set by arsonists, IFOR has provided escort and security to 
investigators of the War Crimes Tribunal as they search mass 
gravesites, and NATO spokesmen have declared that the focus of 
the IFOR mission is changing in a way that will allow greater 
military involvement in support of the civilian rebuilding of 
Bosnia. In the committee's view, this comes dangerously close 
to the kind of ``mission creep'' that the Department of Defense 
has assured the committee it will not permit. With the 
implementation of the civilian aspects of the Dayton accord 
running significantly behind schedule, the committee believes 
that clearer ``rules of the road'' need to be formulated by the 
Department in order to prevent U.S. armed forces from becoming 
too heavily involved in nation-building endeavors in Bosnia.
    Significantly, the Administration's exit strategy for U.S. 
ground forces remains unclear. The Administration has on 
numerous occasions sought to assure the committee that U.S. 
troops would not remain in Bosnia beyond one year. In testimony 
before the House International Relations Committee on April 23, 
1996, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Peter 
Tarnoff, stated under oath that ``our policy . . . is to have 
all U.S. forces out on or about the 14th of December.'' When 
asked if there was any plan to delay the withdrawal, he 
responded, ``There is none whatsoever.'' At the same time, 
however, the committee's repeated requests for an explanation 
of the Administration's exit strategy have produced nothing 
more than seemingly reflexive references to the calendar. A 
date for withdrawal, however, does not a strategy make.
    It is increasingly becoming apparent to the committee that 
U.S. ground forces will, in fact, remain in Bosnia well beyond 
the one-year timetable stated by the Administration and on 
which significant Congressional support for the operation was 
originally conditioned. The committee notes that within days of 
Secretary Tarnoff's assurances, the Department of Defense 
announced its decision to maintain a ``significant force'' in 
Bosnia for ``a month, maybe longer'' after the December 1996 
deadline for withdrawal. It therefore appears that the 
successful fulfillment of IFOR's military mission is an 
insufficient reason for keeping to the planned U.S. force 
withdrawal schedule. Moreover, the Administration appears no 
closer either to formulating a coherent and rational exit 
strategy or to deciding when initial U.S. troop withdrawals 
should commence.
    In light of these developments, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Congressional 
defense committees within 60 days of the enactment of this Act 
that fully explains the Administration's Bosnia exit strategy. 
This report should fully address the Department's plans to 
withdraw U.S. ground forces according to the original 
timetable, outline the conditions under which that planned 
withdrawal may be delayed, and for how long, clearly describe 
the Department's guidelines for avoiding ``mission creep,'' and 
discuss the conditions whereby U.S. troops have been, are, and 
would be used to accomplish, or assist in the accomplishment 
of, various civilian and humanitarian tasks. This report should 
be prepared in both classified and unclassified form.
                      Russian Missile Detargeting
    During his State of the Union Address on January 23, 1996, 
President Clinton stated, ``For the first time since the dawn 
of the nuclear age, there are no Russian missiles pointed at 
America's children.'' President Clinton similarly claimed in 
1994 that the so-called ``detargeting agreement'' of January 
14, 1994 has effectively halted the targeting of Russian 
nuclear missiles against the United States. The detargeting 
agreement, officially the Moscow Declaration, was a statement 
signed by Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin that provides: ``. . . 
for the detargeting of strategic nuclear missiles under their 
respective commands so that by not later than May 30, 1994, 
those missiles will not be targeted.''
    Both Russian and American experts overwhelmingly hold that 
the detargeting provisions of the Moscow Declaration are non-
binding, unverifiable, and militarily inconsequential. For 
example, Russian General Viktor Yesin, Chief of the Strategic 
Missile Forces (SMF) Main Staff, in an April 1995 interview on 
the detargeting agreement noted, ``The missiles' target 
coordinates can be unloaded and reloaded. Missile specialists 
believe that the SMF's actual combat readiness following Boris 
Yeltsin's generous gesture of friendship to the Americans has 
not diminished.'' Anton Surikov, a senior advisor to the 
Russian Ministry of Defense, acknowledged in a March 1995 
interview, ``When it was decided to detarget missiles, the 
decision was mostly of a political, propaganda character,'' 
because, ``Technically it is not difficult to retarget a 
missile very quickly.''
    Therefore, the committee is concerned that Administration 
statements may be significantly overstating the strategic and 
military significance of the 1994 detargeting agreement. To 
ensure that an appropriate record is established on this 
critical national security question, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to provide a report to Congress by January 
1, 1997 on the verifiability and military significance of the 
detargeting provisions of the Moscow Declaration of January 14, 
1994. The report should specifically address the following 
questions: Can the United States independently verify that 
Russian nuclear missiles are not targeted on the United States? 
Assuming that Russian missiles are detargeted, is it likely 
that coordinates for targets in the United States are still 
stored locally and can be used to reprogram Russian missiles on 
short notice? How long does retargeting of Russian missiles 
take? The report is to be prepared in classified and 
unclassified versions.
                       Russian Threat Perceptions
    The committee is aware of allegations that during the 
1980s, military and political leaders of the former Soviet 
Union believed that a surprise nuclear attack by the United 
States was imminent and undertook special intelligence and 
defense measures to detect and preempt such an attack. In 
addition, allegations exist that Russian military forces went 
on nuclear alerts in 1991 and 1995, and that behavior and 
programs associated with the so-called ``war scare'' may 
persist in Russia today. Therefore, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of 
Central Intelligence, to provide, not later than January 1, 
1997, a report on these matters to the Congressional defense 
and intelligence committees. The report should describe any 
evidence since 1983 of such threat perceptions; nuclear alerts; 
Russian preparations to detect, preempt, or defend against a 
surprise nuclear attack; and the extent to which these 
attitudes and activities continue today.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
                   Subtitle A--Miscellaneous Matters
  Section 1301--One-Year Extension of Counterproliferation Authorities
    This section would extend through fiscal year 1997 the 
Weapons of Mass Destruction Control Act of 1992 (title XV of 
Public Law 102-484; 22 U.S.C. 5859a), which expires at the end 
of fiscal year 1996. This authority is necessary for the 
Department of Defense to continue its support of the UN Special 
Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM). The committee supports the 
extension of this authority given ongoing concerns over Iraq's 
continued possession of weapons of mass destruction and missile 
delivery systems.
 Section 1302--Limitation on Retirement or Dismantlement of Strategic 
                       Nuclear Delivery Vehicles
    This section would prohibit the use of funds appropriated 
to the Department of Defense during fiscal year 1997 for 
retiring or dismantling any B-52H bombers, Trident ballistic 
missile submarines, Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic 
missiles (ICBMs), or Peacekeeper ICBMs. The committee considers 
this a prudent step in light of the fact that Russia has thus 
far failed to ratify the START II treaty and the established 
shortcomings in the U.S. bomber force structure. The committee 
intends that this prohibition not apply to long-range pre-
planning, design and evaluation efforts to allow the military 
departments to be ready to execute various retirement and 
dismantlement options in an efficient manner.
    To implement the provision, $56.4 million is required to 
retain 28 B-52H aircraft in the active inventory during fiscal 
year 1997. The committee recommends an additional $11.5 million 
in Air Force procurement funds for this purpose. Furthermore, 
the committee directs that of the amount authorized to be 
appropriated pursuant to Title III for Air Force operations and 
maintenance, $42.9 million shall be available for this purpose, 
and that of the amount authorized to be appropriated pursuant 
to Title IV for Air Force military personnel, $2.0 million 
shall be available for this purpose.
Section 1303--Certification Required Before Observance of Moratorium on 
             Use by Armed Forces of Antipersonnel Landmines
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, after 
consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to 
certify to Congress that a moratorium on the use of 
antipersonnel landmines would not adversely affect the ability 
of U.S. armed forces to defend against attack and that 
effective substitutes for antipersonnel landmines exist, prior 
to implementation of such a moratorium.
    The committee notes that the Administration is seeking a 
global ban on the use of antipersonnel landmines because of the 
civilian casualties that are caused by haphazardly laid or 
marked non-self-destructing antipersonnel landmines after 
hostilities have ceased. The committee further notes that it is 
precisely because of the lingering effects of non-self-
destructive landmines that U.S. armed forces have refrained 
from purchasing these types of landmines since 1974. Today, 
U.S. armed forces use non-self-destructing landmines only along 
internationally recognized borders or in demilitarized zones 
within a perimeter marked area that is monitored by military 
personnel and protected by adequate means to ensure the 
exclusion of civilians. Self-destructing landmines do not pose 
a significant humanitarian threat, since they self-destruct 
with a high degree of reliability at a designated time after 
emplacement.
    The committee supports efforts to minimize and eliminate 
post-combat civilian casualties and notes that the United 
States has been the global leader in working toward this 
objective. However, the committee notes that the problem of 
post-combat civilian casualties today stems from the 
indiscriminate and irresponsible use by other countries of non-
self-destructing landmines. The shift by the United States 
toward self-destructing landmines has not been matched by other 
nations. The committee does not believe that a unilateral 
moratorium on the use of antipersonnel landmines by U.S. armed 
forces would be observed by other nations, especially in light 
of the fact that antipersonnel landmines are relatively 
inexpensive and there are no effective substitutes for them at 
present.
    Landmines are an integral part of current U.S. doctrine and 
an important economy-of-force combat multiplier. They are an 
integral component of the ability to conduct maneuver warfare, 
as was demonstrated so successfully during Operation Desert 
Storm. A moratorium on their use would seriously diminish the 
U.S. ability to conduct ground combat operations, putting 
soldiers at greater risk, and requiring increased expenditures 
to maintain an equivalent level of battlefield power. The 
committee does not support a unilateral restriction on the use 
of defensive weapons that will result in increased risk to 
American men and women in uniform.
    The committee is disturbed by reports that the 
Administration is reviewing current policy with a view toward 
establishing a date certain for a ban on the use of all 
antipersonnel landmines. This proposal reportedly has the 
support of the Department of Defense. In the committee's view, 
effective and inexpensive substitutes should be available prior 
to implementation of such a ban. Moreover, the committee is 
perplexed by the apparent shift in the position of the Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who last year declared 
antipersonnel landmines to be `indispensable'' and urged the 
defeat of moratorium legislation subsequently signed into law 
by the President. In September 1995, Joint Chiefs of Staff 
Chairman General Shalikashvili wrote to the committee's 
chairman and ranking minority member that ``the proposed 
legislation in the Senate bill would ban use of antipersonnel 
landmines by U.S. forces except in narrowly defined scenarios. 
I have significant concerns because, as written, American 
personnel would be placed at risk.''
    General Shalikashvili noted that ``the proposed 
legislation, beginning three years after enactment, would 
prohibit the use for one year of anti-personnel landmines by 
U.S. forces, except in marked and guarded minefields along 
internationally recognized national borders and demilitarized 
zones. The legislation would effectively prohibit the use of 
all self-destructing mine systems because they employ a 
combination of anti-tank and anti-personnel mines. Self-
destructing antipersonnel mines represent approximately 65 
percent of the U.S. total antipersonnel mine inventory. Mines 
were an indispensable component of the coalition's ability to 
conduct the maneuver warfare that made such an important 
contribution to victory in Desert Storm. Significantly, mines 
secured the right flank of General Schwartzkopf's ground 
offensive in western Iraq.''
    Importantly, the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman noted, ``I 
wish to emphasize that mines used by U.S. armed forces self-
destruct a short period of time after emplacement with a high 
degree of reliability and do not pose a significant 
humanitarian problem. Restricting antipersonnel landmines to 
`internationally recognized national borders' and demilitarized 
zones effectively prohibits their use by U.S. forces in most 
combat scenarios. Defensive minefields around sensitive 
military installations such as Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, 
Cuba, would also be precluded. U.S. forces are heavily 
dependent upon such minefields for security.'' General 
Shalikashvili also noted that ``the U.S. military strongly 
opposes the illegal and irresponsible use of these mines and is 
a proponent of humanitarian demining activities to alleviate 
suffering caused by them. However, antipersonnel landmines will 
be required by U.S. forces for safe defense in the foreseeable 
future. Congress and the American people expect us to fight and 
win conflicts with minimum casualties. That goal requires the 
retention of capabilities provided by the advanced, self-
destructing mine systems which would be prohibited under the 
proposed legislation.''
    Finally, General Shalikashvili declared, ``While I 
wholeheartedly support U.S. leadership in the long-term goal of 
antipersonnel landmine elimination, unilateral actions which 
needlessly place our forces at risk now will not induce good 
behavior from irresponsible combatants. As practical solutions 
are pursued, our priorities must be to maintain warfighting 
superiority while concurrently protecting the safety of U.S. 
service men and women. I consider this to be a critical force 
protection issue and request your support to defeat the 
proposed legislation.''
    The committee fails to understand what objective factors 
have changed since September, 1995 that would now make 
acceptable what was unacceptable then. Until such time as 
effective substitutes for antipersonnel landmines are 
developed, the committee believes that U.S. forces should not 
be denied the use of weapons that are purely defensive and 
consistent with international law.
          Section 1304--Department of Defense Demining Program
    This section would make clarifying changes to section 401, 
title 10, United States Code relating to the authority of the 
Department of Defense to carry out a humanitarian demining 
program. The committee continues to support the use of military 
personnel and resources to conduct humanitarian demining 
efforts that are consistent with normal training requirements. 
Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1304) 
that clarifies the Department's authorities with regard to 
funding travel, transportation, subsistence expenses for 
military personnel participating in such training. The 
provision further provides clarification regarding the ability 
of the Department to fund the costs of equipment, supplies, and 
services directly associated with the authorized humanitarian 
demining training operation. However, the committee does not 
agree to the Administration's request to authorize the 
Department to provide services and equipment to recipient 
nations following the completion of the training operation.
    The committee agrees with the Administration's humanitarian 
demining strategy to pursue a program that is sustainable and 
effective. However, the committee believes that the Department 
of Defense's participation in this program should be limited to 
those functions that it can uniquely and effectively perform. 
The provision of contract services, equipment and other 
materiel to recipient nations is a clear foreign assistance 
function that is best carried out through the authorities 
provided and resources specifically appropriated for this 
purpose. The committee notes with concern that the trend over 
the past few years has been for the government to rely on the 
Department of Defense to shoulder an increasing if not 
principal share of the responsibility for this foreign 
assistance initiative. The committee notes that the President's 
fiscal year 1997 budget request for humanitarian demining 
activities within the international affairs budget function 
totals $7 million, while the national defense function request 
totals $25 million.
    The committee strongly urges the Secretary of Defense to 
work with the Secretary of State and other applicable 
government agencies to establish clearer and more appropriate 
allocation of responsibilities in the execution of a multi-
agency humanitarian demining effort that fulfills previously 
stated objectives.
 Section 1305--Report on Military Capabilities of People's Republic of 
                                 China
    The military exercises and missile firings conducted by the 
People's Republic of China this past spring in and around the 
Taiwan Straits represented the culmination of several years' of 
modernization and innovation in selected units of the People's 
Liberation Army (PLA). The exercises formed a benchmark of 
Chinese military development, demonstrating new capabilities 
for projecting military power and for joint force operations. 
In the committee's judgment, the American response to these 
Chinese actions, though belated, also sent a clear signal of 
both U.S. political interests and military capabilities in the 
Asia-Pacific region.
    As a result of these developments, the committee concurs 
with initial Department of Defense and independent analysis 
concluding that that the PLA has reached a crossroads, having 
gained a better understanding of the required military 
capabilities for the kind of power projection forces needed to 
support its geopolitical aims in the region. The committee 
further believes that the Chinese now better understand the 
strategic requirement to deter or to raise the costs of 
American military intervention if they intend to retain the 
option of coercive diplomacy or the actual use of military 
force to achieve their national goals. In particular, the 
committee is concerned that the PLA now will devote more 
intensive efforts to developing those kinds of capabilities 
that will work to deny the ability to U.S. forces to operate 
with little risk in the region. Thus, the Chinese may move to 
develop different kinds of systems than their past 
modernization efforts, with a view toward increasing deterrence 
of U.S. power projection forces in the Asia-Pacific region.
    These concerns prompt the committee to direct the Secretary 
of Defense to report, in classified and unclassified form, on 
the potential and likelihood for the People's Liberation Army 
to pursue such a modernization strategy. The committee also 
directs the Secretary of Defense to take a ``net assessment'' 
approach to the preparation of this report, so that the varying 
strategic concerns of the United States and China and the 
differing operational tasks of Chinese and American forces may 
be properly taken into account. The report shall be submitted 
no later than February 1, 1997.
 Section 1306--United States-People's Republic of China Joint Defense 
                         Conversion Commission
    This section would prohibit obligation or expenditure of 
fiscal year 1997 funds for activities associated with the U.S.-
PRC Joint Defense Conversion Commission until 15 days after the 
date on which the first semiannual report required by section 
1343 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1996 (Public Law 104-106) is received by Congress.
Section 1307--Authority To Accept Services From Foreign Governments and 
            International Organizations for Defense Purposes
    This section would permit the Department of Defense to 
accept services, as well as money or property, from foreign 
governments and international organizations for the Defense 
Cooperation Account. The Defense Cooperation Account was 
originally established to enable the Department of Defense to 
use funds from sources other than the U.S. Treasury to defray 
the costs of U.S. military forces participating in multi-
national operations.
 Section 1308--Review by Director of Central Intelligence of National 
                      Intelligence Estimate 95-19
    This section would direct the Director of Central 
Intelligence (DCI) to convene a panel of independent, non-
government experts to review the underlying assumptions and 
conclusions of the November, 1995 National Intelligence 
Estimate (NIE) on ``Emerging Missile Threats to North America 
During the Next 15 Years,'' NIE 95-19, and to report the 
panel's findings to Congress, along with the DCI's comments. In 
light of serious questions that have been raised about the 
NIE's terms of reference and conclusions, which downplay the 
prospect of a long-range missile threat to the contiguous 48 
states within the next 15 years, the committee believes that an 
objective and independent assessment of the NIE is both 
necessary and desirable.
    The committee notes that the public release by the 
Administration of the NIE's key findings, which were summarized 
in a December 1, 1995 CIA letter to the Senate, occurred in the 
midst of the debate over the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 1996 (Pubilc Law 104-106). The NIE was cited 
during that debate to bolster the Administration's position 
that deployment of a national missile defense system was 
unnecessary because there was no threat in the foreseeable 
future. The conclusions reached in the NIE and the timing of 
its insertion into the missile defense debate have given rise 
to charges that intelligence may have been ``politicized.'' The 
committee believes it is essential that U.S. policy makers be 
confident that they are receiving objective analysis from the 
intelligence community. Any allegation of politicization brings 
into question the integrity of the intelligence community's 
work.
    The committee notes that independent scholars and former 
intelligence community officials, including former DCI R. James 
Woolsey, have questioned the terms of reference and methodology 
of the NIE. Ambassador Woolsey, President Clinton's first 
Director of Central Intelligence, testified before the 
committee on March 14, 1996 that the intelligence community's 
focus on missile threats to the continental United States 
(excluding Alaska and Hawaii) ``can lead to a badly distorted 
and minimized perception of the serious threats we face from 
ballistic missiles now and in the very near future . . .'' He 
further commented that drawing broad conclusions from an 
assessment ``of such limited scope'' would be ``a serious 
error.'' The former DCI observed that ``even with the best 
intelligence in the world it is impossible to forecast fifteen 
years in advance. . . .''
    Criticisms of the NIE center on its core assumptions: (1) 
that nations will be limited to their indigenous industrial and 
technological base when developing ICBMs; (2) that countries 
with the capability to develop ICBMs will not do so in the time 
frame in question; (3) that ballistic missile threats to Alaska 
and Hawaii are somehow less consequential than a missile threat 
to the contiguous 48 states; (4) that nations will not seek to 
acquire ICBMs that do not provide a militarily significant 
warfighting potential; and (5) that the risk of unauthorized or 
accidental missile launch by Russia or China is no greater now 
than during the Cold War. In the committee's view, an 
independent review of the NIE must address these assumptions.
    In response to criticisms of the NIE, the committee 
supports an independent assessment of its assumptions, terms of 
reference, methodology, and conclusions. As part of such an 
effort, the committee directs the Director of Central 
Intelligence to ensure, at a minimum, that the panel conducting 
the assessment:
          (1) Reviews the classified and unclassified reports 
        and other inputs that formed the basis for the NIE;
          (2) Analyzes the terms of reference and methodology 
        used by the intelligence community in the preparation 
        of the NIE and assesses their comprehensiveness;
          (3) Evaluates the conclusions reached in the NIE and 
        reports on areas of agreement and disagreement with the 
        panel's findings;
          (4) Identifies and assesses the reasons for the 
        inclusion of any questionable assumptions and logic 
        that may exist in the NIE;
          (5) Compares the methodology and conclusions of the 
        NIE to that of earlier NIEs that address similar 
        topics; and
          (6) Reports on any recommended changes in the current 
        NIE process that would result in improvements to future 
        NIEs.
    In a related matter, the committee believes a more 
comprehensive assessment of the ballistic missile threat to the 
United States is warranted. To this end, the committee 
recommends establishment in Section 1321 of a separate 
``Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the 
United States.''
 Subtitle B--Commission To Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the 
                             United States
               Section 1321--Establishment of Commission
    The committee believes that the threat posed to the United 
States from ballistic missiles is real and growing. However, 
the committee recognizes that much controversy surrounds this 
issue and the intelligence community's assessment, as reflected 
in the November, 1995 National Intelligence Estimate on 
``Emerging Missile Threats to North America During the Next 15 
Years.'' In an effort to receive expert competitive analysis on 
the ballistic missile threat, this subtitle would establish a 
commission to be known as the ``Commission to Assess the 
Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States.''
    The committee believes that, in keeping with past 
precedent, this commission should ideally have been established 
as a cooperative and self-initiated endeavor within the 
executive branch. The intelligence community has in the past 
supported independent and competitive analysis of its 
conclusions by outside experts. In particular, the committee 
recalls the establishment in the 1970s of a ``Team B,'' which 
was granted full access to classified and unclassified 
information in order to review and critique the intelligence 
community's judgment and to provide an alternative analysis 
regarding the strategic goals and objectives of the Soviet 
Union. The ``Team B'' exercise was broadly judged to be a 
successful experiment in competitive analysis.
    Unfortunately, the Administration has been reluctant to 
establish its own ``Team B'' on the issue of the ballistic 
missile threat. Since the Administration has not expressed an 
interest in undertaking a true ``Team B'' effort on this issue, 
the committee believes it is necessary to pursue legislating 
such a review. In establishing a six-month commission to 
undertake this review, it is the committee's intent that the 
consultative nature of the appointment process for the 
commission parallel the process used by the Defense Base 
Closure and Realignment Commission, and as established in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public 
Law 101-510). The committee also supports and encourages a 
similar effort by the intelligence community and directs the 
Director of Central Intelligence to task the intelligence 
community to assess the nature and magnitude of the existing 
and emerging ballistic missile threat to the United States, and 
to report back to Congress the results of that assessment.
    Accordingly, the committee recommens a provision (sec. 
1321) that would establish a commission to be known as the 
``Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the 
United States.'' The commission's members will be private 
citizens with knowledge and expertise in the political and 
military aspects of proliferation of ballistic missiles and the 
ballistic missile threat to the United States, and will have 
access to the resources and information of the intelligence 
community necessary to carry out their responsibilities.
    The commission would consist of nine members appointed by 
the Director of Central Intelligence. Consistent with the 
consultative nature of the appointment process used by the 
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (Public Law 
101-510), three members would be chosen in consultation with 
the Speaker of the House of Representatives, three members 
would be chosen in consultation with the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, and three members would be chosen in consultation with 
the minority leaders of the House and Senate.
    This section also describes the procedure for designating a 
commission chairman and for filling vacancies, and describes 
the initial organizational requirements of the commission. It 
specifies that all members of the commission shall hold 
appropriate security clearances. The committee notes, however, 
that it is not the intent of this subsection to disqualify from 
membership former government officials whose clearances have 
lapsed but which could be reinstituted in a short period of 
time. The committee expects that in such circumstances, the 
government shall move to reinstitute the necessary clearances 
as expeditiously as possible.
                   Section 1322--Duties of Commission
    This section describes the duties of the commission, which 
shall assess the nature and magnitude of the existing and 
emerging ballistic missile threat to the United States. It also 
expresses the committee's view that the commission should 
receive the full and timely cooperation of any U.S. government 
official responsible for providing the commission with 
information necessary to the fulfillment of its 
responsibilities.
                          Section 1323--Report
    This section would direct the commission to submit to the 
Congress a report on its findings and conclusions not later 
than six months after the date of its first meeting. Consistent 
with intelligence community practice, provision shall be made 
for the incorporation of dissenting footnotes in the 
commission's report.
                          Section 1324--Powers
    This section would establish the commission's authority to 
hold hearings, take testimony, and receive evidence. It would 
also authorize the commission to secure any information from 
the intelligence community and other federal agencies as the 
committee deems necessary to carry out its responsibilities.
                  Section 1325--Commission Procedures
    This section would establish the procedures by which the 
commission shall conduct its business. It describes the number 
of members required for a quorum and would authorize the 
commission to establish panels for the purpose of carrying out 
the Commission's duties.
                    Section 1326--Personnel Matters
    This section notes that the members of the commission shall 
serve in that capacity without pay. It would authorize 
reimbursement of expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
subsistence, for travel in the performance of services for the 
commission. It also would allow the chairman to appoint a staff 
director, subject to the approval of the commission, and such 
additional personnel as may be necessary for the commission to 
perform its duties. This section also would make provision for 
the pay of the staff director and other personnel. It would 
allow federal government employees to be detailed to the 
commission on a non-reimbursable basis and would grant the 
chairman authority to procure temporary and intermittent 
services.
         Section 1327--Miscellaneous Administrative Provisions
    This section would allow the commission to use the United 
States mails and to obtain printing and binding services in 
accordance with the procedures used by other federal agencies. 
It also would direct the Director of Central Intelligence to 
furnish the commission with administrative and support 
services, as requested, on a reimbursable basis.
                         Section 1328--Funding
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
provide such sums as may be necessary for the activities of the 
commission in fiscal year 1997. These funds should be made 
available from the national foreign intelligence program.
              Section 1329--Termination of the Commission
    This section would terminate the commission 60 days after 
the date of the submission of its report.
              TITLE XIV--SIKES ACT IMPROVEMENTS AMENDMENTS
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
   Section 1402--Definition of Sikes Act for Purposes of Amendments-
    This section would clarify references to the Sikes Act.
            Section 1403--Codification of Short Title of Act
    This section would codify the short title of the Sikes Act.
       Section 1404--Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans
    This section would amend the Sikes Act to require the 
Secretary of Defense to prepare and implement integrated 
natural resource management plans on all appropriate military 
installations, including installations of the guard and reserve 
forces.
  Section 1405--Review for Preparation of Integrated Natural Resource 
                            Management Plans
    This section would direct the Secretary of each military 
department to review, within nine months of the date of 
enactment of this title, each military installation under the 
jurisdiction of the Secretary concerned to determine the 
applicability and appropriateness of integrated natural 
resources management plans to those installations. The section 
would require the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on 
the findings of the Secretaries of the military departments. 
The section would also provide for a schedule to initiate 
implement integrated natural resource management plans on 
military installations where appropriate.
                Section 1406--Annual Reviews and Reports
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the 
Secretary of the Interior to submit annual reports to Congress 
regarding the implementation of integrated natural resource 
management plans.
   Section 1407--Transfer of Wildlife Conservation Fees From Closed 
                         Military Installations
    This section would permit fees charged for the purpose of 
wildlife conservation at military installations scheduled to be 
closed to be transferred to another military installation to be 
used for the same purpose.
   Section 1408--Federal Enforcement of Integrated Natural Resource 
             Management Plans and Enforcement of Other Laws
    This section would clarify the responsibility of the 
Secretary of Defense for enforcement, on military 
installations, of Federal law relating to the conservation of 
natural resources. This section would not affect the 
enforcement authorities of the Secretary of the Interior for 
the same purpose.
           Section 1409--Natural Resource Management Services
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
provide a sufficient number of professionally trained natural 
resource management and law enforcement personnel to perform 
the duties required by this title.
                       Section 1410--Definitions
    This section would define terms used in this title.
                  Section 1411--Cooperative Agreements
    This section would clarify that cooperative agreements 
between and among the Department of Defense, the various 
States, local governments, non-governmental organizations, or 
other private parties, which are entered into to implement an 
integrated natural resource management plan, shall be funded on 
a cost-sharing basis.
              Section 1412--Repeal of Superseded Provision
    This section would repeal certain reporting requirements 
and definitions of terms which would be superseded by enactment 
of this title.
                   Section 1413--Clerical Amendments
    This section would make various technical and clerical 
changes to the Sikes Act.
             Section 1414--Authorizations of Appropriations
    This section would authorize appropriations for programs on 
public lands related to the implementation of this title for 
fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998.
            DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
                                PURPOSE
    The purpose of Division B is to provide military 
construction authorizations and related authority in support of 
the military departments during fiscal year 1997. As approved 
by the committee, Division B would authorize appropriations in 
the amount of $10,032,311,000 for construction in support of 
the active forces, reserve components, defense agencies, and 
the NATO security infrastructure fund for fiscal year 1997.
                  The State of Military Infrastructure
    The committee is deeply concerned about the state of the 
military infrastructure and troubled by the shortfalls evident 
in the Administration's budget request for fiscal year 1997 for 
military construction and military family housing programs. The 
committee notes again that the construction and modernization 
of facilities and their upkeep and maintenance is a critical 
component of military readiness which has been underfunded in 
recent years. The committee is also mindful of the serious 
deficiencies in facilities designed to support the quality of 
life of military personnel and their families.
    From an operational and readiness perspective, shortfalls 
in the construction and repair and maintenance accounts have 
exacerbated problems in the facilities infrastructure. Needed 
improvements to basic infrastructure have often been deferred, 
leading to the creation of a steep backlog in facilities 
construction and maintenance. Underfunding of the military 
construction accounts has serious implications for the 
readiness of the armed forces. For example, approximately 20 
percent of the Army's facilities are unsuitable, either due to 
deteriorated conditions or they are unable to meet mission 
requirements. Additionally, the Army lacks 30 percent of the 
facilities required to meet specific mission requirements, 
making due with work-arounds that impair efficiency. To cite 
another example, over two-thirds of the Navy's piers were 
constructed during the second World War. According to the 
Navy's estimates, by the year 2010, only 20 percent of existing 
piers and wharves would adequately be able to service the 
fleet.
    The condition of military housing for families and 
unaccompanied personnel and other quality of life 
infrastructure is in a similar state of deterioration. 
According to the Defense Science Board Task Force on Quality of 
Life, 62 percent of barracks and dormitories are currently 
unsuitable and 64 percent of family housing units are in the 
same condition. In spite of these serious deficiencies, the 
Administration's budget request fails to keep pace with current 
levels of funding to support the construction of barracks and 
dormitories. The budget request for fiscal year 1997 further 
proposes to reduce sharply the expenditure of funds on new 
construction of military family housing and improvements to 
existing family housing units. The Administration also proposes 
to reduce funding for basic maintenance of family housing.
    The committee believes the Administration's budget request 
for fiscal year 1997 for military construction and military 
family housing programs is seriously underfunded. The committee 
recommends an increase in new budget authority for these 
programs of $900,000,000. Approximately 75 percent of that 
amount is dedicated to a major quality of life initiative. The 
committee recommends an additional $214,116,000 for the 
construction of new barracks and dormitories and an additional 
$303,152,000 for the construction of military family housing 
and improvements to existing family housing units. The 
committee also recommends an additional $28,260,000 for the 
construction of child development centers. In addition to basic 
construction, the committee also recommends an additional 
$100,000,000 for the maintenance of military family housing. 
The committee reiterates its support for the military housing 
privatization initiative authorized in section 2801 of the 
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 
(division B of Public Law 104-106). The committee recommends an 
additional $25,000,000 to support the privatization initiative.
    The committee remains concerned about the instability in 
funding for the military construction and military family 
housing programs contemplated by the current Future Years 
Defense Plan. The committee believes the serious backlog of 
military construction requirements can no longer be deferred. 
The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to address the 
need to reduce the backlog of military construction 
requirements affecting the operational needs of the military 
departments and to enhance those programs which directly 
support improvements in the quality of life for military 
personnel and their families.
    A tabular summary of the authorizations provided in 
Division B for fiscal year 1997 follows:
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                AUTHORIZATION FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
    The military construction authorization request for fiscal 
year 1997 was introduced as H.R. 3231 on April 15, 1996.
    The Department of Defense requested $5,274,640,000 for 
military construction and $3,857,671,000 for family housing for 
fiscal year 1997. Within the military construction request, 
$2,507,476,000 was requested for implementation of base closure 
and realignment actions.
    The committee recommends authorization of $5,746,488,000 
for military construction, including $2,507,476,000 for base 
closure implementation, and $4,285,823,000 for family housing.
    A tabular summary of the military construction projects 
included with the authorization of appropriations for fiscal 
year 1997 for the BRAC II , BRAC III, and BRAC IV accounts 
follows:
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                            TITLE XXI--ARMY
                                SUMMARY
    The Army requested authorization of $434,723,000 for 
military construction and $1,287,479,000 for family housing for 
fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends authorization of 
$603,584,000 for military construction and $1,434,069,000 for 
family housing for fiscal year 1997.
                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
                Improvements of Military Family Housing
    The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts 
for improvements of military family housing and facilities, the 
Secretary of the Army execute the following projects: 
$18,000,000 for Whole Neighborhood Revitalization, Phase II 
(256 units) at Fort Rucker, Alabama; $7,300,000 for family 
housing improvements (120 units) at Stuttgart, Germany; 
$4,600,000 for family housing improvements (64 units) at 
Baumholder, Germany; $8,200,000 for family housing improvements 
(136 units) at Heidelberg, Germany; $18,700,000 for Whole 
Neighborhood Revitalization, Phases III and IV (200 units) at 
Fort Campbell, Kentucky; $7,200,000 for family housing 
improvements (250 units) at Fort Polk, Louisiana; $14,400,000 
for family housing improvements (328 units) at Fort Sill, 
Oklahoma; and $2,300,000 for family housing improvements (42 
units) at Tobyhanna Army Depot, Pennsylvania.
                      Repair and Maintenance, Army
    The committee remains concerned about serious safety and 
other deficiencies at Lake Tholocco Dam at Fort Rucker, Alabama 
and critical structural deficiencies of two bridges at Fort 
Knox, Kentucky. The committee urges the Army to initiate 
appropriate repair and maintenance at both installations. The 
committee notes again the existence of a serious repair and 
maintenance backlog at Corpus Christi Army Depot, Texas which 
requires an extensive infrastructure renovation to offset 
deterioration to major mechanical, electrical and other 
systems. Many major infrastructure systems at the depot have 
reached the end of their useful lives and require major 
renovation, repair, and upgrade. The committee urges the Army 
and the Navy to coordinate and initiate appropriate repair and 
maintenance of various buildings within the Corpus Christi Army 
Depot complex.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
    Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects
    This section contains the list of authorized Army 
construction projects for fiscal year 1997. The authorized 
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the 
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location.
                      Section 2102--Family Housing
    This section would authorize new construction and planning 
and design of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year 
1997.
      Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
    This section would authorize improvements to existing units 
of family housing for fiscal year 1997.
          Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army
    This section would authorize specific appropriations for 
each line item contained in the Army's budget for fiscal year 
1997. This section also provides an overall limit on the amount 
the Army may spend on military construction projects.
   Section 2105--Correction in Authorized Uses of Funds, Fort Irwin, 
                               California
    This section would correct the authorized use of funds 
authorized for appropriation in prior years for a military 
construction project at Fort Irwin, California. The provision 
would permit the use of previously authorized funds to 
construct a heliport at Fort Irwin to support the National 
Training Center.
                            TITLE XXII--NAVY
                                SUMMARY
    The Navy requested authorization of $525,346,000 for 
military construction and $1,417,967,000 for family housing for 
fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends authorization of 
$712,476,000 for military construction and $1,590,697,000 for 
family housing for fiscal year 1997.
                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
                Improvements of Military Family Housing
    The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts 
for improvements of military family housing and facilities, the 
Secretary of the Navy execute the following projects: 
$6,650,000 for Whole House Revitalization, Phase I (54 units) 
at Public Works Center Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; $6,600,000 for 
Whole House Revitalization, Phase I (160 units) at Naval Air 
Station Meridian, Mississippi; $2,400,000 for Whole House 
Revitalization (55 units) at Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth, 
Texas; and $10,000,000 for Whole House Revitalization (150 
units) at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Washington.
                Naval Air Station Meridian, Mississippi
    The committee is aware of noise abatement problems at Naval 
Air Station Meridian, Mississippi. Significantly high levels of 
aircraft noise during flight operations at Outlying Field (OLF) 
Joe Williams have prompted concerns about the health and safety 
effects of current flight operations on the surrounding 
community. The committee understands that the Department of the 
Navy has initiated a comprehensive study of noise abatement 
issues affecting OLF Joe Williams. The committee directs the 
Secretary of the Navy to submit a report on the Department's 
findings, including any recommendations for the remediation of 
noise levels, to the congressional defense committees no later 
than January 1, 1997.
   Ordnance Storage Needs of Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, Arizona
    The committee remains deeply concerned about ordnance 
storage at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma, Arizona and 
the effects on training and safety of inadequate ordnance 
storage at the installation. The committee is aware of 
validated military construction projects which would resolve 
the currently serious deficiencies at MCAS Yuma. The committee 
notes that the execution of military construction projects to 
resolve ordnance storage deficiencies at the installations is 
dependent upon the acquisition of land. The committee 
understands that the Department of the Navy has recommended a 
waiver of the current moratorium on land acquisition to the 
Secretary of Defense for this purpose. The committee urges the 
Secretary to approve a request for a waiver of the moratorium 
on land acquisition at MCAS Yuma. The committee also urges the 
Secretary of the Navy to make every effort to include land 
acquisition at MCAS Yuma in the fiscal year 1998 budget 
request.
                          Planning and Design
    The committee directs that, within authorized amounts for 
planning and design, the Secretary of the Navy conduct planning 
and design activities for the following projects: $194,000 for 
projects to upgrade and improve runways at Naval Air Station 
Whiting Field, Pensacola, Florida.
             Power Plant Upgrade, Public Works Center, Guam
    The committee notes that the 1995 recommendations of the 
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission concerning 
naval activities in Guam included the transfer of the Piti 
Power Plant to the Government of Guam. The committee also notes 
the continued commitment of the Department of the Navy under 
the Guam Power Agreement to transfer the Piti Power Plant to 
the Government of Guam in good working order. The committee 
understands that funding for the upgrade of two generators at 
the Piti Power Plant which would permit the implementation of 
the Navy's commitment under the agreement is currently 
programmed for fiscal year 1999. The committee urges the 
Secretary of the Navy to accelerate the required power plant 
upgrades in order for the Navy to meet its commitments under 
the agreement as soon as practicable.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
    Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects
    This section contains the list of authorized Navy 
construction projects for fiscal year 1997. The authorized 
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the 
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location.
                      Section 2202--Family Housing
    This section would authorize new construction and planning 
and design of family housing units for the Navy for fiscal year 
1997.
      Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
    This section would authorize improvements to existing units 
of family housing for fiscal year 1997.
          Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy
    This section would authorize specific appropriations for 
each line item in the Navy's budget for fiscal year 1997. This 
section also provides an overall limit on the amount the Navy 
may spend on military construction projects.
  Section 2205--Beach Replenishment, Naval Air Station, North Island, 
                               California
    This section would provide for a cost-sharing agreement 
between the Secretary of the Navy, the State of California, and 
local governments concerning beach replenishment executed as 
part of a military construction project at Naval Air Station 
North Island, California.-
Section 2206--Lease to Facilitate Construction of Reserve Center, Naval 
                   Air Station, Meridian, Mississippi
    This section would permit the Secretary of the Navy to 
lease, without reimbursement, approximately five acres of real 
property at Naval Air Station, Meridian, Mississippi. The State 
shall use the property to construct a reserve center and 
ancillary supporting facilities. The section also would provide 
for a leaseback of the reserve center by the Navy.
                         TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE
                                SUMMARY
    The Air Force requested authorization of $603,059,000 for 
military construction and $1,060,710,000 for family housing for 
fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends authorization of 
$678,914,000 for military construction and $1,144,542,000 for 
family housing for fiscal year 1997.
                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
          Defense Access Road, Falcon Air Force Base, Colorado
    The committee is aware of serious safety issues caused, and 
operational constraints imposed, by the publicly accessible 
road network through Falcon Air Force Base, Colorado. The 
committee notes recent studies have demonstrated that State 
Highway 94 is no longer capable of supporting the volume of 
traffic associated with the installation and that a 
deteriorating safety situation has caused numerous accidents, 
including fatalities. In addition, the proximity of the current 
road to the existing and planned antenna farms at the 
installation constitutes an untenable risk to national 
security. The committee understands that the Military Traffic 
Management Command has recently certified the requirement for a 
defense access road project at Falcon Air Force Base. The 
committee urges the Secretary of the Air Force to make every 
effort to include the defense access road project at Falcon Air 
Force Base in the fiscal year 1998 budget request.
                Improvements of Military Family Housing
    The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts 
for improvements of military family housing and facilities, the 
Secretary of the Air Force execute the following projects: 
$8,600,000 for family housing improvements (112 units) at Eglin 
Air Force Base, Florida; $6,000,000 for Whole House 
Revitalization (52 units) at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 
Ohio; $15,000,000 for family housing improvements (180 units) 
at Laughlin Air Force Base, Texas; and $7,500,000 for Whole 
House Revitalization (92 units) at Hill Air Force Base, Utah.
                          Planning and Design
    The committee directs that, within amounts authorized for 
planning and design, the Secretary of the Air Force conduct 
planning and design activities for the following projects: 
$288,000 for a physical fitness training center at Vance Air 
Force Base, Oklahoma; and $512,000 for a consolidated logistics 
complex at Vance Air Force Base, Oklahoma.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
 Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects
    This section contains the list of authorized Air Force 
construction projects for fiscal year 1997. The authorized 
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the 
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location.
                      Section 2302--Family Housing
    This section would authorize new construction and planning 
and design of family housing units for the Air Force for fiscal 
year 1997.
      Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
    This section would authorize improvements to existing units 
of family housing for fiscal year 1997.
        Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force
    This section would authorize specific appropriations for 
each line item in the Air Force's budget for fiscal year 1997. 
This section also would provide an overall limit on the amount 
the Air Force may spend on military construction projects.
                      TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES
                                SUMMARY
    The Defense Agencies requested authorization of 
$812,945,000 for military construction and $35,334,000 for 
family housing for fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends 
authorization of $772,345,000 for military construction and 
$35,334,000 for family housing.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
    Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land 
                          Acquisition Projects
    This section contains the list of authorized Defense 
Agencies construction projects for fiscal year 1997. The 
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this report is 
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects 
authorized at each location.
           Section 2402--Military Housing Planning and Design
    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
carry out planning and design activities with respect to the 
construction or improvement of military family housing units in 
the amount of $500,000.
      Section 2403--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
make improvements to existing units of family housing for 
fiscal year 1997 in an amount not to exceed $3,871,000.
           Section 2404--Military Housing Improvement Program
    This section would authorize the availability of funds 
credited to the Department of Defense Family Housing 
Improvement Fund in the amount of $35,000,000, and to the 
Department of Defense Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund in 
the amount of $10,000,000.
               Section 2405--Energy Conservation Projects
    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
carry out energy conservation projects.
    Section 2406--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies
    This section would authorize specific appropriations for 
each line item in the Defense Agencies' budget for fiscal year 
1997. This section also would provide an overall limit on the 
amount the Defense Agencies may spend on military construction 
projects.
      TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION INFRASTRUCTURE
                                SUMMARY
    The Department of Defense requested authorization of 
$197,000,000 for the NATO infrastructure fund (NATO Security 
Investment Program) for fiscal year 1997. The committee 
recommends $177,000,000.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
    Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects
    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
make contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
security investment program in an amount equal to the sum of 
the amount specifically authorized in section 2502 of this bill 
and the amount of recoupment due to the United States for 
construction previously financed by the United States.
          Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO
    This section would authorize appropriations of $177,000,000 
as the U.S. contribution to the NATO security investment 
program.
            TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES
                                SUMMARY
    The Department of Defense requested a military construction 
authorization of $194,091,000 for fiscal year 1997 for guard 
and reserve facilities. The committee recommends authorization 
for fiscal year 1997 of $294,693,000 to be distributed as 
follows:
Army National Guard-....................................     $41,316,000
Air National Guard......................................     118,394,000
Army Reserve............................................      50,159,000
Air Force Reserve.......................................      33,169,000
Naval and Marine Corps Reserve..........................      51,655,000
    Total...............................................     294,693,000
                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
      Alternative Funding for Certain Guard and Reserve Facilities
    The committee is aware of a number of alternative funding 
proposals to provide facilities for the guard and reserve 
components. The committee commends the State of Mississippi for 
its willingness to provide 80 percent of the cost of 
construction for a new naval reserve facility at Naval Air 
Station, Meridian, Mississippi. Section 2206 of this Act would 
facilitate the ability of the Secretary of the Navy to accept 
the facility. The committee also takes particular note of a 
project proposed for the construction of an armory and 
organizational maintenance shop complex at Marion, Indiana, and 
the willingness of the State of Indiana, local governments, and 
private sources to fund various portions of the facility, 
including its multi-activity aspects. The committee regrets its 
inability to authorize a federal contribution toward the armory 
complex at this time. The committee remains concerned about the 
inability of the Army National Guard to award 23 previously 
authorized armory projects for which funds were appropriated 
from fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 1995. The committee, 
however, encourages alternative funding methods for the 
construction of these types of facilities and would consider 
seriously a similar proposal at a later time.
                   Armory Infrastructure Requirements
    The committee is aware of the serious infrastructure 
deficiencies of the guard and reserve components and is 
particularly concerned about deteriorating armory 
infrastructure. The committee, however, is reluctant to fund 
armory construction without an assessment of requirements. The 
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to conduct a study 
of armory infrastructure and to assess and prioritize 
requirements for military construction. The Secretary shall 
submit a report on the Department's finding to the 
congressional defense committees no later than March 1, 1997.
             Battle Projection Center, Fort Dix, New Jersey
    The committee remains supportive of programs to train Army 
Reserve components at Fort Dix, New Jersey. The committee is 
especially supportive of the battle projection center (BPC) 
located at that installation. The committee is concerned about 
the possible relocation of the BPC from Fort Dix to another 
installation. The committee understands that a substantial cost 
would be incurred in relocating the battle projection center. 
The committee is also concerned about the impact of relocation 
on the operational and training requirements of the Army 
Reserve. The committee recommends that the Secretary of the 
Army revise current planning to relocate the battle projection 
center and to ensure the permanent assignment of the battle 
projection center at Fort Dix, New Jersey.
  Military Construction to Support the Beddown of Avenger Air Defense 
              System Units, Various Locations, Mississippi
    The committee is concerned about the inability of the Army 
National Guard to complete military construction projects 
authorized in section 2601(1)(A) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (division B of Public 
Law 103-160) due to unanticipated cost overruns and scope 
variations. The projects, located at various sites in 
Mississippi, are intended to support the beddown of Avenger air 
defense system units. The committee directs the Secretary of 
the Army to submit the appropriate scope and cost variation 
reports to the congressional defense committees as required by 
law.
                          Planning and Design
    The committee directs that, within amounts authorized for 
planning and design, the Secretary of the Army conduct planning 
and design activities for the following projects: $280,000 for 
infrastructure upgrades at Leesburg Training Site, Eastover, 
South Carolina; and $224,000 for a battle simulation training 
center, Leesburg Training Site, Eastover, South Carolina.
                 Planning and Design, Fiscal Year 1996
    The committee recalls the direction provided to the 
Secretary of the Army in the statement of managers report 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) concerning planning and design 
activities for an intelligence training center at Fort Dix, New 
Jersey. The committee reiterates its support for that 
requirement and urges the Secretary of the Army to initiate 
planning and design activities for that purpose as 
expeditiously as possible.
                     Unspecified Minor Construction
    The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts 
for unspecified minor construction, the Secretary of the Army 
execute the following project: $576,000 for helicopter landing 
pads and taxi lanes at Decatur, Illinois.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
   Section 2601--Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and Land 
                          Acquisition Projects
    This section would authorize appropriations for military 
construction for the guard and reserve by service component for 
fiscal year 1997. The state list contained in this report is 
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects 
authorized at each location.
        TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
 Section 2701--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required To Be 
                            Specified by Law
    This section would provide that authorizations for military 
construction projects, repair of real property, land 
acquisition, family housing projects and facilities, 
contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
infrastructure program, and guard and reserve projects will 
expire on October 1, 1998 or the date of enactment of an Act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
1999, whichever is later. This expiration would not apply to 
authorizations for which appropriated funds have been obligated 
before October 1, 1998 or the date of enactment of an Act 
authorizing funds for these projects, whichever is later.
Section 2702--Extensions of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 1994 
                                Projects
    This section would provide for selected extension of 
certain fiscal year 1994 military construction authorizations 
until October 1, 1997, or the date of the enactment of an Act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
1997, whichever is later.
 Section 2703--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 1993 
                                Projects
    This section would provide for selected extension of 
certain fiscal year 1993 military construction authorizations 
until October 1, 1997, or the date of the enactment of the Act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
1997, whichever is later.
 Section 2704--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 1992 
                                Projects
    This section would provide for selected extension of 
certain fiscal year 1992 military construction authorizations 
until October 1, 1997, or the date of the enactment of the Act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
1997, whichever is later.
                      Section 2705--Effective Date
    This section would provide that titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, 
XXIV, and XXVI of this bill shall take effect on October 1, 
1996, or the date of the enactment of this Act, whichever is 
later.
                    TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
     Assessment of Certain Overhead Costs of Military Construction
    The committee is concerned over the cost of certain 
overhead items built into the pricing of military construction 
projects. The committee is especially interested in reviewing 
contingency costs, as well as the standard cost of planning and 
design, associated with military construction. At the same 
time, the committee is equally concerned about apparent and 
chronic underfunding of the planning and design accounts of the 
military departments which may impede the timely execution of 
contracts and the delivery of facilities. The committee urges 
the military departments to use standard designs for new 
facilities to the greatest extent practicable. The committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study of the 
standard costs in the planning and design of military 
facilities and to assess the appropriate level of certain 
overhead costs permitted on a military construction project. In 
addition, the study should assess variations among the military 
services for the planning and design of similar projects, as 
well as differences between categories of facilities. The 
Secretary shall submit a report on the Department's findings, 
including any recommendations, to the congressional defense 
committees no later than February 1, 1997.
              Efficient Utilization of Existing Facilities
    The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 
and the military departments are not maximizing the utilization 
of existing facilities. In particular, the committee is aware 
of instances in which military units currently occupy leased 
facilities even though vacant, less expensive, facilities owned 
by the Department are available in the general vicinity of the 
leased space. Additionally, the committee is aware of 
disagreement within the military departments over whether it is 
legally permissible for active duty units to relocate onto 
reserve installations which have been realigned under the base 
closure and realignment process. The committee urges the 
Department of Defense and the military departments to reduce 
their commitment to leased facilities as much as practicable. 
The committee also believes it is permissible for active duty 
units and missions to relocate onto such reserve installations 
consistent with the limited exceptions permitted under law.
        Infrastructure Requirements for Depot-Level Maintenance
    The committee recognizes the importance of depot-level 
maintenance and other logistics support to the warfighting 
capability of the armed forces. However, the committee is 
concerned about significant deficiencies in the infrastructure 
and facilities at several installations designed to support the 
depot-level maintenance of mission-essential equipment and 
systems. The committee notes that the construction and 
modernization of logistics facilities and their maintenance is 
a critical component of military readiness which has been 
underfunded in recent years. Therefore, the committee directs 
the Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive study of 
the logistics capability and military construction 
infrastructure requirements of the Department of Defense and 
the military services. The Secretary shall submit a report on 
his findings, including any recommendations, to the 
congressional defense committees, no later than March 1, 1997.
     Modular Utility Cores in Military Housing and Other Facilities
    The committee understands that a joint venture involving 
the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 
has adapted miniaturization technology utilized in submarine 
and surface ship utility systems for possible use in newly 
constructed or rehabilitated housing. The committee recognizes 
that such technology offers considerable potential to enhance 
energy efficiency and to reduce operations and maintenance 
costs. The committee urges the Department of Defense to 
continue development of modular utility core technology and 
recommends that the Department assess the potential of modular 
utility cores to meet the requirements of military family 
housing and facilities generally.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
     Subtitle A--Military Construction and Military Family Housing
 Section 2801--North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment 
                                Program
    This section would make technical and conforming changes to 
title 10, United States Code, regarding the name of the NATO 
Security Investment Program
         Section 2802--Authority to Demolish Excess Facilities
    This section would authorize a program to demolish excess 
facilities. Under the provision, funds authorized for 
appropriation under the authorities contained in this section 
may not be used for the demolition of military family housing, 
facilities involved in a base closure and realignment action, 
or facilities which would be demolished as an integral part of 
a specific military construction project.
           Section 2803--Improvements to Family Housing Units
    This section would make technical changes to the 
calculation of the cost of major maintenance and repair to 
military family housing units.
            Subtitle B--Defense Base Closure and Realignment
 Section 2811--Restoration of Authority for Certain Intragovernmental 
                 Transfers Under 1988 Base Closure Law
    This section would restore the ability of the Secretary of 
Defense to transfer property at a closing or realigning 
military installation to a military department, including a 
nonappropriated fund instrumentality, or to the Coast Guard. 
The previous authority for such transfers was inadvertently 
repealed in a prior year through a technical drafting error.
Section 2812--Contracting for Certain Services at Facilities Remaining 
                        on Closed Installations
    This section would authorize the Department of Defense to 
contract out for certain services at facilities remaining on 
military installations closed under the base closure and 
realignment process.
  Section 2813--Authority to Compensate Owners of Manufactured Housing
    This section would authorize payments from the base closure 
and realignment accounts to compensate owners of manufactured 
housing at military installations to be closed or realigned. 
Under the provision, the payment may be made if the 
manufactured housing park is eliminated or relocated. No 
payment authorized by this section may exceed 90 percent of the 
purchase price of the manufactured housing unit.
       Section 2814--Additional Purpose for Which Adjustment and 
                Diversification Assistance Is Authorized
    This section would restore the authority of the Secretary 
of Defense to make grants, conclude cooperation agreements, and 
supplement other Federal funds to assist base reuse planning by 
the States and local redevelopment authorities at military 
installations to be closed. The previous authority for such 
support was inadvertently repealed in a prior year through a 
technical drafting error.
Section 2815--Payment of Stipulated Penalties Assessed Under CERCLA in 
              Connection With Loring Air Force Base, Maine
    This section would authorize payments from the base closure 
and realignment accounts for stipulated penalties assessed 
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 
and Liability Act of 1980 in connection with the closure of 
Loring Air Force Base, Maine.
                 Subtitle C--Land Conveyances Generally
                        Part I--Army Conveyances
Section 2821--Transfer and Exchange of Jurisdiction, Arlington National 
                           Cemetery, Virginia
    This section would authorize the transfer of real property, 
and exchange of jurisdiction, between the Secretary of the Army 
and the Secretary of the Interior at Arlington National 
Cemetery, Arlington, Virginia.
 Section 2822--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Rushville, Indiana
    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with 
improvements, to the City of Rushville, Indiana. The property 
is to be used for the benefit of public safety. The cost of any 
surveys necessary for the conveyance shall be borne by the 
City.
  Section 2823--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Anderson, South 
                                Carolina
    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with 
improvements, to the County of Anderson, South Carolina. The 
property is to be used for educational purposes. The cost of 
any surveys necessary for the conveyance shall be borne by the 
County.
                       Part II--Navy Conveyances
Section 2831--Release of Condition on Reconveyance of Transferred Land, 
                                  Guam
    This section would repeal section 818(b)(2) of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1981 (Public Law 
96-418) relating to a condition on the disposal by the 
Government of Guam of real property conveyed by the United 
States.
Section 2832--Land Exchange, St. Helena Annex, Norfolk Naval Shipyard, 
                                Virginia
    This section would authorize an exchange of real property, 
with consideration, relating to Norfolk Naval Shipyard, 
Virginia. As consideration for the real property located at the 
Shipyard conveyed by the Secretary, the transferee shall convey 
to the United States a parcel or parcels of real property, with 
improvements, located in the area of Portsmouth, Virginia, and 
pay to the Secretary an amount equal to the amount by which the 
fair market value of the parcel conveyed by the Secretary 
exceeds to the fair market value of the parcel conveyed to the 
United States. In lieu of such consideration, the Secretary and 
the transferee may agree upon in-kind consideration under which 
the transferee would provide for the improvement, maintenance, 
or repair of real property under the control of the Secretary 
in the area of Hampton Roads, Virginia. The exact acreage and 
legal description of the parcels shall be determined by a 
survey satisfactory to the Secretary. The cost of the survey 
shall be borne by the transferee.
 Section 2833--Land Conveyance, Calverton Pine Barrens, Naval Weapons 
             Industrial Reserve Plant, Calverton, New York
    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to 
convey a parcel of real property, comprising the Calverton Pine 
Barrens and located at the Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve 
Plant, Calverton, New York, to the Department of Environmental 
Conservation of the State of New York. The property is to be 
used as a nature preserve. The cost of any surveys necessary 
for the conveyance shall be borne by the Department.
                    Part III--Air Force Conveyances
  Section 2841--Conveyance of Primate Research Complex, Holloman Air 
                         Force Base, New Mexico
    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force 
to convey, on a competitive basis, the primate research complex 
located at Hollomon Air Force, New Mexico. The conveyance may 
include the colony of chimpanzees owned by the Air Force, but 
may not include the real property on which the primate research 
complex is located. The conveyance would be subject to the 
condition that the recipient of the primate research complex 
utilize any chimpanzees included in the conveyance for 
scientific or medical research purposes or retire and provide 
adequate care for such chimpanzees.
 Section 2842--Land Conveyance, Radar Bomb Scoring Site, Belle Forche, 
                              South Dakota
    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force 
to convey, without consideration, approximately 37 acres with 
improvements to the Belle Forche School District, Belle Forche, 
South Dakota. The property is to be used for educational, 
economic development, and housing purposes. The cost of any 
surveys necessary for the conveyance shall be borne by the 
School District.
                       Part IV--Other Conveyances
 Section 2851--Land Conveyance, Tatum Salt Dome Test Site, Mississippi
    This section would authorize the Secretary of Energy to 
convey the Tatum Salt Dome Test Site to the State of 
Mississippi after certification by the Administration of the 
Environmental Protection Agency and the State that any 
contamination of the property has been remediated in accordance 
with applicable federal and state statutory and regulatory 
requirements. The property is to be used by the State as a 
wildlife refuge and is to be designated as the Jamie Whitten 
Wilderness Area.
  Section 2852--Land Conveyance, William Langer Jewel Bearing Plant, 
                          Rolla, North Dakota
    This section would authorize the Administrator of the 
General Services Administration to convey, without 
consideration, approximately 9.77 acres with improvements 
comprising the former Army-owned William Langer Jewel Bearing 
Plant, Rolla, North Dakota to the Job Development Authority of 
the City of Rolla, North Dakota. The property is to be used for 
economic development. The cost of any surveys necessary for the 
conveyance shall be borne by the Authority.
                       Subtitle D--Other Matters
               Section 2861--Easements for Rights-of-Way
    This section would consolidate easement authorities 
utilized by the military departments which are currently 
dispersed throughout title 10, United States Code.
 Section 2862--Authority to Enter Into Cooperative Agreements for the 
       Management of Cultural Resources on Military Installations
    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense, or 
the Secretary of a military department, to enter into 
cooperative agreements for the management of cultural resources 
on military installations.
 Section 2863--Demonstration Project for Installation and Operation of 
 Electric Power Distribution System at Youngstown Air Reserve Station, 
                                  Ohio
    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force 
to carry out a demonstration project to assess the feasibility 
of permitting private entities to install, operate, and 
maintain electric power distribution systems at military 
installations. The demonstration project would be conducted at 
Youngstown Air Reserve Station, Ohio.
   Section 2864--Designation of Michael O'Callaghan Military Hospital
    This section would designate the Nellis Federal Hospital, 
Las Vegas, Nevada, as the Michael O'Callaghan Military 
Hospital.
                 TITLE XXIX--MILITARY LAND WITHDRAWALS
     Subtitle A--Fort Carson-Pinon Canyon Military Lands Withdrawal
   Section 2902--Withdrawal and Reservation of Lands at Fort Carson 
                          Military Reservation
    This section would withdraw and reserve, subject to valid 
existing rights, approximately 3,133 acres of public lands and 
approximately 11,415 acres of mineral rights in the State of 
Colorado for use by the Secretary of the Army for military 
maneuvering, training, and other defense-related purposes at 
Fort Carson, Colorado.
   Section 2903--Withdrawal and Reservation of Lands at Pinon Canyon 
                             Maneuver Site
    This section would withdraw and reserve, subject to valid 
existing rights, approximately 2,517 acres of public lands and 
approximately 130,139 acres of mineral rights in the State of 
Colorado for use by the Secretary of the Army for military 
maneuvering, training, and other defense-related purposes at 
the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, Colorado.
               Section 2904--Maps and Legal Descriptions
    This section would require that maps and legal descriptions 
of the lands withdrawn and reserved by this subtitle be 
prepared and published by the Secretary of the Interior.
              Section 2905--Management of Withdrawn Lands
    This section would provide for the management by the 
Secretary of the Army, in coordination with the Secretary of 
the Interior, of the withdrawn lands under this subtitle.
  Section 2906--Management of Withdrawn and Acquired Mineral Resources
    This section would provide that the management of withdrawn 
and acquired mineral resources shall be conducted, as 
applicable, pursuant to the Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 
1986 (Public Law 99-606).
              Section 2907--Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping
    This section would provide that hunting, fishing, and 
trapping activities on the lands withdrawn and reserved under 
this subtitle shall be conducted in accordance with section 
2671 of title 10, United States Code.
        Section 2908--Termination of Withdrawal and Reservation
    This section would provide that the withdrawal and 
reservation of public lands and mineral rights will terminate 
15 years after the date of enactment of this subtitle. The 
section would also provide for procedures to permit a 
determination of continuing military need for the withdrawn and 
reserved public lands and mineral rights and would provide for 
procedures under which the Secretary of the Army could 
relinquish all or part of the lands withdrawn and reserved 
under this subtitle.
Section 2909--Determination of Presence of Contamination and Effect of 
                             Contamination
    This section would provide for decontamination of the 
withdrawn lands, both during the period of withdrawal and upon 
relinquishment of the lands by the Department of the Army.
                        Section 2910--Delegation
    This section would provide that the functions of the 
Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Interior under 
this subtitle may be delegated without restriction, except that 
an order by the Department of the Interior accepting 
jurisdiction over withdrawn lands relinquished by the 
Department of the Army may be signed only by the Secretary of 
the Interior, the Deputy Secretary of the Interior, or an 
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
                      Section 2911--Hold Harmless
    This section would provide that any party conducting any 
mining, mineral, or geothermal leasing activity on lands 
withdrawn under this subtitle shall indemnify the United States 
against any costs, fees, damages, or other liabilities incurred 
by the United States arising from those activities.
    Section 2912--Amendment to Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1986
    This section would amend the Military Lands Withdrawal Act 
of 1986 (Public Law 99-606) to permit, subject to valid 
existing rights, military use of sand, gravel, and similar 
construction materials on the lands withdrawn by that Act.
             Section 2913--Authorization of Appropriations
    This section would authorize such sums as may be necessary 
to carry out the purposes of this subtitle.
       Subtitle B--El Centro Naval Air Facility Ranges Withdrawal
               Section 2921--Short Title and Definitions
    This section would define terms used in this subtitle.
    Section 2922--Withdrawal and Reservation of Lands for El Centro
    This section would withdraw and reserve, subject to valid 
existing rights, approximately 46,600 acres of public lands in 
the State of Colorado for use by the Secretary of the Navy for 
defense-related purposes at Naval Air Facility, El Centro, 
California.
               Section 2923--Maps and Legal Descriptions
    This section would require that maps and legal descriptions 
of the lands withdrawn and reserved by this subtitle be 
prepared and published by the Secretary of the Interior.
              Section 2924--Management of Withdrawn Lands
    This section would provide for the management by the 
Secretary of the Interior, in coordination with the Secretary 
of the Navy, of the withdrawn lands under this subtitle.
          Section 2925--Duration of Withdrawal and Reservation
    This section would provide that the withdrawal and 
reservation of lands at Naval Air Facility, El Centro, 
California, shall terminate 25 years after the date of 
enactment of this subtitle.
    Section 2926--Continuation of Ongoing Decontamination Activities
    This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to 
maintain a program of decontamination of the lands withdrawn 
under this subtitle.
                Section 2927--Requirements for Extension
    This section would provide for procedures to permit a 
determination of continuing military need for the lands 
withdrawn under this subtitle.
            Section 2928--Early Relinquishment of Withdrawal
    This section would provide for procedures under which the 
Secretary of the Navy could relinquish all or part of the lands 
withdrawn and reserved under this subtitle.
                 Section 2929--Delegation of Authority
    This section would provide that the functions of the 
Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the Interior under 
this subtitle may be delegated without restriction, except that 
an order by the Department of the Interior accepting 
jurisdiction over withdrawn lands relinquished by the 
Department of the Navy may be signed only by the Secretary of 
the Interior, the Deputy Secretary of the Interior, or an 
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
              Section 2930--Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping
    This section would provide that hunting, fishing, and 
trapping activities on the lands withdrawn and reserved under 
this subtitle shall be conducted in accordance with section 
2671 of title 10, United States Code.
                      Section 2931--Hold Harmless
    This section would provide that any party conducting any 
mining, mineral, or geothermal leasing activity on lands 
withdrawn under this subtitle shall indemnify the United States 
against any costs, fees, damages, or other liabilities incurred 
by the United States arising from those activities.
 DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 
                          OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
      TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
                                PURPOSE
    Title XXXI would authorize appropriations for the national 
security programs of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 
1997, including management and operations of programs for 
research, development, and production in support of the armed 
forces, the production of strategic and critical materials for 
the armed forces, the protection of critical materials, 
materials and information necessary for national defense, 
management of defense radioactive wastes, environmental 
management, naval nuclear propulsion, and other military 
applications of nuclear energy.
                                OVERVIEW
    The fiscal year 1997 budget request for DOE national 
security programs totaled $11,049,012,000. Of the total amount 
requested, $3,710,002,000 was for weapons activities, 
$5,409,310,000 was for environmental restoration and waste 
management, $182,000,000 was for defense fixed asset 
acquisition, $1,547,000,000 was for other defense activities, 
and $200,000,000 was for defense nuclear waste disposal. The 
committee recommends $11,214,112,000, an increase of 
$165,100,000 above the requested amount. The following table 
summarizes the request and the committee recommendation:
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
         Defense Environmental Restoration And Waste Management
    The budget request contained $5.4 billion for activities of 
the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Restoration 
and Waste Management. The committee recommends an overall 
authorization at the requested amount. However, several funding 
changes are recommended for a number of the individual 
subaccounts. These changes reflect the committee's policy 
preference of funding actual cleanup activities as opposed to 
administrative activities.
    The committee recommends reducing the budget request for 
the subaccount entitled ``program direction'' by $71.0 million, 
for a total authorized amount of $375.5 million. The committee 
directs that the Department absorb this funding reduction by 
reducing the number of federal employees assigned to the 
Department's headquarters, by reducing administrative overhead 
and travel expenses associated with the reduced employment 
levels at DOE headquarters, and by reducing non-technical 
contract support services at DOE headquarters. To further 
provide more resources for cleanup, the committee recommends 
reducing the budget request for the subaccount entitled 
``policy and management'' by $25.0 million for a total 
authorization of $23.1 million. This reduction would result in 
an authorization for this subaccount that is comparable to that 
authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 1996. Approximately 
$4.0 to $7.0 million of this reduction would be derived by 
eliminating the requirement to submit to Congress, on an annual 
basis, the baseline environmental management report as required 
by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 
(Public Law 103-360). The committee recommends elsewhere in 
this title that the annual reporting requirement be converted 
to a biennial requirement.
    The committee is aware that the Department of Energy often 
reimburses contractors for expenses related to attendance at 
DOE or privately sponsored conferences on cleanup or technology 
issues. While participation at such events may on occasion be 
beneficial to achieving the Department's cleanup goals, the 
committee believes that attendance at such events should be 
limited to the extent possible. The Department is strongly 
encouraged to reduce all of its administrative and overhead 
expenditures, particularly any expenditures that are not 
associated directly with its remediation efforts.
    The committee further recommends increasing the request in 
the subaccounts entitled ``environmental restoration'', 
``nuclear materials and facilities stabilization'' and the 
``environmental science program'' by a total of $96.0 million 
above the amounts requested in the President's budget. In doing 
so, the committee directs that increased funding be applied to 
those sites in the field where actual remediation occurs. The 
committee recommendation would provide resources to sites such 
as Rocky Flats, Hanford, Oak Ridge, Savannah River, and Idaho 
where additional funding can be used to significantly reduce 
life cycle costs through acceleration of existing activities, 
initiation of cost reducing deactivation and decommissioning 
activities, and the development of enhanced cleanup 
technologies.
    The committee also directs the Department to continue to 
consider and evaluate sites that would lend themselves to 
accelerated cleanup. Section 3156 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) 
requires the Secretary to submit a report to the Congress by 
May 1, 1996 detailing the activities and projects at those 
sites at which the cleanup has been accelerated. The committee 
expects to receive this report on time. The committee is 
particularly interested in obtaining the details on how the 
additional $60.0 million which was authorized and appropriated 
for fiscal year 1996 accelerated cleanup was actually used. The 
committee believes that the initiation of accelerated cleanup 
programs at certain sites will result in significant long term 
cost savings and risk reduction.
    To allow the Department more flexibility in managing its 
resources, the committee declines to accept the recommendation 
to create a new office of site operations as a separate budget 
function. The committee is concerned that the Department is 
unnecessarily tying its own hands by creating this new budget 
category. The committee understands and appreciates the role of 
this new office and has no objection to this activity being 
performed within the office of nuclear materials and facilities 
stabilization. The committee recommends funding the 
construction projects associated with the office of site 
operations under the budget function for the office of nuclear 
materials and facilities stabilization. All of these projects 
have been funded in the past under the latter office's budget 
function. To provide increased efficiencies and greater 
flexibility and authority for the DOE site managers, the 
committee also recommends elsewhere in this Act additional fund 
transfer authority for the site managers.
    The committee recommendation includes funding to establish 
a privatization program for the treatment of high and low level 
wastes at the Hanford facility, Richland, Washington at the 
level requested in the President's budget. While the committee 
generally supports this initiative, it intends to monitor very 
closely the progress of this effort and to insure that the 
projected cost savings do in fact accrue to the benefit of the 
government. The committee directs that the Department provide a 
report to the committee no later than December 31, 1996. The 
report should include an analysis of the projected cost 
savings, the extent of commercial competition and participation 
in this initiative, and a recommendation on changes which 
should be made to federal procurement regulations to make the 
program more effective.
    The committee is also aware that the Department will soon 
select a new lead contractor for the Hanford facility. New 
contract provisions should result in cost savings at this site. 
The committee strongly encourages the Department, to the 
maximum extent possible, to allocate those savings that result 
from the new management contract to the privatization program 
discussed earlier. This approach should help to diminish to 
some degree the negative budgetary impact that results from the 
creation of the privatization fund in fiscal year 1997 and 
should eliminate any negative impact on current cleanup 
activities at the Hanford facility. Creation of a privatization 
fund is not intended to interfere with or impede on-going 
critical stabilization, maintenance, and cleanup operations at 
this site.
    The committee is also aware that the Department is 
considering additional new initiatives to expand its 
decontamination and decommissioning efforts. While there are 
opportunities to potentially save millions of dollars in life 
cycle costs, the committee strongly urges the Department to 
maximize competition in its procurement process if it chooses 
to undertake these new initiatives.
    Finally, the committee has been advised that there are a 
very small number of former employees at the Hanford facility 
who have failed to receive credit for the total years of 
service performed at that facility, because of changes in 
contractors on a least four occasions. While the four Hanford 
site pension plans have been consolidated into a single pension 
plan, apparently all of the service has not. The committee 
directs that the Department examine this issue and provide a 
report to the committee no later than December 31, 1996 with a 
recommendation on how to correct this problem or certifying 
that sufficient corrective action has been taken.
       Fissile Materials Protection, Control, and Accountability
    The budget request included $69.6 million for fissile 
materials protection, control, and accountability (PC&A) in the 
former Soviet Union. The committee recommends the amount 
contained in the budget request. Section 3131 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-
106) directed the Secretary to submit semi-annual reports on 
obligation of funds for this program. The purpose of this 
reporting requirement was to provide the Congress with greater 
visibility into the Department's long-term programmatic 
strategy and the resources required to implement that strategy. 
The committee strongly urges the Department to submit this 
report to Congress as soon as possible.
                           Independent Review
    The committee recommends that, of the amounts authorized in 
section 3104, $500,000 shall be available to conduct an 
independent review of the potential to detect meteorites, 
asteroids, and comets of sufficiently great sizes to inflict 
large-scale damage on Earth, and possible means of averting 
such strikes. The committee urges that the review be performed 
by an independent group previously involved in reviewing 
complex scientific matters, such as the stockpile stewardship 
and inertial confinement fusion programs. In conducting this 
review, the views of the nuclear weapons laboratories and U.S. 
Space Command shall be solicited. The results of this review 
shall be transmitted to the congressional defense committees 
not later than January 15, 1997.
                      Inertial Confinement Fusion
    The budget request included $366.5 million for inertial 
confinement fusion (ICF). The committee recommends the 
requested amount. Of this amount, $21,150,770 shall be 
available for the University of Rochester/Laboratory for Laser 
Energetics, the amount recommended for fiscal year 1997 in the 
DOE-University of Rochester cooperative agreement and $855,770 
above the request. The Committee requests that the Secretary 
consult with the committee regarding the Secretary's proposed 
offset within the ICF account.
                              Intelligence
    The budget request included $29.2 million for intelligence-
related activities.
    A 1988 General Accounting Office (GAO) report noted that 
foreign visitors were coming to the nuclear weapons 
laboratories on unclassified visits but these visits were not 
well controlled. In fact, GAO reported that efforts to screen 
visitors were inadequate, subjects related to nuclear weapons 
were discussed, and little monitoring of these visits was 
occurring. GAO concluded that as a result, these visits may 
have transferred nuclear weapons-related information to foreign 
countries.
    Given greater involvement by the laboratories in 
international activities, the committee is concerned that the 
nuclear weapons laboratories may be an even more inviting 
target for foreign countries seeking to obtain nuclear weapons-
related information. Senior DOE officials readily concede this 
point, and have informed the committee of their concerns about 
the adequacy of the Department's budget request in this regard.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General to follow up 
the prior GAO report and determine how well DOE is controlling 
foreign visits to the weapons laboratories and whether these 
visits raise any security or nuclear proliferation concerns. 
The report shall be submitted not later than October 15, 1996. 
In the interim, the committee directs the Secretary to reduce 
significantly the number of such visits and limit such visits 
to those individuals that hold appropriate security clearances 
or that have significant business interests at the laboratory. 
As to such business visitors, appropriate security measures 
shall be taken
    Based on these concerns, the committee recommends an 
additional $6.0 million for intelligence, of which $5.0 million 
shall be made available to support the expansion of 
counterintelligence activities at the nuclear weapons 
laboratories and at other high-risk facilities. The program 
shall be administered by the Office of Energy Intelligence 
under the guidance and oversight of the Department's senior 
intelligence officer. The Secretary is directed to review the 
Department's counterintelligence programs with the objective of 
strengthening these activities and to include additional 
resources for this important mission in the fiscal year 1998 
budget submission. The committee recommends that the remaining 
$1.0 million shall be used for expanded analysis of the Russian 
and Chinese nuclear weapons programs. Furthermore, the 
committee strongly urges the Secretary to consider submitting a 
reprogramming request to provide additional funds for 
counterintelligence activities in fiscal year 1996. The 
Secretary shall promptly inform the committee of the 
Secretary's plans in this regard.
                      International Nuclear Safety
    The budget request included $72.2 million for nuclear 
energy activities, including $66.2 million for Soviet-designed 
nuclear reactor safety activities in the former Soviet Union 
and $6.0 million for core-conversion efforts at plutonium 
production reactors in Russia. These activities were carried 
out by the Agency for International Development using foreign 
assistance funds in fiscal year 1996. The committee believes 
these activities should continue to be funded out of the 
foreign assistance budget, and therefore the committee 
recommends no funds be authorized for this purpose in fiscal 
year 1997.
                         International Security
    The budget request included $19.6 million within the arms 
control account for international security activities, 
including $14.6 million for the Industrial Partnering Program 
(IPP) and $5.0 million for controlling North Korea's nuclear 
program. The committee recommends $7.9 million for 
international security, a reduction of $11.7 million from the 
requested amount. The reduction shall be applied against the 
Industrial Partnering Program. The committee remains 
unconvinced of the merits of this program and other programs 
whose goal is to promote ``long-term stability'' of Russia's 
nuclear weapons laboratories.
    The committee recommends $7.9 million for the North Korean 
project. However, the committee is concerned about the 
increased cost estimates for the project, as well as the 
continued uncertainties regarding total project cost and 
timetable for its completion. Finally, the committee urges 
that, prior to obligating or expending these funds, the 
President contact the South Korean Government to seek an 
appropriate cost-sharing arrangement for the remaining work 
associated with this project. The committee further expects to 
be informed promptly of the results of any such demarche.
                  Laboratory Review of Missile Defense
    Recognizing that the nuclear weapons laboratories have 
played an important role in the development of promising 
ballistic missile defense (BMD) concepts, the committee directs 
the directors of each of the nuclear weapons laboratories to 
review the expertise in BMD resident at their respective 
laboratory and to report to the Assistant Secretary of Energy 
for Defense Programs on how that expertise could be harnessed 
to strengthen the U.S. BMD program. In turn, the Assistant 
Secretary shall submit to the House National Security Committee 
and the Senate Armed Services Committee a report detailing 
options for providing greater laboratory involvement in BMD. 
The report shall be due not later than November 15, 1996.
                             Naval Reactors
    The budget request included $663.9 million for Naval 
Reactors. The committee recommends $681.9 million, an increase 
of $18.0 million, to allow proceeding with the prototype plant 
inactivation plan endorsed by the Department's Office of Naval 
Reactors.
                     Nuclear Emergency Search Team
    The committee understands that the Department is 
considering expanding the mission of the Nuclear Emergency 
Search Team (NEST) to include activities outside the territory 
of the United States. In the absence of additional information 
regarding the cost and other implications of such an expansion 
of the NEST mission, the committee cannot endorse such a 
proposal. To better understand such implications, the committee 
directs the Secretary of Energy to submit a report to the House 
National Security Committee and the Senate Armed Services 
Committee not later than 30 days after the enactment of this 
Act on the Department's future plans for the NEST, including 
plans for expanding NEST's missions, the anticipated costs and 
policy implications of such an expansion, required technology 
modernization programs, and NEST's relationship to various 
Department of Defense organizations and activities with 
capabilities in this area. The Secretary is further directed to 
coordinate with the Secretary of Defense in preparing the 
report.
                           Nuclear Smuggling
    The committee endorses an innovative, joint Department of 
Energy-National Defense University program on nuclear 
smuggling, including smuggling pathway analysis. The committee 
recommends that, of the amounts made available within section 
3104, $1.5 million shall be available for this study.
                          Technology Transfer
    The budget request included $49.0 million for technology 
transfer and $10.0 million for education. The committee is 
pleased that the technology transfer program has been 
refocused, consistent with Congressional direction, to address 
issues that have direct relevance to the nuclear weapons 
mission of the Department. Therefore, the committee recommends 
the requested amounts. Of the amount made available for 
technology transfer and education, the committee recommends 
$13.0 million for the American Textiles Partnership (AMTEX) 
project, an increase of $3.0 million above the amount requested 
in the Weapons Activities account, but the same amount 
requested in the Department's overall budget request.
                                Tritium
    The budget request included $100.0 million for tritium 
production-related activities. The committee is disappointed 
that the Department's record of decision has excluded from 
further consideration any new multipurpose reactor options. The 
committee is aware of analysis which shows the potential cost-
effectiveness of new reactor options and which suggest that use 
of simplified, streamlined processes for obtaining license 
approval for new nuclear plants could ameliorate concerns 
regarding ``regulatory risk.'' The committee strongly supports 
full consideration of all technically feasible options for 
producing tritium, including use of an accelerator, existing 
commercial reactor options, and multipurpose reactors for 
tritium production, plutonium disposition and electrical power 
generation, as a means of maximizing assurance that tritium 
supplies will be available when needed while, at the same time, 
minimizing costs to the American taxpayer.
    Therefore, the committee strongly encourages the Secretary 
to ensure that adequate resources are applied in fiscal year 
1997 to permit a better understanding of the potential costs 
and benefits of the tritium options listed above. Specifically, 
the Department should include new reactor technology in the 
tritium options that are being studied until a final selection 
is made at the end of fiscal year 1998. Both government-
financed and privately-financed reactor facilities, including 
the multipurpose reactor option, should be included as part of 
this evaluation. The Department is also encouraged to consider 
the Fast Flux Test Facility at Hanford, Washington, as an 
option for interim production of tritium.
                          Warhead Master Plan
    Section 3153 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) directed the President to 
submit to Congress a master plan for the certification, 
stewardship, and management of warheads in the nuclear 
stockpile. The committee commends the Department for embracing 
the need for such detailed planning for actions necessary to 
sustain U.S. nuclear warheads in the stockpile, for working 
closely with the Department of Defense in drafting the report, 
and for submitting the report to Congress in a timely fashion. 
Nonetheless, the committee recognizes that the master plan is a 
``living document'' that will need to be refined over time, and 
therefore directs the Secretary to update the report on a 
biennial basis and to inform the Congressional defense 
committees of noteworthy changes in the plan.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
          Subtitle A--National Security Program Authorizations
                    Section 3101--Weapons Activities
    This section would authorize DOE weapons activity funding 
for fiscal year 1997.
      Section 3102--Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
    This section would authorize funds for DOE defense 
environmental restoration and waste management activities for 
fiscal year 1997 at the level of the budget request.
             Section 3103--Defense Fixed Asset Acquisition
    This section would authorize, as requested in the 
President's budget for fiscal year 1997, $182.0 million to 
establish a new asset acquisition and privatization program for 
the Department of Energy's national security assets. Of the 
total funding, $77.0 million would be allocated for the 
advanced mixed waste treatment project, Idaho Falls, Idaho; 
$15.0 million would be allocated for the mixed waste treatment 
project, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; $70.0 million would be allocated 
for the transuranic waste treatment project, Oak Ridge 
Tennessee, and $20.0 million would be allocated for other 
projects. No outlays are anticipated in fiscal year 1997 under 
this program. The committee intends that pre-construction 
planning expenditures for each of these projects be funded from 
operating and maintenance funds authorized in section 3102 of 
this Act. The committee authorizes $7.0 in pre-construction 
funding for the advanced mixed waste treatment project. The 
committee believes this project is important to fulfilling the 
Department's agreement with the State of Idaho and the 
Department of the Navy with respect to the interim storage of 
Navy nuclear spent fuel in Idaho.
                 Section 3104--Other Defense Activities
    This section would authorize funds for DOE other defense 
activities for fiscal year 1997.
              Section 3105--Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
    This section would authorize funds for defense nuclear 
waste disposal activities of the Department for fiscal year 
1997 at the requested amount.
                Subtitle B--Recurring General Provisions
                      Section 3121--Reprogramming
    This section would prohibit the reprogramming of funds in 
excess of 102 percent of the amount authorized for the program, 
or in excess of $1.0 million above the amount authorized for 
the program until the Secretary of Energy has notified the 
congressional defense committees and a period of 30 days has 
elapsed after the date on which the report is received. Should 
the Department demonstrate that it has improved its procedures 
for handling reprogramming requests, the committee would 
consider returning to a more flexible reprogramming statute in 
the future.
             Section 3122--Limits on General Plant Projects
    This section would limit the initiation of ``general plant 
projects'' authorized by the bill if the current estimated cost 
for any project exceeds $1.2 million. However, if the Secretary 
of Energy finds that the estimated cost of any project will 
exceed $1.2 million, the appropriate committees of Congress 
must be notified of the reasons for the cost variation.
             Section 3123--Limits On Construction Projects
    This section would permit any construction project to be 
initiated and continued only if the estimated cost for the 
project does not exceed 125 percent of the higher of: (1) the 
amount authorized for the project, or (2) the most recent total 
estimated cost presented to the Congress as justification for 
such project. To exceed such limits, the Secretary of Energy 
must report in detail to the appropriate committees of Congress 
and the report must be before the committees for 30 legislative 
days. This section would also specify that the 125 percent 
limitation would not apply to projects estimated to cost under 
$5.0 million.
                 Section 3124--Fund Transfer Authority
    This section would permit funds authorized to be 
appropriated by the bill to be transferred to other agencies of 
the government for performance of work for which the funds were 
authorized and appropriated. The provision would permit the 
merger of such funds with the authorizations of the agency to 
which they are transferred. This section would also limit to no 
more than five percent the amount of funds that may be 
transferred between authorizations in the Department of Energy 
that were authorized pursuant to this act.
     Section 3125--Authority for Conceptual and Construction Design
    This section would limit the Secretary of Energy's 
authority to request construction funding until the Secretary 
has certified a conceptual design. This section would provide 
an exception in the case of emergencies.
      Section 3126--Authority for Emergency Planning, Design, and 
                        Construction Activities
    This section would permit, in addition to any advance 
planning and construction designed otherwise authorized by the 
bill, the Secretary of Energy to perform planning and design 
utilizing available funds for any Department of Energy national 
security program construction project whenever the Secretary 
determines that the design must proceed expeditiously to 
protect the public health and safety, to meet the needs of 
national defense or to protect property.
Section 3127--Funds Available for all National Security Programs of the 
                          Department of Energy
    This section would authorize, subject to the provisions of 
appropriation Acts and section 3121 of this bill, amounts 
appropriated pursuant to this bill for management and support 
activities and for general plant projects to be made available 
for use, when necessary, in connection with all national 
security programs of the Department of Energy.
                  Section 3128--Availability of Funds
    This section would authorize, subject to a provision of an 
appropriation Act, amounts appropriated for operating expenses 
or for plant and capital equipment to remain available until 
expended.
   Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations
              Section 3131--Stockpile Stewardship Program
    This section would authorize an additional $100.0 million 
for various stockpile stewardship activities. The additional 
funds authorized for enhanced surveillance shall be used to 
provide research and development in chemistry and materials to 
support computation, engineering, and design assessment for 
aged or replaced weapons components; characterization of device 
components to include comparison of strain characteristics of 
cast versus wrought cases, crystalline substructure, as well as 
high explosive aging research; and modeling and simulation of 
aging-induced changes. The additional funds for dual 
revalidation shall be used to create an up-to-date 
understanding of each system in the stockpile by employing 
modern experimental, computational, and analytical techniques 
to obtain baseline data on the behavior of weapons in the 
stockpile. In this regard, the committee recognizes the 
importance of subcritical experiments at the Nevada Test Site, 
and is concerned about indications that the Department may be 
planning to postpone experiments planned to be conducted in 
fiscal year 1996 for reasons that are unclear. While the 
majority of additional funds authorized for stockpile 
stewardship would be spent at the nuclear weapons laboratories, 
the committee strongly endorses and encourages a continued, 
close collaboration between the weapons laboratories and the 
production sites.
    The committee notes that questions and concerns have been 
raised in the public with the degree of thoroughness with which 
the Department's Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement for Stockpile Stewardship and Management (PEIS/SSM) 
addressed stewardship alternatives. The committee believes that 
the Department should continue to consider fully all 
stewardship options, including a no-action option, the proposed 
stewardship, as well as alternatives that would involve a 
program based upon less than the complete suite of experimental 
capability. The committee directs that the Secretary not 
obligate any of the additional funds authorized to be 
appropriated in this section until the completion of the PEIS/
SSM or until October 15, 1996, whichever is earlier.
    Section 3132--Manufacturing Infrastructure for Nuclear Weapons 
                               Stockpile
    This section would authorize an additional $125.0 million 
for the stockpile manufacturing infrastructure program at the 
four weapons production plants (Savannah River Site, South 
Carolina, Pantex Plant, Texas, Kansas City Plant, Missouri, and 
Y-12 Plant, Tennessee) established in section 3137 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public 
Law 104-106). This section would also require the Secretary of 
Energy to submit a report to the congressional defense 
committees on obligations under the program. The additional 
funds are intended to establish and maintain the necessary 
capability and competencies to fully support the evaluation, 
surveillance, maintenance, repair, and dismantlement of the 
nuclear stockpile; provide flexibility to respond to new 
production requirements; to maintain and improve the 
manufacturing technology necessary to fully support the 
stockpile; and to achieve significant reductions in operating 
costs for the complex.
    The committee expects the funds to be allocated roughly 
evenly among the four plants. Furthermore, the funds allocated 
for the Savannah River Site shall be used to further 
consolidate the tritium capabilities beginning in fiscal year 
1997, a year earlier than the Department's current plans; to 
accelerate the schedule for producing tritium; and support a 
more robust and aggressive rapid reconstitution approach for 
plutonium pit manufacturing by initiating a preconceptual 
design study for a replacement pit fabrication facility. The 
funds allocated for the Y-12 Plant shall be used to accelerate 
the consolidation of facilities to manufacture and disassemble 
secondaries; modernize production plant infrastructure elements 
required for long-term operations; and increase core stockpile 
management operations and maintenance (O&M) activities. The 
funds allocated for the Pantex Plant shall be used for a 
consolidated pit packaging system and for increased core 
stockpile management O&M activities. The funds allocated for 
the Kansas City Plant shall be used for upgrades to current 
manufacturing technologies; replacing aging processing 
equipment; investing in information systems upgrades to 
maintain compatibility with advancements at the DOE national 
laboratories; and core O&M.
              Section 3133--Production of High Explosives
    This section would prohibit the expenditure of funds to 
move, or prepare to move, the manufacture and fabrication of 
high explosives and energetic materials for use as components 
in nuclear weapons systems from the Pantex Plant to any other 
Department of Energy site or facility.
     Section 3134--Limitation on Use of Funds by Laboratories for 
              Laboratory-Directed Research and Development
    This section would reduce beginning in fiscal year 1997 the 
funding percentage for Laboratory-Directed Research and 
Development (LDRD) and prohibit expenditure of funds authorized 
for LDRD in fiscal year 1997 until 15 days after the Secretary 
of Energy has issued a report on the manner in which such funds 
are planned to be used.
 Section 3135--Prohibition on Funding Nuclear Weapons Activities With 
                       People's Republic of China
    This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure 
of funds for any activity associated with the conduct of 
cooperative programs relating to nuclear weapons or nuclear 
weapons technology, including stockpile stewardship and safety, 
with the People's Republic of China (PRC), and require a report 
on past and planned discussions or activities between the 
United States and the PRC regarding nuclear weapons. The 
committee is unconvinced of the merits of any such cooperative 
discussions or activities between the U.S. and the PRC. The 
committee is extremely concerned about any discussions that may 
have resulted in or could lead to the release of restricted 
data or other classified or sensitive information to the PRC 
given the PRC's ongoing strategic modernization program, 
including its efforts to acquire or develop multiple-
independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs), its recent 
nuclear threats against Los Angeles, and its willingness to 
sell or transfer nuclear and missile technology to anti-Western 
regimes.
 Section 3136--International Cooperative Stockpile Stewardship Programs
    This section would prohibit use of fiscal year 1997 or 
prior year funds to conduct any activities associated with 
international cooperative stockpile stewardship programs, with 
an exception for such activities conducted with the United 
Kingdom and France. The committee is aware that the Department 
may be considering a ``global'' program to assist existing and 
threshold nuclear weapons states in nuclear weapons safety, 
reliability and effectiveness. The committee strongly objects 
to any such effort. This prohibition shall apply to all such 
DOE activities, including laboratory directed research and 
development funded studies and analyses of possible nuclear 
futures.
  Section 3137--Temporary Authority Relating to Transfers of Defense 
                     Environmental Management Funds
    This section would direct the Secretary of Energy to 
establish procedures to improve the financial management of 
environmental management funds allocated to the various former 
defense sites which are undergoing remedial cleanup activities. 
This section, upon the establishment of sufficient financial 
controls, would authorize the Secretary to grant authority to a 
site manager to transfer up to $5.0 million between program 
functions within his jurisdiction or to transfer a similar sum 
between projects within his area of operation. This section 
would provide a limited expansion of the current reprogramming 
authority and would allow a site manager to move money on a 
very limited basis based on a finding that the transfer is 
necessary to reduce a health or safety risk or where the funds 
can be used more efficiently at that site. Often-times, funds 
remain obligated to projects which have been completed at less 
than the original obligation or the scope of project has been 
reduced. Prudent and selective use of this authority by a site 
manager should allow the funds described in the above example 
to be reallocated in a more timely manner. The committee 
believes that this authority should result in more efficient 
field operations and should allow field managers the latitude 
to manage these facilities in the most efficient way possible. 
The Secretary would be required to notify Congress within 
thirty days after the transfer of funds occurs. Finally, this 
section would expire on December 30, 1997.
   Section 3138--Management Structure for Nuclear Weapons Production 
              Facilities and Nuclear Weapons Laboratories
    This section would impose a limitation on delegation 
authority, require consultations with area offices of the 
Department, require DOE area offices to report directly to DOE 
headquarters, require the Secretary to provide a Defense 
Programs reorganization plan and report, and require 
establishment of a Defense Programs Management Council.
                       Subtitle D--Other Matters
      Section 3141--Report on Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Memorandum
    This section would require the President to submit to the 
congressional defense committees a copy of the Nuclear Weapons 
Stockpile Memorandum, and to submit reports on any future 
updates or changes to the Memorandum.
  Section 3142--Report on Plutonium Pit Production and Remanufacturing
    This section would require the Secretary to submit to the 
congressional defense committees a report on plans for 
achieving a capability to produce and remanufacture plutonium 
pits.
Section 3143--Amendments Relating to Baseline Environmental Management 
                                Reports
    This section would amend section 3153 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 104-
360) to authorize the submission of the Baseline Environmental 
Management Report on a biennial basis rather than an annual 
basis. This change would reduce the report preparation cost, 
which is estimated to exceed $4.0 million annually. Currently, 
as soon as one report is completed, preparation of another one 
must begin, leaving little time for analysis of the resulting 
data. Submitting this report every two years should enable the 
Department to analyze the data from the field to determine 
patterns and should improve the usefulness of the report to the 
Congress.
Section 3144--Requirement to Develop Future Use Plans for Environmental 
                           Management Program
    This section would permit the Secretary of Energy to 
develop and implement as part of the Defense Environmental 
Restoration and Waste Management Program, a future land use 
plan at sites where the Secretary is planning or implementing 
environmental restoration activities. Although the Secretary 
would be encouraged to use this authority at all defense sites 
where remedial activities are occurring, the Secretary would be 
required to develop these plans at specific selected defense 
sites. In developing these plans, the Secretary would be 
required to consult with local advisory boards, local land use 
redevelopment authorities, or other appropriate state agencies. 
The Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue 
Committee recently issued its final report entitled ``Consensus 
Principles and Recommendations for Improving Federal Facilities 
Cleanup''. The recommendations contained in this report are 
aimed at improving the process of making decisions and setting 
priorities for cleanup efforts at federal facilities. The 
committee supports the expansive role of future use/site 
advisory boards as described in that report and recommends that 
future use planning, as required by this section follow, to the 
extent practicable, the recommendations contained in that 
report. The committee expects that reaching agreement with 
local authorities about anticipated future land use associated 
with contaminated former defense sites once they are remediated 
should result in cleanup activities that are appropriate to 
that anticipated future use. This should also result in a more 
expeditious transfer of the property upon the completion of the 
remediation activity. This section would recognize that certain 
sites, in conjunction with local advisory groups, have 
developed or are in the process of developing future use land 
use plans. This section would not overturn or require changes 
to those plans or the appointment of new advisory groups. This 
section would also require the submission of a report to 
Congress on the future land use plans at these former defense 
facilities. Finally, this section would require that all future 
land use plans developed under this section be in strict 
compliance with all existing statutory and regulatory 
requirements.
    Subtitle E--Defense Nuclear Environmental Cleanup and Management
                         Section 3151--Purpose
    This section would set forth the purpose of this subtitle 
which is to improve the operation of the DOE defense nuclear 
environmental cleanup and management program through the use of 
cost-effective management mechanisms and innovative 
technologies.
            Section 3152--Covered Defense Nuclear Facilities
    This section would define the application of this subtitle 
to include any defense nuclear facility of the Department of 
Energy for which the fiscal year 1996 environmental management 
budget was $350.0 million or more.
                       Section 3153--Site Manager
    This section would grant authority to the Secretary of 
Energy to delegate to the site manager authority to oversee and 
to direct management operations at a defense nuclear facility. 
Specifically the Secretary may delegate the authority to enter 
into and modify contractual agreements to enhance environmental 
restoration at the facility, to submit reprogramming requests 
to Congress directly if DOE headquarters fails to act on the 
request within 60 days, and to negotiate amendments to 
environmental agreements. For any environmental remedial action 
where the cost exceeds $25.0 million, the site manager is 
required to prepare an assessment of the costs and risk 
reduction or other benefits associated with implementation of 
the selected action.
               Section 3154--Department of Energy Orders
    This section would require that before new DOE orders are 
issued that there be a finding that the order is necessary for 
the protection of human health and the environment or safety, 
or the fulfillment of current legal requirements. This section 
should reduce the number of DOE orders that are unrelated to 
cleanup, safety or protection of the environment and should 
result in a more efficient and effective remediation effort at 
the DOE defense nuclear facilities.
   Section 3155--Deployment of Technology for Remediation of Defense 
                             Nuclear Waste
    This section would promote the deployment of innovative 
environmental technologies for remediation of defense nuclear 
waste at DOE nuclear facilities.
              Section 3156--Performance-Based Contracting
    This section would require the Secretary of Energy to 
develop and implement a program to encourage the use of 
performance-based contracts as opposed to cost-plus contracts. 
The contracts to the maximum extent possible would require 
results oriented performance criteria, financial 
accountability, incentives for contractors to meet or exceed 
the performance criteria, specific incentives for cost savings, 
and when appropriate, allocation of fee or profit reduction for 
failure to meet minimum performance criteria. This section 
would require the Secretary of Energy to implement this program 
by October 1, 1997.
  Section 3157--Designation of Defense Nuclear Facilities as National 
               Environmental Cleanup Demonstration Areas
    This section would allow the Secretary of Energy, upon 
receipt of a request from the governor of a state in which a 
defense nuclear facility is situated, to designate the facility 
as a ``National Environmental Cleanup Demonstration Area''. 
This section would also express the sense of Congress that 
federal and state regulatory authorities should work to develop 
expedited and streamlined procedures for cleaning up the 
nuclear facilities and to eliminate unnecessary bureaucratic 
delay.
   TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD AUTHORIZATION
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
                      Section 3201--Authorization
    Section 3201 would authorize, as requested in the 
President's budget, $17 million for the operation of the 
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
                TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
            Section 3302--Authorized Uses of Stockpile Funds
    This section would authorize $60 million from the National 
Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund for the operations and 
maintenance of the National Defense Stockpile for fiscal year 
1997. The provision would also permit the use of additional 
funds for extraordinary or emergency conditions after a 
notification to Congress.
        Section 3311--Biennial Report on Stockpile Requirements
    This section would amend the Strategic and Critical 
Materials Stock Piling Act, section 3203 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1988 (Public Law 100-
180), concerning the requirements report provided to Congress 
every other year by the Department of Defense (DOD). The 
committee believes the Stock Piling Act, as currently written, 
is in need of revisions that would reflect current world 
conditions, particularly in the area of establishing 
requirements for the National Defense Stockpile. The committee 
further believes the provision will assist the DOD in the 
preparation of the stockpile requirements report due to 
Congress on January 15, 1997.
                Section 3312--Notification Requirements
    This section would update several sections of the Strategic 
and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act, section 3203 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1988 (Public 
Law 100-180), to standardize reporting requirements throughout 
the act. The provision would establish that all legislative 
reporting waiting periods are to be 45 days.
                 TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
             Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations
    This section would authorize the appropriation of 
$149,500,000 for fiscal year 1997 for the Department of Energy 
for the operation of the Naval Petroleum Reserves.
 Section 3402--Requirement on Sale of Certain Petroleum During Fiscal 
                               Year 1997
    This section would require the Secretary of Energy to sell 
petroleum produced for the Naval Petroleum Reserves at 
established prices.
                  TITLE XXXV--PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
    This subtitle would grant the Panama Canal Commission 
authority to make expenditures from the Panama Canal Commission 
Revolving Fund within existing statutory limits. The Panama 
Canal Commission operates as a private government corporation 
and is supervised by a nine member supervisory board, commonly 
referred to as the Panama Canal Commission Board of Directors. 
The Panama Canal Commission does not draw from U.S. taxpayer 
funds for the operation of the Canal, but receives funding to 
cover its operating, administrative, and capital improvement 
expenses from tolls and other revenue collected. The Panama 
Canal Commission's total operating costs including depreciation 
and interest payments in Fiscal Year 1997 are estimated at 
$623.6 million.
           Subtitle B--Amendments to Panama Canal Act of 1979
                 Section 3521--Short Title; References
    This section would establish the Act as the ``Panama Canal 
Act Amendments of 1996.''
     Section 3522--Definitions and Recommendations for Legislation
    This section would delete the requirement that the 
President submit recommendations to improve the Commission 
structure. The President has complied with that provision.
                      Section 3523--Administrator
    This section would authorize the Commission's Board of 
Directors to establish the Panama Canal Administrator's pay at 
a rate not to exceed that set for level III of the Executive 
Service. It is currently established by statute at level IV of 
the Executive Schedule. This amendment would ensure the 
recruitment of highly qualified administrators during this 
critical period in the transition of the canal to Panamanian 
control. As is the case with all expenditures by the 
Commission, the administrator's salary is paid from canal 
revenues.
         Section 3524--Deputy Administrator and Chief Engineer
    This section would authorize the Commission's Board of 
Directors to establish the Deputy Administrator's pay at a rate 
not to exceed that set for level IV of the Executive Service. 
This section would also delete the reference to chief engineer.
                   Section 3525--Office of Ombudsman
    This section would remove the requirement in section 3623 
of title 22, United States Code, that the Panama Canal 
Commission Ombudsman be a U.S. citizen.-
           Section 3526--Appointment and Compensation; Duties
    This section would amend section 3642 of title 22, United 
States Code, with technical changes and clarification on the 
scope of the Panama Canal Employment System established in 
section 3652 of title 22, United States Code.
            Section 3527--Applicability of Certain Benefits
    This section would amend section 3649 of title 22, United 
States Code, to include those sections of the U.S. personnel 
laws which are specifically applicable to all pre-treaty 
employees and U.S. citizen, post-treaty employees.
            Section 3528--Travel and Transportation Expenses
    This section would amend section 3650 of title 22, United 
States Code, to provide a specific exemption from the 
requirement that an employee promise to remain in the 
employment of the Commission for an additional two years after 
completion of vacation leave. Inasmuch as the majority of the 
agency's U.S. citizen employees will be separated from federal 
service on December 31, 1999, it will be impossible for them to 
make such a tour renewal commitment after December 31, 1997. 
The remaining proposed changes to section 3650 of title 22, 
United States Codes are non-substantive in nature.
          Section 3529--Clarification of Definition of Agency
    This section would make a technical amendment to section 
3651 of title 22, United States Code, to clarify that the 
Commission remains an ``Executive agency'' notwithstanding 
other definitions in title 22, United States Code.
     Section 3530--Panama Canal Employment System; Merit and Other 
                        Employment Requirements
    This section would amend section 3652 of title 22, United 
States Code, to authorize the Commission to establish a 
personnel system for the Commission that is independent of 
other U.S. agencies in Panama. This amendment would allow the 
Commission to have in place a personnel system which can easily 
be transferred to and be implemented by the Panama Canal 
Authority which will operate the canal after 1999.
                   Section 3531--Employment Standards
    This section would amend section 3653 of title 22, United 
States Code, to provide the Panama Canal Commission with the 
sole authority to determine employment standards and promotion 
criteria for the Commission consistent with the consolidation 
of authority for the Panama Canal Employment System.
     Section 3532--Repeal of Obsolete Provision Regarding Interim 
                 Application of Canal Zone Merit System
    This section would repeal section 3654 of title 22, United 
States Code, to reflect the fact that the Canal Zone Merit 
System has been replaced by the Panama Canal Employment System.
Section 3533--Repeal of Provision Relating to Recruitment and Retention 
                              Remuneration
    This section would repeal section 3657(d) of title 22, 
United States Code, in light of the fact that similar 
provisions contained in title 5, United States Code, would be 
made applicable to canal employees in section 3536 of these 
amendments.
               Section 3534--Benefits Based on Basic Pay
    This section would amend section 3658 of title 22, United 
States Code, to add federal retirement benefits contained in 
chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, to the list of 
benefits which are determined in relation to basic pay.
Section 3535--Vesting of General Administrative Authority of Commission
    This section would amend section 3663 of title 22, United 
States Code, to delete the authority of the President to 
prescribe regulations on employment and pay practices of the 
agencies participating in the Panama Canal Commission 
Employment System. This authority would now reside with the 
Commission.
              Section 3536--Applicability of Certain Laws
    This section would amend section 3664 of title 22, United 
States Code, to clarify those provisions of title 5, United 
States Code, which are applicable to the Panama Canal 
Commission
Section 3537--Repeal of Provision Relating to Transferred or Reemployed 
                               Employees
    This section would repeal section 3671(a)(3) of title 22, 
United States Code, as it is obsolete.
      Section 3538--Administration of Special Disability Benefits
    This section amends section 3682 of title 22, United States 
Code, to provide for the continued administration of a special 
disability program for 46 former employees and 295 surviving 
spouses after the transition of the canal in the year 2000.
               Section 3539--Panama Canal Revolving Fund
    This section would amend section 3712 of title 22, United 
States Code, to add two activities which are appropriate for 
expenditures from the Panama Canal Revolving Fund. Authority 
would be granted to expend funds for promotional activities 
such as the procurement of radio and TV advertisements and for 
the purchase and transport to Panama of U.S. built passenger 
motor vehicles, including large, heavy duty vehicles.
                         Section 3540--Printing
    This section would amend section 3711 of title 22, United 
States Code, to exempt the Commission from the requirement to 
obtain approval from the Public Printer and the Joint Committee 
on Printing before printing activities can be secured from 
commercial sources. This amendment would assist in the 
transition process by permitting the canal to obtain commercial 
suppliers of printing services who will be on hand after 
support of the Government Printing Office ends on December 31, 
1999.
                   Section 3541--Accounting Policies
    This section would amend section 3721 of title 22, United 
States Code, to make the Commission's accounting practices 
conform with those applicable to other wholly-owned U.S. 
Government corporation.
           Section 3542--Interagency Services; Reimbursements
    This section would amend section 3721 of title 22, United 
States Code to authorize the Commission to defray the expenses 
of eligible employees for the costs associated with primary and 
secondary education in the United States.
                      Section 3543--Postal Service
    This section would amend section 3741 of title 22, United 
States Code, to authorize the Panama Canal Commission to close 
out its obligations on any unpaid balances outstanding for 
postal savings certificates, postal savings deposits, and 
postal money orders effective December 1, 1999. The Commission 
had assumed all obligations of the postal service with respect 
to outstanding postal instruments issued prior to October 1, 
1979. This provision would allow the Commission to close out 
such balances prior to the transfer on December 31, 1999.
  Section 3544--Investigations of Accidents or Injury Giving Rise to 
                                 Claim
    This section would amend section 3777(1) of title 22, 
United States Code, to clarify the current law's mandate that 
the Canal's Board of Local Inspectors investigation (including 
a hearing) is a perquisite to a subsequent claim or suit 
against the Commission.
                  Section 3545--Operations Regulations
    This section would amend section 3811 in title 22, United 
States Code, to allow the Commission to issue navigational 
regulations.
                  Section 3546--Miscellaneous Repeals
    This section would amend various obsolete sections in title 
22, United States Code.
                        Section 3547--Exemption
    This section would exempt the Commission from the 
requirement to adopt the metric system since it is costly and 
the government of Panama has not adopted it.
 Section 3548--Miscellaneous Conforming Amendments to Title 5, United 
                              States Code
    This section would make various conforming amendments to 
title 5, United States Code.
               Section 3549--Repeal of Panama Canal Code
    This section would repeal the Panama Canal Code as it is 
obsolete.
     Section 3550--Miscellaneous Clerical and Conforming Amendments
    This section would make certain clerical amendments.
                           DEPARTMENTAL DATA
    The Department of Defense requested legislation, in 
accordance with the program of the President, as illustrated by 
the correspondence set out below:
              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST
                              Department of Defense
                                 Office of General Counsel,
                                     Washington, DC, April 5, 1996.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Speaker: The Department of Defense proposes the 
enclosed draft of legislation, ``To authorize appropriations 
for Fiscal Year 1997 for military activities of the Department 
of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for 
Fiscal Year 1997, and for other purposes.''
    This legislative proposal is part of the Department of 
Defense legislative program for the 104th Congress and is 
needed to carry out the President's budget plans for Fiscal 
Year 1997. The Office of Management and Budget advises that 
there is no objection to the presentation of this proposal to 
the Congress and that its enactment would be in accord with the 
program of the President.
    This bill provides management authority for the Department 
of Defense in Fiscal Year 1997 and makes several changes to the 
authorities under which we operate. These changes are designed 
to permit a more efficient operation of the Department of 
Defense.
    Enactment of this legislation is of great importance to the 
Department of Defense and the Department urges its speedy and 
favorable consideration.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Judith A. Miller.
    Enclosure.
                                ------                                
              MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION REQUEST
                             Department of Defense,
                                 Office of General Counsel,
                                     Washington, DC, April 8, 1996.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed is proposed legislation to 
authorize construction at certain military installations for 
Fiscal Year 1997, and for other military construction 
authorizations and activities of the Department of Defense. 
This legislative proposal is needed to carry out the 
President's Fiscal Year 1997 budget plan.
    The draft proposal would authorize appropriations in Fiscal 
Year 1997 for new construction and family housing support for 
the Active Forces, Defense Agencies, NATO Security Investment 
Program, and Guard and Reserve Forces. It also establishes the 
effective dates within the military construction program and 
includes construction projects resulting from base realignment 
and closure actions. Additionally, the Fiscal Year 1997 draft 
legislation includes General Provision requests.
    The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
no objection to the presentation of this proposal to Congress, 
and that its enactment would be in accord with the program of 
the President.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Judith A. Miller.
    Enclosure.
                                ------                                
                           COMMITTEE POSITION
    On May 1, 1996, the Committee on National Security, a 
quorum being present, approved H.R. 3230, as amended, by a vote 
of 49 to 2.
                  COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES
                                  House of Representatives,
                                     Committee on Commerce,
                                       Washington, DC, May 6, 1996.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives, 
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: On May 1, 1996, the Conunittee on 
National Security ordered reported H.R. 3230, the ``National 
Defense Authorization Act.'' This measure, among other things, 
is to authorize appropriations for the Department of Defense 
for Fiscal Year 1997.
    During the markup of this legislation, the Committee on 
National Security adopted the following provisions which fall 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce:
          Sec. 601--Military Pay Raise for Fiscal Year 1997;
          Sec. 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;-
          Sec. 742--Exception to Strength Limitations for 
        Public Health Service Officers Assigned to the 
        Department of Defense;-
          Sec. 2863--Demonstration Project for Installation and 
        Operation of Electric Power Distribution System at 
        Youngstown Air Reserve Station, Ohio;-
          Sec. 3138--Management Structure for Nuclear Weapons 
        Production Facilities and Nuclear Weapons Laboratories;
          Sec. 3143--Amendments Relating to Baseline 
        Environmental Management Reports;-
          Sec. 3151-3157--Defense Nuclear Environmental Cleanup 
        and Management Act of 1996; and
          Sec. 3402--Price Requirement on Sale of Certain 
        Petroleum during Fiscal Year 1996.
    Recognizing your Committee's desire to bring this 
legislation expeditiously before the House, and in reliance 
upon our most recent discussions concerning those provisions 
within the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee, we will not 
seek sequential referral of the bill based on the provisions 
listed above. By agreeing not to seek a sequential referral of 
the bill, the Commerce Committee does not waive its 
jurisdiction over these provisions.
    Furthermore, the Commerce Committee reserves its authority 
to seek equal conferees on these and any other provisions of 
the bill that are within the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction 
during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on this 
legislation. As you know, the Commerce Committee is continuing 
its work to make comprehensive reforms in the Superfund 
statute. We understand that the Senate is contemplating a 
number of provisions that would fall within the jurisdiction of 
this Committee, especially in the area of environmental cleanup 
standards. We intend to resist efforts to use the Department of 
Defense reauthorization bill to reform hazardous waste cleanup 
standards, and look forward to your cooperation.
    I want to thank you and your staff for your assistance in 
providing the Commerce Committee with an opportunity to 
evaluate its jurisdictional interests in H.R. 3230, 
particularly with regard to Sections 291 1 and 293 1. I would 
appreciate your including this letter as a part of the National 
Security Committee's report on H.R. 3230, and as part of the 
record during consideration of this bill by the House.
            Sincerely,
                                   Thomas J. Bliley, Jr., Chairman.
                                ------                                
                          House of Representatives,
                                     Committee on Resources
                                          Washington, DC, May 1996.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives, 
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding the 
seven provisions in H.R. 3230, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, that are within the 
Committee on Resources jurisdiction.
    I have reviewed the language included in H.R. 3230 and I am 
in support of the provisions. Therefore, I agree to waive a 
sequential referral over the seven provisions identified in 
your April 29, 1996, letter to me with the understanding that 
this action in no way affects any future jurisdictional claims 
over these provisions. In addition, I would ask that the 
Committee on Resources be represented during any conference on 
these provisions.
    Once again, I thank you and Jim Schweiter and Philip Grone 
of your staff for the extraordinary cooperation shown in 
working with me on H.R. 3230, especially regarding Title XIV of 
the bill. I point out the value of the early and frequent 
consultations between our committees and the happy results; our 
working relationship should serve as a model for other, less 
forthcoming committees.
    Finally, I congratulate you on this important legislation 
and look forward to its enactment.
            Sincerely,
                                               Don Young, Chairman.
                              ----------                              
                          House of Representatives,
              Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
                                       Washington, DC, May 6, 1996.
Hon. Floyd D. Spence,
Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives, 
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: When the Committee on National Security 
met to consider and approve H.R. 3230, the FY 97 National 
Defense Authorization Act, the legislation included several 
provisions within the legislative jurisdiction of the Committee 
on Government Reform and oversight.
    Since our committees have worked closely in coordinating 
the development of these legislative initiatives, and in an 
effort to honor your desire to expedite consideration of this 
bill, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight waives 
its right to seek sequential referral of any of these 
provisions. We wish to make it clear, however, that this waiver 
is specifically limited to these provisions in this single 
instance and should not be construed as a waiver of the 
committee's jurisdiction with respect to any of the legislative 
provisions in H.R. 3230 that fall within its jurisdiction. The 
Committee also wishes to preserve its prerogatives with respect 
to any floor amendments on this bill or to any House-Senate 
conference and any Senate amendments thereto, including the 
appointment of an equal number of conferees to those appointed 
for any other House committee with respect to the provisions of 
H.R. 3230 which fall within this committee's jurisdiction.
    As always, it is a pleasure working with you, and my 
compliments on your efforts to revitalize U.S. national 
security.
            Sincerely,
                                 William F. Clinger, Jr., Chairman.
                                ------                                
                          House of Representatives,
                        Committee on International Affairs,
                                       Washington, DC, May 3, 1996.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives, 
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that on Wednesday, May 1, 
1996, the Committee on National Security ordered favorably 
reported H.R. 3230, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1997. The bill includes a number of provisions that 
fall within the legislative jurisdiction of the Committee on 
International Relations pursuant to Rule X(k) of the House of 
Representatives.
    The specific provisions within our committee's jurisdiction 
are: (1) Title II, Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense 
Programs (Sections 233, 234, 236, and 237); (2) Section 1037--
George C. Marshall European Center For Strategic Security 
Studies; (3) Title XI--Cooperative Threat Reduction With States 
of Former Soviet Union (Section 1101-1105); (4) Title XIII, 
Subtitle A--Miscellaneous Matters (Sections 1301, 1306, and 
1307); (5) Title XIII, Subtitle B--Commission to Assess the 
Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States; and (6) Section 
3135--Prohibition on funding nuclear weapons activities with 
People's Republic of China (Subsection b only).
    Pursuant to Chairman Solomon's announcement that the 
Committee on Rules will move expeditiously to consider a rule 
for H.R. 3230 and your desire to have the bill considered on 
the House floor the week of May 13, 1996, and in recognition 
that both of our staffs have been consulting on these 
provisions, the Committee on International Relations will not 
seek a sequential referral of the bill as a result of including 
these provisions, without waiving or ceding now or in the 
future this committee's jurisdiction over the provisions in 
question. I will seek to have conferees appointed for these 
provisions during any House-Senate conference committee.
    I would appreciate your including this letter as a part of 
the report on H.R. 3230 and as part of the record during 
consideration of the bill by the House of Representatives.
            Sincerely,
                                      Benjamin A. Gilman, Chairman.
                                ------                                
                          House of Representatives,
                            Committee on National Security,
                                        Washington, DC, May 7, 1996
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
3230, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1997, and the provisions relating to the jurisdiction of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
    I appreciate the jurisdictional interest of your committee 
in this legislation. I further appreciate your decision not to 
request a sequential referral of H.R. 3230 so that 
consideration of the bill by the House may be expedited.
    If additional jurisdictional issues arise, I will make 
every effort to include any mutually agreed upon modifications, 
consistent with the rule, in an amendment when the bill is 
considered on the House floor. I also will include a copy of 
this and your letter in the committee report. I also understand 
that you will seek the appointment of conferees from the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with respect to 
provisions within your committee's jurisdiction during any 
House-Senate conference on the bill or a Senate-passed version.
    Thank you for your cooperation.
    With warm personal regards, I am
            Sincerely,
                                            Floyd Spence, Chairman.
                                ------                                
                          House of Representatives,
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                        Washington, DC, May 7, 1996
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives, 
        Washington, DC
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your information and 
cooperation regarding H.R. 3230, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, and provisions that are 
within the jurisdiction of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee.
    Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 3230 and 
the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, 
while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over a number of 
provisions in the bill, I do not intend to request a sequential 
referral. This, of course, is conditional on our mutual 
understanding that nothing in this legislation or my decision 
to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise 
affects the jurisdiction of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, that every effort will be made to 
include any agreements worked out by staff of our two 
Committees in an amendment as the bill is taken to the House 
Floor, and that a copy of this letter and of your response will 
be included in the Committee Report. In addition, the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee reserves the right 
to be included as conferees on any matter within its 
jurisdiction should this legislation go to a House-Senate 
conference.
    Pursuant to Rule X, clause 1 (q), of Rules of the House of 
Representatives, the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee has jurisdiction over oil and other pollution of 
navigable waters. This includes provisions which amend or 
affect the Clean Water Act, the Ocean Dumping Act, the Coastal 
Zone Management Act, the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, 
and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act (CERCLA). Accordingly, our Committee has a 
jurisdictional interest in various provisions in H.R. 3230, 
including provisions in Subtitle C, Environmental Provisions, 
provisions relating to CERCLA, and provisions in Subtitle E, 
Defense Nuclear Environmental Cleanup and Management.
    Specifically, the following sections relating to water 
quality are within or affect the primary jurisdiction of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee:
    324--Navy compliance with shipboard solid waste control 
requirements.
    327--Navy program to monitor ecological effects of 
organotin.
    In addition, I believe the Committee could be successful in 
requesting a sequential referral over provisions in Subtitle E, 
Defense Nuclear Environmental Cleanup and Management, based on 
effects on authorities and requirements under CERCLA and the 
Clean Water Act. However, I appreciate your willingness, prior 
to markup, to address our jurisdictional concerns by, among 
other things, modifying provisions on additional duties and 
certifications, and therefore I will not seek a sequential 
referral.
    In addition, I appreciate your willingness to modify 
section 2832, Land exchange, St. Helena Annex, Norfolk Naval 
Shipyard, Virginia, to take into account our jurisdictional 
concerns.
    Finally, I would note that section 247, the National 
Oceanographic Partnership Program, may affect our jurisdiction, 
as well. As the Committee with jurisdiction over laws 
protecting ocean and coastal water quality and over agencies 
such as the Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection 
Agency, we have a significant interest in ocean protection and 
research.
    Thank you again for your assurances. I look forward to 
continuing to work with you on HR. 3230 and other matters of 
mutual interest to our two Committees.
            Sincerely,
                                             Bud Shuster, Chairman.
                              FISCAL DATA
    Pursuant to clause 7 of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives, the committee attempted to ascertain annual 
outlays resulting from the bill during fiscal year 1997 and the 
four following fiscal years. The results of such efforts are 
reflected in the cost estimate prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which is included in this 
report pursuant to clause 2(l)(3)(C) of House Rule XI.
                  CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE
    In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the cost estimate 
prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and submitted 
pursuant to section 403(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 is as follows:
                                                       May 7, 1996.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives, 
        Washington, DC
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the attached cost estimate for H.R. 3230, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, as ordered 
reported by the House Committee on National Security on May 1, 
1996.
    The bill would affect direct spending and receipts, and 
thus would be subject to pay-as-you-go procedures under section 
252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
1985.
    If you wish, we would be pleased to provide further details 
on the estimate.
            Sincerely,
                                                   June E. O'Neill.
               congressional budget office cost estimate
    1. Bill number: H.R. 3230.
    2. Bill title: National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1997.
    3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the House Committee 
on National Security on May 1, 1996.
    4. Bill purpose: This bill would authorize appropriations 
for 1997 for the military functions of the Department of 
Defense (DoD) and the Department of Energy (DoE). This bill 
also would prescribe personnel strengths for each active duty 
and selected reserve component.
    5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: Table 1 
summarizes the budgetary effects of the bill. It shows the 
effects of the bill on direct spending and authorizations of 
appropriations for 1997. Assuming appropriation of the amounts 
authorized, the bill would increase funding for discretionary 
programs in 1997 by about $2.3 billion over the 1996 
appropriated level, and outlays would increase by about $0.6 
billion.
    6. Basis of estimate: The estimate assumes that the bill 
will be enacted by October 1, 1996, and that the amounts 
authorized will be appropriated for 1997. Outlays are estimated 
according to historical spending patterns.
Direct spending
    The bill contains several provisions that would affect 
direct spending and thus would subject the bill to pay-as-you-
go procedures under section 252 of the Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (see Table 2). The 
provisions involve eligibility for Montgomery GI Bill benefits, 
recoupment of financial assistance from certain health 
professionals, retirement of reserve judge advocates, and other 
matters with much less significant costs.
     TABLE 1.--BUDGETARY IMPACT OF H.R. 3230 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY    
                                    [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   1996      1997      1998     1999     2000     2001     2002 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 DIRECT SPENDING                                                
Estimated budget authority.....................         0        -2       -4       -4       -3       -2       -1
Estimated outlays..............................         0        -2       -4       -4       -3       -2       -1
                                    SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS ACTION                                   
Spending under current law:                                                                                     
    Budget authority \1\.......................   265,023         0        0        0        0        0        0
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Estimated outlays..........................   264,311    91,156   36,485   17,138    7,362    3,275      913
Proposed changes:                                                                                               
    Authorization level........................         0   267,328        0        0        0        0        0
    Estimated outlays..........................         0   173,738   54,404   21,333    9,270    3,909    2,018
Spending Under H.R. 3230                                                                                        
    Authorization level \1\....................   265,023   267,328        0        0        0        0        0
    Estimated outlays..........................   264,311   264,894   90,889   38,471   16,632    7,184    2,931
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1996 figure is the amount appropriated for programs authorized by this bill.                            
Note:-Costs of the bill would fall under budget function 050, National Defense, except for certain other items  
  as noted.                                                                                                     
    Montgomery G.I. bill.--In section 556, the bill would 
expand eligibility for Montgomery G.I. Bill (MGIB) benefits to 
certain Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) participants. 
ROTC recipients who enter active duty after October 1, 1996, 
and receive a yearly scholarship below $2,000 would be allowed 
to enroll in the MGIB program. The provision reduces direct 
spending by $1 million in 1997 and by $2 million in 1998 and 
1999 because enrollees would contribute $1,200 each. Once these 
cohorts begin training, however, net costs would be incurred--
about $1 million in 2002.
    Financial Assistance Programs for Health Professionals.--
Each year 10 to 20 health professionals fail to complete the 
service obligation that they incurred when DoD provided them 
with financial assistance while they were being trained. The 
bill would provide alternatives to the current obligation to 
serve on active duty. This provision would give the Secretary 
of Defense the discretion to allow such individuals to fulfill 
their obligation through other types of government service or 
by repaying the costs of their training. If half of those 
affected chose the repayment option, savings to the government 
would amount to about $1 million annually.
                                 TABLE 2.--DIRECT SPENDING IMPACTS IN H.R. 3230                                 
                                    [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              1997     1998     1999     2000     2001     2002 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 DIRECT SPENDING                                                
Montgomery GI bill........................................       -1       -2       -2       -1  .......        1
Health professional repayment.............................       -1       -1       -1       -1       -1       -1
Reserve judge advocates...................................  .......       -1       -1       -1       -1       -1
Other direct spending.....................................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total direct spending...............................       -2       -4       -4       -3       -2       -1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Retirement of Reserve Judge Advocates. Section 507 would 
allow the Secretary of Defense to retain on reserve duty 
reservists who are judge advocates and who would otherwise 
retire. This provision would reduce retirement costs because 
these individuals would retire later than under current law. 
Savings would be less than $500,000 in 1997 and $1 million 
annually thereafter.
    Other Direct Spending. The bill contains other provisions 
with direct spending impacts of less than $500,000 a year.
    Pilot Program for Reemployed Annuitants. Section 335 would 
establish a pilot program to permit no more than 50 reemployed 
annuitants in DoD to reduce their work hours and to begin 
collecting their full pensions. Under current law, an employing 
agency must deduct the annuity amount from the paycheck of a 
reemployed civil service annuitant and remit that amount to the 
retirement trust fund. The retirement fund, in effect, makes no 
net annuity payments to annuitants while they are reemployed. 
Under the bill, the salary reduction would be waived for up to 
24 months for up to 50 people at any one time, but the sum of 
annuity and pay may not exceed the gross full-time salary for 
the position. Participants in the program would have to reduce 
their work hours to 20 to 30 hours per week to meet this 
requirement.
    The provision would raise retirement outlays because some 
employees would have an incentive to retire earlier than they 
would under current law. CBO estimates that the increase in 
spending would be less than $500,000 each year from fiscal year 
1997 to 2001 when the program would end.
    Miscellaneous Military Retirement Provisions. Five other 
provisions would change current law governing military 
retirement including survivor benefits. None of these 
provisions would have significant costs because relatively few 
people would be affected and changes in benefit levels are 
relatively small:
          Section 632 would allow service members who are 
        retired due to physical disabilities to receive retired 
        pay based on the grade to which they would have been 
        promoted had it not been for the onset of the physical 
        disability.
          Section 555 would allow certain members of the 
        reserves to receive retirement-related credit if they 
        participate in selected educational programs and work 
        in a specialty that is critically needed in wartime.
          Section 633 would authorize reservists to receive 
        disability retirement if they are injured during 
        overnight stays associated with inactive-duty training.
          Section 634 would allow certain reservists to retire 
        at higher grades. Currently if a reservist accepts a 
        reduction in grade to serve on active duty, and then 
        retires while on active duty, the retirement annuity is 
        based on the lower grade. Under section 634, the 
        annuity would be based on the higher grade.
          Section 635 would cause the initial cost-of-living 
        adjustment for military retirees who entered services 
        between 1980 and 1986 to follow the same formula as for 
        other military retirees.
    Other Programs. Other provisions that would have 
insignificant costs affect potential Medal of Honor recipients 
and former prisoners of war:
          Section 1035 would give the President the authority 
        to award the Medal of Honor to seven individuals. This 
        award is accompanied by a monthly payment of $400, but 
        the annual costs for all seven recipients would amount 
        to less than $500,000 a year.
          Section 1036 would authorize one-time payments to 
        certain military personnel who received the prisoner of 
        war medal after being detained during World War II. 
        Payments of $120 to $180 would be made to a maximum of 
        50 people, so the total cost of the provision would be 
        less than $500,000.
Authorizations of appropriations
    The bill authorizes specific appropriations of $197 billion 
in 1997 for operation and maintenance, procurement, research, 
development, test and evaluation, nuclear weapons programs and 
other DoD programs. These authorizations fall under National 
Defense, budget function 050.
    In addition, the bill would authorize specific 
appropriations for other budget functions:
          $150 million for the Naval Petroleum Reserve 
        (function 270).
          $70 million for the Maritime Administration (function 
        400).
          $57 million for the Armed Forces Retirement Home 
        (function 700).
          $14 million in 1997 and 1998 to fund Sikes Act 
        programs (function 300).
    The bill also contains both specific and implicit 
authorizations of appropriations for other military programs, 
primarily for military personnel costs, some of which extend 
beyond 1997. Table 3 contains estimates for the authorized 
amounts and the related outlays. The following sections 
describe the estimated authorizations shown in Table 3 and 
provide information about CBO's cost estimates.
    Endstrength. The bill would authorize active and reserve 
component endstrengths for 1997 at a cost of more than $68 
billion. Endstrengths for active-duty personnel would total 
about 1,457,400--about 400 more than in the Administration's 
request but about 24,300 below the level estimated for 1996. 
DoD reserve endstrengths would be authorized at about 902,400--
about 1,400 more than in the Administration's request but about 
28,400 less than the estimated 1996 level.
  TABLE 3.--AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS IN THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997 AS  
                          ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY                          
                                    [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Category                          1997      1998      1999      2000      2001      2002  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stated Authorizations...............................   197,056        14         0         0         0         0
Estimated Outlays...................................   107,003    50,873    21,347     9,276     3,909     2,018
Endstrengths:                                                                                                   
    Function 050:                                                                                               
        Estimated Authorization Level...............    68,485         0         0         0         0         0
        Estimated Outlays...........................    65,041     3,444         0         0         0         0
    Function 400:                                                                                               
        Estimated Authorization Level...............        66         0         0         0         0         0
        Estimated Outlays...........................        59         7         0         0         0         0
Compensation and Benefits:                                                                                      
    Military Pay Raise and BAQ Increase:                                                                        
        Estimated Authorization Level...............     1,400     1,852     1,826     1,808     1,807     1,804
        Estimated Outlays...........................     1,330     1,829     1,827     1,809     1,807     1,804
    Expiring Authorities-Active:                                                                                
        Estimated Authorization Level...............         0       148        51        35        33        16
        Estimated Outlays...........................         0       141        56        36        33        17
    Expiring Authorities-Aviation/Nuclear:                                                                      
        Estimated Authorization Level...............         0        49        24        24        17        15
        Estimated Outlays...........................         0        47        25        24        17        15
    Expiring Authorities-Reserve:                                                                               
        Estimated Authorization Level...............         0        33        27        18        13         9
        Estimated Outlays...........................         0        31        27        18        13         9
    Expiring Authorities-Nurses:                                                                                
        Estimated Authorization Level...............         0        12         0         0         0         0
        Estimated Outlays...........................         0        11         1         0         0         0
    Moving Expenses:                                                                                            
        Estimated Authorization Level...............        55        75        75        77        78        78
        Estimated Outlays...........................        52        74        75        77        78        78
    Variable Housing Allowance:                                                                                 
        Estimated Authorization Level...............        35        46        47        48        50        50
        Estimated Outlays...........................        33        45        47        48        50        50
    Housing for Personnel on Sea-Duty:                                                                          
        Estimated Authorization Level...............        10        41        42        43        44        44
        Estimated Outlays...........................         9        39        42        43        44        44
    Grade Structure:                                                                                            
        Estimated Authorization Level...............         3        33        34        35        36        37
        Estimated Outlays...........................         3        31        34        35        36        37
    Special Pay for Dentists:                                                                                   
        Estimated Authorization Level...............        15        15        15        15        15        15
        Estimated Outlays...........................        14        15        15        15        15        15
    Cap on Military Personnel Appropriations:                                                                   
        Estimated Authorization Level...............       203         0         0         0         0         0
        Estimated Outlays...........................       193        10         0         0         0         0
Health Care:                                                                                                    
    Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities:                                                                    
        Estimated Authorization Level...............     (\1\)      -157      -163      -170      -176      -184
        Estimated Outlays...........................     (\1\)      -118      -162      -168      -175      -184
    Composite Health Care System:                                                                               
        Estimated Authorization Level...............     (\1\)     (\2\)     (\2\)     (\2\)     (\2\)     (\2\)
        Estimated Outlays...........................     (\1\)     (\2\)     (\2\)     (\2\)     (\2\)     (\2\)
Lodgings for Reserve Personnel:                                                                                 
    Estimated Authorization Level...................     (\1\)        19        19        20        20        21
    Estimated Outlays...............................     (\1\)        14        19        20        20        21
Reductions in Civilian Personnel:                                                                               
    Estimated Authorization Level...................     (\1\)      -423      -105       -15       -14       -14
    Estimated Outlays...............................     (\1\)      -317      -185       -38       -14       -14
Total Authorizations of Appropriations:                                                                         
    Estimated Authorization Level...................   267,328     1,757     1,892     1,938     1,923     1,891
    Estimated Outlays from Authorizations for 1997..   173,738    54,404    21,333     9,270     3,909     2,018
    Estimated Outlays from Authorizations for                                                                   
     19982001.......................................         0     1,774     1,836     1,925     1,925     1,892
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1997 impacts of these provisions are included in the amounts specifically authorized to be appropriated 
  in the bill.                                                                                                  
\2\ CBO is unable to estimate the costs of this provision.                                                      
    Also, the bill would authorize an endstrength of 8,000 in 
1997 for the Coast Guard Reserve, which is the same as the 1996 
level and the Administration's request; this authorization 
would cost about $66 million and would fall under budget 
function 400, Transportation.
    Compensation and Benefits. The bill contains several 
provisions that would affect military compensation and 
benefits.
    Pay Raises and Quarters Allowances. Section 601 would 
authorize a 3.0 percent increase in the rates of basic pay and 
the basic allowance for subsistence for military personnel, at 
a cost of $1.2 billion in 1997. The same section would also 
call for the basic allowance for quarters (BAQ) to increase by 
4.6 percent. Under current law BAQ increases according to the 
military pay raise; consequently, the 3.0 percent pay raise 
authorized in this bill would raise BAQ by $109 million. The 
provision that raises BAQ by the additional 1.6 percent would 
cost another $58 million. Thus, BAQ would increase by $167 
million compared to 1996 rates.
    Expiring Authorities. Several sections would extend for one 
year certain payment authorities that are scheduled to expire 
at the end of 1997. In some cases, renewing authorities for one 
year results in costs over several years because payments are 
made in installments. Payment authorities for enlistment and 
reenlistment bonuses for active duty personnel would cost $148 
million in 1998. The cost of extensions of special payments for 
aviators and nuclear-qualified personnel would total $49 
million in 1998. Extension of various bonus programs for 
Selected Reserve personnel would increase costs by $33 million 
in 1998. Finally, authorities to make special payments to nurse 
officer candidates, registered nurses, and nurse anesthetists 
would increase authorizations by $12 million in 1998.
    Moving Expenses. The bill makes several changes to benefits 
received by military personnel when they change duty stations 
permanently:
          The dislocation allowance (DLA)--a payment for 
        miscellaneous expenses-- currently equals two months of 
        BAQ payments; the bill would increase it to two and 
        one-half months at a cost of $50 million annually. 
        Costs would be less in 1997, about $39 million, because 
        the provision would not take effect until January 1, 
        1997.
          The allowance for temporary lodging expenses (TLE) is 
        paid to certain members who occupy temporary quarters--
        for example, motels--during a move. Currently, first-
        term personnel embarking on their initial change of 
        station are not eligible for this payment, but the bill 
        would extend it to them. This change would affect about 
        50,000 people, who would receive payments averaging 
        $360, for a total annual cost of about $18 million. 
        This provision also includes an effective date of 
        January 1, 1997, so costs in the first year would be 
        lower, about $14 million.
          The bill would allow DoD to pay storage costs for 
        motor vehicles when members cannot take the vehicle 
        along and to reimburse members for certain expenses 
        when they pick up a vehicle at a port following 
        government shipment. Together, these two provisions 
        would cost $2 million in 1997.
    Variable Housing Allowance. The bill would also increase 
Variable Housing Allowance (VHA) payments to certain 
servicemembers living in areas with high housing costs by 
establishing a minimum payment level. The cost of this change 
would be about $46 million annually. Because the provision 
would not take effect until January 1, 1997, its first-year 
costs would total $35 million.
    Housing Allowance During Duty at Sea. The bill would 
authorize payment of housing allowances to certain personnel in 
pay grade E-5 who are assigned to shipboard sea duty. This 
change would provide about 7,000 personnel with housing 
allowances averaging $6,000 annually, for a total yearly cost 
of about $40 million. In 1997, costs would only be $10 million 
because the effective date of the provision is January 1, 1997.
    Grade Structure. The bill would authorize the number of 
active duty officers who can serve in certain pay grades in 
each of the military services. This change would not increase 
the overall endstrength, but it would result in increased 
promotions. The provision has a cost, about $35 million 
annually, because personnel serving in higher grades are paid 
more. Because the provision does not take affect until 
September 1, 1997, the cost are only $3 million in 1997.
    Special Pay for Dentists. In 1996, DoD will pay about $40 
million in incentive payments to dentists serving as officers 
in the military services. This bill would increase both the 
level and the number of these payments. Existing retention 
payments to certain dental officers would increase at a cost of 
$8 million in 1997. Certain new dental officers would be 
granted an accession bonus of $30,000, for a total cost of $7 
million each year. Finally, certain dentists serving in the 
Selected Reserve would receive a new incentive payment during 
their annual period of active duty, at a cost of less than 
$500,000 a year.
    Military Personnel Authorization. Section 421 of the bill 
explicitly authorizes appropriations for military personnel of 
$70,206 million in 1997. Because the estimated costs of other 
sections of the bill fall short of this level, this section has 
the effect of adding $203 million to the other 1997 costs 
identified in Table 3.
    Military Health Care Programs. The bill contains two 
provisions that affect military health care and that have 
significant budgetary impacts.
    Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities (USTF). Uniformed 
Services Treatment Facilities (USTFs) are private sector health 
care providers under contract to DoD. They currently provide 
health care to more than 95,000 DoD beneficiaries. DoD 
purchases this care on an overall cost-per-beneficiary or 
capitation basis. Currently, these facilities provide a broader 
benefit package at a lower out-of-pocket cost for the 
beneficiary than is available to most other DoD beneficiaries. 
As a result, the cost of insuring beneficiaries through USTFs 
is nearly twice as high as it would be through DoD's managed 
care system. This provision would make USTF's subject to the 
rules of DoD's managed care system, at a savings of about $170 
million annually.
    Composite Health Care System (CHCS). The bill would direct 
the Secretary of Defense to make certain changes to the 
Composite Health Care System (CHCS), an automated medical 
information system used by DoD. These changes would standardize 
CHCS so that the information systems of various military 
treatment facilities and private contractors could exchange 
data about health care beneficiaries. No information is 
available from DoD about the potential costs of the changes, so 
CBO is unable to estimate the cost of this provision.
    Lodgings for Reservists. Section 1252 would allow the 
secretaries of the military services to reimburse reservists 
for certain lodging expenses during their annual period of 
active duty. This provision would cost about $20 million 
annually in operation and maintenance accounts.
    Civilian Personnel Reductions. Sections 901 and 902 would 
reduce the size of the DoD civilian workforce. Section 901 
would reduce the number of personnel involved in the 
acquisition process by 40,000 compared to the 1995 level. This 
would cause the number of personnel to decline by 27,000 more 
in 1997 than would already be accomplished under the 
Administration's plan, assuming reductions in the acquisition 
workforce are proportional to those planned for all of DoD. 
Savings would total $160 million in 1997 and $410 million in 
1998. The effect of this provision would be to accelerate 
reductions already expected to take place under the 
Administration's plan, so savings after 1998 would be smaller, 
as the size of the workforce under the Administration's plan 
would continue to decline beyond the level of the reductions in 
the bill.
    Section 902 would reduce the number of personnel assigned 
to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) by the end of 
1999 to 75 percent of 1994 levels. This would reduce the number 
of workers by about 400, or about 300 more than under the 
Administration's current plan, assuming reductions in the OSD 
workforce are proportional to those in the overall DoD 
workforce. This change would save $6 million in 1997 and about 
$15 million annually after that.
    Panama Canal Commission. Title XXXV would authorize the 
Panama Canal Commission to spend any sums available to it from 
operating revenues or Treasury borrowing for operation, 
maintenance, and improvement of the canal in fiscal year 1997. 
This spending is considered discretionary, because the 
appropriation bill customarily establishes an obligation 
ceiling for this account. CBO estimates that Panama Canal 
Commission collections and outlays will be about $624 million 
in 1997.
    7. Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 sets 
up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct 
spending or receipts through 1998. Because this bill would 
affect direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply. 
These effects are summarized in the following table.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      1996          1997         1998   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Change in outlays..........              0             -2           -4
Change in receipts...........          (\1\)          (\1\)     (\1\) --
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not applicable.                                                     
    8. Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal 
governments: H.R. 3230 contains no intergovernmental mandates 
as defined in Public Law 104-4 and would impose no significant 
direct costs on state, local, or tribal governments. A number 
of the bill's provisions--such as those pertaining to land 
conveyances and food and equipment donations--would affect 
state or local governments; however, none would create new 
enforceable duties or result in significant budget impacts on 
these entities.
    9. Estimated impact on the private sector: This bill would 
impose no new federal private sector mandates, as defined in 
Public Law 104-4.
    10. Previous CBO estimate: None.
    11. Estimate prepared by: Federal Cost Estimate: Kent 
Christensen, Victoria Fraider, Raymond Hall, and Amy Plapp 
prepared the estimates affecting the Department of Defense. 
Kathy Gramp prepared the estimate for the Naval Petroleum 
Reserve. Deborah Reis prepared the estimate for the Panama 
Canal Commission. Wayne Boyington prepared the estimates for 
the costs of changes to civilian retirement programs. Gary S. 
Brown and Victoria V. Heid prepared the estimates related to 
the Sikes Act programs and land withdrawals.
    State and Local Government Impact: Leo Lex and Karen McVey.
    Private Sector Impact: Neil Singer.
    12. Estimate approved by: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.
                        COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE
    Pursuant to clause 7(a) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the committee generally concurs with 
the estimate as contained in the report of the Congressional 
Budget Office.
                       INFLATION IMPACT STATEMENT
    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the committee concludes that the bill 
would have no significant inflationary impact.
                           OVERSIGHT FINDINGS
    With respect to clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, this legislation results from 
hearings and other oversight activities conducted by the 
committee pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X.
    With respect to clause 2(l)(3)(B) of rule XI of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives and section 308(a)(1) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this legislation does not 
include any new spending or credit authority, nor does it 
provide for any increase or decrease in tax revenues or 
expenditures. The bill does, however, authorize appropriations. 
Other fiscal features of this legislation are addressed in the 
estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974.
    With respect to clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the committee has not received 
a report from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
pertaining to the subject matter of H.R. 3230.
                     STATEMENT OF FEDERAL MANDATES
    Pursuant to section 423 of Public Law 104-4, this 
legislation contains no federal mandates with respect to state, 
local, and tribal governments, nor with respect to the private 
sector. Similarly, the bill provides no federal 
intergovernmental mandates.
                            ROLL CALL VOTES
    In accordance with clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, roll call and voice 
votes were taken with respect to the committee's consideration 
of H.R. 3230. The record of these votes is attached to this 
report.
    The committee ordered H.R. 3230 reported to the House with 
a favorable recommendation by a vote of 49-2, a quorum being 
present.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
         CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
  In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the 
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed 
to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is 
printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed 
is shown in roman):
   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS 1990 AND 1991
          * * * * * * *
            DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
                          TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
          * * * * * * *
                      Part D--Program Terminations
          * * * * * * *
[SEC. 132. AH-64 HELICOPTER PROGRAM
  [(a) In General.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall 
terminate new production of AH-64 aircraft in accordance with 
this section.
  [(2) Except as provided in subsection (b), funds appropriated 
or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense 
pursuant to this or any other Act may not be obligated for the 
procurement of AH-64 aircraft.
  [(b) Exceptions.--(1) The prohibition in subsection (a)(2) 
does not apply to--
          [(A) the modification of, or the acquisition of spare 
        or repair parts for, AH-64 aircraft described in 
        paragraph (2);
          [(B) completion of the new production aircraft 
        described in paragraph (2)(B); and
          [(C) the obligation of not more than $1,487,527,000 
        from funds made available for fiscal years 1990 and 
        1991 for not more than 132 new production AH-64 
        aircraft and for payment of costs necessary to 
        terminate the AH-64 aircraft program.
  [(2) The AH-64 aircraft referred to in paragraph (1)(A) are--
          [(A) AH-64 aircraft acquired by the Army on or before 
        the date of enactment of this Act;
          [(B) AH-64 new production aircraft for which funds, 
        other than funds for the procurement of long lead items 
        and other advance procurement, were obligated before 
        the date of enactment of this Act and which are 
        delivered to the Army on or after that date; and
          [(C) 132 new production AH-64 aircraft for which 
        funds are available in accordance with subsection 
        (b)(1)(C).
[SEC. 133. AHIP SCOUT AIRCRAFT PROGRAM
  [(a) In General.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall 
terminate the AHIP Scout aircraft program in accordance with 
this section.
  [(2) Except as provided in subsection (b), funds appropriated 
or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense 
pursuant to this or any other Act may not be obligated for the 
procurement of AHIP Scout aircraft (OH-58 aircraft modified 
into the configuration specified in the Army Helicopter 
Improvement Program described in the Selected Acquisition 
Report, dated December 31, 1988, relating to the OH-58 
helicopter).
  [(b) Exceptions.--(1) The prohibition in subsection (a)(2) 
does not apply to--
          [(A) the modification of, or the acquisition of spare 
        or repair parts for, AHIP Scout aircraft described in 
        paragraph (2);
          [(B) completion of the installation of AHIP 
        modification kits in the AHIP Scout aircraft described 
        in paragraph (2)(B);
          [(C) the obligation of not more than $195,000,000 
        from funds made available pursuant to section 101(a) 
        for the procurement and installation of AHIP 
        modification kits in not more than 36 AHIP Scout 
        aircraft and for payment of costs necessary to 
        terminate the AHIP Scout aircraft program; and
          [(D) the obligation of not more than $200,000,000 
        from funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization of 
        appropriations for the OH-58D AHIP Scout aircraft 
        program during fiscal year 1991 for procurement of not 
        more than 36 OH-58D Armed AHIP Scout aircraft and for 
        payment of costs necessary to terminate the AHIP Scout 
        aircraft program.
  [(2) The AHIP Scout aircraft referred to in paragraph (1)(A) 
are--
          [(A) AHIP Scout aircraft acquired by the Army on or 
        before the date of enactment of this Act;
          [(B) AHIP Scout aircraft for which funds, other than 
        funds for the procurement of long lead items and other 
        advance procurement, were obligated before the date of 
        enactment of this Act and which are delivered to the 
        Army on or after that date; and
          [(C) 36 AHIP Scout aircraft for which funds are 
        available in accordance with subsection (b)(1)(C).
[SEC. 134. F-15E AIRCRAFT PROGRAM
  [(a) In General.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall 
terminate new production of F-15E aircraft in accordance with 
this section.
  [(2) Except as provided in subsection (b), funds appropriated 
or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense 
pursuant to this or any other Act may not be obligated for the 
procurement of F-15E aircraft.
  [(b) Exceptions.--(1) The prohibition in subsection (a) does 
not apply to the obligation of funds for--
          [(A) the completion of, the modification of, or the 
        acquisition of spare or repair parts for, F-15E 
        aircraft described in paragraph (2); or
          [(B) the payment of costs necessary to terminate the 
        F-15E aircraft program.
  [(2) The F-15E aircraft referred to in paragraph (1)(A) are 
F-15E aircraft--
          [(A) that are acquired by the Air Force before 
        October 1, 1991; or
          [(B) for which funds have been obligated for 
        procurement before October 1, 1991, other than for the 
        procurement of long lead items and other advance 
        procurement.]
          * * * * * * *
         TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
          * * * * * * *
                  Part C--Strategic Defense Initiative
          * * * * * * *
SEC. 224. REQUIREMENT FOR ANNUAL REPORT ON SDI PROGRAMS
  (a) * * *
  (b) Content of Report.--Each such report shall include the 
following:
          (1) * * *
          * * * * * * *
          [(3) A clear definition of the objectives of each 
        planned deployment phase of the Strategic Defense 
        Initiative or defense against strategic ballistic 
        missiles.
          [(4) An explanation of the relationship between each 
        such phase and each program and project associated with 
        the proposed architecture for that phase.]
          [(5)] (3) The status of consultations with other 
        member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty 
        Organization, Japan, and other appropriate allies 
        concerning research being conducted in the Strategic 
        Defense Initiative program.
          [(6)] (4) A statement of the compliance of the 
        planned SDI development and testing programs with 
        existing arms control agreements, including the 1972 
        Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
          [(7)] (5) A review of possible countermeasures [of 
        the Soviet Union] to specific SDI programs, an estimate 
        of the time and cost required [for the Soviet Union] to 
        develop each such countermeasure, and an evaluation of 
        the adequacy of the SDI programs described in the 
        report to respond to such countermeasures.
          [(8)] (6) Details regarding funding of programs and 
        projects for the Strategic Defense Initiative 
        (including the amounts authorized, appropriated, and 
        made available for obligation after undistributed 
        reductions or other offsetting reductions were carried 
        out), as follows:
                  (A) * * *
          * * * * * * *
          [(9)] (7) Details on what Strategic Defense 
        Initiative technologies can be developed or deployed 
        within the next 5 to 10 years to defend against 
        significant military threats and help accomplish 
        critical military missions. The missions to be 
        considered include the following:
                  (A) Defending elements of the Armed Forces 
                abroad and United States allies against 
                tactical ballistic missiles, particularly new 
                and highly accurate shorter-range ballistic 
                missiles [of the Soviet Union] armed with 
                conventional, chemical, or nuclear warheads.
                  (B) Defending against an accidental launch of 
                strategic ballistic missiles against the United 
                States.
                  [(C) Defending against a limited but 
                militarily effective attack by the Soviet Union 
                aimed at disrupting the National Command 
                Authority or other valuable military assets.
                  [(D) Providing sufficient warning and 
                tracking information to defend or effectively 
                evade possible attacks by the Soviet Union 
                against military satellites, including those in 
                high orbits.
                  [(E) Providing early warning and attack 
                assessment information and the necessary 
                survivable command, control, and communications 
                to facilitate the use of United States military 
                forces in defense against possible conventional 
                or strategic attacks by the Soviet Union.
                  [(F) Providing protection of the United 
                States population from a nuclear attack by the 
                Soviet Union.]
                  [(G)] (C) Any other significant near-term 
                military mission that the application of SDI 
                technologies might help to accomplish.
          [(10) For each of the near-term military missions 
        listed in paragraph (9), the report shall include the 
        following:
                  [(A) A list of specific program elements of 
                the Strategic Defense Initiative that are 
                pertinent to such mission.
                  [(B) The Secretary's estimate of the initial 
                operating capability dates for the 
                architectures or systems to accomplish such 
                missions.
                  [(C) The Secretary's estimate of the level of 
                funding necessary for each program to reach 
                those initial operating capability dates.
                  [(D) The Secretary's estimate of the 
                survivability and cost effectiveness at the 
                margin of such architectures or systems against 
                current and projected threats from the Soviet 
                Union.]
          * * * * * * *
   TITLE XII--MILITARY DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES
          * * * * * * *
[SEC. 1208. TRANSFER OF EXCESS PERSONAL PROPERTY
  [(a) Transfer Authorized.--(1) Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law and subject to subsection (b), the Secretary 
of Defense may transfer to Federal and State agencies personal 
property of the Department of Defense, including small arms and 
ammunition, that the Secretary determines is--
          [(A) suitable for use by such agencies in counter-
        drug activities; and
          [(B) excess to the needs of the Department of 
        Defense.
  [(2) Personal property transferred under this section may be 
transferred without cost to the recipient agency.
  [(3) The Secretary shall carry out this section in 
consultation with the Attorney General and the Director of 
National Drug Control Policy.
  [(b) Conditions for Transfer.--The Secretary may transfer 
personal property under this section only if--
          [(1) the property is drawn from existing stocks of 
        the Department of Defense; and
          [(2) the transfer is made without the expenditure of 
        any funds available to the Department of Defense for 
        the procurement of defense equipment.
  [(c) Application.--The authority of the Secretary to transfer 
personal property under this section shall expire on September 
30, 1997.]
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              
        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
          * * * * * * *
            DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
                          TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
          * * * * * * *
                       Subtitle C--Navy Programs
          * * * * * * *
[SEC. 133. COST LIMITATION FOR SEAWOLF SUBMARINE PROGRAM.
  [(a) Limitation of Costs.--Except as provided in subsection 
(b), the total amount obligated or expended for procurement of 
the SSN-21, SSN-22, and SSN-23 Seawolf class submarines may not 
exceed $7,223,659,000.
  [(b) Automatic Increase of Limitation Amount.--The amount of 
the limitation set forth in subsection (a) is increased by the 
following amounts:
          [(1) The amounts of outfitting costs and post-
        delivery costs incurred for the submarines referred to 
        in such subsection.
          [(2) The amounts of increases in costs attributable 
        to economic inflation after September 30, 1995.
          [(3) The amounts of increases in costs attributable 
        to compliance with changes in Federal, State, or local 
        laws enacted after September 30, 1995.
  [(c) Repeal of Superseded Provision.--Section 122 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public 
Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 2682) is repealed.]
          * * * * * * *
SEC. 137. T-39N TRAINER AIRCRAFT.
  [(a) Limitation.--The Secretary of the Navy may not enter 
into a contract, using funds appropriated for fiscal year 1996 
for procurement of aircraft for the Navy, for the acquisition 
of the aircraft described in subsection (b) until 60 days after 
the date on which the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition and Technology submits to the Committee on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security 
of the House of Representatives--
          [(1) an analysis of the proposed acquisition of such 
        aircraft; and
          [(2) a certification that the proposed acquisition 
        during fiscal year 1996 (A) is in the best interest of 
        the Government, and (B) is the most cost effective 
        means of meeting the requirements of the Navy for 
        aircraft for use in the training of naval flight 
        officers.]
          * * * * * * *
         TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
          * * * * * * *
                       Subtitle F--Other Matters
          * * * * * * *
SEC. 272. ENHANCED FIBER OPTIC GUIDED MISSILE (EFOG-M) SYSTEM.
  (a) Limitations.--(1) * * *
  (2) The Secretary of the Army may not spend funds for the 
enhanced fiber optic guided missile (EFOG-M) system after 
September 30, [1998,] 1999, if the items described in paragraph 
(1) have not been delivered to the Army by that date and at a 
cost not greater than the amount set forth in paragraph (1).
          * * * * * * *
                  TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
          * * * * * * *
     Subtitle E--Performance of Functions by Private-Sector Sources
SEC. 351. COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT OF PRINTING AND DUPLICATION SERVICES.
  (a) Requirement for Competitive Procurement.--Except as 
provided in subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense shall, 
during [fiscal year 1996] fiscal years 1996 and 1997 and 
consistent with the requirements of title 44, United States 
Code, competitively procure printing and duplication services 
from private-sector sources for the performance of at least 70 
percent of the total printing and duplication requirements of 
the Defense Printing Service.
          * * * * * * *
  (c) Reporting Requirements.--(1) Not later than 90 days after 
the end of each fiscal year in which the requirement of 
subsection (a) applies, the Secretary of Defense shall submit 
to Congress a report--
          (A) describing the extent of the compliance of the 
        Secretary with the requirement during that fiscal year;
          (B) specifying the total volume of printing and 
        duplication services procured by Department of Defense 
        during that fiscal year--
                  (i) from sources within the Department of 
                Defense;
                  (ii) from private-sector sources; and
                  (ii) from other sources in the Federal 
                Government; and
          (C) specifying the total volume of printed and 
        duplicated material during that fiscal year covered by 
        the exception in subsection (b).
  (2) The report required for fiscal year 1996 shall also 
include the plans of the Secretary for further implementation 
of the requirement of subsection (a) during fiscal year 1997.
          * * * * * * *
                   TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
          * * * * * * *
                       Subtitle F--Other Matters
          * * * * * * *
SEC. 561. EQUALIZATION OF ACCRUAL OF SERVICE CREDIT FOR OFFICERS AND 
                    ENLISTED MEMBERS.
  (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (d) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 1405(c) of such title 
is amended--
          (A) * * *
          * * * * * * *
                   TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
          * * * * * * *
          Subtitle C--Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities
          * * * * * * *
[SEC. 726. EQUITABLE IMPLEMENTATION OF UNIFORM COST SHARING 
                    REQUIREMENTS FOR UNIFORMED SERVICES TREATMENT 
                    FACILITIES.
  [(a) Time for Fee Implementation.--The uniform managed care 
benefit fee and copayment schedule developed by the Secretary 
of Defense for use in all managed care initiatives of the 
military health service system, including the managed care 
program of the Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities, shall 
be extended to the managed care program of a Uniformed Services 
Treatment Facility only after the later of--
          [(1) the implementation of the TRICARE regional 
        program covering the service area of the Uniformed 
        Services Treatment Facility; or
          [(2) October 1, 1996.
  [(b) Submission of Actuarial Estimates.--Paragraph (2) of 
subsection (a) shall operate as a condition on the extension of 
the uniform managed care benefit fee and copayment schedule to 
the Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities only if the 
Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities submit to the 
Comptroller General of the United States, within 30 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, actuarial estimates in 
support of their contention that the extension of such fees and 
copayments will have an adverse effect on the operation of the 
Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities and the enrollment of 
participants.
  [(c) Evaluation.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress the 
results of an evaluation of the effect on the Uniformed 
Services Treatment Facilities of the extension of the uniform 
benefit fee and copayment schedule to the Uniformed Services 
Treatment Facilities. The evaluation shall include an 
examination of whether the benefit fee and copayment schedule 
may--
          [(A) cause adverse selection of enrollees;
          [(B) be inappropriate for a fully at-risk program 
        similar to civilian health maintenance organizations; 
        or
          [(C) result in an enrolled population dissimilar to 
        the general beneficiary population.
  [(2) The Comptroller General shall not be required to prepare 
or submit the evaluation under paragraph (1) if the Uniformed 
Services Treatment Facilities fail to satisfactorily comply 
with subsection (b), as determined by the Comptroller General.]
          * * * * * * *
      TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
                      Subtitle A--General Matters
SEC. 901. ORGANIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.
  (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  [(d) Personnel Reduction.--(1) Effective October 1, 1999, the 
number of OSD personnel may not exceed 75 percent of the number 
of OSD personnel as of October 1, 1994.
  [(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``OSD 
personnel'' means military and civilian personnel of the 
Department of Defense who are assigned to, or employed in, 
functions in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (including 
Direct Support Activities of that Office and the Washington 
Headquarters Services of the Department of Defense).
  [(3) In carrying out reductions in the number of personnel 
assigned to, or employed in, the Office of the Department of 
Defense in order to comply with paragraph (1), the Secretary 
may not reassign functions solely in order to evade the 
requirement contained in that paragraph.
  [(4) If the Secretary of Defense determines, and certifies to 
Congress, that the limitation in paragraph (1) would adversely 
affect United States national security, the limitation under 
paragraph (1) shall be applied by substituting ``80 percent'' 
for ``75 percent''.]
          * * * * * * *
SEC. 903. DEFERRED REPEAL OF VARIOUS STATUTORY POSITIONS AND OFFICES IN 
                    OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.
  (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (e) Conforming Amendments Relating to Repeal of Various OSD 
Positions.--Chapter 4 of such title is further amended--
          (1) in section 131(b)--
                  (A) by striking out [paragraphs (6) and (8)] 
                paragraph (6); and
                  (B) by redesignating paragraphs (7), (8), 
                (9), (10), and (11), as paragraphs (6), (7), 
                (8), [and (9),] (9), and (10), respectively;
          * * * * * * *
SEC. 905. JOINT REQUIREMENTS OVERSIGHT COUNCIL.
  (a) * * *
  (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
shall take effect on January 31, [1997] 1998.
SEC. 906. RESTRUCTURING OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ACQUISITION 
                    ORGANIZATION AND WORKFORCE.
  (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (d) Reduction of Acquisition Workforce.--(1) The Secretary of 
Defense shall accomplish reductions in defense acquisition 
personnel positions [during fiscal year 1996 so that the total 
number of such personnel as of October 1, 1996, is less than 
the total number of such personnel as of October 1, 1995, by at 
least 15,000.] so that--
          (A) the total number of such positions as of October 
        1, 1996, is less than the baseline number by at least 
        15,000; and
          (B) the total number of such positions as of October 
        1, 1997, is less than the baseline number by at least 
        40,000.
          * * * * * * *
  (3) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``baseline 
number'' means the total number of defense acquisition 
personnel positions as of October 1, 1995.
          * * * * * * *
                      TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
          * * * * * * *
                       Subtitle H--Other Matters
          * * * * * * *
SEC. 1092. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING HISTORIC PRESERVATION OF MIDWAY 
                    ISLANDS.
  (a) * * *
  (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
          (1) the Midway Islands and the surrounding seas 
        deserve to be memorialized;
          (2) the historic structures related to the Battle of 
        Midway should be maintained, in accordance with the 
        National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470-
        470t), and subject to the availability of 
        appropriations for that purpose[.]; and
          * * * * * * *
                 DIVISION D--FEDERAL ACQUISITION REFORM
          * * * * * * *
               TITLE XLIII--ADDITIONAL REFORM PROVISIONS
          Subtitle A--Additional Acquisition Reform Provisions
SEC. 4301. ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
  (a) Elimination of Certain Statutory Certification 
Requirements.--(1) Section 2410b of title 10, United States 
Code, is amended in paragraph (2) of subsection (a) by striking 
out ``certification and''.
          * * * * * * *
          DIVISION E--INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT REFORM
SEC. 5001. SHORT TITLE.
  This division may be cited as the ``Information Technology 
Management Reform Act of 1996''.
          * * * * * * *
  TITLE LI--RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACQUISITIONS OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
          * * * * * * *
                 Subtitle E--National Security Systems
          * * * * * * *
SEC. 5142. NATIONAL SECURITY SYSTEM DEFINED.
  (a) Definition.--In this subtitle, the term ``national 
security system'' means any telecommunications or information 
system operated by the United States Government, the function, 
operation, or use of which--
          (1)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (4) involves equipment that is an integral part of a 
        weapon or weapons system; [or]
          (5) subject to subsection (b), is critical to the 
        direct fulfillment of military or intelligence 
        missions[.]; or
          (6) involves the storage, processing, or forwarding 
        of classified information and is protected at all times 
        by procedures established for the handling of 
        classified information.
          * * * * * * *
             TITLE LVI--CONFORMING AND CLERICAL AMENDMENTS
SEC. 5601. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE.
  (a) Protest File.--Section 2305(e) of title 10, United States 
Code, is amended by striking out paragraph (3).
          * * * * * * *
  (c) Law Inapplicable to Procurement of Information 
Technology.--Section 2315 of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended by striking out ``Section 111'' and all that follows 
through ``[use of equipment or services if] use of the 
equipment or services,'' and inserting in lieu thereof the 
following: ``For the purposes of the Information Technology 
Management Reform Act of 1996, the term `national security 
systems' means those telecommunications and information systems 
operated by the Department of Defense, the functions, operation 
or use of which''.
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              
        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995
          * * * * * * *
            DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
          * * * * * * *
         TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
          * * * * * * *
                       Subtitle E--Other Matters
          * * * * * * *
SEC. 257. DEFENSE EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM TO STIMULATE COMPETITIVE 
                    RESEARCH.
  (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (d) Eligible States.--(1) The [Director of the National 
Science Foundation] Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition 
and Technology shall designate which States are eligible States 
for the purposes of this section [and shall notify the Director 
of Defense Research and Engineering of the States so 
designated].
  (2) The [Director of the National Science Foundation] Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology shall 
designate a State as an eligible State if, [as determined by 
the Director] as determined by the Under Secretary--
          (A) the average annual amount of all Department of 
        Defense obligations for science and engineering 
        research and development that were in effect with 
        institutions of higher education in the State for the 
        three fiscal years preceding the fiscal year for which 
        the designation is effective or for the last three 
        fiscal years for which statistics are available is less 
        than the amount determined by multiplying 60 percent 
        times the amount equal to \1/50\ of the total average 
        annual amount of all Department of Defense obligations 
        for science and engineering research and development 
        that were in effect with institutions of higher 
        education in the United States for such three preceding 
        or last fiscal years, as the case may be [(to be 
        determined in consultation with the Secretary of 
        Defense);]; and
          (B) the State has demonstrated a commitment to 
        developing research bases in the State and to improving 
        science and engineering research and education programs 
        at institutions of higher education in the State[; 
        and].
          [(C) the State is an eligible State for purposes of 
        the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive 
        Research conducted by the National Science Foundation.]
          * * * * * * *
                      TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
          * * * * * * *
             Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Related Matters
          * * * * * * *
SEC. 1023. MARITIME PREPOSITIONING SHIP PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT.
  Section 2218(f) of title 10, United States Code, shall not 
apply in the case of the purchase of [three ships] one ship for 
the purpose of enhancing Marine Corps prepositioning ship 
squadrons.
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              
        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994
          * * * * * * *
            DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
          * * * * * * *
SEC. 571. POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED FORCES.
  (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  [(d) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
          [(1) the suspension of questioning concerning 
        homosexuality as part of the processing of individuals 
        for accession into the Armed Forces under the interim 
        policy of January 29, 1993, should be continued, but 
        the Secretary of Defense may reinstate that questioning 
        with such questions or such revised questions as he 
        considers appropriate if the Secretary determines that 
        it is necessary to do so in order to effectuate the 
        policy set forth in section 654 of title 10, United 
        States Code, as added by subsection (a); and
          [(2) the Secretary of Defense should consider issuing 
        guidance governing the circumstances under which 
        members of the Armed Forces questioned about 
        homosexuality for administrative purposes should be 
        afforded warnings similar to the warnings under section 
        831(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 31(b) 
        of the Uniform Code of Military Justice).]
          * * * * * * *
  TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED 
                                MATTERS
 Subtitle A--Defense Technology and Industrial Base, Reinvestment and 
                               Conversion
          * * * * * * *
SEC. 802. UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVE SUPPORT PROGRAM.
  (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (c) Eligibility.--An institution of higher education is 
eligible for a grant or contract under the program if the 
institution has received less than a total of $2,000,000 in 
grants and contracts from the Department of Defense in the two 
[fiscal years before the fiscal year in which the institution 
submits a proposal] most recent fiscal years for which complete 
statistics are available when proposals are requested for such 
grant or contract.
          * * * * * * *
                       Subtitle E--Other Matters
          * * * * * * *
SEC. 845. AUTHORITY OF THE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY TO CARRY 
                    OUT CERTAIN PROTOTYPE PROJECTS.
  (a) Authority.--The Director of the Advanced Research 
Projects Agency, the Secretary of a military department, or any 
other official designated by the Secretary of Defense may, 
under the authority of section 2371 of title 10, United States 
Code, carry out prototype projects that are directly relevant 
to weapons or weapon systems proposed to be acquired or 
developed by the Department of Defense.
  (b) Exercise of Authority.--(1) Subsections [(c)(2) and 
(c)(3) of such section 2371, as redesignated by section 
827(b)(1)(B),] (e)(2) and (e)(3) of such section 2371 shall not 
apply to projects carried out under subsection (a).
  (2) The Director, Secretary, or other official shall, to the 
maximum extent practicable, use competitive procedures when 
entering into agreements to carry out projects under subsection 
(a).
  (c) Period of Authority.--The authority [of the Director] to 
carry out projects under subsection (a) shall terminate [3 
years after the date of the enactment of this Act] on September 
30, 1999.
          * * * * * * *
          TITLE XVII--CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS DEFENSE
SEC. 1701. CONDUCT OF THE CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM.
  (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (c) Coordination of the Program.--(1) The Secretary of 
Defense shall designate the Army as executive agent for the 
Department of Defense to coordinate and integrate research, 
development, test, and evaluation, and acquisition, 
requirements of the military departments for chemical and 
biological warfare defense programs of the Department of 
Defense.
  (2) The Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects 
Agency may conduct a program of basic and applied research and 
advanced technology development on chemical and biological 
warfare defense technologies and systems. In conducting such 
program, the Director shall seek to avoid unnecessary 
duplication of the activities under the program with chemical 
and biological warfare defense activities of the military 
departments and defense agencies and shall coordinate the 
activities under the program with those of the military 
departments and defense agencies.
  (d) Funding.--(1) The budget for the Department of Defense 
for each fiscal year after fiscal year 1994 shall reflect a 
coordinated and integrated chemical and biological defense 
program for the [military departments] Department of Defense.
  (2) Funding requests for the program (other than for 
activities under the program conducted by the Defense Advanced 
Research Projects Agency under subsection (c)(2)) shall be set 
forth in the budget of the Department of Defense for each 
fiscal year as a separate account, with a single program 
element for each of the categories of research, development, 
test, and evaluation, acquisition, and military construction. 
Amounts for military construction projects may be set forth in 
the annual military construction budget. Funds for military 
construction for the program in the military construction 
budget shall be set forth separately from other funds for 
military construction projects. Funding requests for the 
program may not be included in the budget accounts of the 
military departments.
  (3) The program conducted by the Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency under subsection (c)(2) shall be set forth as a 
separate program element in the budget of that agency.
  [(3)] (4) All funding requirements for the chemical and 
biological defense program shall be reviewed by the Secretary 
of the Army as executive agent pursuant to subsection (c).
          * * * * * * *
 DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 
                          OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
      TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
         Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations
          * * * * * * *
                       Subtitle D--Other Matters
          * * * * * * *
SEC. 3153. BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REPORTS.
  (a) * * *
  (b) [Annual] Biennial Waste Management Reports.--(1)  * * *
  (2) Reports required under paragraph (1) shall be submitted 
as follows:
          (A) The initial report shall be submitted not later 
        than June 1, 1995.
          (B) A report after the initial report shall be 
        submitted in each odd-numbered year after 1995, not 
        later than 30 days after the date on which the 
        President submits to the Congress the budget for the 
        fiscal year beginning in that year.
          * * * * * * *
  (d) [Annual] Biennial Status and Variance Reports.--(1)(A) * 
* *
  (B) A report under subparagraph (A) shall be submitted in 
1995 and [in each year thereafter] in each odd-numbered year 
thereafter during which the Secretary of Energy conducts 
environmental restoration and waste management activities, not 
later than 30 days after the date on which the President 
submits to the Congress the budget for the fiscal year 
beginning in that year.
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              
                      TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE
          * * * * * * *
                    Subtitle A--General Military Law
          * * * * * * *
            PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
          * * * * * * *
                         CHAPTER 1--DEFINITIONS
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 101. Definitions
  (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (d) Duty Status.--The following definitions relating to duty 
status apply in this title:
          (1)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (4) The term ``active status'' means the status of [a 
        reserve commissioned officer, other than a commissioned 
        warrant officer] a member of a reserve component, who 
        is not in the inactive Army National Guard or inactive 
        Air National Guard, on an inactive status list, or in 
        the Retired Reserve.
          * * * * * * *
                    CHAPTER 2--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 114. Annual authorization of appropriations
  (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (f) In each budget submitted by the President to Congress 
under section 1105 of title 31, amounts requested for 
procurement of ammunition for the Navy and Marine Corps, and 
for procurement of ammunition for the Air Force, shall be set 
forth separately from other amounts requested for procurement.
          * * * * * * *
                CHAPTER 3--GENERAL POWERS AND FUNCTIONS
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 129. Prohibition of certain civilian personnel management 
                    constraints
  (a) The civilian personnel of the Department of Defense shall 
be managed each fiscal year solely on the basis of and 
consistent with (1) the workload required to carry out the 
functions and activities of the department and (2) the funds 
made available to the department for such fiscal year. The 
management of such personnel in any fiscal year shall not be 
subject to any constraint or limitation in terms of man years, 
end strength, full-time equivalent positions, or maximum number 
of employees. The Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of 
the military departments may not be required to make a 
reduction in the number of full-time equivalent positions in 
the Department of Defense unless such reduction is necessary 
due to a reduction in funds available to the Department or is 
required under a law that is enacted after [the date of the 
enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1996] February 10, 1996, and that refers specifically to 
this subsection.
          * * * * * * *
                     CHAPTER 6--COMBATANT COMMANDS
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 162. Combatant commands: assigned forces; chain of command
  (a) Assignment of Forces.--(1) Except as provided in 
paragraph (2), the Secretaries of the military departments 
shall assign all forces under their jurisdiction to unified and 
specified combatant commands or to the United States element of 
the [North American Air Defense Command] North American 
Aerospace Defense Command to perform missions assigned to those 
commands. Such assignments shall be made as directed by the 
Secretary of Defense, including direction as to the command to 
which forces are to be assigned. The Secretary of Defense shall 
ensure that such assignments are consistent with the force 
structure prescribed by the President for each combatant 
command.
  (2) Except as otherwise directed by the Secretary of Defense, 
forces to be assigned by the Secretaries of the military 
departments to the combatant commands or to the United States 
element of the [North American Air Defense Command] North 
American Aerospace Defense Command under paragraph (1) do not 
include forces assigned to carry out functions of the Secretary 
of a military department listed in sections 3013(b), 5013(b), 
and 8013(b) of this title or forces assigned to multinational 
peacekeeping organizations.
  (3) A force assigned to a combatant command or to the United 
States element of the [North American Air Defense Command] 
North American Aerospace Defense Command under this section may 
be transferred from the command to which it is assigned only--
          (A) by authority of the Secretary of Defense; and
          (B) under procedures prescribed by the Secretary and 
        approved by the President.
          * * * * * * *
              CHAPTER 7--BOARDS, COUNCILS, AND COMMITTEES
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 172. Ammunition storage board
  (a) The Secretaries of the military departments, acting 
through [a joint board of officers selected by them] a joint 
board selected by them composed of officers, civilian officers 
and employees of the Department of Defense, or both, shall keep 
informed on stored supplies of ammunition and components 
thereof for use of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, 
with particular regard to keeping those supplies properly 
dispersed and stored and to preventing hazardous conditions 
from arising to endanger life and property inside or outside of 
storage reservations.
          * * * * * * *
             CHAPTER 20--HUMANITARIAN AND OTHER ASSISTANCE
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 401. Humanitarian and civic assistance provided in conjunction 
                    with military operations
  (a)(1)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (4) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that no member of 
the [Armed Forces] armed forces, while providing assistance 
under this section that is described in subsection (e)(5)--
          (A) engages in the physical detection, lifting, or 
        destroying of landmines (unless the member does so for 
        the concurrent purpose of supporting a United States 
        military operation); or
          (B) provides such assistance as part of a military 
        operation that does not involve the [Armed Forces] 
        armed forces.
          * * * * * * *
  (c)(1) Expenses incurred as a direct result of providing 
humanitarian and civic assistance under this section to a 
foreign country shall be paid for out of funds specifically 
appropriated for such purpose.
  (2) In the case of assistance described in subsection (e)(5), 
expenses that may be paid out of funds appropriated pursuant to 
paragraph (1) include--
          (A) expenses for travel, transportation, and 
        subsistence of members of the armed forces 
        participating in activities described in that 
        subsection; and
          (B) the cost of equipment, supplies, and services 
        acquired for the purpose of carrying out or directly 
        supporting activities described in that subsection.
  [(2)] (3) Nothing in this section may be interpreted to 
preclude the incurring of minimal expenditures by the 
Department of Defense for purposes of humanitarian and civic 
assistance out of funds other than funds appropriated pursuant 
to paragraph (1), except that funds appropriated to the 
Department of Defense for operation and maintenance (other than 
funds appropriated pursuant to such paragraph) may be obligated 
for humanitarian and civic assistance under this section only 
for incidental costs of carrying out such assistance.
          * * * * * * *
  (e) In this section, the term ``humanitarian and civic 
assistance'' means any of the following:
          (1) Medical, dental, and veterinary care provided in 
        rural areas of a country.
          * * * * * * *
             CHAPTER 22--MISCELLANEOUS STUDIES AND REPORTS
Sec.
[451.  Racial and ethnic issues; biennial survey; biennial report.]
451.  Race relations, gender discrimination, and hate group activity: 
          annual survey and report.
452.  Quarterly readiness reports.
[Sec. 451. Racial and ethnic issues; biennial survey; biennial report
  [(a) Biennial Survey.--The Secretary of Defense shall carry 
out a biennial survey to measure the state of racial and ethnic 
issues and discrimination among members of the armed forces 
serving on active duty. The survey shall solicit information on 
the race relations climate in the armed forces, including--
          [(1) indicators of positive and negative trends of 
        relations between all racial and ethnic groups;
          [(2) the effectiveness of Department of Defense 
        policies designed to improve race and ethnic relations; 
        and
          [(3) the effectiveness of current processes for 
        complaints on and investigations into racial and ethnic 
        discrimination.
  [(b) Implementing Entity.--The Secretary shall carry out each 
biennial survey through the entity in the Department of Defense 
known as the Armed Forces Survey on Race/Ethnic Issues.
  [(c) Reports to Congress.--Upon completion of each biennial 
survey under subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit to 
Congress a report containing the results of the survey.]
Sec. 451. Race relations, gender discrimination, and hate group 
                    activity: annual survey and report
  (a) Annual Survey.--The Secretary of Defense shall carry out 
an annual survey to measure the state of racial, ethnic, and 
gender issues and discrimination among members of the armed 
forces serving on active duty and the extent (if any) of 
activity among such members that may be seen as so-called 
``hate group'' activity. The survey shall solicit information 
on the race relations and gender relations climate in the armed 
forces, including--
          (1) indicators of positive and negative trends of 
        relations among all racial and ethnic groups and 
        between the sexes;
          (2) the effectiveness of Department of Defense 
        policies designed to improve race, ethnic, and gender 
        relations; and
          (3) the effectiveness of current processes for 
        complaints on and investigations into racial, ethnic, 
        and gender discrimination.
  (b) Implementing Entity.--The Secretary shall carry out each 
annual survey through the entity in the Department of Defense 
known as the Armed Forces Survey on Race/Ethnic Issues.
  (c) Reports to Congress.--Upon completion of biennial survey 
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit to Congress a 
report containing the results of the survey.
          * * * * * * *
                           PART II--PERSONNEL
          * * * * * * *
                        CHAPTER 31--ENLISTMENTS
Sec.
501.  Definition.
502.  Enlistment oath: who may administer.
503.  Enlistments: recruiting campaigns; compilation of directory 
          information.
     * * * * * * *
520c.  Recruiting functions: use of funds.
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 505. Regular components: qualifications, term, grade
  (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  [(d) The Secretary concerned may accept reenlistments in the 
Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, Regular Marine 
Corps, or Regular Coast Guard, as the case may be, for period 
of at least two but not more than six years. No enlisted member 
is entitled to be reenlisted for a period that would expire 
before the end of his current enlistment.]
  (d)(1) For a member with less than 10 years of service, the 
Secretary concerned may accept a reenlistment in the Regular 
Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, Regular Marine Corps, or 
Regular Coast Guard, as the case may be, for periods of at 
least two but not more than six years.
  (2) At the discretion of the Secretary concerned, a member 
with 10 or more years of service who reenlists in the Regular 
Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, Regular Marine Corps, or 
Regular Coast Guard, as the case may be, and who meets all 
qualifications for continued service, may be accepted for 
reenlistment of an unspecified period of time.
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 513. Enlistments: Delayed Entry Program
  (a)  * * *
  (b) Unless sooner ordered to active duty under chapter 39 of 
this title or another provision of law, a person enlisted under 
subsection (a) shall, within 365 days after such enlistment, be 
discharged from the reserve component in which enlisted and 
immediately be enlisted in the regular component of an armed 
force. The Secretary concerned may extend the 365-day period 
for any person for up to an additional 180 days if the 
Secretary considers such extension to be warranted on a case-
by-case basis. During the period beginning on the date on which 
the person enlists under subsection (a) and ending on the date 
on which the person is enlisted in a regular component under 
[the preceding sentence] under this subsection, the person 
shall be in the Ready Reserve of the armed force concerned.
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 520c. Recruiting functions: use of funds
  Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, 
funds appropriated to the Department of Defense may be expended 
for small meals and snacks during recruiting functions for the 
following persons:
          (1) Persons who have entered the Delayed Entry 
        Program under section 513 of this title and other 
        persons who are the subject of recruiting efforts.
          (2) Persons in communities who assist the military 
        departments in recruiting efforts.
          (3) Military or civilian personnel whose attendance 
        at such functions is mandatory.
          (4) Other persons whose presence at recruiting 
        functions will contribute to recruiting efforts.
          * * * * * * *
         CHAPTER 32--OFFICER STRENGTH AND DISTRIBUTION IN GRADE
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 523. Authorized strengths: commissioned officers on active duty in 
                    grades of major, lieutenant colonel, and colonel 
                    and Navy grades of lieutenant commander, commander, 
                    and captain
  (a)(1) Except as provided in subsection (c), of the total 
number of commissioned officers serving on active duty in the 
Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps at the end of any fiscal year 
(excluding officers in categories specified in subsection (b)), 
the number of officers who may be serving on active duty in 
each of the grades of major, lieutenant colonel, and colonel 
may not, as of the end of such fiscal year, exceed a number 
determined in accordance with the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Number of officers who may be serving
  [Total number of commissioned       on active duty in the grade of:   
 officers (excluding officers in ---------------------------------------
     categories specified in                    Lieutenant              
 subsection (b)) on active duty:     Major        Colonel      Colonel  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army:                                                                   
  60,000........................       11,580         7,941        3,080
  65,000........................       12,271         8,330        3,264
  70,000........................       12,963         8,718        3,447
  75,000........................       13,654         9,107        3,631
  80,000........................       14,346         9,495        3,814
  85,000........................       15,037         9,884        3,997
  90,000........................       15,729        10,272        4,181
  95,000........................       16,420        10,661        4,364
  100,000.......................       17,112        11,049        4,548
  110,000.......................       18,495        11,826        4,915
  120,000.......................       19,878        12,603        5,281
  130,000.......................       21,261        13,380        5,648
  170,000.......................       26,793        16,488        7,116
Air Force:                                                              
  70,000........................       13,530         9,428        3,392
  75,000........................       14,266         9,801        3,573
  80,000........................       15,002        10,175        3,754
  85,000........................       15,738        10,549        3,935
  90,000........................       16,474        10,923        4,115
  95,000........................       17,210        11,297        4,296
  100,000.......................       17,946        11,671        4,477
  105,000.......................       18,682        12,045        4,658
  110,000.......................       19,418        12,418        4,838
  115,000.......................       20,154        12,792        5,019
  120,000.......................       20,890        13,165        5,200
  125,000.......................       21,626        13,539        5,381
Marine Corps:                                                           
  12,500........................        2,499         1,388          592
  15,000........................        2,766         1,483          613
  17,500........................        3,085         1,579          633
  20,000........................        3,404         1,674          654
  22,500........................        3,723         1,770          675
  25,000........................        4,042         1,865         695]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of officers who may be serving on   
                                                                           active duty in the grade of:         
  Total number of commissioned officers (excluding officers in   -----------------------------------------------
     categories specified in subsection (b)) on active duty:                        Lieutenant                  
                                                                       Major          Colonel         Colonel   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army:                                                                                                           
  35,000........................................................           8,922           6,419           2,163
  40,000........................................................           9,614           6,807           2,347
  45,000........................................................          10,305           7,196           2,530
  50,000........................................................          10,997           7,584           2,713
  55,000........................................................          11,688           7,973           2,897
  60,000........................................................          12,380           8,361           3,080
  65,000........................................................          13,071           8,750           3,264
  70,000........................................................          13,763           9,138           3,447
  75,000........................................................          14,454           9,527           3,631
  80,000........................................................          15,146           9,915           3,814
  85,000........................................................          15,837          10,304           3,997
  90,000........................................................          16,529          10,692           4,181
  95,000........................................................          17,220          11,081           4,364
  100,000.......................................................          17,912          11,469           4,548
  110,000.......................................................          19,295          12,246           4,915
  120,000.......................................................          20,678          13,023           5,281
  130,000.......................................................          22,061          13,800           5,648
  170,000.......................................................          27,593          16,908           7,116
Air Force:                                                                                                      
  35,000........................................................           9,216           7,090           2,125
  40,000........................................................          10,025           7,478           2,306
  45,000........................................................          10,835           7,866           2,487
  50,000........................................................          11,645           8,253           2,668
  55,000........................................................          12,454           8,641           2,849
  60,000........................................................          13,264           9,029           3,030
  65,000........................................................          14,073           9,417           3,211
  70,000........................................................          14,883           9,805           3,392
  75,000........................................................          15,693          10,193           3,573
  80,000........................................................          16,502          10,582           3,754
  85,000........................................................          17,312          10,971           3,935
  90,000........................................................          18,121          11,360           4,115
  95,000........................................................          18,931          11,749           4,296
  100,000.......................................................          19,741          12,138           4,477
  105,000.......................................................          20,550          12,527           4,658
  110,000.......................................................          21,360          12,915           4,838
  115,000.......................................................          22,169          13,304           5,019
  120,000.......................................................          22,979          13,692           5,200
  125,000.......................................................          23,789          14,081           5,381
Marine Corps:                                                                                                   
  10,000........................................................           2,525           1,480             571
  12,500........................................................           2,900           1,600             592
  15,000........................................................           3,275           1,720             613
  17,500........................................................           3,650           1,840             633
  20,000........................................................           4,025           1,960             654
  22,500........................................................           4,400           2,080             675
  25,000........................................................           4,775           2,200             695
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  (2) Except as provided in subsection (c), of the total number 
of commissioned officers serving on active duty in the Navy at 
the end of any fiscal year (excluding officers in categories 
specified in subsection (b)), the number of officers who may be 
serving on active duty in each of the grades of lieutenant 
commander, commander, and captain may not, as of the end of 
such fiscal year, exceed a number determined in accordance with 
the following table: 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Number of officers who may be serving 
 [Total number of commissioned         on active duty in grade of:      
officers (excluding officers in ----------------------------------------
    categories specified in       Lieutenant                            
subsection (b)) on active duty:    Commander     Commander     Captain  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navy:                                                                   
  45,000.......................         9,124         5,776        2,501
  48,000.......................         9,565         5,984        2,602
  51,000.......................        10,006         6,190        2,702
  54,000.......................        10,447         6,398        2,803
  57,000.......................        10,888         6,606        2,904
  60,000.......................        11,329         6,813        3,005
  63,000.......................        11,770         7,020        3,106
  66,000.......................        12,211         7,227        3,206
  70,000.......................        12,799         7,504        3,341
  90,000.......................        15,739         8,886       4,013]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of officers who may be serving on   
                                                                             active duty in grade of:           
  Total number of commissioned officers (excluding officers in   -----------------------------------------------
     categories specified in subsection (b)) on active duty:        Lieutenant                                  
                                                                     Commander       Commander        Captain   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navy:                                                                                                           
  30,000........................................................           7,331           5,018           2,116
  33,000........................................................           7,799           5,239           2,223
  36,000........................................................           8,267           5,460           2,330
  39,000........................................................           8,735           5,681           2,437
  42,000........................................................           9,203           5,902           2,544
  45,000........................................................           9,671           6,123           2,651
  48,000........................................................          10,139           6,343           2,758
  51,000........................................................          10,606           6,561           2,864
  54,000........................................................          11,074           6,782           2,971
  57,000........................................................          11,541           7,002           3,078
  60,000........................................................          12,009           7,222           3,185
  63,000........................................................          12,476           7,441           3,292
  66,000........................................................          12,944           7,661           3,398
  70,000........................................................          13,567           7,954           3,541
  90,000........................................................          16,683           9,419           4,254
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 528. Limitation on number of officers on active duty in grades of 
                    general and admiral
  (a) Limitation.--The total number of officers on active duty 
in the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps in the grade of 
general and in the Navy in the grade of admiral may not exceed 
32.
  (b)[(1)] Exceptions.--(1) The limitation in subsection (a) 
does not apply in the case of an officer serving in the grade 
of general or admiral in a position that is specifically 
exempted by law from being counted for purposes of limitations 
by law on the total number of officers that may be on active 
duty in the grades of general and admiral or the number of 
officers that may be on active duty in that officer's armed 
force in the grade of general or admiral.
          * * * * * * *
 CHAPTER 33--ORIGINAL APPOINTMENTS OF REGULAR OFFICERS IN GRADES ABOVE 
                         WARRANT OFFICER GRADES
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 532. Qualifications for original appointment as a commissioned 
                    officer
  (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  [(e) After September 30, 1996, no person may receive an 
original appointment as a commissioned officer in the Regular 
Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps 
until that person has completed one year of service on active 
duty as a commissioned officer (other than a warrant officer) 
of a reserve component.]
          * * * * * * *
   CHAPTER 36--PROMOTION, SEPARATION, AND INVOLUNTARY RETIREMENT OF 
                    OFFICERS ON THE ACTIVE-DUTY LIST
          * * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER V--ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO PROMOTION, SEPARATION, 
                             AND RETIREMENT
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 641. Applicability of chapter
  Officers in the following categories are not subject to this 
chapter (other than section 640 and, in the case of warrant 
officers, section 628):
          (1) Reserve officers--
                  (A) on active duty for training;
                  (B) on active duty under section 3038, 5143, 
                5144, 8038, 10211, 10301 through 10305, 10502, 
                10505, 10506(a), 10506(b), 10507, or 12402 of 
                this title or section 708 of title 32;
          * * * * * * *
                  CHAPTER 38--JOINT OFFICER MANAGEMENT
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 662. Promotion policy objectives for joint officers
  (a)  * * *
  (b) [Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall periodically 
(and not less often than every six months) report to Congress 
on the promotion rates] Annual Report.--Not later than January 
1 of each year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to 
Congress a report on the promotion rates during the preceding 
fiscal year of officers who are serving in, or have served in, 
joint duty assignments, especially with respect to the record 
of officer selection boards in meeting the objectives of 
[clauses] paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a). If 
such promotion rates fail to meet such objectives for any 
fiscal year, the Secretary shall include in the [periodic 
report required by this subsection] report for that fiscal year 
information on such failure and on what action the Secretary 
has taken or plans to take to prevent further failures.
Sec. 663. Education 
  (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (d) Post-Education Joint Duty Assignments.--(1) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (3) The Secretary of Defense may exclude from the 
requirements of paragraph (1) or (2) an officer who is a member 
of an Acquisition Corps established pursuant to 1731 of this 
title if the officer--
          (A) has graduated from a senior level course of 
        instruction designed for personnel serving in critical 
        acquisition positions; and
          (B) is assigned, upon graduation, to a critical 
        acquisition position designated pursuant to section 
        1733 of this title.
          * * * * * * *
                        CHAPTER 39--ACTIVE DUTY
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 691. Permanent end strength levels to support two major regional 
                    contingencies
  (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  [(c) No funds appropriated to the Department of Defense may 
be used to implement a reduction of the active duty end 
strength for any of the armed forces for any fiscal year below 
the level specified in subsection (b) unless the Secretary of 
Defense submits to Congress notice of the proposed lower end 
strength levels and a justification for those levels. No action 
may then be taken to implement such a reduction for that fiscal 
year until the end of the six-month period beginning on the 
date of the receipt of such notice by Congress.]
  (c) The budget for the Department of Defense for any fiscal 
year as submitted to Congress shall include amounts for funding 
for each of the armed forces (other than the Coast Guard) at 
least in the amounts necessary to maintain the active duty end 
strengths prescribed in subsection (b), as in effect at the 
time that such budget is submitted.
  (d) No funds appropriated to the Department of Defense may be 
used to implement a reduction of the active duty end strength 
for any of the armed forces (other than the Coast Guard) for 
any fiscal year below the level specified in subsection (b) 
unless the reduction in end strength for that armed force for 
that fiscal year is specifically authorized by law.
  [(d)] (e) For a fiscal year for which the active duty end 
strength authorized by law pursuant to section 115(a)(1)(A) of 
this title for any of the armed forces is identical to the 
number applicable to that armed force under subsection (b), the 
Secretary of Defense may reduce that number by not more than 
0.5 percent.
  [(e)] (f) The number of members of the armed forces on active 
duty shall be counted for purposes of this section in the same 
manner as applies under section 115(a)(1) of this title.
          * * * * * * *
                        CHAPTER 45--THE UNIFORM
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 772. When wearing by persons not on active duty authorized
  (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (h) While attending a course of military instruction 
conducted by the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, a 
civilian may wear the uniform prescribed by that armed force if 
the wear of such uniform is specifically authorized under 
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the military 
department concerned.
          * * * * * * *
              CHAPTER 47--UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE
          * * * * * * *
               SUBCHAPTER IV--COURT-MARTIAL JURISDICTION
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 820. Art. 20. Jurisdiction of summary courts-martial
  (a) Subject to section 817 of this title (article 17), 
summary courts-martial have jurisdiction to try persons subject 
to this chapter, except officers, cadets, aviation cadets, and 
midshipmen, for any noncapital offense made punishable by this 
chapter. [No person with respect to whom summary courts-martial 
have jurisdiction may be brought to trial before a summary 
court-martial if he objects thereto. If objection to trial by 
summary court-martial is made by an accused, trial may be 
ordered by special or general court-martial as may be 
appropriate.]
  (b) An accused with respect to whom summary courts-martial 
have jurisdiction may not be brought to trial before a summary 
court-martial if the accused objects thereto. If an accused so 
objects to trial by summary court-martial, the convening 
authority may order trial by special or general court-martial, 
as may be appropriate.
  (c) Summary courts-martial may, under such limitations as the 
President may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden 
by this chapter except death, dismissal, dishonorable or bad-
conduct discharge, confinement for more than one month, hard-
labor without confinement for more than 45 days, restriction to 
specified limits for more than two months, or forfeiture of 
more than two-thirds of one month's pay.
          * * * * * * *
                    SUBCHAPTER VII--TRIAL PROCEDURE
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 854. Art. 54. Record of trial
  (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (c)(1) A [complete record of the proceedings and testimony] 
verbatim record of the proceedings shall be prepared--
          (A) in each general court-martial case in which the 
        sentence adjudged includes death, a dismissal, a 
        discharge, or (if the sentence adjudged does not 
        include a discharge) any other punishment which exceeds 
        that which may otherwise be adjudged by a special 
        court-martial; and
          (B) in each special court-martial case in which the 
        sentence adjudged includes a bad-conduct discharge.
          * * * * * * *
  SUBCHAPTER XII--UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 943. Art. 143. Organization and employees
  (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (c) Status of Attorney and Certain Other Positions.--(1) 
Attorney positions of employment under the Court of Appeals for 
the Armed Forces and non-attorney positions on the personal 
staff of a judge are excepted from the competitive service. 
Appointments to such positions shall be made by the court, 
without the concurrence of any other officer or employee of the 
executive branch, in the same manner as appointments are made 
to other executive branch positions of a confidential or 
policy-determining character for which it is not practicable to 
examine or to hold a competitive examination. Such positions 
shall not be counted as positions of that character for 
purposes of any limitation on the number of positions of that 
character provided in law.
          * * * * * * *
             CHAPTER 53--MISCELLANEOUS RIGHTS AND BENEFITS
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 1044. Legal assistance
  (a) Subject to the availability of legal staff resources, the 
Secretary concerned may provide legal assistance in connection 
with their personal civil legal affairs [to--] to the following 
persons:
          (1) [members] Members of the armed forces [under his 
        jurisdiction] who are on active duty[;].
          (2) [members] Members and former members [under his 
        jurisdiction] entitled to retired or retainer pay or 
        equivalent pay[; and].
          [(3) dependents of members and former members 
        described in clauses (1) and (2).]
          (3) Officers of the commissioned corps of the Public 
        Health Service who are on active duty or entitled to 
        retired or equivalent pay.
          (4) Dependents of members and former members 
        described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3).
  (b) Under such regulations as may be prescribed by the 
Secretary concerned, the Judge Advocate General (as defined in 
section 801(1) of this title) under the jurisdiction of the 
Secretary is responsible for the establishment and supervision 
of legal assistance programs under this section.
  (c) This section does not authorize legal counsel to be 
provided to represent a member or former member of the [armed 
forces] uniformed services described in subsection (a), or the 
dependent of such a member or former member, in a legal 
proceeding if the member or former member can afford legal fees 
for such representation without undue hardship.
  (d) The Secretary concerned shall define ``dependent'' for 
the purposes of this section.
Sec. 1044a. Authority to act as notary
  (a)  * * *
  (b) Persons with the powers described in subsection (a) are 
the following:
          (1) All judge advocates [on active duty or performing 
        inactive-duty training], including reserve judge 
        advocates not on active duty.
          (2) All civilian attorneys serving as legal 
        assistance officers.
          (3) All adjutants, assistant adjutants, and personnel 
        [adjutants on active duty or performing inactive-duty 
        training] adjutants, including reserve members not on 
        active duty.
          (4) All other [persons on active duty or performing 
        inactive-duty training] members of the armed forces, 
        including reserve members not on active duty, who are 
        designated by regulations of the armed forces or by 
        statute to have those powers.
          * * * * * * *
                  CHAPTER 55--MEDICAL AND DENTAL CARE
Sec.
1071.  Purpose of this chapter.
     * * * * * * *
[1074a.   Medical and dental care: members on duty other than active 
          duty for a period of more than 30 days.]
1074a.   Medical and dental care: reserve component members in a duty 
          status.
     * * * * * * *
1079a.   CHAMPUS: treatment of refunds and other amounts collected.
     * * * * * * *
Sec. 1074. Medical and dental care for members and certain former 
                    members
  (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  [(d)(1) The Secretary of Defense may require, by regulation, 
a private CHAMPUS provider to apply the CHAMPUS payment rules 
(subject to any modifications considered appropriate by the 
Secretary) in imposing charges for health care that the private 
CHAMPUS provider provides to a member of the uniformed services 
who is enrolled in a health care plan of a facility deemed to 
be a facility of the uniformed services under section 911(a) of 
the Military Construction Authorization Act, 1982 (42 U.S.C. 
248c(a)) when the health care is provided outside the catchment 
area of the facility.
  [(2) In this subsection:
          [(A) The term ``private CHAMPUS provider'' means a 
        private facility or health care provider that is a 
        health care provider under the Civilian Health and 
        Medical Program of the Uniformed Services.
          [(B) The term ``CHAMPUS payment rules'' means the 
        payment rules referred to in subsection (c).
  [(3) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations 
under this subsection after consultation with the other 
administering Secretaries.]
          * * * * * * *
[Sec. 1074a. Medical and dental care: members on duty other than active 
                    duty for a period of more than 30 days
  [(a) Under joint regulations prescribed by the administering 
Secretaries, the following persons are entitled to the benefits 
described in subsection (b):
          [(1) Each member of a uniformed service who incurs or 
        aggravates an injury, illness, or disease in the line 
        of duty while performing--
                  [(A) active duty for a period of 30 days or 
                less; or
                  [(B) inactive-duty training.
          [(2) Each member of a uniformed service who incurs or 
        aggravates an injury, illness, or disease while 
        traveling directly to or from the place at which that 
        member is to perform or has performed--
                  [(A) active duty for a period of 30 days or 
                less; or
                  [(B) inactive-duty training.
          [(3) Each member of the armed forces who incurs or 
        aggravates an injury, illness, or disease in the line 
        of duty while remaining overnight, between successive 
        periods of inactive-duty training, at or in the 
        vicinity of the site of the inactive-duty training, if 
        the site is outside reasonable commuting distance from 
        the member's residence.
  [(b) A person described in subsection (a) is entitled to--
          [(1) the medical and dental care appropriate for the 
        treatment of the injury, illness, or disease of that 
        person until the resulting disability cannot be 
        materially improved by further hospitalization or 
        treatment; and
          [(2) subsistence during hospitalization.
  [(c) A member is not entitled to benefits under subsection 
(b) if the injury, illness, or disease, or aggravation of an 
injury, illness, or disease described in subsection (a)(2), is 
the result of the gross negligence or misconduct of the member.
  [(d)(1) The Secretary of the Army shall provide to members of 
the Selected Reserve of the Army who are assigned to units 
scheduled for deployment within 75 days after mobilization the 
following medical and dental services:
          [(A) An annual medical screening.
          [(B) For members who are over 40 years of age, a full 
        physical examination not less often than once every two 
        years.
          [(C) An annual dental screening.
          [(D) The dental care identified in an annual dental 
        screening as required to ensure that a member meets the 
        dental standards required for deployment in the event 
        of mobilization.
  [(2) The services provided under this subsection shall be 
provided at no cost to the member.]
Sec. 1074a. Medical and dental care: reserve component members in a 
                    duty status
  (a) Health Care Described.--A person described in subsection 
(b) is entitled to the medical and dental care appropriate for 
the treatment of the injury, illness, or disease of the person 
until the person completes treatment and is physically able to 
resume the military duties of the person or has completed 
processing in accordance with chapter 61 of this title.
  (b) Members Entitled to Care.--Under joint regulations 
prescribed by the administering Secretaries, the following 
persons are entitled to the benefits described in this section:
          (1) Each member of a reserve component who incurs or 
        aggravates an injury, illness, or disease in the line 
        of duty while performing--
                  (A) active duty, including active duty for 
                training and annual training duty, or full-time 
                National Guard duty; or
                  (B) inactive-duty training, regardless of 
                whether the member is in a pay or nonpay 
                status.
          (2) Each member of a reserve component who incurs or 
        aggravates an injury, illness, or disease while 
        traveling directly to or from the place at which that 
        member is to perform or has performed--
                  (A) active duty, including active duty for 
                training and annual training duty, or full-time 
                National Guard duty, or
                  (B) inactive-duty training, regardless of 
                whether the member is in a pay or nonpay 
                status.
          (3) Each member of a reserve component who incurs or 
        aggravates an injury, illness, or disease in the line 
        of duty while remaining overnight, between successive 
        periods of inactive-duty training, at or in the 
        vicinity of the site of the inactive-duty training, if 
        the site of inactive-duty training is outside 
        reasonable commuting distance from the member's 
        residence.
  (c) Additional Benefits.--(1) At the request of a person 
described in paragraph (1)(A) or (2)(A) of subsection (b), the 
person may continue on active duty or full-time National Guard 
duty during any period of hospitalization resulting from the 
injury, illness, or disease.
  (2) A person described in subsection (b) is entitled to the 
pay and allowances authorized in accordance with subsections 
(g) and (h) of section 204 of title 37.
  (d) Limitation.--A person described in subsection (b) is not 
entitled to benefits under this section if the injury, illness, 
or disease, or aggravation of the injury, illness, or disease, 
is the result of the gross negligence or misconduct of the 
person.
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 1078a. Continued health benefits coverage
  (a) Provision of Continued Health Coverage.--[Beginning on 
October 1, 1994, the] The Secretary of Defense shall implement 
and carry out a program of continued health benefits coverage 
in accordance with this section to provide persons described in 
subsection (b) with temporary health benefits comparable to the 
health benefits provided for former civilian employees of the 
Federal Government and other persons under section 8905a of 
title 5.
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 1079. Contracts for medical care for spouses and children: plans
  (a) To assure that medical care is available for dependents, 
as described in subparagraphs (A), (D), and (I) of section 
1072(2) of this title, of members of the uniformed services who 
are on active duty for a period of more than 30 days, the 
Secretary of Defense, after consulting with the other 
administering Secretaries, shall contract, under the authority 
of this section, for medical care for those persons under such 
insurance, medical service, or health plans as he considers 
appropriate. The types of health care authorized under this 
section shall be the same as those provided under section 1076 
of this title, [except that--] except as follows:
          (1) [with] With respect to dental care, only that 
        care required as a necessary adjunct to medical or 
        surgical treatment may be provided[;].
          (2) [consistent] Consistent with such regulations as 
        the Secretary of Defense may prescribe regarding the 
        content of health promotion and disease prevention 
        visits, the schedule of pap smears and mammograms, and 
        the types and schedule of immunizations--
                  (A) for dependents under six years of age, 
                both health promotion and disease prevention 
                visits and immunizations may be provided; and
                  (B) for dependents six years of age or older, 
                health promotion and disease prevention visits 
                may be provided in connection with 
                immunizations or with diagnostic or preventive 
                pap smears and mammograms[;].
          (3) [not] Not more than one eye examination may be 
        provided to a patient in any calendar year[;].
          (4) [under] Under joint regulations to be prescribed 
        by the administering Secretaires, the services of 
        Christian Science practitioners and nurses and services 
        obtained in Christian Science sanatoriums may be 
        provided[;].
          (5) [durable] Durable equipment, such as wheelchairs, 
        iron lungs and hospital beds may be provided on a 
        rental basis[;].
          (6) [inpatient] Inpatient mental health services may 
        not (except as provided in subsection (i)) be provided 
        to a patient in excess of--
                  (A) 30 days in any year, in the case of a 
                patient 19 years of age or older;
                  (B) 45 days in any year, in the case of a 
                patient under 19 years of age; or
                  (C) 150 days in any year, in the case of 
                inpatient mental health services provided as 
                residential treatment care[;].
          (7) [services] Services in connection with 
        nonemergency inpatient hospital care may not be 
        provided if such services are available at a facility 
        of the uniformed services located within a 40-mile 
        radius of the residence of the patient, except that 
        those services may be provided in any case in which 
        another insurance plan or program provides primary 
        coverage for those services[;].
          (8) [services] Services of pastoral counselors, 
        family and child counselors, or marital counselors 
        (other than certified marriage and family therapists) 
        may not be provided unless the patient has been 
        referred to the counselor by a medical doctor for 
        treatment of a specific problem with the results of 
        that treatment to be communicated back to the medical 
        doctor who made the referral and services of certified 
        marriage and family therapists may be provided 
        consistent with such rules as may be prescribed by the 
        Secretary of Defense, including credentialing criteria 
        and a requirement that the therapists accept payment 
        under this section as full payment for all services 
        provided[;].
          (9) [special] Special education may not be provided, 
        except when provided as secondary to the active 
        psychiatric treatment on an institutional inpatient 
        basis[;].
          (10) [therapy] Therapy or counseling for sexual 
        dysfunctions or sexual inadequacies may not be 
        provided[;].
          (11) [treatment] Treatment of obesity may not be 
        provided if obesity is the sole or major condition 
        treated[;].
          (12) [surgery] Surgery which improves physical 
        appearance but is not expected to significantly restore 
        functions (including mammary augmentation, face lifts, 
        and sex gender changes) may not be provided, except 
        that--
                  (A) breast reconstructive surgery following a 
                mastectomy may be provided;
                  (B) reconstructive surgery to correct serious 
                deformities caused by congenital anomalies or 
                accidental injuries may be provided; and
                  (C) neoplastic surgery may be provided[;].
          (13) [any] Any service or supply which is not 
        medically or psychologically necessary to prevent, 
        diagnose, or treat a mental or physical illness, 
        injury, or bodily malfunction as assessed or diagnosed 
        by a physician, dentist, clinical psychologist, 
        certified marriage and family therapist, optometrist, 
        podiatrist, certified nurse-midwife, certified nurse 
        practitioner, or certified clinical social worker, as 
        appropriate, may not be provided, except as authorized 
        in paragraph (4)[;]. Pursuant to an agreement with the 
        Secretary of Health and Human Services and under such 
        regulations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe, 
        the Secretary of Defense may waive the operation of 
        this paragraph in connection with clinical trials 
        sponsored or approved by the National Institutes of 
        Health if the Secretary of Defense determines that such 
        a waiver will promote access by covered beneficiaries 
        to promising new treatments and contribute to the 
        development of such treatments.
          (14) [the] The prohibition contained in section 
        1077(b)(3) of this title shall not apply in the case of 
        a member or former member of the uniformed services[;].
          (15) [electronic] Electronic cardio-respiratory home 
        monitoring equipment (apnea monitors) for home use may 
        be provided if a physician prescribes and supervises 
        the use of the monitor for an infant)--
                  (A) who has had an apparent life-threatening 
                event,
                  (B) who is a subsequent sibling of a victim 
                of sudden infant death syndrome,
                  (C) whose birth weight was 1,500 grams or 
                less, or
                  (D) who is a pre-term infant with pathologic 
                apnea,
        in which case the coverage may include the cost of the 
        equipment, hard copy analysis of physiological alarms, 
        professional visits, diagnostic testing, family 
        training on how to respond to apparent life threatening 
        events, and assistance necessary for proper use of the 
        equipment[;].
          (16) [hospice] Hospice care may be provided only in 
        the manner and under the conditions provided in section 
        1861(dd) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
        1395x(dd))[; and].
          (17) [the] The Secretary of Defense may establish a 
        program for the individual case management of a person 
        covered by this section or section 1086 of this title 
        who has extraordinary medical or psychological 
        disorders and, under such a program, may waive benefit 
        limitations contained in paragraphs (5) and (13) of 
        this subsection or section 1077(b)(1) of this title and 
        authorize the payment for comprehensive home health 
        care services, supplies, and equipment if the Secretary 
        determines that such a waiver is cost-effective and 
        appropriate.
  (b)(1) Plans covered by subsection (a) shall include 
provisions for payment by the patient of the following amounts:
          [(1)] (A) $25 for each admission to a hospital, or 
        the amount the patient would have been charged under 
        section 1078(a) of this title had the care being paid 
        for been obtained in a hospital of the uniformed 
        services, whichever amount is the greater. The 
        Secretary of Defense may exempt a patient from paying 
        such amount if the hospital to which the patient is 
        admitted does not impose a legal obligation on any of 
        its patients to pay for inpatient care.
          [(2)] (B) Except as provided in [clause (3)] 
        subparagraph (C), the first $150 each fiscal year of 
        the charges for all types of care authorized by 
        subsection (a) and received while in an outpatient 
        status and 20 percent of all subsequent charges for 
        such care during a fiscal year. Notwithstanding the 
        preceding sentence, in the case of a dependent of an 
        enlisted member in a pay grade below E-5, the initial 
        deductible each fiscal year under this paragraph shall 
        be limited to $50.
          [(3)] (C) A family group of two or more persons 
        covered by this section shall not be required to pay 
        collectively more than the first $300 (or in the case 
        of the family group of an enlisted member in a pay 
        grade below E-5, the first $100) each fiscal year of 
        the charges for all types of care authorized by 
        subsection (a) and received while in an outpatient 
        status and 20 percent of the additional charges for 
        such care during a fiscal year.
          [(4)] (D) $25 for surgical care that is authorized by 
        subsection (a) and received while in an outpatient 
        status and that has been designated (under joint 
        regulations to be prescribed by the administering 
        Secretaries) as care to be treated as inpatient care 
        for purposes of this subsection. Any care for which 
        payment is made under [this clause] this subparagraph 
        shall not be considered to be care received while in an 
        outpatient status for purposes of [clauses (2) and (3)] 
        subparagraphs (B) and (C).
          [(5)] (E) An individual or family group of two or 
        more persons covered by this section may not be 
        required by reason of this subsection to pay a total of 
        more than $1,000 for health care received during any 
        fiscal year under a plan under subsection (a).
  (2) The Secretary of Defense may waive or reduce the 
deductible amounts required by subparagraphs (B) and (C) of 
paragraph (1) in the case of the dependents of a member of a 
reserve component of the uniformed services who serves on 
active duty in support of a contingency operation under a call 
or order to active duty of less than one year.
          * * * * * * *
  (h)(1) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (4) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the other 
administering Secretaries, shall prescribe regulations to 
provide for such exceptions to the payment limitations under 
paragraph (1) as the Secretary determines to be necessary to 
assure that covered beneficiaries retain adequate access to 
health care services. Such exceptions may include the payment 
of amounts higher than the amount allowed under paragraph (1) 
when enrollees in managed care programs obtain covered 
[emergency] services from nonparticipating providers. To 
provide a suitable transition from the payment methodologies in 
effect before the date of the enactment of this paragraph to 
the methodology required by paragraph (1), the amount allowable 
for any service may not be reduced by more than 15 percent 
below the amount allowed for the same service during the 
immediately preceding 12-month period (or other period as 
established by the Secretary of Defense).
  (5) Except in an area in which the Secretary of Defense has 
entered into an at-risk contract for the provision of health 
care services, the Secretary may authorize the commander of a 
facility of the uniformed services, the lead agent (if other 
than the commander), and the health care contractor to modify 
the payment limitations under paragraph (1) for certain health 
care providers when necessary to ensure both the availability 
of certain services for covered beneficiaries and costs lower 
than standard CHAMPUS for the required services.
  [(5)] (6) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the 
other administering Secretaries, shall prescribe regulations to 
establish limitations (similar to the limitations established 
under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et 
seq.)) on beneficiary liability for charges of an individual 
health care professional (or other noninstitutional health care 
provider).
          * * * * * * *
  (j)(1) A benefit may not be paid under a plan covered by this 
section in the case of a person enrolled in, or covered by, any 
other insurance, medical service, or health plan (including any 
plan offered by a third-party payer (as defined in section 
1095(h)(1) of this title)) to the extent that the benefit is 
also a benefit under the other plan, except in the case of a 
plan administered under title XIX of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.).
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 1079a. CHAMPUS: treatment of refunds and other amounts collected
  All refunds and other amounts collected in the administration 
of the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed 
Services shall be credited to the appropriation supporting the 
program in the year in which the amount is collected.
Sec. 1080. Contracts for medical care for spouses and children: 
                    election of facilities
  (a) Election.--A dependent covered by section 1079 of this 
title may elect to receive inpatient medical care either in (1) 
the facilities of the uniformed services, under the conditions 
prescribed by sections 1076-1078 of this title, or (2) the 
facilities provided under a plan contracted for under section 
1079 of this title. However, under such regulations as the 
Secretary of Defense, after consulting the other administering 
Secretaries, may prescribe, the right to make this election may 
be limited for dependents residing in the area where the member 
concerned is assigned, if adequate medical facilities of the 
uniformed services are available in that area for those 
dependents.
  (b) Issuance of [Nonavailability of Health Care Statements] 
Nonavailability-of-Health-Care Statements.--In determining 
whether to issue a [nonavailability of health care statement] 
nonavailability of health care statement for a dependent 
described in subsection (a), the commanding officer of a 
facility of the uniformed services may consider the 
availability of health care services for the dependent pursuant 
to any contract or agreement entered into under this chapter 
for the provision of health care services.
  (c) Waivers and Exceptions to Requirements.--(1) A covered 
beneficiary enrolled in a managed care plan offered pursuant to 
any contract or agreement under this chapter for the provision 
of health care services shall not be required to obtain a 
nonavailability-of-health-care statement as a condition for the 
receipt of health care.
  (2) The Secretary of Defense may waive the requirement to 
obtain nonavailability-of-health-care statements following an 
evaluation of the effectiveness of such statements in 
optimizing the use of facilities of the uniformed services.
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 1086. Contracts for health benefits for certain members, former 
                    members, and their dependents
  (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (e) A person covered by this section may elect to receive 
[benefits] inpatient medical care either in (1) Government 
facilities, under the conditions prescribed in sections 1074 
and 1076-1078 of this title, or (2) the facilities provided 
under a plan contracted for under this section. However, under 
joint regulations issued by the administering Secretaries, the 
right to make this election may be limited for those persons 
residing in an area where adequate facilities of the uniformed 
service are available. In addition, [section 1080(b)] 
subsections (b) and (c) of section 1080 of this title shall 
apply in making the determination whether to issue a 
nonavailability of health care statement for a person covered 
by this section.
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 1095. Health care services incurred on behalf of covered 
                    beneficiaries: collection from third-party payers
  (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (g)(1) Amounts collected under this section from a third-
party payer or under any other provision of law from any other 
payer for the costs of health care services provided at or 
through a facility of the uniformed services shall be credited 
to the appropriation supporting the maintenance and operation 
of the facility and shall not be taken into consideration in 
establishing the operating budget of the facility.
          * * * * * * *
  (h) In this section:
          (1) The term ``third-party payer'' means an entity 
        that provides an insurance, medical service, or health 
        plan by contract or agreement, including an automobile 
        liability insurance or no fault insurance carrier and a 
        workers' compensation program or plan. Such term also 
        includes entities described in subsection (j) under the 
        terms and to the extent provided in such subsection.
          (2) The term ``insurance, medical service, or health 
        plan'' includes a preferred provider organization 
        [and], an insurance plan described as Medicare 
        supplemental insurance, and personal injury protection 
        or medical payments benefits in cases involving 
        personal injuries resulting from operation of a motor 
        vehicle.
          * * * * * * *
                         CHAPTER 59--SEPARATION
Sec.
1161.  Commissioned officers: limitations on dismissal.
     * * * * * * *
1177.  Members infected with HIV-1 virus: mandatory discharge or 
          retirement.
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 1161.  Commissioned  officers:  limitations  on  dismissal
  (a)  * * *
  (b) The President may drop from the rolls of any armed force 
any commissioned officer (1) who has been absent without 
authority for at least three months, (2) who may be separated 
under [section 1178] section 1167 of this title by reason of a 
sentence to confinement adjudged by a court-martial, or (3) who 
is sentenced to confinement in a Federal or State penitentiary 
or correctional institution after having been found guilty of 
an offense by a court other than a court-martial or other 
military court, and whose sentence has become final.
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 1167. Members under confinement by sentence of court-martial: 
                    separation after six months confinement
  Except as otherwise provided in regulations prescribed by the 
Secretary of Defense, a member sentenced by a court-martial to 
a period of confinement for more than six months may be 
separated from the member's armed force at any time after the 
sentence to confinement has become final under chapter 47 of 
this title and the [person] member has served in confinement 
for a period of six months.
          * * * * * * *
Sec. 1177. Members infected with HIV-1 virus: mandatory discharge or 
                    retirement
  (a) Mandatory Separation.--(1) A member of the Army, Navy, 
Air Force, or Marine Corps who is HIV-positive and who on the 
date on which the medical determination is made that the member 
is HIV-positive has less than 15 years of creditable service 
shall be separated. Such separation shall be made on a date 
determined by the Secretary concerned, which shall be as soon 
as practicable after the date on which the medical 
determination is made that the member is HIV-positive and not 
later than the last day of the second month beginning after 
such date.
  (2) In determining the years of creditable service of a 
member for purposes of paragraph (1)--
          (A) in the case of a member on active duty or full-
        time National Guard duty, the member's years of 
        creditable service are the number of years of service 
        of the member as computed for the purpose of 
        determining the member's eligibility for retirement 
        under any provision of law (other than chapter 61 or 
        1223 of this title); and
          (B) in the case of a member in an active status, the 
        member's years of creditable service are the number of 
        years of service creditable to the member under section 
        12732 of this title.
  (b) Form of Separation.--The characterization of the service 
of the member shall be determined without regard to the 
determination that the member is HIV-positive.
  (c) Separation To Be Considered Involuntary.--A separation 
under this section shall be considered to be an involuntary 
separation for purposes of any other provision of law.
  (d) Counseling About Available Medical Care.--A member to be 
separated under this section shall be provided information, in 
writing, before such separation of the available medical care 
(through the Department of Veterans Affairs and otherwise) to 
treat the member's condition. Such information shall include 
identification of specific medical locations near the member's 
home of record or point of discharge at which the member may 
seek necessary medical care.
  (e) HIV-Positive Members.--A member shall be considered to be 
HIV-positive for purposes of this section if there is serologic 
evidence that the member is infected with the virus known as 
Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 (HIV-1), the virus most commonly 
associated with the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) 
in the United States. Such serologic evidence shall be 
considered to exist if there is a reactive result given by an 
enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) serologic test that 
is confirmed by a reactive and diagnostic immunoelectrophoresis 
test (Western blot) on two separate samples. Any such serologic 
test must be one that is approved by the Food and Drug 
Administration.
          * * * * * * *
         CHAPTER 73--ANNUITIES BASED ON RETIRED OR RETAINER PAY
          * * * * * * *
                 [SUBCHAPTER II--SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN
[Sec.
[1447.  Definitions.
[1448.  Application of Plan.
[1449.  Mental incompetency of member.
[1450.  Payment of annuity: beneficiaries.
[1451.  Amount of annuity.
[1452.  Reduction in retired pay.
[1453.  Recovery of annuity erroneously paid.
[1454.  Correction of administrative errors.
[1455.  Regulations.
[Sec. 1447. Definitions
  [In this subchapter:
  [(1) The term ``Plan'' means the Survivor Benefit Plan 
established by this subchapter.
  [(2) The term ``base amount'' means--
          [(A) in the case of a person who dies after becoming 
        entitled to retired pay, the amount of monthly retired 
        pay (determined without regard to any reduction under 
        section 1409(b)(2) of this title) to which the person--
                  [(i) was entitled when he became eligible for 
                that pay; or
                  [(ii) later became entitled by being advanced 
                on the retired list, performing active duty, or 
                being transferred from the temporary disability 
                retired list to the permanent disability 
                retired list;
          [(B) in the case of a person who would have become 
        eligible for reserve-component retired pay but for the 
        fact that he died before becoming 60 years of age, the 
        amount of monthly retired pay for which the person 
        would have been eligible--
                  [(i) if he had been 60 years of age on the 
                date of his death, for purposes of an annuity 
                to become effective on the day after his death 
                in accordance with a designation made under 
                section 1448(e) of this title; or
                  [(ii) upon becoming 60 years of age (if he 
                had lived to that age), for purposes of an 
                annuity to become effective on the 60th 
                anniversary of his birth in accordance with a 
                designation made under section 1448(e) of this 
                title; or
          [(C) any amount which is less than the amount 
        otherwise applicable under clause (A) or (B) with 
        respect to an annuity provided under the Plan but which 
        is not less than $300 and which is designated by the 
        person (with the concurrence of the person's spouse, if 
        required under section 1448(a)(3) of this title) 
        providing the annuity on or before (i) the first day 
        for which he becomes eligible for retired pay, in the 
        case of a person providing a standard annuity, or (ii) 
        the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date on 
        which he receives the notification required by section 
        12731(d) of this title that he has completed the years 
        of service required for eligibility for reserve-
        component retired pay in the case of a person providing 
        a reserve-component annuity.
  [(3) The term ``widow'' means the surviving wife of a person 
who, if not married to the person at the time he became 
eligible for retired pay--
          [(A) was married to him for at least one year 
        immediately before his death; or
          [(B) is the mother of issue by that marriage.
  [(4) The term ``widower'' means the surviving husband of a 
person who, if not married to the person at the time she became 
eligible for retired pay--
          [(A) was married to her for at least one year 
        immediately before her death; or
          [(B) is the father of issue by that marriage.
  [(5) The term ``dependent child'' means a person who is--
          [(A) unmarried;
          [(B) (i) under 18 years of age; (ii) at least 18, but 
        under 22, years of age and pursuing a full-time course 
        of study or training in a high school, trade school, 
        technical or vocational institute, junior college, 
        college, university, or comparable recognized 
        educational institution; or (iii) incapable of 
        supporting himself because of a mental or physical 
        incapacity existing before his eighteenth birthday or 
        incurred on or after that birthday, but before his 
        twenty-second birthday, while pursuing such a full-time 
        course of study or training; and
          [(C) the child of a person to whom the Plan applies, 
        including (i) an adopted child, and (ii) a stepchild, 
        foster child, or recognized natural child who lived 
        with that person in a regular parent-child 
        relationship.
For the purpose of this paragraph, a child whose twenty-second 
birthday occurs before July 1 or after August 31 of a calendar 
year, and while he is regularly pursuing such a course of study 
or training, is considered to have become 22 years of age on