H. Rpt. 104-208. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1996

From the House Reports Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] 104th Congress 1st HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Report Session 104-208 _______________________________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1996 __________ R E P O R T of the COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS together with DISSENTING VIEWS [To accompany H.R. 2126] <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> July 27, 1995.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Bill Totals...................................................... 1 Committee Budget Review Process.................................. 4 Introduction..................................................... 4 Major Committee Initiatives.................................. 5 Quality, Ready Force......................................... 6 Modernization Programs....................................... 7 Reforms/Program Reductions................................... 9 Operations ``Other Than War''................................ 10 Highlights of Committee Recommendations.......................... 13 Active Military Personnel.................................... 13 Guard and Reserve............................................ 14 Operation and Maintenance.................................... 14 Procurement.................................................. 14 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation................... 15 Forces To Be Supported........................................... 15 Department of the Army....................................... 15 Department of the Navy....................................... 16 Department of the Air Force.................................. 17 Title I. Military Personnel...................................... 18 Programs and Activities Funded by Military Personnel Appropriations............................................. 18 Summary of Military Personnel Recommendations for Fiscal Year 1996....................................................... 18 Overall Active End Strength.............................. 19 Overall Selected Reserve End Strength.................... 19 Adjustments to Military Personnel Account.................... 20 Overview................................................. 20 Military Retiree Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA)............ 20 Active Duty End Strengths................................ 20 B-52 Force Structure..................................... 20 ``Friendly Fire'' Incidents.............................. 20 Selective Reenlistment Bonus............................. 21 Aviation Continuation Pay................................ 21 Housing Allowances....................................... 21 Full-Time Support Strengths.............................. 21 Civilian (Military) Technicians.......................... 22 Military Personnel, Army..................................... 23 Military Personnel, Navy..................................... 23 Military Personnel, Marine Corps............................. 23 Military Personnel, Air Force................................ 24 Reserve Personnel, Army...................................... 24 Army Reserve Commands.................................... 24 Reserve Personnel, Navy...................................... 24 Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps.............................. 25 Active Reserve Manpower.................................. 25 Reserve Personnel, Air Force................................. 25 WC-130 Weather Reconnaissance Mission.................... 26 National Guard Personnel, Army............................... 26 National Guard Personnel, Air Force.......................... 26 Title II. Operation and Maintenance.............................. 28 Operation and Maintenance Overview........................... 28 Depot Maintenance........................................ 29 Operating Tempo Training................................. 30 Real Property Maintenance................................ 30 Strategic Mobility Enhancements.......................... 30 Chemical and Biological Defense Training................. 31 Recruiting and Advertising............................... 31 Acquisition Reform....................................... 31 Travel Reengineering..................................... 32 Transportation Improvements.............................. 32 Printing Efficiencies.................................... 32 Reduced Audits........................................... 32 Consolidation of Fraud Investigation..................... 33 Civilian Personnel Management............................ 33 Civilian Personnel Understrength......................... 34 Office of the Secretary of Defense Staffing.............. 34 Readiness Reprogramming.................................. 34 Assessing Readiness...................................... 34 DOD Financial Management Issues.......................... 35 Core Depot Maintenance Capability........................ 36 DOD Travel Policies...................................... 36 Household Goods Shipments................................ 36 Family Advocacy.......................................... 36 Construction Materials................................... 36 Humanitarian Assistance.................................. 37 Transfers of Military Equipment.......................... 37 Classified Programs...................................... 37 Operation and Maintenance, Army.............................. 37 Depot Maintenance........................................ 38 Pre-positioned Equipment................................. 38 National Training Center................................. 38 Training Network......................................... 38 Environmental Cleanup and Study.......................... 39 Fort Bliss Texas..................................... 39 White Sands Missile Range................................ 39 Information Technology................................... 39 Program Recommended...................................... 39 Operation and Maintenance, Navy.............................. 41 Defense Business Operations Fund......................... 41 Depot Maintenance........................................ 42 Base Operations Support.................................. 42 AN/UYQ-70................................................ 42 CSS Hunley............................................... 42 Photogrammetry........................................... 42 Information Technology................................... 43 Tomahawk Missile Recertification......................... 43 Plasma Electric Waste Converter Technology............... 43 Program Recommended...................................... 43 Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps...................... 46 Operating Tempo Training................................. 46 Depot Maintenance........................................ 46 Base Support............................................. 47 Initial Issue Personnel Support Equipment................ 47 Program Recommended...................................... 47 Operation and Maintenance, Air Force......................... 49 Depot Maintenance, Excess Funded Carryover............... 49 Mission Readiness Training............................... 49 Precision Weapons........................................ 49 Spares................................................... 49 Simulation Enhancements.................................. 50 Real Property Support.................................... 50 Weapons Systems Maintenance.............................. 50 Undergraduate Pilot Training............................. 50 Tuition Assistance....................................... 50 Combat Search and Rescue................................. 50 Civil Air Patrol......................................... 50 Information Technology................................... 51 Program Recommended...................................... 51 Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide...................... 54 Defense Business Management University................... 55 Defense Acquisition University........................... 55 Defense Mapping Agency................................... 55 Federal Energy Management Program........................ 55 Office of Economic Assistance............................ 55 Alternative Fuels Study.................................. 55 Department of Defense Dependents Education............... 56 Overseas Dependents Schools.......................... 56 Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools.. 56 Transition Assistance Program and Relocation Assistance Program................................. 56 Information Technology................................... 57 Program Recommended...................................... 57 Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve...................... 59 Program Recommended...................................... 59 Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve...................... 60 Program Recommended...................................... 60 Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve.............. 61 Program Recommended...................................... 61 Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve................. 62 Program recommended...................................... 62 Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard............... 63 Program Recommended...................................... 63 Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard................ 64 Program Recommended...................................... 64 Refugee/Disaster Relief Missions......................... 65 159th Air National Guard Fighter Group................... 65 National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice, Army..... 65 United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.......... 66 Environmental Restoration, Defense........................... 66 Asbestos Removal......................................... 66 Naval Air Warfare Center Warminister..................... 66 Defense Fuels Supply Point, Norwalk...................... 66 Ordnance Road Site....................................... 66 Massachusetts Military Reservation....................... 67 Summer Olympics.............................................. 67 Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid............... 67 Humanitarian Assistance...................................... 67 Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction......................... 68 Contributions for International Peacekeeping and Peace Enforcement Activities..................................... 68 Title III. Procurement........................................... 69 Estimates and Appropriation Summary.......................... 69 Multiyear Procurement.................................... 69 Joint Forces Command, Control and Communications......... 71 High Capacity Air Ambulance.............................. 71 Classified Programs...................................... 71 Aircraft Procurement, Army................................... 71 Committee Recommendations................................ 72 Authorization Changes.................................... 72 Fixed Wing Aircraft...................................... 72 C-XX Aircraft........................................ 72 C-26 Aircraft........................................ 72 Rotary Wing Aircraft..................................... 72 UH-60 Blackhawk Helicopter........................... 72 Modification of Aircraft................................. 72 Guardrail............................................ 72 Kiowa Warrior........................................ 73 Support Equipment and Facilities......................... 73 Aircraft Survivability Equipment..................... 73 Program Recommended...................................... 73 Missile Procurement, Army.................................... 73 Committee Recommendations................................ 74 Authorization Changes.................................... 74 Anti-Tank/Assault Missile Systems........................ 74 Javelin.............................................. 74 Multiple Launch Rocket System Rockets................ 74 Multiple Launch Rocket System Launchers.............. 74 Program Recommended...................................... 74 Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army..... 75 Committee Recommendations................................ 75 Authorization Changes.................................... 75 Modification of Tracked Combat Vehicles.................. 76 Carrier Modifications................................ 76 Bradley Fighting Vehicle Modifications............... 76 Howitzer Modifications............................... 76 FAASV................................................ 76 Improved Recovery Vehicle............................ 76 Abrams Tank Upgrade Program (MCR).................... 76 Program Recommended...................................... 76 Procurement of Ammunition, Army.............................. 77 Committee Recommendations................................ 77 Overview................................................. 77 Authorization Changes.................................... 78 Ammunition Shortfalls.................................... 78 Mortar Ammunition........................................ 78 60mm Mortar Ammunition............................... 78 Artillery Ammunition..................................... 79 SADARM............................................... 79 Rockets.................................................. 79 Hydra 70............................................. 79 Special Purpose Ammunition............................... 79 Conventional Ammunition Demilitarization................. 79 Program Recommended...................................... 80 Other Procurement, Army...................................... 80 Committee Recommendations................................ 81 Authorization Changes.................................... 81 Tactical Vehicles........................................ 81 Overview............................................. 81 High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles......... 81 Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles................... 81 Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles.................... 82 Service Life Extension Programs...................... 82 Communications and Electronics........................... 83 Navstar Global Positioning System.................... 83 SINCGARS............................................. 83 Joint Stars.......................................... 83 Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System........ 83 FAAD C2.............................................. 83 Automated Data Processing Equipment.................. 83 Reserve Component Automation System.................. 84 Information Systems.................................. 84 Local Area Network................................... 84 General Defense Intelligence Program................. 84 Integrated Family of Test Equipment.................. 84 Other Support Equipment.................................. 84 Combat Support Medical............................... 84 Items Less Than $2,000,000 (FLOAT/RAIL).............. 85 Generators and Associated Equipment.................. 85 Simnet/Close Combat Tactical Trainer................. 85 Modification of In Service Equipment................. 85 Fire Fighting Equipment.............................. 85 Program Recommended...................................... 86 Aircraft Procurement, Navy................................... 89 Committee Recommendations................................ 89 Authorization Changes.................................... 89 Combat Aircraft.......................................... 89 F-18C/D Hornet....................................... 89 AH-1W................................................ 89 Modification of Aircraft................................. 90 F-14 Engines......................................... 90 H-1 Series........................................... 90 P-3 Series........................................... 91 Trainer Aircraft Series.............................. 91 Aviation Support Equipment and Facilities................ 91 Common Ground Equipment.............................. 91 Aviation Multiyear Fund.................................. 91 Program Recommended...................................... 92 Weapons Procurement, Navy.................................... 92 Committee Recommendations................................ 93 Authorization Changes.................................... 93 Strategic Missiles....................................... 93 Tomahawk............................................. 93 Tactical Missiles........................................ 93 AMRAAM............................................... 93 Penguin.............................................. 93 Modification of Missiles................................. 94 Tomahawk............................................. 94 Torpedoes and Related Equipment.......................... 94 Vertical Launched Anti-Submarine Rocket.............. 94 Procurement of Ammunition................................ 94 Program Recommended...................................... 94 Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps............. 96 Committee Recommendations................................ 96 Authorization Changes.................................... 96 Munitions Transfer....................................... 96 Procurement of Ammunition, Navy.............................. 96 Practice Bombs........................................... 96 Air Expendable Countermeasures........................... 96 Other Ship Gun Ammunition................................ 96 Program Recommended...................................... 97 Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................ 99 Committee Recommendations................................ 99 Authorization Changes.................................... 99 Shipbuilding Funding Allocations......................... 99 New Attack Submarine..................................... 100 Aegis.................................................... 101 Alternatives to Aluminum in Ship Construction............ 101 Amphibious Ships......................................... 102 LPD-17............................................... 102 Mine Warfare and Patrol Ships Program.................... 102 Minehunting Combat System............................ 102 Auxiliaries, Craft, and Prior Year Programs.............. 102 Service Craft........................................ 102 Program Recommended...................................... 103 Other Procurement, Navy...................................... 104 Committee Recommendations................................ 104 Authorization Changes.................................... 104 Equipment Shortfalls..................................... 104 Ships Support Equipment.................................. 104 Minesweeping Equipment............................... 104 Communications and Electronics........................... 105 Surface Electro-Optical Systems...................... 105 SSN Acoustics........................................ 105 Surface Ship Torpedo Defense (SSTD).................. 105 C-3 Countermeasures.................................. 105 Navy Tactical Data System............................ 105 Link 16 Hardware..................................... 105 ID Systems........................................... 106 Shipboard Tactical Communications.................... 106 AN/SPS-48 Radar Upgrade.............................. 106 Enhanced Modular Signal Processor (EMSP)............. 106 Aviation Support Equipment............................... 106 Sonobuoys............................................ 106 Weapons Range Support Equipment...................... 107 LAMPS MK-III Shipboard Equipment..................... 107 Ordnance Support Equipment............................... 107 Rolling Airframe Missile Guided Missile Launch System 107 Ship Self Defense System............................. 107 Anti-Ship Missile Decoy System....................... 107 Supply Support Equipment............................. 108 Special Purpose Supply Systems................... 108 Program Recommended...................................... 108 Procurement, Marine Corps.................................... 112 Committee Recommendations................................ 112 Authorization Changes.................................... 112 Procurement of Ammunition............................ 112 Ground System Shortfalls............................. 112 Intelligence and Communications Equipment................ 113 Intelligence Support Equipment....................... 113 Program Recommended...................................... 113 Aircraft Procurement, Air Force.............................. 115 Committee Recommendations................................ 115 Authorization Changes.................................... 115 Strategic Strike Requirements Study...................... 115 Combat Aircraft.......................................... 115 B-2.................................................. 115 F-16................................................. 116 Trainer Aircraft......................................... 116 Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS)....... 116 Modification of Inservice Aircraft....................... 116 B-1B................................................. 116 B-52................................................. 116 F-15................................................. 116 C-5.................................................. 117 C-130................................................ 117 C-135 Modifications.................................. 117 E-4.................................................. 117 Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Program Modifications 117 Aircraft Support Equipment and Facilities................ 117 Common Age........................................... 117 F-15 Post Production Support......................... 118 F-16 Post Production Support......................... 118 Program Recommended...................................... 118 Missile Procurement, Air Force............................... 120 Committee Recommendations................................ 120 Authorization Changes.................................... 120 Tactical Missiles........................................ 120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM).... 120 Target Drones........................................ 120 Space Programs........................................... 120 Global Positioning System (GPS)...................... 120 Defense Support Program (DSP)........................ 121 Special Programs..................................... 121 Munitions Transfer................................... 121 Program Recommended...................................... 121 Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force......................... 123 Committee Recommendations................................ 123 Munitions Transfer....................................... 123 Program Recommended...................................... 123 Other Procurement, Air Force................................. 124 Committee Recommendations................................ 124 Authorization Changes.................................... 124 Vehicular Equipment...................................... 124 60K A/C Loader....................................... 124 Items Less Than $2,000,000........................... 124 Electronics and Telecommunications Equipment............. 124 Automatic Data Processing Equipment.................. 124 Base Information Infrastructure...................... 125 Communications--Electronic Modifications............. 125 Base Support Equipment................................... 125 Mobility Equipment................................... 125 Intelligence Production Activity..................... 125 Selected Activities.................................. 125 Program Recommended...................................... 125 Procurement, Defense-Wide.................................... 128 Committee Recommendations................................ 128 Authorization Changes.................................... 128 Mentor-Protege Program................................... 128 Classified Programs...................................... 128 Defense Air Reconnaissance Program (DARP)................ 128 Defense Information Infrastructure....................... 128 Chemical-Biological Warfare Defense System............... 128 Program Recommended...................................... 129 National Guard and Reserve Equipment......................... 131 Committee Recommendations................................ 131 Program Recommended...................................... 131 Information Technology....................................... 133 Engineering Data Repositories............................ 133 Army Programs............................................ 133 Reserve Component Automation System.................. 133 Distance Learning.................................... 134 Navy Programs............................................ 134 Naval Standard Integrated Personnel System........... 134 Air Force Programs....................................... 134 Automated Maintenance Systems........................ 134 Base Level Systems Modernization..................... 135 Defense-Wide Programs.................................... 135 Joint Logistics Systems Center....................... 135 DISA Continuity of Operations........................ 136 Other Defense Agencies............................... 136 Integrated Recruiting Information Management System.. 137 Title IV. Research, Development, Test and Evaluation............. 138 Estimates and Appropriation Summary.......................... 138 Special Interest Items....................................... 138 Classified Programs.......................................... 138 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army............. 138 Committee Recommendations................................ 139 Authorization Changes.................................... 139 Exploratory Development.................................. 139 Combat Vehicle and Automotive Technology............. 139 Ballistics Technology................................ 139 Electronics and Electronic Devices................... 139 Human Factors Technology............................. 140 Army Environmental Quality Technology................ 140 Medical Technology................................... 140 Advanced Development..................................... 140 Medical Advanced Technology.......................... 140 Aviation Advanced Technology......................... 140 Weapons and Munitions Advanced Technology............ 140 Combat Vehicle and Automotive Advanced Technology.... 140 Missile and Rocket Advanced Technology............... 140 Demonstration and Validation............................. 141 Army Missile Defense Systems Integration............. 141 Engineering and Manufacturing Development................ 141 Comanche............................................. 141 Light Tactical Wheeled Vehicles...................... 141 Weapons and Munitions-Engineering Development........ 141 RDT&E Management Support................................. 141 DOD High Energy Laser Test Facility.................. 141 Operational Systems Development.......................... 142 Aircraft Engine Component Improvement Program........ 142 Industrial Readiness Activities...................... 142 Program Recommended...................................... 142 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy............. 145 Committee Recommendations................................ 145 Authorization Changes.................................... 145 Exploratory Development.................................. 145 Vectored Thrust Combat Agility Demonstrator.......... 145 Surface Ship Technology.............................. 146 Readiness, Training, and Environmental Quality Technology......................................... 146 Mine Countermeasures, Mining, and Special Warfare.... 146 Oceanographic and Atmospheric Technology............. 146 Advanced Development..................................... 146 Air Systems and Weapons Advanced Technology.......... 146 Ship Propulsion System............................... 146 Medical Development.................................. 147 Advanced Undersea Warfare Technology................. 147 Shallow Water MCM Demos.............................. 148 Advanced Technology Transition....................... 148 Demonstration and Validation............................. 148 Air/Ocean Tactical Applications...................... 148 Aviation Survivability............................... 148 Submarine Tactical Warfare Systems................... 148 Ship Concept Advanced Design......................... 148 Ship Self-Defense.................................... 149 Joint Advanced Strike Technology..................... 150 Engineering and Manufacturing Development................ 151 Standard Missile..................................... 151 Enhanced Modular Signal Processor.................... 151 Navy Tactical Computer Resources..................... 151 Unguided Conventional Air-Launched Weapons........... 151 Ship Self-Defense.................................... 151 RDT&E Management Support................................. 151 Studies and Analysis Support--Navy................... 151 Management, Technical, and International Support..... 151 Strategic Technical Support.......................... 152 Operational Systems Development.......................... 152 SSBN Security Technology Program..................... 152 F/A-18 Squadrons..................................... 152 Tomahawk and Tomahawk Mission Planning System........ 152 Marine Corps Combat Services Support................. 152 Integrated Surveillance System....................... 152 Industrial Preparedness.............................. 153 Other Items.............................................. 153 General Reduction.................................... 153 Program Recommended...................................... 153 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force........ 157 Committee Recommendations................................ 157 Authorization Changes.................................... 157 Program Growth/Budget Execution Adjustments.......... 157 Computer Assisted Technology Transfer................ 157 Basic Research........................................... 158 Defense Research Sciences............................ 158 Advanced Development..................................... 158 Advanced Materials for Weapons Development........... 158 Advanced Spacecraft Technology....................... 158 Advanced Computing Technology........................ 158 Demonstration and Validation............................. 158 Space Based Infrared Architecture (SBIR)............. 158 Engineering and Manufacturing Development................ 159 B-1B................................................. 159 F-22 Advanced Tactical Fighter....................... 159 Submunitions......................................... 159 JSTARS............................................... 159 RDT&E Management Support................................. 160 Navigation/Radar/Sled Track Test Support............. 160 Base Operations...................................... 160 Operational Systems Development.......................... 160 Aircraft Engine Component Improvement Program........ 160 Theater Battle Management C\4\I...................... 160 Classified Programs.................................. 160 Program Recommended...................................... 160 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide..... 163 Committee Recommendations................................ 163 Information Security..................................... 163 STU-III Modernization.................................... 163 Authorization Changes.................................... 164 Basic Research........................................... 164 Focused Research Initiatives............................. 164 Counterproliferation Support......................... 164 Historically Black Colleges, Universities, and Minority Institutions.............................. 164 Exploratory Development.................................. 165 Computing Systems and Communications Technology...... 165 Tactical Technology.................................. 166 Integrated Command and Control Technology............ 166 Materials and Electronics Technology................. 166 Defense Nuclear Agency............................... 167 Radiation Hardened Electronics....................... 167 Ballistic Missile Technology......................... 167 Theater Missile Defense.............................. 167 National Missile Defense............................. 169 Advanced Development..................................... 169 Explosives Demilitarization Technology............... 169 Counterterror Technical Support...................... 169 Experimental Evaluation of Major Innovative Technologies....................................... 169 Chemical and Biological Defense Program.............. 170 Advanced Submarine Technology........................ 170 Strategic Environmental Research Program and Development Program................................................ 170 Advanced Electronics Technologies.................... 170 Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology............... 171 Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations........... 171 Joint Robotics Program............................... 171 NATO Research and Development........................ 171 Environmental Security and Technical Certification....... 172 Operational Systems Development.......................... 172 Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Program.............. 172 Special Operations Tactical Systems Development...... 172 Program Recommended...................................... 172 Developmental Test and Evaluation, Defense................... 175 Committee Recommendations................................ 175 Program Recommended...................................... 175 Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense..................... 175 Committee Recommendations................................ 175 Program Recommended...................................... 175 Title V. Revolving and Management Funds.......................... 176 Defense Business Operations Fund............................. 176 Aviation Fuel Reimbursement Pricing Study................ 177 National Defense Sealift Fund................................ 177 Title VI. Other Department of Defense Programs................... 179 Defense Health Program....................................... 179 Medical Research............................................. 179 TRICARE.................................................. 179 Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities.................. 180 Bone Marrow Research..................................... 180 Breast Cancer............................................ 180 American Red Cross Emergency Communications Support...... 181 Dental Readiness......................................... 181 Uncompensated Health Care................................ 182 Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense........... 182 Committee Recommendations................................ 182 Cost Savings............................................. 182 Program Recommended...................................... 182 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense....... 183 Committee Recommendations................................ 183 Classified Programs...................................... 183 Program Recommended...................................... 183 Office of the Inspector General.............................. 184 Title VII. Related Agencies...................................... 185 National Foreign Intelligence Program........................ 185 Introduction............................................. 185 Classified Report........................................ 185 Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund....................................................... 185 Intelligence Community Management Account.................... 186 Committee Recommendation................................. 186 Environmental Task Force................................. 186 National Security Education Trust Fund....................... 186 Title VIII. General Provisions................................... 187 Definition of Program, Project, and Activity................. 187 Contractor Software Charges.................................. 187 Incremental Funding.......................................... 188 Spent Nuclear Fuel........................................... 188 Military Sealift Command Ship Charters....................... 189 LPD-17 Main Propulsion Engines............................... 189 New Attack Submarine Emergency Generator Set................. 190 Energy and Water Efficiency.................................. 190 House of Representatives Reporting Requirements.............. 191 Changes in Application of Existing Law................... 191 Appropriation Language............................... 191 General Provisions................................... 192 Appropriations Not Authorized by Law..................... 195 Transfer of Funds........................................ 196 Rescission of Funds...................................... 197 Inflationary Impact Statement............................ 197 Comparison With Budget Resolution........................ 197 Five-Year Projection of Outlays.......................... 197 Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments...... 198 Committee Votes.............................................. 199 104th Congress Report HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 104-208 _______________________________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1996 _______ July 27, 1995.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed _______________________________________________________________________ Mr. Young of Florida, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following R E P O R T together with DISSENTING VIEWS [To accompany H.R. 2126] The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense, and for other purposes, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996. Bill Totals Appropriations for most military functions of the Department of Defense are provided for in the accompanying bill for the fiscal year 1996. This bill does not provide appropriations for military construction, military family housing, civil defense, or nuclear warheads, for which requirements are considered in connection with other appropriations bills. The President's fiscal year 1996 budget request for activities funded in the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill totals $236,344,017,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The amounts recommended by the Committee in the accompanying bill total $244,119,400,000 in new budget authority. This is $7,775,383,000 above the budget estimate and $2,516,329,000 above the sums made available for the same purposes for fiscal year 1995. The new budget authority enacted for the fiscal year 1995, the President's budget estimates, and amounts recommended by the Committee for the fiscal year 1996 appear in summary form in the following table: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Committee Budget Review Process During its review of the fiscal year 1996 budget, the Subcommittee on National Security held a total of 35 hearings during the time period of February 15, 1995 to June 14, 1995. Testimony received by the Subcommittee totalled approximately 2,084 pages of transcript. Over half of the hearings were held in open session. Executive or closed sessions were held only when the security classification of the material to be discussed presented no alternative. Introduction The bill reported by the Committee reflects an effort to meet the many competing demands confronting the Department of Defense and the armed forces of the United States in an uncertain era. The past year has provided vivid evidence of the danger and violence posed by ethnic and geographic disputes throughout many regions of the world. Nations and groups continue their pursuit of highly sophisticated weapons, particularly weapons of mass destruction and long-range delivery systems. Instability in the states of the former Soviet Union has not abated. Meanwhile, significant military threats to the United States and its allies still persist on the Korean Peninsula and in the Persian Gulf region. There is no sign that current trends will result in any lessened long-term security demands on the United States and its military forces. In the near-term, this environment has prompted the continued deployment of American forces, in many instances on short notice, on a series of contingency operations which peaked in the fall of last year with over 100,000 U.S. troops embarked overseas on unexpected, unprogrammed operations. These types of operations, in terms of the number of affected personnel and equipment, their duration, and expense, pose an obvious challenge for the Nation's smaller military forces and have already caused disruptions to military readiness. In the meantime, the U.S. armed forces have continued the rapid restructuring and downsizing brought about by the end of the Cold War and what is now a decade-long decline in military force structure, budgets and resources--a process which has been accelerated and deepened by the current Administration. While a restructured force remains clearly in order given the demise of the Warsaw Pact, there is a general consensus this smaller military should retain the attributes of the U.S. military of the late 1980's-early 1990's: a force made up of highly trained, able and motivated individuals, capable of responding to a wide range of possible threats to American interests, and to do so decisively through possessing operational and technological superiority over any possible adversary. Unfortunately, the Committee believes the defense programs and budgets of the Administration are not sufficient to achieve these objectives. By its own admission, the Administration's defense program is heavily weighted towards maintaining current readiness--an objective the Committee supports--but because of fiscal constraints, this has occurred at the expense of necessary weapons modernization and development. As a result, the fiscal year 1996 budget requests a level of funding for weapons procurement which is the lowest, in constant dollars, in over 45 years. For lack of funds, production lines are being shut down and inventory requirements are not being met for a host of systems, ranging from major frontline systems such as Army Blackhawk helicopters and the Air Force's F-15E fighter to less sophisticated but equally critical programs such as artillery and mortar ammunition, trucks, and 60K aircraft loaders. Those systems which are in production are generally being purchased at less than optimal production rates, resulting in higher unit costs. In addition, despite initiatives by the Secretary of Defense to increase funding for essential military quality of life programs, the Committee notes that the backlog of repair and maintenance at military facilities, including barracks and family housing, continues to grow by substantial amounts. Finally, funding constraints are impeding the development and deployment of critical technologies needed to cope with emerging threats and to leverage the capability of existing systems. The prime example is missile defense, where the Administration's programs to counter the growing threat posed by both ballistic and cruise missiles are in need of bolstering. The Committee also believes the budget request for certain key ``force multipliers''--in the areas of strategic and tactical mobility, joint service communications and intelligence, and precision munitions--is inadequate, particularly given the central role these capabilities are envisioned to play in any future conflict. As a result, the Committee concurs with the findings of the House National Security Committee that a substantial, long-term commitment of additional defense resources is essential. Additional funding is needed to meet both the existing needs of our forces in the field--that is, near-term readiness and quality of life problems--as well as the readiness demands of the future, which require an emphasis on a retaining quality soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines as well as a substantial infusion of funds into weapons modernization and development. At the same time, however, the Committee recognizes it has an obligation to reduce funds for those activities it believes are of lower priority or which have little immediate bearing on military preparedness. In addition, the administrative and bureaucratic operations of the Department of Defense and the military services, especially those dealing with weapons acquisition, require substantial review and revision. It is these dual imperatives--funding those programs of critical military value, while seeking economies and reductions from lower priority or duplicative programs--which guided the Committee in its recommendations. major committee initiatives The Committee's recommendations can be considered in three broad categories; (a) ensuring the retention of a quality, ready force; (b) providing a modernization program which meets both today's requirements as well as the security needs of the future; and (c) reducing, reforming, or eliminating programs or activities with little military utility, which have shown little demonstrable success, or which have encountered delays in development or production. quality, ready force Personnel Issues: The Committee has recommended fully funding the military pay raise which the Administration requested for fiscal year 1996, after two years in which the Administration sought to freeze military pay and was overturned by Congress. In addition, the Committee has added nearly $670 million above the budget request for housing allowances, as well as for overseas station allowances which face a severe funding shortfall due to the decline in the value of the dollar abroad. The Committee has fully funded all child care and family support programs and proposes an increase for a program directed at assisting new military parents. Finally, the Committee has added $35.5 million for military recruiting, in order to ensure new accessions are of the highest possible quality. Training/OPTEMPO: The Committee has fully funded the requested amounts for all the Services' training and OPTEMPO accounts and has added $210 million over the request in these areas where the Services identified shortfalls. Equipment repair/maintenance: The Committee is distressed regarding the continuing existence of substantial unfunded backlogs in the Services' depot maintenance accounts and has added $379 million over the request to meet the most urgent unfunded equipment maintenance requirements. Real property maintenance: For years the Committee has expressed its concern about the growing backlog in real property maintenance accounts, used to support the Department's base infrastructure including barracks and mission-essential facilities. The Committee has recommended substantial increases to the budget request in previous years in an effort to stem the long-term deterioration of the Department's physical assets. This year, the Secretary of Defense has launched several initiatives to improve the declining state of military housing, an effort the Committee applauds. Yet serious problems remain, not only in housing but throughout many aspects of the Department's physical plant and equipment holdings. Therefore, the Committee has recommended an increase of $1 billion to the request for real property maintenance, including an additional $256 million for barracks, in what it intends as the first step in a long-term commitment to revitalizing the Department's base infrastructure. Unfunded ``contingency'' operations: Regarding near-term military readiness, both the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have testified to the Committee that the major threat to maintaining the current preparedness of U.S. forces is the spate of unfunded, so-called contingency operations being carried out by American forces. Uncertainties about funding for such operations have already resulted in instances where specific units have been forced to stand down operations, cancel scheduled training, and defer needed maintenance. The Committee has a variety of concerns about contingency operations which are addressed in a subsequent section of this report. However, in an attempt to avoid readiness problems the Committee has recommended an increase of $647 million over the request to support the ongoing operations in and around Iraq (Operations Provide Comfort and Southern Watch). In its fiscal year 1996 budget the Administration failed to request funds for these operations, which have been underway to varying degrees since the end of the Gulf War over four years ago. This has occurred even though these activities have become an ongoing, somewhat predictable mission. Without the Committee's initiative, the Department would be forced to ``raid'' other operating accounts to sustain these missions pending approval of additional funding, causing disruptions in planning and mission execution. The Committee is aware of other unbudgeted operations which very well may continue into fiscal year 1996, such as the operations in and around the former Yugoslavia as well as refugee support at Guantanamo Bay. However, the Committee does not believe there is a sufficient degree of certainty regarding the duration, scope, or funding requirements associated with these activities to warrant additional funding at this time. modernization programs Department of Defense officials freely admit that the most serious shortcoming in the budget proposal is in those accounts providing for procurement and research and development of new equipment and technologies. Based on extensive testimony as well as a concerted effort to identify critical shortfalls in existing requirements, the Committee is recommending increases to the request specifically targeted at meeting existing equipment/capability shortfalls as well as providing for future military requirements. The most significant recommendations include: Missile defense: The Committee recommends $3.49 billion, a net increase over the budget request of $599 million for Ballistic Missile Defense, including an additional $450 million for national missile defense and $265 million for theater/ tactical systems. Also, mindful of the growing threat to U.S. forces posed by both theater ballistic and cruise missiles, the Committee has continued its long-standing emphasis on ship self-defense and ``cooperative engagement'' (the sharing of tracking and targeting information among many different platforms) and has added $204.8 million to the budget for these efforts. Mobility: In order to address the continuing demand for improved mobility and logistics in support of rapid deployment of U.S. forces, the Committee proposes a comprehensive package of recommendations which include procurement of eight new C-17 transports as requested, nearly $1 billion for strategic sealift and additions over the budget including $974 million for the lead ship of the new LPD-17 class for Marine expeditionary forces, $339 million for additional tactical transport aircraft, and over $260 million for tactical trucks and vehicles. In addition, the Committee proposes an increase of $100 million over the request for mobility infrastructure improvements as well as $51 million to accelerate ongoing prepositioning programs in Southwest Asia and the Far East. Major weapons programs: The Committee proposes a net addition of $493 million above the request for the procurement of long-lead items associated with restarting production of the B-2 bomber. In addition, the Committee has adopted those funding levels associated with the House-passed Defense Authorization bill's recommendations regarding the Seawolf and new attack submarine development programs. The Committee recommends funding the requested amounts for the Army's Comanche helicopter ($199 million), the Marine Corps V-22 aircraft ($810 million), and the Navy's F/A-18 E/F aircraft ($924 million), and has provided an additional $200 million above the request for the Air Force F-22 fighter, addressing what the Air Force has identified as its highest priority funding shortfall. Munitions: The Committee recommends an additional $770 million over the request for munitions, of which $374 million is for standoff precision-guided munitions, rockets, and missiles, and $396 million is for Army, Navy, and Marine Corps ammunition accounts. Inventory Shortfalls: In light of existing inventory shortfalls, the Committee has added funds for Army Blackhawk and Kiowa Warrior helicopters, upgrades to P-3 maritime surveillance aircraft for the Navy, Marine Corps AH-1W attack helicopters, and F-15E fighters, among others. Also, the Committee is particularly concerned about growing shortages in relatively low-dollar yet essential equipment items, an area of the budget which has been cut back substantially as procurement dollars have become more scarce and focused on large weapons systems. As a result, an increase of nearly half a billion dollars over the request is proposed for miscellaneous equipment, including such items as ground support equipment, initial issue combat gear, night vision goggles, and small arms. The Committee has also recommended an increase of $908 million to redress critical equipment needs of the Guard and Reserve components. Joint command, control, communications and intelligence (C3I): Recent technological advances as well as the increased emphasis on joint operations have created an opportunity for U.S. forces to leverage technology into a significant ``force multiplier.'' Testimony from all the services as well as from the Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff have stressed the importance of an effective intelligence collection and dissemination system, as well as interoperable communications between service ``sensors and shooters.'' Accordingly, the Committee has recommended increases of over $260 million for various improvements in this arena, including two new RIVET JOINT aircraft, upgrades to the U-2, acceleration of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) programs, a series of joint C3I initiatives, and other programs discussed in the classified portion of this report. Chemical/biological defense: Mindful of the threat posed to U.S. forces by chemical and biological weapons, which are relatively easy and inexpensive to acquire, the Committee proposes an increase over the budget of $110 million to accelerate ongoing programs in this area. reforms/program reductions The Committee recognizes the Department of Defense is no more sacrosanct than any other portion of the Federal government in terms of its need to be constantly reviewed, assessed, and improved. Accordingly, a high priority throughout the Committee's budget oversight process has been the identification of lower priority programs which, although they in some instances contribute to the military mission, can be cut or eliminated in order to fund higher priority programs and activities. The Committee has also recommended many budget reductions intended to reform and steamline existing Department of Defense structure or operations. Finally, the Committee has identified budget savings stemming from audits by the General Accounting Office, the Department's audit and inspector general functions, and the Committee's Surveys and Investigations staff, as well as changes in program status identified by the military departments. Reduction of lower-priority programs: The following table shows selected programs in the budget request which the Committee has eliminated or reduced based on their possessing a relatively low priority or where the requested funding was excessive. Program Reduction Technology Reinvestment Program......................... -$500,000,000 Energy management programs.............................. -114,700,000 Defense acquisition/management universities............. -103,900,000 Consultants/studies and analysis........................ -100,000,000 Payment of U.N. assessment.............................. -65,000,000 Civil-military programs................................. -59,000,000 Civilian Personnel Management........................... -23,300,000 Intelligence Environmental Task Force................... -17,600,000 National Security Education Trust Fund.................. -15,000,000 Reform/restructuring: The Committee notes that DoD, with a decade of reduced budgets and downsizing behind it, has already implemented or is well into implementing a series of management and organizational reforms. Among other things, these initiatives have already resulted in the defense civilian workforce being reduced by one-quarter with significant additional reductions projected in the near future. While DoD is to be commended for such moves, the Committee believes more must and can be done. Accordingly, it has recommended a number of budget reductions intended to further streamline and rationalize operations. Program Reduction Environmental Restoration............................... -$200,000,000 Overseas humanitarian and disaster aid.................. -133,300,000 Cooperative Threat Reduction............................ -171,000,000 Defense acquisition..................................... -163,500,000 Transportation system overhead.......................... -70,000,000 Undergraduate pilot training............................ -60,000,000 Defense dependents education overhead................... -54,000,000 Travel procedures....................................... -40,000,000 Excessive audits........................................ -33,000,000 Contractor automatic data processing (indirect costs)... -30,000,000 Printing................................................ -10,000,000 OSD staff............................................... -6,400,000 Consolidation of fraud investigations (net)............. -4,900,000 Program/budget execution: In addition to the reductions cited above, the Committee proposes nearly 100 reductions to budgeted items based on delays in program execution, contract savings, or other events resulting in the requested amount being clearly excessive to program needs. These reductions have resulted in over $2 billion in savings in this legislation. operations ``other than war'' The Committee is increasingly concerned with the use of U.S. armed forces and Department of Defense resources in what the DoD now euphemistically refers to as ``operations other than war.'' U.S. military forces have become increasingly involved in supporting international peacekeeping, humanitarian and refugee relief, and disaster assistance. Examples of such operations include the deployments in and around Iraq, Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, Cuba, and the former Yugoslavia. Of particular note is the effect such operations are having on the readiness of U.S. forces in tandem with significant cuts in force structure and budgets; the continued difficulty in providing adequate funding on a timely basis for such operations, none of which have been budgeted for in advance; and finally, the failure of the current Administration to adequately consult with Congress or seek Congressional approval for these operations, most of which have only a tenuous claim on America's critical security interests. The Committee is proposing a number of general provisions to deal with different aspects of Department of Defense involvement in these ``non-traditional'' operations. While a description of each provision follows, the general goals being sought by the Committee are to provide greater budgeting honesty and flexibility, more involvement of Congress in the decisions to carry out such missions, and selective limitations on the use of DoD funds for activities which either clearly require advance approval by Congress or which if funded at all should be undertaken by other Federal departments. Interim financing of unfunded operations. The House-passed National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996 contains several proposals intended to provide the Department with greater interim flexibility in financing unplanned, unfunded operations. One such proposal, contained in Section 1003 of the House authorization, permits the transfer of up to $200 million from selected defense accounts in order to broaden the base of funding sources which can be used to pay for contingency operations pending enactment of supplemental appropriations. This transfer was made subject to the provisions of appropriations acts, and therefore the Committee has included Section 8099 which provides for the $200 million in transfer authority proposed in the authorization. Operations Provide Comfort/Southern Watch: As described earlier, the Kurdish relief and sanctions enforcement efforts in and around Iraq are expected to require $647 million in fiscal year 1996. If funds are not provided for these operations in a timely manner then it will result in the diversion of funds otherwise intended for military training and readiness activities. Consequently, the Committee has recommended funding these operations. The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the Committee by January 30, 1996, on whether this funding is sufficient to support the projected cost of Operations Provide Comfort and Southern Watch. If not, the Committee directs the needed funds be sought in a supplemental appropriations request. The Committee also designates these funds as an item of special interest, meaning they can only be used for additional incremental costs associated with Operations Provide Comfort and Southern Watch unless prior approval is granted by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. Should the funding in this legislation be in excess of the amount needed for these operations the Committee will entertain a prior approval reprogramming request to use the funds for other high priority requirements. The Committee has also, in Section 8100, restricted the availability of these funds contingent on there being a request for Operations Provide Comfort and Southern Watch in the fiscal year 1997 President's budget request. In some fashion these operations have been underway for over four years, since the end of the Gulf War, yet they have never been budgeted in an annual appropriations request. If, as appears to be the case, these operations have now become an ongoing mission of the Department of Defense then the Committee believes the funding required to support them should be budgeted, as are the U.S. deployments to Europe and the Far East. The Committee recognizes Congress shares responsibility with the Executive in providing the resources needed in a timely fashion to support unfunded operations. However, the Committee believes the Department of Defense has contributed significantly to this problem by failing to budget for operations which have become fixtures of U.S. policy and will be maintained for the immediate future. The Committee realizes the Department's budget has and will remain a ``peacetime'' operating budget, meaning that unexpected, unplanned operations must be funded through supplemental appropriations. Also, many deployments are short-term and volatile in nature, precluding their being budgeted for in an annual budget submission which is basically prepared a year in advance of Congressional approval and execution. However, the Committee does not believe Operations Provide Comfort and Southern Watch meet these criteria and therefore they should be budgeted for, and compete with other defense priorities for resources. In order to ensure compliance with this directive, Section 8100 prevents the additional fiscal year 1996 funding for these operations from being obligated or expended unless these activities are accounted for in the fiscal year 1997 budget request. Costs of enforcing U.N. resolutions: The Committee has recommended retention of Section 8101, included in the fiscal year 1995 Defense Appropriations Act, requiring the Secretary of Defense to provide quarterly reports to Congress on the costs incurred by DoD in implementing or supporting activities resulting from U.N. Security Council resolutions. Consultation with Congress: The Committee proposes a new provision (Section 8102), requiring that the President consult with the appropriate Congressional authorities at least 15 days in advance of committing U.S. forces to any new peacekeeping, peace-enforcement, humanitarian, or international disaster relief mission. Advance consultation may only be waived in the event of emergency or when a time-sensitive deployment must be carried out, in which case the President must consult with Congress and provide the information required by Section 8102 within 48 hours of the beginning of such deployments. For purposes of this section, any additional deployment of U.S. ground forces to the countries of the former Yugoslavia in excess of 100 U.S. servicemembers, above the levels deployed as of the date of enactment of this provision, constitutes a new peacekeeping activity requiring advance consultation with the Congress. The conference report to accompany the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1995, signed by the President in April of this year, urged the Administration to work with the Congress and the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate to develop more effective means of dealing with the issues posed by these unfunded, non-traditional missions. This has been followed by several letters sent by the House and Senate majority leadership as well as from the Chairmen of the committees of jurisdiction imploring the Administration to consult and work with the Congress, particularly with respect to changes in U.S. involvement in supporting the U.N. and NATO operations in the former Yugoslavia. The Administration has failed to respond in any constructive way to these communications and has instead moved to provide substantial additional resources to support these operations. Faced with such a lack of cooperation, the Committee has no recourse than to restrict Department of Defense funding for any new international peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance, or disaster relief activity unless the President consults in advance with Congress. Prior notification of transfer of Defense articles and services: Section 8103 provides that none of the funds available to the Department of Defense may be used to transfer defense articles and services (other than intelligence services) to another nation or international organization for use in peacekeeping, peace-enforcement, humanitarian assistance, or disaster relief operations without 15 days prior notice to the congressional defense committees. The Committee is increasingly concerned about the diversion of DoD resources and funds to support such non-traditional operations, which has occurred with increasing frequency in the past year with respect to the Haiti intervention, Caribbean refugee relief, the Rwanda deployment, and support for operations in and around the former Yugoslavia. The defense oversight committees of the Congress have rarely, if at all, been consulted in advance or formally notified of the provision of Department of Defense assistance in these instances. The Committee believes that Congress must be kept fully aware of the use and involvement of defense assets in what are essentially non-defense activities in support of foreign policy objectives. As a result of the failure of the Administration to consult with and notify the congressional defense committees regarding the provision of defense funds and articles which were originally provided for U.S. military requirements, the Committee believes it has no choice but to impose a prior notification requirement in law. Bosnia-Herzogovina peace settlement: The President has continued to state his commitment to deploy a sizable U.S. military contingent to Bosnia-Herzogovina to help implement a negotiated peace settlement. Administration officials have confirmed such a force would include approximately 25,000 U.S. servicemembers. Even though such a deployment seems remote at present, the Committee believes the potential risks to U.S. forces, expected cost of such a mission, likely duration of any deployment, and diversion of sorely-needed defense resources such a deployment would entail clearly requires advance approval by the Congress. Section 8104 would deny the use of funds to deploy U.S. forces for this purpose unless it is expressly authorized by Congress. Restricting defense funds to defense activities: The Committee is concerned with the degree to which the Department of Defense is participating in, and bearing the financial burden of, activities which under both law and tradition are the responsibility of other Federal departments. The principal example of this growing trend is the use of DoD funds, personnel, and facilities to deal with Cuban and Haitian refugees. The cost of these operations, which at one point were running at approximately $1 million per day, have been almost entirely borne by the DoD even though other Federal agencies have long had primary responsibility for refugee and immigration issues. In the past these agencies reimbursed the Department of Defense for such support in accordance with the Economy Act. However, DoD has not been reimbursed for many recent activities. The Committee notes that DoD involvement in and support for many ``non-defense'' activities has been carried out successfully for years based on the principle of reimbursement, one example being the use of defense assets during natural disasters, with DoD being reimbursed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Committee does not believe the Department of Defense should be forced to bear the cost of operations which are not its responsibility, especially since this diverts funds which were provided by Congress expressly for military activities. Therefore, the Committee has included Section 8105 which prevents Department of Defense funds from being used for such purposes after December 1, 1995, unless they are specifically authorized in law, provided for in a defense appropriations act or performed in accordance with the terms of the Economy Act. The Committee's provision should not be construed to impinge on the conduct of intelligence activities, nor to the provision of DoD support carried out in response to previously granted legislative authority. Prohibition on use of DoD funds for United Nations assessment: For the second straight year, the budget requests DoD funds to be used to pay a portion of the U.S. assessment to the United Nations. Congress rejected this proposition last year, and the House-passed National Defense Authorization for fiscal year 1996 specifically denies the use of DoD funds for assessment payments. Section 8106 of this bill prohibits DoD funds for being used for this purpose. Highlights of Committee Recommendations active military personnel The Committee recommends a total of $60,113,931,000 for active duty military personnel, an increase of $476,054,000 above the budget request. The Committee agrees with the authorized end strength as requested in the President's budget. In keeping with the emphasis on the quality of life initiatives requested in the President's budget, the Committee recommends an increase of approximately $383,800,000 for Overseas Station Allowance, Basic Allowance for Quarters and Variable Housing Allowance for active duty personnel. guard and reserve The Committee recommends a total of $9,117,961,000, an increase of $59,175,000 above the budget request for Guard and Reserve personnel. The Committee agrees with the authorized end strength as requested in the President's budget for Selected Reserve, but added additional end strength in the Operation and maintenance Reserve accounts for restoration of full-time support personnel that were deleted. The Committee also recommends an increase of $7,250,000 for Basic Allowance for Quarters and Variable Housing Allowance for Reserve personnel. operation and maintenance The Operation and Maintenance appropriation provides for the readiness of U.S. forces as well as the maintenance of facilities and equipment, the infrastructure that supports the combat forces and the quality of life of Service members and their families. The Committee recommends $81,583,817,000, an increase of $783,567,000 above the fiscal year 1996 budget request. As described elsewhere in this report, this increase is driven primarily by the need to accelerate equipment and facilities maintenance, mobility enhancements, and fact of life changes such as foreign currency driven costs due to the decline in the value of the dollar. However, the Committee's recommendation is tempered by efficiencies the Department can achieve by streamlining administrative functions such as acquisition reform, travel reengineering, transportation improvements, reduced audits and others. Procurement The Committee recommends $42,898,305,000 in new obligational authority for procurement, an increase of $4,236,256,000 over the fiscal year 1996 budget request. Major programs funded in the bill include the following: $334,880,000 for 60 UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters $341,986,000 for upgrades and modifications to Apache helicopters $249,460,000 for 1,102 Hellfire missiles $210,428,000 for 1,110 Javelin missiles $124,971,000 for 120 ATACMS missiles $450,911,000 for upgrades to the Abrams tank $149,692,000 for medium tactical vehicles $100,596,000 for heavy tactical vehicles $308,163,000 for 12 AV-8B Harrier aircraft $583,204,000 for 12 F/A-18C/D tactical aircraft $286,182,000 for 12 T-45 trainer aircraft $1,101,904,000 for modification of naval aircraft $201,727,000 for 164 Tomahawk missiles $231,540,000 for 151 Standard missiles $974,000,000 for a LPD-17 Amphibious ship $2,162,477,000 for two DDG-51 cruisers $773,000,000 for B-2 aircraft $250,000,000 for 6 F-15E tactical aircraft $2,402,291,000 for 8 C-17 airlift aircraft $1,442,882,000 for modification of Air Force aircraft $178,366,000 for 291 AMRAAM missiles. Research, Development, Test and Evaluation The Committee recommends $35,879,560,000 in new obligational authority for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, an increase of $1,547,607,000 above the budget. Major programs funded in the bill include the following: $2,338,718,000 for F-22 aircraft $201,513,000 for armored system modernization $199,103,000 for the Comanche helicopter $198,978,000 for Combat Vehicle Improvement Programs $762,548,000 for the V-22A OSPREY aircraft $923,984,000 for F-18 aircraft $567,117,000 for Ship Self Defense $649,666,000 for the MILSTAR communications satellite $189,702,000 for the JSTARS (Joint Surveillance/Target Attack Radar System) $3,041,138,000 for Ballistic Missile Defense. Forces to be Supported Department of the Army The fiscal year 1996 budget is designed to support active Army forces of 10 divisions, 3 armored cavalry regiments, and reserve forces of 8 divisions, 3 separate brigades, and 15 enhanced National Guard brigades. These forces provide the minimum force necessary to remain a superpower, meet enduring defense needs, and execute the National Military Strategy. A summary of the major active forces follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal Year-- -------------------- 1994 1995 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Divisions Airborne....................................... 1 1 1 Air Assault.................................... 1 1 1 Light.......................................... 2 2 2 Infantry....................................... 1 0 0 Mechanized..................................... 4 5 4 Armored........................................ 3 3 2 -------------------- Total........................................ 13 12 10 -------------------- Non divisional Combat units: Armored cavalry regiments...................... 3 3 3 Separate brigades.............................. 4 2 0 -------------------- Total........................................ 7 5 3 -------------------- Active duty military personnel, end strength (thousands)....................................... 540 510 495 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ department of the navy The fiscal year 1996 budget supports ship battle forces totaling 365 ships at the end of fiscal year 1996, a decrease from fiscal year 1995. Forces in fiscal year 1996 include 17 strategic ships, 11 aircraft carriers, 290 other battle force ships, 29 support ships, reserve force ships, 1,437 Navy/Marine Corps tactical/ASW aircraft, 651 Undergraduate Training aircraft, 749 Fleet Air Support aircraft, 440 Fleet Air Training aircraft, 460 Reserve aircraft, 191 RDT&E aircraft, and 458 aircraft in the pipeline. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal year-- ----------------------------- 1994 1995 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A summary of major forces follows: Strategic Forces.......................... 19 16 17 ----------------------------- Submarines............................ 18 16 17 Other................................. 1 0 0 ============================= SLBM Launchers (MIRV)................. 408 384 408 ============================= General Purpose........................... 315 303 301 ----------------------------- Aircraft Carriers..................... 12 11 11 Surface Combatants.................... 111 113 116 Submarines............................ 88 84 80 Amphibious Warfare Ships.............. 43 39 42 Combat Logistics Ships................ 47 43 41 Other................................. 14 13 11 ============================= Support Forces............................ 41 35 29 ----------------------------- Mobile Logistics Ships................ 14 11 6 Support Ships......................... 27 24 23 ============================= Mobilization Category A................... 16 19 18 ----------------------------- Aircraft Carriers..................... 0 1 1 Surface Combatants.................... 16 14 10 Amphibious Warfare Ships.............. 0 2 2 Mine Warfare.......................... 0 2 5 ============================= Total Ships, Battle Force........... 391 373 365 ============================= Total Local Defense/Misc. Forces.... 151 148 159 ----------------------------- Auxiliaries/Sealift Forces................ 143 131 135 Surface Combatant Ships................... 1 3 5 Coastal Defense........................... 7 12 13 Mobilization Category B................... 0 1 3 Surface Combatants.................... 0 0 0 Mine Warfare Ships.................... 0 1 3 Support Ships......................... 0 0 0 ============================= Naval Aircraft: Primary Authorized (Plus-Pipe)........ 4,809 4,414 4,386 ----------------------------- Authorized Pipeline................... 497 461 458 Tactical/ASW Aircraft................. 1,543 1,456 1,437 Fleet Air Training.................... 489 423 440 Fleet Air Support..................... 850 807 749 Training (Undergraduated)............. 690 640 651 Reserve............................... 547 454 460 Research and Development.............. 193 173 191 ============================= Naval Personnel: Active................................ 642,820 613,200 602,000 ----------------------------- Navy.............................. 468,662 439,200 428,000 Marine Corps...................... 174,158 174,000 174,000 ============================= Reserve: Navy.................................. 107,627 100,710 98,608 ----------------------------- SELRES............................ 87,701 83,200 80,920 Sea/Air Mariners.................. 787 ........ 198 TARS.............................. 19,139 17,510 17,490 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ department of the air force The fiscal year 1996 Air Force budget was designed to support a total active inventory force structure of 53 fighter and attack squadrons, 6 Air National Guard air defense interceptor squadrons and 9 bomber squadrons, including B-2s, B-1s, and B-52s. The Minuteman and Peacekeeper ICBM forces will consist of 580 active launchers. A summary of the major forces as proposed in the President's budget follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal year-- ----------------------- 1994 1995 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ USAF fighter and attack squadrons (Active)...... 53 55 53 Air defense interceptor squadrons (ANG)......... 10 10 6 Strategic bomber squadrons (Active)............. 12 9 9 ICBM launchers/silos............................ 711 700 700 ICBM missile boosters........................... 667 580 580 USAF airlift squadrons (Active): Strategic airlift........................... 17 \1\ 18 17 Tactical airlift............................ 11 11 11 ----------------------- Total airlift............................. 28 29 28 ----------------------- Total Active Inventory \2\................ 6,810 6,806 6,306 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ Addition of C-17 squadron at Charleston AFB, SC. \2\ Includes Active, ANG, and AFRES--Except foreign government operated aircraft. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ End strength 1995 1996 1997 -------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ Active Duty..................................... 400,051 388,200 Reserve Component............................... 194,287 183,427 Air National Guard.............................. 115,581 109,458 Air Force Reserve............................... 78,706 73,969 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ TITLE I MILITARY PERSONNEL Programs and Activities Funded by Military Personnel Appropriations The President's budget request reflects a continuation in the drawdown of military personnel and force structure, as stated elsewhere in this report. The increased reductions in end strength will be nearly completed by the end of fiscal year 1996, reducing force levels by over 30 percent since fiscal year 1990 for Active and Guard and Reserve personnel. The fiscal year 1996 budget request recommends certain proposals that support improving the quality of life for military personnel. In the area of compensation, the budget requested a 2.4 percent pay increase, an increase in the Basic Allowance for Quarters, and a new living allowance for high-cost areas. The Committee supports these initiatives to enhance the lives of military personnel, and recommends an additional increase of $91,050,000 over the budget request in housing allowances to help offset the costs to military personnel for off-base housing, especially in those high-cost geographical areas. SUMMARY OF MILITARY PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 Fiscal year 1995........................................ $71,101,502,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 68,696,663,000 Fiscal year 1996 recommendation......................... 69,231,892,000 Change from budget request.............................. +535,229,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $69,231,892,000 for the Military Personnel accounts. The recommendation is a decrease of $1,869,610,000 below the $71,101,502,000 appropriated in fiscal year 1995. These military personnel budget total comparisons include appropriations for the active, reserve, and National Guard accounts. The following tables include a summary of the recommendations by appropriation account. Explanations of changes from the budget request appear later in this section. SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT OF THE FISCAL YEAR 1996 MILITARY PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATION [In thousands of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Change from Account Budget Recommendation budget ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Military Personnel: Army................ $19,721,408 19,884,608 +163,200 Navy................ 16,930,609 17,006,363 +75,754 Marine Corps........ 5,877,740 5,928,340 +50,600 Air Force........... 17,108,120 17,294,620 +186,500 ----------------------------------------------- Subtotal, Active.. 59,637,877 60,113,931 +476,054 =============================================== Reserve Personnel: Army................ 2,101,366 2,122,566 +21,200 Navy................ 1,348,223 1,350,023 +1,800 Marine Corps........ 361,751 366,101 +4,350 Air Force........... 782,761 783,586 +825 National Guard Personnel: Army................ 3,218,258 3,240,858 +22,600 Air Force........... 1,246,427 1,254,827 +8,400 ----------------------------------------------- Subtotal, Guard and Reserve...... 9,058,786 9,117,961 +59,175 Total, Title I.... 68,696,663 69,231,892 +535,229 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The fiscal year 1996 budget request included a decrease of 38,100 end strength for the active forces and a decrease of 37,900 end strength for the selected reserve over fiscal year 1995 authorized levels. The Committee recommends the following levels highlighted in the tables below. overall active end strength Fiscal year 1995 estimate............................... 1,523,300 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 1,485,200 Fiscal year 1996 House authorization.................... 1,485,200 Fiscal year 1996 recommendation......................... 1,485,200 Compared with Fiscal year 1995...................... -38,100 Compared with Fiscal year 1996 budget req........................... overall selected reserve end strength Fiscal year 1995 estimate............................... 965,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 927,035 Fiscal year 1996 House authorization.................... 927,035 Fiscal year 1996 recommendation......................... 927,073 Compared with Fiscal year 1995...................... -37,927 Compared with Fiscal year 1996 budget request....... +38 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year 1996 Fiscal year ----------------------------------------------------------- 1995 Comparison of estimate Budget House Recommendation request with request authorization recommendation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Active Forces (end strength): Army............................... 510,000 495,000 495,000 495,000 .............. Navy............................... 439,200 428,000 428,000 428,000 .............. Marine Corps....................... 174,000 174,000 174,000 174,000 .............. Air Force.......................... 400,100 388,200 388,200 388,200 .............. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Active Force.............. 1,523,300 1,485,200 1,485,200 1,485,200 .............. ======================================================================== Guard and Reserve (end strength): Army Reserve....................... 242,000 230,000 230,000 230,000 .............. Navy Reserve....................... 100,700 98,608 98,608 98,608 .............. Marine Corps Reserve............... 41,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 .............. Air Force Reserve.................. 78,700 73,969 73,969 74,007 +38 Army National Guard................ 387,000 373,000 373,000 373,000 .............. Air National Guard................. 115,600 109,458 109,458 109,458 .............. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Guard and Reserve......... 965,000 927,035 927,035 927,073 +38 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjustments to Military Personnel Account overview military retiree cost of living adjustment (cola) The Committee is concerned that the budget request for fiscal year 1996 did not completely resolve the inequity of the effective dates of military and Federal civilian retirees COLAs to make them compatible. The House Committee on National Security recommended correcting the disparity in the payment dates, but in doing so, made it contingent on Department of Defense discretionary funds being appropriated into the Military Retirement Trust Fund to avoid ``PAYGO'' problems. The Committee reiterates its support of fair and equitable treatment between the two retiree groups, but believes the appropriate Congressional committees need to find an alternative solution to resolve this problem. active duty end strengths The Committee agrees with the House National Security Committee's initiative of authorizing additional end strength to select units and mission areas in an effort to reduce personnel tempo rates. However, the Committee was unable to find the resources to fund any additional increase for active duty end strengths at this time. The Committee, therefore, directs the Department to report by January 31, 1996 on which units, mission areas, or particular skills are being used consistently in each Service because of support to operations other than war, such as humanitarian or peacekeeping missions, or any mission over and above regular operational deployments. The report should include the Services' recommendations on how they would restructure units or personnel to relieve the high personnel or operational tempo rates. b-52 force structure The Committee believes that the number of B-52 bombers supported by the budget request is insufficient to meet mission requirements. To ensure that adequate forces are available to meet foreseeable requirements, the Committee recommends an increase above the budget request of $180,000,000. The Committee understands that this amount is sufficient to support an additional squadron of aircraft (a total of 18) above the amount requested in the budget. This amount is distributed between the Military personnel, Operation and maintenance and Procurement accounts as indicated below. Transferring any of these funds for any purpose other than that specified above is subject to normal reprogramming procedures. [In thousands of dollars] Military personnel, Air Force........................... $65,000 Operation and maintenance, Air Force.................... 95,000 Aircraft procurement, Air Force......................... 20,000 ``friendly fire'' incidents The Committee recognizes the need for DoD to provide ``ex gratia'' payments to compensate the families of victims of friendly fire. The Committee is concerned that current DoD policy in these instances gives preferential treatment to foreign over U.S. victims. The Committee directs the Department to review its policy to ensure equal treatment for U.S. nationals and report back to the Committee by March 31, 1996. selective reenlistment bonus The Committee recommends a reduction of $42,000,000 for Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB). The Selective Reenlistment Bonus is authorized to maintain an adequate level of experienced and qualified enlisted personnel in critical skills. The General Accounting Office reported that the Services are not focusing these bonus awards on critical skills that are in short supply. In fiscal year 1994, for example, almost half of the new SRB contracts were awarded to personnel in skills with fill rates of 90 percent or higher, and in which some service members were paid separation incentives to leave the service. The Committee believes the Services should carefully monitor bonuses given to personnel who have those critical skills that are in demand. aviation continuation pay The Committee recommends a reduction of $5,600,000 for Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP). Aviation Continuation Pay is a bonus program used to restore pilot retention for aircraft communities experiencing pilot shortages. The General Accounting Office has reported that the Services are paying ACP bonuses as a retention incentive to aviators in skills that also receive exit incentives. In addition, ACP is being paid for periods of time for which aviators have preexisting commitments for military service. The Committee expects the Secretary of Defense to validate the Services' requirements and use of Aviation Continuation Pay. housing allowances The Committee recommends a total increase of $91,050,000 for housing allowances to help offset the cost to servicemembers who live in high geographical areas. The amount recommended for Basic Allowance for Quarters (BAQ) would fund 6 months of the fiscal year. The Variable Housing Allowance (VHA) would take effect in the last quarter of the fiscal year, as authorized by the House National Security Committee. full-time support strengths There are four categories of full-time support in the Guard and Reserve components: civilian technicians, active Guard and Reserve (AGR), non-technician civilians, and active component personnel. Full-time support personnel organize, recruit, train, maintain and administer the Reserve components. Civilian (military) technicians directly support units, and are very important to help units maintain readiness and meet the wartime mission of the Army and Air Force. Full-time support end strength in all categories totalled 154,655 in fiscal year 1995. The fiscal year 1996 budget request is 151,650. The following table summarizes Guard and Reserve full-time support end strengths: GUARD AND RESERVE FULL-TIME END STRENGTHS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year 1995 Budget HNSC Committee Recommendation appropriated request recommendation vs request ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Army Reserve: AGR................................. 11,940 11,575 11,575 11,575 .............. Technicians......................... 6,591 6,409 6,630 6,630 +221 Navy Reserve TAR........................ 17,510 17,490 17,490 17,490 .............. Marine Corps Reserve.................... 2,285 2,285 2,285 2,285 .............. Air Force Reserve: AGR................................. 648 628 628 628 .............. Technicians......................... 10,425 9,467 9,802 9,802 +335 Army National Guard: AGR................................. 23,650 23,390 23,390 23,390 .............. Technicians......................... 25,489 25,094 25,500 25,500 +406 Air National Guard: AGR................................. 9,098 9,817 9,817 9,817 .............. Technicians......................... 24,218 22,558 22,906 22,906 +348 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Total: AGR/TAR....................... 65,131 65,185 65,185 65,185 .............. Technicians................... 66,723 63,528 64,838 64,838 +1,310 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- civilian (military) technicians The Committee recommends an additional $29,000,000 in the Operation and maintenance accounts of the Army Reserve, Air Force Reserve, Army National Guard, and Air National Guard for additional end strength of 1,310 technicians over the President's budget request. The Committee is concerned that the additional programmed reductions and suggested outsourcing of jobs performed by a technician would greatly impact the readiness of Reserve units in their ability to deploy, maintain equipment, and administer and train Reserve units. The Committee expects these funds to not be used for any other purpose without a prior approval reprogramming being submitted to the Committee. In addition, the Committee directs the Department to provide the required number of workyears needed to sustain the levels of civilian (military) technicians as provided in this bill. The Committee also includes several general provisions concerning military technicians. Section 8024 provides military technician pay the same exemption from sequestration as other military personnel; and Section 8078 prohibits reducing the full-time support levels for technicians unless such reductions are as a result of a reduction in military force structure. The Committee expects the Department to follow the intent of these provisions. MILITARY PERSONNEL, ARMY Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $20,870,470,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 19,721,408,000 Committee recommendation................................ 19,884,608,000 Change from budget request.............................. +163,200,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $19,884,608,000 for Military Personnel, Army. The recommendation is a decrease of $985,862,000 below the $20,870,470,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1995. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1996 budget request are as follows: [In thousands of dollars] Provide Comfort/Enhanced Southern Watch................. +3,600 Overseas Station Allowance.............................. +139,000 Selective Reenlistment Bonus............................ -1,200 Basic Allowance for Quarters............................ +12,000 Variable Housing Allowance.............................. +9,800 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total............................................. +163,200 MILITARY PERSONNEL, NAVY Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $17,752,237,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 16,930,609,000 Committee recommendation................................ 17,006,363,000 Change from budget request.............................. +75,754,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $17,006,363,000 for Military Personnel, Navy. The recommendation is a decrease of $745,874,000 below the $17,752,237,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1995. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1996 budget request are as follows: [In thousands of dollars] Aviation Continuation Pay............................... -1,000 Responsibility Pay...................................... -1,146 Provide Comfort/Enhanced Southern Watch................. +25,500 Overseas Station Allowance.............................. +45,000 Selective Reenlistment Bonus............................ -25,000 Basic Allowance for Quarters............................ +11,600 Variable Housing Allowance.............................. +20,800 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total............................................. +75,754 MILITARY PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $5,800,071,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 5,877,740,000 Committee recommendation................................ 5,928,340,000 Change from budget request.............................. +50,600,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,928,340,000 for Military Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an increase of $128,269,000 above the $5,800,071,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1995. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1996 budget request are as follows: [In thousands of dollars] Aviation Continuation Pay............................... -200 Provide Comfort/Enhanced Southern Watch................. +3,400 Overseas Station Allowance.............................. +43,000 Selective Reenlistment Bonus............................ -4,000 Basic Allowance for Quarters............................ +3,200 Variable Housing Allowance.............................. +5,200 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total............................................. +50,600 MILITARY PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $17,388,579,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 17,108,120,000 Committee recommendation................................ 17,294,620,000 Change from budget request.............................. +186,500,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $17,294,620,000 for Military Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is a decrease of $93,959,000 below the $17,388,579,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1995. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1996 budget request are as follows: [In thousands of dollars] Aviation Continuation Pay............................... -4,400 Aviation Career Incentive Pay........................... -800 Flight Duty Pay......................................... -500 Provide Comfort/Enhanced Southern Watch................. +45,000 Overseas Station Allowance.............................. +73,000 Selective Reenlistment Bonus............................ -12,000 Basic Allowance for Quarters............................ +11,000 Variable Housing Allowance.............................. +10,200 B-52 Force Structure.................................... +65,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total............................................. +186,500 RESERVE PERSONNEL, ARMY Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $2,168,120,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 2,101,366,000 Committee recommendation................................ 2,122,566,000 Change from budget request.............................. +21,200,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,122,566,000 for Reserve Personnel, Army. The recommendation is a decrease of $45,554,000 below the $2,168,120,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1995. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1996 budget request are as follows: [In thousands of dollars] Unit Readiness/Training................................. +20,000 Basic Allowance for Quarters............................ +500 Variable Housing Allowance.............................. +700 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total............................................. +21,200 army reserve commands The Army is implementing a reorganization and restructuring plan for its subordinate headquarters. Under the plan to reduce the number of subordinate headquarters, the existing Army Reserve Commands (ARCOMs) will be realigned into Regional Support Commands, Regional Support Groups, or eliminated entirely. The Committee is concerned that the Army Reserve reorganization plan places an inappropriate emphasis on administrative performance to rank the 20 ARCOMs instead of using performance measures directly relevant to the training and deployability status of the individual soldiers and units under the command of each ARCOM. The Committee directs the Department to report by December 1, 1995 on the criteria and methodology used for the reduction and reorganization of the Army Reserve Commands. RESERVE PERSONNEL, NAVY Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $1,411,409,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 1,348,223,000 Committee recommendation................................ 1,350,023,000 Change from budget request.............................. +1,800,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,350,023,000 for Reserve Personnel, Navy. The recommendation is a decrease of $61,386,000 below the $1,411,409,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1995. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1996 budget request are as follows: [In thousands of dollars] Basic Allowance for Quarters............................ +700 Variable Housing Allowance.............................. +1,100 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total............................................. +1,800 RESERVE PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $350,048,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 361,751,000 Committee recommendation................................ 366,101,000 Change from budget request.............................. +4,350,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $366,101,000 for Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an increase of $16,053,000 above the $350,048,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1995. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1996 budget request are as follows: [In thousands of dollars] Annual Training/School Tours............................ +4,000 Basic Allowance for Quarters............................ +150 Variable Housing Allowance.............................. +200 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total............................................. +4,350 active reserve manpower The Committee recognizes that the Marine Corps Reserve has an unfunded requirement for an increase in end strength of 274 Active Reserve manpower. The Committee understands these personnel are required to support the mission of the Reserve force and will revisit this issue in the future. RESERVE PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $771,634,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 782,761,000 Committee recommendation................................ 783,586,000 Change from budget request.............................. +825,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $783,586,000 for Reserve Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of $11,952,000 above the $771,634,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1995. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1996 budget request are as follows: [In thousands of dollars] WC-130 weather reconnaissance mission................... +725 Basic Allowance for Quarters............................ +100 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total............................................. +825 wc-130 weather reconnaissance mission The Committee continues to strongly believe that the weather reconnaissance mission is critical to the protection of Defense installations and the population living along the east and Gulf coasts of the United States. Section 8038 has been included which prohibits funds to reduce or disestablish the operation of the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron (Hurricane Hunters) of the Air Force Reserve if such action would reduce the Weather Reconnaissance mission below the levels funded in this Act. The level specifically funded in this Act is to support a stand alone squadron with dedicated 10 PAA aircraft, 20 line assigned aircrews evenly divided between Air Reserve Technician (ART) and Reserve aircrews, and at least 1,600 flying hours dedicated to this misssion. Funding has also been provided to ensure adequate operation and maintenance support. The Committee is adamant that this important mission be continued in accordance with this direction and directs the Air Force to submit future budget requests reflecting this direction. NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, ARMY Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $3,350,505,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 3,218,258,000 Committee recommendation................................ 3,240,858,000 Change from budget request.............................. +22,600,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,240,858,000 for National Guard Personnel, Army. The recommendation is a decrease of $109,647,000 below the $3,350,505,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1995. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1996 budget request are as follows: [In thousands of dollars] School/Special Training................................. +20,000 Basic Allowance for Quarters............................ +1,300 Variable Housing Allowance.............................. +1,300 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total............................................. +22,600 NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $1,238,429,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 1,246,427,000 Committee recommendation................................ 1,254,827,000 Change from budget request.............................. +8,400,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,254,827,000 for National Guard Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of $16,398,000 above the $1,238,429,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1995. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1996 budget request are as follows: [In thousands of dollars] Tanker Task Force/1st Air Force......................... +7,200 Basic Allowance for Quarters............................ +500 Variable Housing Allowance.............................. +700 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total............................................. +8,400 TITLE II OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE The fiscal year 1996 budget request for Operation and maintenance is $80,800,250,000 in new budget authority, which is a decrease of $2,018,835,000 from the amounts appropriated in fiscal year 1995. The request also includes a $150,000,000 cash transfer from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund. The accompanying bill recommends $81,583,817,000 for fiscal year 1996, which is an increase of $783,567,000 from the budget request. In addition, the Committee recommends including $695,100,000, the amount requested in the budget submission, to recover accumulated operating losses incurred by several Navy activities in the Defense Business Operations Fund. However, contrary to the Navy budget request, these funds are appropriated directly to the DBOF, rather than included in the Operation and maintenance title. These appropriations finance the costs of operating and maintaining the Armed Forces, including the reserve components and related support activities of the Department of Defense (DoD), except military personnel costs. Included are amounts for pay of civilians, services for maintenance of equipment and facilities, fuel, supplies, and spare and repair parts for weapons and equipment. Financial requirements are influenced by many factors, including force level such as the number of aircraft squadrons, Army and Marine Corps divisions, installations, military personnel strength deployments, rates of operational activity, and the quantity and complexity of equipment such as aircraft, ships, missiles and tanks in operation. Operation and Maintenance Overview The Committee recognizes that the Department of Defense has given readiness-related funding priority in the fiscal year 1996 budget request. The Committee acknowledges the budget request generally provides for robust programs in the areas of operating tempo training, depot maintenance, and other programs critical to near term readiness. However, there are certain shortfalls in the budget request that undermine the Department's efforts to maintain and improve the readiness of its forces. Among the shortfalls, described in more detail below, are: depot maintenance for selected equipment categories, certain gaps in mission readiness training, significant unfunded requirements for real property maintenance, strategic mobility, and training for chemical and biological defenses. The Committee also believes that there are certain areas in which the Department can improve its operations, streamline its organization, and reduce costs. The Department clearly recognizes the potential for improvement, and has highlighted a number of reform initiatives. However, the budget request fails to take advantage of these initiatives since funding adjustments are not included. Discussed in detail below are reforms which the Committee believes will lead to significant long term savings in the Defense budget. These initiatives include: acquisition reform, travel reengineering, transportation improvements, printing efficiencies, reduced audits, consolidation of fraud investigation, civilian personnel management efficiencies, and staff reductions in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The table summarizes the Committee's recommendations: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Committee Change from Budget request recommended request ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECAPITULATION O&M, Army........................................... 18,134,736 18,999,825 +865,089 Transfer--Stockpile/DBOF........................ (50,000) (58,500) (+8,500) O&M, Navy........................................... 21,175,710 20,846,710 -329,000 Transfer--Stockpile/DBOF........................ (50,000) (87,000) (+37,000) O&M, Marine Corps................................... 2,269,722 2,508,822 +239,100 O&M, Air Force...................................... 18,206,597 18,894,397 +687,800 Transfer--Stockpile/DBOF........................ (50,000) (63,600) (+13,600) O&M, Defensewide.................................... 10,366,782 9,958,810 -407,972 O&M, Army Reserve................................... 1,068,591 1,119,191 +50,600 O&M, Navy Reserve................................... 826,042 857,042 +31,000 O&M, Marine Corps Reserve........................... 90,283 104,783 +14,500 O&M, Air Force Reserve.............................. 1,485,947 1,519,287 +33,340 O&M, Army National Guard............................ 2,304,108 2,344,008 +39,900 O&M, Air National Guard............................. 2,712,221 2,737,221 +25,000 National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice, Army............................................... .................. .................. .................. Court of Military Appeals, Defense.................. 6,521 6,521 .................. Environmental Restoration, Defense.................. 1,622,200 1,422,200 -200,000 Summer Olympics..................................... 15,000 15,000 .................. Special Olympics.................................... .................. .................. .................. Humanitarian assistance............................. 79,790 .................. -79,790 Former Soviet Union threat reduction................ 371,000 200,000 -171,000 Contributions for International Peacekeeping and Peace Enforcement Activities Fund.................. 65,000 .................. -65,000 Overseas humanitarian, disaster, and civic aid...... .................. 50,000 +50,000 ----------------------------------------------------------- Grand total, O&M.............................. 80,800,250 81,583,817 +783,567 Transfer...................................... (150,000) (209,100) (+59,100) ----------------------------------------------------------- Total funds available, O&M.................... 80,950,250 81,792,917 +842,667 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPOT MAINTENANCE This Committee has consistently recognized the significance of adequate funding for the maintenance and repair of weapon systems and equipment as a key to the readiness of U.S. forces. In the fiscal year 1996 budget request, the Department has funded a high level of depot maintenance, but there are gaps which the Committee believes should be closed. In general, the backlog of maintenance increases from fiscal year 1995 to 1996 by over $300,000,000. Of this amount, nearly $200,000,000 is for maintenance of equipment other than aircraft and vehicles. In addition, the Committee understands that there will be ship maintenance availabilities that are not anticipated in the budget request. The Committee recommends adding a total of $379,000,000 to address these maintenance shortfalls. The table below indicates the distribution of these funds. [In thousands of dollars] Amount Army.......................................................... $204,000 Navy.......................................................... 130,000 Marine Corps.................................................. 25,000 Air Force..................................................... 6,000 Reserve components............................................ 14,000 OPERATING TEMPO TRAINING Like depot maintenance, the Department has maintained a robust readiness training program in the fiscal year 1996 budget request. This is evident in the level of operating tempo, and training opportunities funded by all the military services. Generally, the training program is equal to, and in some cases slightly greater than the level funded in fiscal year 1995. However, there are gaps in the training program of both the Marine Corps and the Air Force which the Committee believes should be rectified in order to maintain force readiness. In total, the Committee recommends adding $35,200,000 to fill this shortfall. REAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE Despite recent attempts to improve the quality of Department of Defense facilities, including funds added over the Services' initial budget submissions by OSD in fiscal year 1996, the backlog of maintenance and repair work at DoD facilities continues to grow. In its overview of the Operation and maintenance title, the Department estimates that by fiscal year 1996, the backlog will have grown to over $12 billion. While there are differences of opinion within the Department on how best to measure the backlog, there is no question that the Department has deferred a substantial amount of facilities maintenance and repair work. To begin the process of reducing this backlog, the Committee recommends an increase totalling $1,000,000,000 above the budget request, of which not less than $256,000,000 shall be for barracks renovation and maintenance. STRATEGIC MOBILITY ENHANCEMENTS The Committee recommends an increase of $100,000,000 to the budget request for mobility enhancements. In past years, the Committee has strongly supported DoD efforts to improve strategic mobility capabilities, and to enhance the deployability of U.S. forces. It has repeatedly been emphasized in testimony before this Committee that strategic mobility is a critical variable in support of the U.S. National Security Strategy. Additional funding is provided to support improvements such as facilities maintenance, repairs and upgrades; and, equipment needed to enhance force deployability. Also, based on a favorable assessment from the Joint Staff, the Committee concurs with the House National Security Committee that the Center for Commercial Deployment of Transportation Technologies should be considered for funding within this program. CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE TRAINING The Committee recommends an increase of $50,000,000 for specialized skills training in the area of chemical and biological defense similar to that proposed in the House-passed fiscal year 1996 Defense Authorization bill. recruiting and advertising The Committee recommends an increase of $35,500,000 for Recruiting and Advertising to support the Department's efforts in addressing negative recruiting that all of the Services are experiencing. Of this amount, $10,000,000 is for the Joint Recruiting and Advertising Program (JRAP), and $2,000,000 is for the Joint Market Research Program (JMRP) to fund critical annual surveys, like the Youth Attitude Tracking Study, that are underfunded in fiscal year 1996. acquisition reform The Committee recommends reducing the amount requested in the budget by $163,500,000 based on savings that the Department should be able to achieve by accelerating the implementation of acquisition reform initiatives. Of this amount, the Committee estimates that $59,100,000 can be saved by efficiencies in the supply management business area of the Defense Business Operations Fund. During the past year, major reforms have taken place to improve the Department's methods for acquiring major weapons systems, spare parts, personnel support material, and other equipment. These changes include the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act coupled with DoD revisions to contract management oversight, implementation of Integrated Product Teams for acquisition of major systems, and the Department's draft of the commercial contracting regulation. However, the Committee is concerned that the potential of these initiatives is not fully realized in the fiscal year 1996 budget request. For example, based on a relatively narrow definition of the acquisition workforce (including the Military Services' logistics operations activity, the Defense Logistics Agency, and the supply management business area of the Defense Business Operations Fund) the Department projects a workforce of over 105,000 in fiscal year 1996, which is a reduction of less than 3% from fiscal year 1995. Although the Committee does not recommend managing resources based on end-strength, the personnel figures in the budget do not reflect the significance of the business process changes the Department is implementing. In addition, it has come to the attention of the Committee that some of the procedural changes being considered by the Department are contrary to the intent of acquisition reform legislation. For example, the Department does not appear to be reducing the administrative or audit burden with respect to procurement of certain commercial items. For these reasons, the Committee believes that the proposed reduction can readily be achieved in concert with the Department's ongoing efforts to improve the acquisition process. travel reengineering The Committee recommends decreasing the budget request by $40,000,000 in anticipation of efficiencies the Department of Defense will achieve through its travel reengineering efforts. Although the potential savings have not been reflected in the budget request, the Committee understands that this initiative will have far reaching effects on most aspects of DoD travel. Among the proposed revisions are changes to simplify entitlements rules, decentralized authority to approve travel, enhanced commercial travel office services, and automated voucher calculation to name but a few. In addition, the General Accounting Office, in testimony before the Congress, has highlighted the administrative cost of travel in the Department as excessive. transportation improvements In 1992, the Secretary of Defense directed that all transportation functions, other than Service-unique functions, be assigned to the US Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM). To implement this decision, operations of the Military Services' transportation component commands, including the Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC), the Military Sealift Command (MSC), and the Air Mobility Command (AMC), were assigned to the Commander-in-Chief, USTRANSCOM (CINCTRANS). In addition to operational command, CINCTRANS was also assigned responsibility for that portion of the Defense Business Operations Fund which relates to these transportation functions. The Committee recognizes that the Military Services retain the responsibility to organize, train and equip the activities assigned to CINCTRANS. Nevertheless, it seems obvious that combining these activities presents an opportunity to reevaluate the infrastructure and staffing needed to provided transportation services. Despite this opportunity, the Department has failed to initiate any significant organizational changes to take advantage of the consolidation of transportation functions. Accordingly, the Committee recommends a reduction of $70,000,000 from the budget request in order to achieve streamlining and consolidation of the defense transportation and administration infrastructure. printing efficiencies The Committee supports the efforts of the Department and the Defense Printing Service (DPS) to minimize in-house printing capacity, and accordingly recommends reducing the budget request by $10,000,000. Noting that DPS currently satisfies about 50% of requirements through commercially procured services, the Committee supports the recommendation in the House-passed fiscal year 1996 Defense Authorization bill to increase the amount of work done in this manner. reduced audits The Committee recommends reducing the budget request by $33,000,000 based on efficiencies which can be achieved in the Services' audit functions. The Committee views internal Department of Defense audits as a critical oversight function. Nevertheless, as indicated in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill, many such audits do not provide a sufficient return to have warranted study in the first place. Similarly, the Committee believes this function can be performed more efficiently by prioritizing audits, and limiting scope to high return areas. consolidation of fraud investigation Among the recommendations contained in the January 1995 Report of the Advisory Board on the Investigative Capability of the Department of Defense is the suggestion that the Department consolidate fraud investigation. There are a number of arguments which support this idea. First, the Department has not been able to draft and implement administrative instructions that resolve jurisdictional tension between the Defense Criminal Investigative Organizations (DCIOs). Second, according to the report, the US attorneys have concerns about the independence of the Military Criminal Investigative Organizations (MCIOs) from improper command influence. Third, the report indicates that although the quality of such investigations is generally high, the Defense Investigative Service does the best quality work in cases where civil actions are involved. Despite these arguments, the Department would prefer not to consolidate arguing that a single organization in charge of this function would be less responsive to the needs of the Secretaries of the Military Departments than the existing MCIOs. However, the Department's position appears to run counter to the concerns of the U.S. attorneys as described above. Moreover, a critical aspect of such responsiveness, according to the Report, is the degree to which a central authority charged with the responsibility for fraud investigation responds to the Military Departments' remedies programs. These programs are significant because each can affect the award of contracts, recovery of funds, a corporation's ability to contract with DoD and an employee's ability to remain in government service. Considering the recommendations in the Report, the Committee supports consolidated fraud investigation within the Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General. Savings associated with this consolidation are outlined below. civilian personnel management The Committee recommends reducing the budget request by $23,300,000 for civilian personnel initiatives. Several accounts within this title reflect programmatic increases for civilian personnel initiatives including the establishment of regional personnel support centers. In the view of this Committee, such growth represents an investment which, in itself, is not objectionable. However, the budget materials do not justify the investment. There is no indication as to the savings or other benefits that would result from making this investment. Given the wealth of other, higher priority DoD requirements, the Committee recommends that these initiatives be deferred until they can be adequately justified. civilian personnel understrength The Department continues to make significant progress in reducing its civilian workforce commensurate with the general reductions in DoD and its mission forces. Current execution data indicates that the Army, Air Force and Defense-wide activities are operating at significantly less than the personnel levels assumed in the budget request. Therefore, the Committee recommends a cumulative reduction of $210,000,000 to account for the accelerated rate of personnel reductions. office of the secretary of defense staffing Consistent with the recommendations of the House National Security Committee the Committee believes that there is an opportunity to reduce the size of the OSD staff commensurate with reductions taking place elsewhere in the Department. As recommended in the House-passed authorization bill, the Committee believes that the extent of this reduction should be 25 percent over the next four years. Accordingly, the Committee recommends a reduction to the OSD budget request of $6,400,000, representing the first-year increment of this action. readiness reprogramming In the conference report accompanying the fiscal year 1995 Appropriations Act the conferees established a notification requirement for transfers in excess of $20,000,000 from certain O-1 subactivity group categories. The committee believes that the reasons for this requirement are still valid, and recommends that such notification procedures be retained. Therefore, the Department shall notify the congressional defense committees prior to transfers in excess of $20,000,000 from the following subactivity group categories: O&M, Army Operating forces: Combat units; Tactical support; Force related training/special activities; Depot maintenance. O&M, Navy Operating forces: Mission and other flight operations; Aircraft depot maintenance; mission and other ship operations; ship depot maintenance. O&M, Marine Corps Operating forces: Operational forces. O&M, Air Force Operating forces: Primary combat forces; Primary combat weapons; Air operations training. Mobilization: Airlift operations. assessing readiness Beginning in fiscal year 1996, the military services provided Readiness Justification books as part of the budget request. The Committee believes that these books provide a useful summary of current operating tempo and resourcing data. However, the data contained in these books do not necessarily provide predictive indicators of readiness. Also, the Committee has learned from other sources such as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 1995 Force Readiness Assessment, that there are many other potential measures of readiness. In addition, the Committee is aware that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness ASD(P&R) is developing a model that assesses readiness with respect to the Time Phased Force Deployment Document (TPFDD). The Committee understands that a critical objective of this model is to determine whether properly trained and equipped forces will be available in time to meet deployment plans. In order to better understand the Department's plans for assessing force readiness, the Committee directs the Department to submit a report to the congressional committees on defense, not later than April 30, 1996, which details progress on development of alternative readiness measures. The report should emphasize the role of the Senior Readiness Oversight Council (SROC), the Chairman's Readiness System (CRS), and the efforts to develop a TPFDD model by ASD(P&R) as described above. dod financial management issues The Committee believes that the Department of Defense has met the intent of Section 8137 of the fiscal year 1995 Appropriations Act. This section directed the Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a plan requiring that officials of the Department ensure that disbursements are matched to valid obligations before making such disbursements. However, the Committee believes that this plan represents the first of several steps required to implement permanent financial management improvements. For example, the Department has not fundamentally altered the business process that gives rise to the problems of unmatched disbursements and negative unliquidated obligations. The intricate web of relationships between program managers, contracting offices, accounting offices, paying offices, contract administration offices, and contractors has not been altered. While steps have been taken to improve communications between each participant in this process, the number and complexity of interactions remains the same. Similarly, the lack of integrated data systems to support this process will require a significant, and continuing effort within the Department to ensure that all the participants in this process have access to the same data. The Committee recognizes that making fundamental changes to this process is a time consuming endeavor. Further, in testimony before the Congress, the General Accounting Office has indicated that the resources needed to implement such change have not been identified. Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report, not later than April 30, 1996, which outlines those steps the Department will take to further improve financial performance. The report should address procedural changes designed to ensure the proper matching of low dollar value disbursements (those less than $1,000,000) to valid obligations, and the resourcing requirements (personnel, systems, and other) needed to implement such changes. core depot maintenance capability The Committee views with caution the legislation that repeals the 60/40 provision of section 2466 of Title 10, United States Code, pending a review of core capability by the Department of Defense. The establishment and maintenance of a core depot-level maintenance and repair capability, including a skilled work force, equipment and facilities, owned and operated by the Department of Defense, is essential for national security. In order to strengthen the integrity of core capability, the Committee believes that the definition of ``core capability'' must take into account protection of the military industrial base provided by publicly owned and operated facilities and a realistic assumption of future military contingencies, including the possibility of two Major Regional Contingencies (MRCs). dod travel policies The Committee is distressed that there are instances of senior Department of Defense officials improperly using the Department's transportation assets for business related and personal travel. The Committee believes that the Department must strengthen its measures to ensure that adequate controls are placed on the use of such transportation assets, and that all DoD personnel are aware of applicable guidelines. Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report, not later than January 31, 1996, that explains in detail travel policies governing the availability and use of DoD transportation assets. This report shall also explain measures to ensure that all DoD personnel, both military and civilian, are aware of applicable policies. household goods shipments The Department of Defense has taken action to implement the recommendations of the General Accounting Office (GAO) regarding increasing carrier liability for household goods shipments. These actions include, for domestic shipments, elimination of the separate charge now paid to carriers. For international shipments, carrier liability is increased to the $1.25 rate which is to be accompanied by a compensatory payment for three years. At the conclusion of this three year period, the GAO will evaluate the effectiveness of the increased carrier liability and make a recommendation to the Congress as to whether increased carrier liability should be continued or revert to the level in effect on September 30, 1995. family advocacy The Committee supports the budget request for military family programs, such as child development, family advocacy, and family centers. The Committee recommends an additional $23,200,000 in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force accounts for the New Parent Support program, a program designed for the prevention of child/spouse abuse. construction materials The Committee is concerned the Department of Defense may be purchasing cement which is contaminated by hazardous material. The Committee urges that DoD take appropriate and immediate action to ensure that any cement being purchased by the Department is not contaminated by hazardous material which may be the result of burning hazardous waste in the cement production process. The Committee further directs that the Department of Defense prepare a report for submission to the congressional defense committees not later than February 15, 1996, on the steps it has taken to achieve this objective. humanitarian assistance The Committee notes with some concern the increasing frequency with which the Department of Defense is called upon to provide a host of humanitarian assistance needs in its refugee assistance operations around the world. It is unclear to the Committee that the Department is sufficiently prepared to meet these growing demands, particularly in the area of temporary shelter. The Committee directs the Department to assess its capability in this area and report to the Committee by February 1, 1996, on the Department's long term plans to meet these emergency assistance requirements. transfer of military equipment The Committee notes with concern the fact that federal officers this year seized eight armored personnel carriers formerly used at a Department of Energy facility. Evidently, these carriers had been transferred to private parties in a manner which may be inconsistent with applicable laws, including restrictions on authorized recipients of military style equipment and the requirement that such equipment be rendered inoperable. To lessen the chance of misuse of such military equipment, and to protect public safety, the Secretary of Defense is directed to review relevant policies and procedures, to assure that future transfers of military equipment governed by such policies and procedures will be in compliance with legal requirements. The Committee also directs the Secretary of Defense to report the results of that review, together with any appropriate recommendations for changes in law, to the congressional defense committees no later than January 1, 1996. classified programs Adjustments to classified Operation and Maintenance programs are addressed in a classified annex accompanying this report. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $18,443,688,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 18,134,736,000 Committee recommendation................................ 18,999,825,000 Change from budget request.............................. +865,089,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $18,999,825,000 for Operation and maintenance, Army. The recommendation is an increase of $556,137,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1995. depot maintenance The Committee recommends increasing depot maintenance funding by $204,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee finds that, despite efforts in fiscal year 1995 to reduce the backlog of depot maintenance, the fiscal year 1996 budget request allows substantial growth in several areas. Most notably, the backlog of depot maintenance of equipment other than vehicles and aircraft almost reaches pre-1995 levels. Within this area of the Army depot maintenance backlog, the Committee is especially concerned about the maintenance of electronics and communications gear. Accordingly, $39,000,000 of the total increase is allocated to such maintenance. pre-positioned equipment The Committee recommends an increase of $51,000,000. This program has proved invaluable in past conflicts and adds an important dimension to America's force projection capabilities. Based on shortfalls identified by the Committee, an increase of $19,000,000 is provided for equipment in South Korea and $32,000,000 for the South West Asia region. Transferring any of these funds for any purpose other than that specified above is subject to normal reprogramming procedures. national training center The Committee is deeply concerned by the Army's failure to follow the direction and intent of the Congress with respect to the airhead for the National Training Center (NTC), Fort Irwin, California. The Committee understands that, despite a 5-year study culminating in endorsement of Barstow-Daggett by the Secretary of the Army in November 1994, the Army has shelved its own analysis in favor of an entirely new study. The Committee questions the use of government resources to deliberately keep this previously studied and approved issue unresolved. In light of the Army's previous commitments, as well as prior Congressional intent, the Committee has included legislative language directing the Army to follow its original recommendations and establish a permanent facility at Barstow- Daggett. Moreover, the Committee believes that, until Barstow- Daggett is completed, the former George Air Force Base provides military, economic, and safety advantages over other NTC airhead options. Therefore, the Committee recommendation includes Section 8099, which provides $2,000,000 to establish George Air Force Base as the interim airhead and to ensure that the Army follows a consistent, mission compatible, and safe plan for an interim and permanent NTC airhead location. training network The Committee recommends increasing funding by $4,000,000 to support the Army TNET Program. The Committee recognizes the cost avoidance available by using a network to connect remote training site, and encourages the Army to consider expanding the application of this technology. environmental cleanup and study fort bliss texas The conference report on Department of Defense Appropriations for fiscal year 1995 included an allocation of $1,000,000 to clean up unexploded surface ordnance at Fort Bliss, Texas. The Committee understands that this is an ongoing effort which will require additional work in fiscal year 1996. Therefore, within available funds, the Committee directs the Army to continue with the cleanup of unexploded ordnance on Castner Range. In addition, the Committee has been advised that the Army currently leases McGregor Range, a parcel which makes up 62% of the acreage of Ft. Bliss. The Committee understands that the Army needs to prepare a study of environmental impact in order to retain this land. Within available funds, the Committee directs the Army to begin such an environmental impact study concerning McGregor Range. Further, the Committee directs that the Army submit a report to the congressional defense committees on these initiatives no later than June 30, 1996. white sands missile range The Committee has consistently expressed its support for the roundup and disposition of wild horses which populate White Sands Missile Range. While efforts during the past year have successfully reduced the herd, there is a significant population remaining that must be removed from the Range. Accordingly, the Committee directs that, within funds available in the Army service wide support budget activity, the Army allocate not more than $500,000 to continue its ongoing program to remove and dispose of the remaining wild horses. information technology The Committee recommends an increase of $2,000,000 for the Digital Storage and Retrieval Engineering System (DSREDS) as recommended by the House National Security Committee. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Army are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: Depot maintenance: Electronics/Communications depot maintenance.... 39,000 Other depot maintenance......................... 165,000 Base Support........................................ George AFB...................................... 2,000 Other Base Support.............................. 28,000 Budget Activity 2: Mobilization: Prepositioning and mobility upgrades................ 89,000 Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting: Specialized skill training: Chemical/biological defense training............ 20,000 Enhanced simulation............................. 42,000 TNET............................................ 4,000 Recruiting and advertising.......................... 6,500 Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Support: Acquisition reform.................................. (12,000) Travel reengineering................................ (10,000) Other personnel support............................. (6,000) Base support: New parent support program...................... 10,000 Transition assistance program................... 8,500 Relocation assistance program................... 5,600 Other Adjustments: Classified programs................................. 3,589 Civilian underexecution............................. (65,000) Real Property Maintenance........................... 350,000 Foreign currency fluctuation........................ 173,300 DSREDS.............................................. 2,000 Printing efficiencies............................... (3,000) Fraud investigation consolidation................... (12,500) Reduced audits...................................... (10,000) Transportation improvements......................... (26,200) AAFES second destination transportation............. (17,500) Provide Comfort/Enhanced Southern Watch............. 87,300 Supply management reforms........................... (8,500) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $21,476,170,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 21,175,710,000 Committee recommendation................................ 20,846,710,000 Change from budget request.............................. -329,000,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,846,710,000 for Operation and maintenance, Navy. The recommendation is a decrease of $629,460,000 below the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1995. defense business operations fund The Navy Operation and maintenance budget request included $695,100,000 to recover accumulated operating losses incurred by a number of activities scheduled for closure. While the Committee supports the Department's practice of including such losses in future year prices, the circumstances in this case appear to warrant special treatment. Given the Department's proclivity for using operation and maintenance funds to finance contingency operations, the Committee believes there is a strong possibility that these funds may be diverted to other activities other than recovering operating losses. Accordingly, the Committee recommends funding this requirement, and appropriating the funds directly to the Defense Business Operations Fund in title V. depot maintenance The Committee recommends increasing depot maintenance funding by $130,000,000 to reduce generally increasing backlogs in the Navy. As noted elsewhere in this report, the Committee took measures in the fiscal year 1995 Appropriations Act to stem Service-wide increases in the backlog of depot maintenance. Despite these efforts, the Navy budget justification materials show steady growth in the backlog of aircraft and other depot maintenance. Additional funding is also warranted due to scheduling availabilities that allow for an increase in ship depot maintenance. base operations support The Committee recommends an increase of $55,000,000 for base operations support costs at Navy installations. This increase will provide for full funding of port and air operations, fire fighting equipment and training, Morale Welfare and Recreation (MWR) facilities maintenance, security forces and grounds maintenance. an/uyq-70 The Navy requested no funding for installation support of the AN/UYQ-70. The Committee recommends $10,000,000, an increase of $10,000,000 to the budget request. The additional funding provided by the Committee shall be used only for logistics, software, and fleet support for the AN/UYQ-70. css hunley The Committee is aware that the Confederate submarine CSS Hunley, which sunk off the South Carolina coast in 1864, is being recovered under the auspices of the Naval Historical Society. The Committee believes that as the Secretary of the Navy determines an appropriate display location for the CSS Hunley special consideration should be given to historical factors such as place of construction of the vessel, state of the vessel's homeport, and home state of the majority of the crew. photogrammetry Despite the ability to obtain photogrammetry from commercial sources, the Navy continues to insist on maintaining an in-house capability. In its response to the Congress, the Department of the Navy indicates that photogrammetry is a ``technology tool'' not a service. Beyond this statement, the Navy provides no reason why this technology tool cannot be obtained from the private sector. Similarly, the Navy's statement that photogrammetry is a core logistics function does not rule out the consideration of commercial sources. The Committee directs the Navy to obtain any future photogrammetric services from the private sector. Photogrammetric services currently available in Navy shipyards shall be used only to train Navy personnel on the proper use of this technology tool so that proper specifications can be written and the quality of work and proposals from the private sector can be evaluated. The Navy shall report to the Committees on Appropriations prior to issuing any requests for proposals or expending funds for the lease or purchase of any equipment or training related to the establishment of new in- house photogrammetry capability or the expansion of existing capabilities. information technology An increase of $9,000,000 is for the Navy Standard Integrated Personnel System as explained in the Information Technology section of this report. tomahawk missile recertification The Committee recommends an addition of $60,000,000 in the Weapons Procurement, Navy appropriation to remanufacture 275 older Block II Tomahawk missiles into the current Block III configuration. This action supplants the need to recertify those missiles in fiscal year 1996, resulting in a savings of $9,000,000 in the Operation and Maintenance, Navy appropriation. The Committee recommends a decrease of $9,000,000. PLASMA ELECTRIC WASTE CONVERTER TECHNOLOGY In the course of closing Department of Defense facilities pursuant to Base Closure and Realignment decisions, the Department has encountered significant environmental problems. Due to the extent of required cleanup, the process of divesting the Department of closed facilities has taken much more time, and been more costly than originally envisioned. However, the Committee understands that a technology exists, the plasma electric waste converter, that may simplify the process, and reduce the cost of environmental cleanup. The Committee strongly supports the Department of the Navy's application of this technology to shipboard wastes, and recommends that it be evaluated for applicability to the cleanup of activities slated for closure. Further, the Committee directs that the Secretary of the Navy submit to the Congressional defense committees a report concerning this technology no later than April 30, 1996. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Navy are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: Aircraft depot maintenance.......................... 50,000 Air operations base support......................... 27,500 Ship depot maintenance.............................. 70,000 Ship operations base support........................ 27,500 Weapons maintenance................................. 10,000 DBOF support........................................ (695,100) Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting: Chemical/biological defense training................ 10,000 Recruiting and advertising.......................... 6,000 Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: Travel reengineering................................ (10,000) Civilian personnel management....................... (4,000) Base support: New parent support program...................... 5,600 Transition assistance program................... 7,000 Relocation assistance program................... 6,000 Acquisition Reform initiatives...................... (17,000) AN/UYQ-70........................................... 10,000 Other Adjustments: Classified programs................................. 1,000 NSIPS............................................... 9,000 Real property maintenance........................... 150,000 Foreign currency fluctuation........................ 31,900 Printing efficiencies............................... (4,000) Fraud investigation consolidation................... (20,000) Reduced audits...................................... (10,000) Transportation improvements......................... (7,200) NexCom second destination transportation............ (7,500) Civilian underexecution............................. (5,000) Tomahawk Missile recertification.................... (9,000) Enhanced Southern Watch/Provide Comfort............. 75,300 Supply management reforms........................... (37,000) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $2,021,715,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 2,269,722,000 Committee recommendation................................ 2,508,822,000 Change from budget request.............................. +239,100,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,508,822,000 for Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an increase of $487,107,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1995. operating tempo training In order to fully fund the training requirements of the Marine Corps, the Committee recommends increasing funding by $25,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee views this increase as essential to enable increased participation in joint and combined exercises. depot maintenance Due to a significant increase in the depot maintenance backlog, the Committee recommends increasing funding by $25,000,000 above the amount requested in the President's budget. base support The Committee recommends an increase of $50,000,000 to fund additional personnel support equipment to complement other quality of life initiatives underway in fiscal year 1996. This increase also covers shortfalls identified in the Marine Corps budget for transportation services. initial issue personnel support equipment The Committee notes a significant shortfall in the Marine Corps budget for personnel initial issue gear and recommends increasing funding by $24,000,000 for the cost of this requirement. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: Operating tempo training............................ 10,000 Depot maintenance backlog reduction................. 25,000 Base support: Personnel support equipment..................... 40,000 Servicewide transportation of things............ 10,000 Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting: Chemical/biological defense training............... 10,000 Recruiting and advertising.......................... 5,000 Special Support: New parent support program...................... 4,000 Relocation assistance program................... 2,200 Transition assistance program................... 2,600 Other Adjustments: Real property maintenance........................... 100,000 Foreign currency fluctuation........................ 9,400 Initial issue personnel gear........................ 24,000 Transportation improvements......................... (3,100) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $19,613,927,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 18,206,597,000 Committee recommendation................................ 18,894,397,000 Change from budget request.............................. +687,800,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $18,894,397,000 for Operation and maintenance, Air Force. The recommendation is a decrease of $719,530,000 below the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1995. depot maintenance, excess funded carryover The Committee recommends reducing Air Force depot maintenance carryover by $80,000,000 to bring it back in line with Department of Defense standards. The Committee is aware of audit material indicating that the Air Force has funded carryover for depot maintenance work well in excess of the Department of Defense standard of 3 months. mission readiness training The Committee recommends an increase of $25,200,000 to fund mission essential training such as: skills training, retraining during weapon systems conversions, mandatory force resizing training, and advanced career training. precision weapons The Committee recommends increasing funding for this program by $1,000,000 above the requested amount. As described elsewhere in this report, the Committee strongly supports DoD efforts to increase stocks of precision weapons. spares The Committee recommends increasing the budgeted amount by $49,500,000 to improve the availability of spare parts for the maintenance of weapons systems. Of this amount, the Committee recommendends that $13,500,000 be allocated to the F100-229 engine to ensure its reliability. simulation enhancements To improve simulators which support mission related training, the Committee recommends an increase of $4,900,000 above the requested amount. The Committee views such efforts as an important contributor to the overall readiness of US forces. real property support As a complement to additional real property maintenance funding described elsewhere in this report, the Committee provides for an increase of $49,000,000 to fully fund facilities operations costs of the Air Force. weapons system maintenance In an effort to control the growth in the backlog of depot maintenance, the Committee recommends increasing funding by $2,000,000 for the KC-135. Further, the Committee recommends increasing funding by $4,000,000 for maintenance of the B-1. These increases should reduce the backlog of airframe maintenance for each of these aircraft. undergraduate pilot training The Committee believes that the Air Force should reduce the rate of pilot production, and recommends reducing the budget request by $60,000,000 accordingly. The Air Force has argued that there is an impending pilot shortage beginning in 1997. However, the General Accounting Office has determined that this shortage consists of non-flying positions that would be filled by personnel other than pilots. The audit material also suggests that these positions are in staff and administrative activities that do not have a clear requirement for pilots. tuition assistance Recognizing the need to provide for off-duty and voluntary education, the Committee recommends increasing tuition assistance by $10,700,000. The Committee understands that this increase will allow the Air Force to maintain a consistent level of educational opportunity for its personnel. combat search and rescue To fully fund operating tempo requirements for search and rescue, the Committee recommends an increase of $4,400,000 above the request amount. Given the recent high visibility of this function, the Committee views adequate funding as critical to the readiness of US forces. civil air patrol The Committee recommends an increase of $1,100,000 in funding for the Civil Air Patrol. This increase will fund fact of life cost increases associated with this program. information technology A net increase of $100,000 is explained in the Information Technology section of this report. This amount includes a decrease of $10,400,000 to transfer funding for the Base Level Systems Modernization program to the RDT&E, Air Force appropriation, an increase of $500,000 for the Core Automated Maintenance System, and an increase of $10,000,000 for the Tactical Interim CAMS/REMIS Reporting System (TICARRS). The Committee also recommends an increase of $2,000,000 for the Engineering Data Computer Assisted Retrieval System (EDCARS) as recommended by the House National Security Committee. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Air Force are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: Primary combat forces: Air Guard functional transfer................... (6,200) Excess funded carryover......................... (20,000) Mission readiness training...................... 25,200 Precision weapons............................... 1,000 Spare funding................................... 36,000 F100-229 Engine spares.......................... 13,500 B-52 Force Structure............................ 95,000 Excess funded carryover............................. (20,000) Simulation enhancements............................. 4,900 Real property support............................... 49,000 Rivet Joint support................................. 8,200 Budget Activity 2: Mobilization: Airlift operations: Excess funded carryover......................... (20,000) KC-135 maintenance.............................. 2,000 Payments to transportation business area: Excess funded carryover......................... (20,000) Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting: Chemical/biological defense training................ 10,000 Undergraduate pilot training........................ (60,000) Recruiting and advertising.......................... 6,000 Tuition assistance.................................. 10,700 Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Support: Logistics operations: Acquisition reform.............................. (40,000) B-1 maintenance................................. 4,000 Administration: STRATCOM mission planning....................... 2,500 Travel reengineering............................ (10,000) Administrative efficiencies..................... (8,000) Personnel management................................ (5,700) Combat search and rescue programs................... 4,400 Civil Air Patrol (CAP) cost increases............... 1,100 Base support: New parent support program...................... 3,600 Relocation assistance program................... 6,200 Transition assistance program................... 6,500 Other Adjustments: Classified programs................................. 2,000 Civilian personnel underexecution................... (80,000) Information technology.............................. 100 Real property maintenance........................... 320,000 Foreign currency fluctuation........................ 20,600 EDCARS.............................................. 2,000 Fraud investigation consolidation................... (11,000) Reduced audits...................................... (13,000) Printing efficiencies............................... (3,000) Transportation improvements......................... (15,300) Provide Comfort/Enhanced Southern Watch............. 393,200 Supply management reforms........................... (13,600) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $10,477,504,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 10,366,782,000 Committee recommendation................................ 9,958,810,000 Change from budget request.............................. -407,972,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,958,810,000 for Operation and maintenance, Defense-Wide. The recommendation is a decrease of $518,694,000 below the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1995. defense business management university The Committee recommends reducing the budget request by $84,900,000 in accordance with action taken by the House National Security Committee concerning the establishment of new facilities for the Defense Business Management University. defense acquisition university The Committee recommends reducing the budget request by $19,000,000 for the Defense Acquisition University (DAU). This reduction includes amounts for improved travel administration, a reduction to programmed student load growth, and a reduction to the proposed distance learning program. defense mapping agency The Committee recommends reducing funding for this activity by $39,100,000. This reduction includes amounts for reduced minor equipment replacement, and productivity improvements. Further, the Committee recommends against establishing the proposed regional personnel support center. federal energy management program The Committee recommends reducing this account by $114,700,000, an amount that would bring it back to a level between that of fiscal years 1994 and 1995. While the Committee commends the intent of this program, the increases of recent years must be balanced against other, higher priority DoD programs. In addition, it appears that the basic objective of the program, reducing DoD energy use, may be achieved in part through better design and execution of the myriad facilities maintenance and repair projects funded elsewhere in this report. office of economic assistance The Committee views the efforts of this organization as essential to the communities affected by the Base Closure and Realignment process, and recommends increasing funding above the budgeted amount by $1,500,000. alternative fuels study The Committee recognizes that federal law, executive orders and the need to comply with environmental standards require the Department to increase its share of alternatively fueled vehicles. Therefore, the Committee encourages the Department to engage in infrastructure engineering studies and related activities, to be administered by the Office of Environmental Security. The Committee believes that such work is necessary to ensure availability of the infrastructure required to support the changing composition of the fleet. The Committee is also aware that the Department must reduce energy consumption as a result of both federal law and executive order. To this end, the Committee urges the Department to study the use of natural gas-fired space conditioning equipment as an alternative to conventional equipment. Department of Defense Dependents Education The Department of Defense Dependents Education budget provides funds for five major programs: Overseas Dependents Schools, Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools (DDESS), Family Advocacy Program (FAP), Transition Assistance Program (TAP), and Relocation Assistance Program (RAP). The following changes to these programs were based upon the Committee's Surveys and Investigative Staff recommendations. The Family Advocacy, Transition Assistance and Relocation Assistance programs are not related in any way to education of dependents. The Committee's Surveys and Investigative Staff determined that the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) has recently set aside the funding for these programs to the Dependents Education account only because they are under the cognizance of the same principal staff assistant within the OSD office. The Committee, however, feels the Transition Assistance and Relocation Assistance programs can be administered by the Services, as they have in the past, and has recommended restoring these funds to the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force Operation and Maintenance accounts. The Committee does not feel that OSD needs to monitor and centrally fund these programs. overseas dependents schools The Committee recommends a reduction of $42,000,000 from the budget request for the Overseas Dependents Schools. During the period of the drawdown of the military, the Department has been unable to control the cost of educating dependents overseas. Between 1991 and 1996, DoD comparable per pupil costs have increased 54.8 percent, while the national average per pupil cost has increased only 10.5 percent. On a comparable basis, the fiscal year 1996 estimated overseas schools and the national average per student cost are $8,107 and $6,504, respectively. Although enrollment has decreased by 57 percent, national headquarters and overseas administrative workyears have increased by 23.6 percent. To some extent, pupil-per- teacher ratios have declined, thereby increasing per pupil costs. However, less than half the workyears in Overseas Dependents Schools are provided by classroom teachers. The Committee feels these workyears require better control and that further administrative and headquarters consolidations are required. Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools The Committee recommends a reduction of $12,000,000 for the Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools (DDESS) due to large program growth between fiscal year 1995 and the fiscal year 1996 budget request. Transition Assistance Program and Relocation Assistance Program The Committee recommends a total reduction of $24,700,000 within the Services Operation and maintenance accounts for the Transition Assistance Program, and a reduction of $600,000 for the Relocation Assistance Program. Transition Assistance was initiated to assist servicemembers and their families during the drawdown in transitioning to civilian life with separation counseling, resume and employment assistance. The Relocation Assistance Program assists servicemembers and their families in helping to adjust to the stresses of moving. There are currently 331 transition offices and 370 relocation offices that the Services operate. The Committee's Surveys and Investigative Staff has found that there are instances where multiple offices are located on the same military installation, and that there is no attempt to consolidate operations among the Services. In fact, these programs have begun to take on ``a life of their own.'' With the downsizing largely complete, the Committee feels the requirement for counseling, resume and employment assistance can begin to be curtailed. The Committee, therefore, directs the Department to provide a report, by March 31, 1996, on the possibility of phasing out these services starting in fiscal year 1997. Information Technology An increase of $112,000,000 is explained in the Information Technology section of this report. This includes increases of $100,000,000 for the Joint Services Logistics Center and $12,000,000 for the Defense Information Systems Agency's continuity of operations (COOP) program. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Defense-Wide are shown below: Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: Mobility enhancements............................... 62,000 Provide Comfort/Enhanced Southern Watch............. 10,100 Budget Activity 2: Mobilization: WHS/Disaster relief................................. (45,438) Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting: Defense Acquisition University (DAU)................ (19,000) Defense Business Management Univ (DBMU) BOS......... (15,700) Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Support: Classified programs................................. (9,668) Defense Civilian Personnel Management Service....... (4,800) DCAA/Acquisition reform............................. (10,800) Defense Investigative Service (functional transfer in)............................................... (3,900) Defense Logistics Agency (DLA): Career management office........................ (700) Acquisition reform.............................. (26,000) Warstoppers (peacetime use)..................... (2,600) Procurement Technical Assistance Program........ 10,000 Defense Mapping Agency (DMA): Minor equipment reduction....................... (27,400) Internet........................................ (600) Productivity improvement........................ (9,000) Regional personnel support center............... (2,100) Federal Energy Management Program................... (114,682) Department of Defense Dependents Education: Overseas schools administrative overhead........ (42,000) Relocation assistance program................... (20,559) DDESS schools................................... (12,000) Transition assistance program................... (49,300) Office of Economic Adjustment....................... 1,500 Office of the Secretary of Defense: Acquisition reform.............................. (400) Civilian/military programs...................... (59,830) Staffing reduction.............................. (6,400) Acquisition program growth...................... (4,200) Consulting services growth...................... (20,700) JRAP............................................ 10,000 Washington Headquarters Service (inventory growth).. (9,600) Budget Activity 6: Capital Lease........................ (69,195) Other Adjustments: Civilian personnel underexecution................... (60,000) Information technology.............................. 112,000 Joint market research program....................... 2,000 Foreign currency fluctuation........................ 24,200 Impact Aid.......................................... 35,000 Transportation improvements......................... (18,200) Travel reengineering................................ (10,000) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY RESERVE Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $1,237,009,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 1,068,591,000 Committee recommendation................................ 1,119,191,000 Change from budget...................................... +50,600,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,119,191,000 for Operation and maintenance, Army Reserve. The recommendation is a decrease of $117,818,000 below the $1,237,009,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1995. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Army Reserve are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: Training Operations, Ground OPTEMPO................. 33,000 Other Adjustments: Military/Civilian Technician Restoration............ 5,000 Reserve Component Automation System................. (4,400) Real Property Maintenance........................... 17,000 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY RESERVE Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $846,619,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 826,042,000 Committee recommendation................................ 857,042,000 Change from budget request.............................. +31,000,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $857,042,000 for Operation and maintenance, Navy Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $10,423,000 above the $846,619,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1995. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Navy Reserve are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: Aircraft Depot Maintenance.......................... 10,000 Other Adjustments: NSIPS............................................... 9,000 Real Property Maintenance........................... 12,000 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS RESERVE Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $81,862,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 90,283,000 Committee recommendation................................ 104,783,000 Change from budget request.............................. +14,500,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $104,783,000 for Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $22,921,000 above the $81,862,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1995. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> The adjustment to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve is shown below: [In thousands of dollars] Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: Training, M1A1 tank................................. 900 Operating Forces, Initial Issue..................... 6,400 Depot Maintenance, DLR's............................ 1,400 Budget Activity 4: Administrative and Servicewide Activities: Base Support, Unit Relocations...................... 1,000 Base Support, Environmental Compliance.............. 3,300 Real Property Maintenance........................... 1,500 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE RESERVE Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $1,471,505,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 1,485,947,000 Committee recommendation................................ 1,519,287,000 Change from budget request.............................. +33,340,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,519,287,000 for Operation and maintenance, Air Force Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $47,782,000 above the $1,471,505,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1995. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Air Force Reserve are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: WC-130 Weather Reconnaissance....................... 340 KC-135 Depot Maintenance............................ 1,500 910th Airlift Group................................. 10,000 Other Adjustments: Military/Civilian Technicians....................... 8,000 Real Property Maintenance........................... 13,500 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $2,424,888,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 2,304,108,000 Committee recommendation................................ 2,344,008,000 Change from budget request.............................. +39,900,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,344,008,000 for Operation and maintenance, Air Force Reserve. The recommendation is a decrease of $80,880,000 below the $2,424,888,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1995. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Army National Guard are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: Training Operations, Ground OPTEMPO................. 40,000 Budget Activity 4: Administrative and Servicewide Activities: Information Management.............................. (30,100) Other Adjustments: Military/Civilian Technicians....................... 9,000 Real Property Maintenance........................... 21,000 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR NATIONAL GUARD Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $2,772,928,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 2,712,221,000 Committee recommendation................................ 2,737,221,000 Change from budget request.............................. +25,000,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,737,221,000 for Operation and maintenance, Air National Guard. The recommendation is a decrease of $35,707,000 below the $2,772,928,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1995. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Air National Guard are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: KC-135 Depot Maintenance............................ 1,500 159th ANG Fighter Group............................. 1,500 Other Adjustments: Military/Civilian Technicians....................... 7,000 Real Property Maintenance........................... 15,000 REFUGEE/DISASTER RELIEF MISSIONS The Committee is concerned about the increased amount of time spent by the active component on disaster response and humanitarian efforts. These are missions more readily done by the Reserve components, thereby freeing the active forces to focus on military training and combat missions. The Air National Guard possesses a cost effective rapid deployment capability to provide disaster recovery/refugee relief. This has been demonstrated in actions such as Hurricane Andrew and the recent Mississippi River Basin flood. The Air National Guard Civil Engineers are directed to test this rapid deployment capability to support disaster recovery and refugee relief missions during fiscal year 1996. A report on the results of this test should be provided to the Committee by March 31, 1996. 159th Air National Guard Fighter Group The Committee has recommended $1,500,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard and directs that these funds be used for the operation of C-130H operational support aircraft of the 159th ANG Fighter Group. NATIONAL BOARD FOR THE PROMOTION OF RIFLE PRACTICE, ARMY Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $2,544,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................................... Committee recommendation................................................ Change from budget request.............................................. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $6,126,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 6,521,000 Committee recommendation................................ 6,521,000 Change from budget request.............................................. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,521,000 for the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The recommendation is an increase of $395,000 above the $6,126,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1995. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $1,480,200,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 1,622,200,000 Committee recommendation................................ 1,422,200,000 Change from budget request.............................. -200,000,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,422,200,000 for Environmental Restoration, Defense as proposed in the House-passed National Defense Authorization bill. The recommendation is a decrease of $58,000,000 below the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1995. asbestos removal The Committee recognizes the need to remove asbestos from the former defense site at the Ottumwa Industrial Airport. Therefore, within available funds, the Committee encourages the Department to assist the City of Ottumwa in the matter of asbestos removal and structure demolition. naval air warfare center warminister The Committee recognizes the economic significance of the closure of NAWC Warminister as well as the need for prompt redevelopment of this parcel. The Committee is also aware that the Department has included, in the fiscal year 1996 budget request, funds for the cleanup of this site. The Committee therefore urges the Department to execute the budget as requested to expedite cleanup of NAWC Warminister. defense fuels supply point, norwalk The Committee is aware of the ongoing concern of the Norwalk citizens regarding fuel contamination at Defense Fuel Supply Point (DFSP) Norwalk, California. The Committee urges the Defense Logistics Agency and the Defense Fuel Supply Center to take every step possible to fully fund and expedite the environmental remediation activities at DFSP Norwalk. Further, the Committee believes that any claim by Norwalk residents arising from environmental contamination at the site should be processed and dispensed with in an expeditious fashion. ordnance road site The Committee recognizes the need to complete cleanup measures concerning a defense site formerly used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Accordingly, within available funds, the Committee urges the Department of the Army to work with Anne Arundel County officials on the task of cleaning up the Ordnance Road site. massachusetts military reservation The Committee is aware that DoD activities around the Massachusetts Military Reservation have caused serious environmental problems that threaten to contaminate the groundwater that supplies several communities in the vicinity of Cape Cod. To rectify this problem, the Committee urges the Department to give priority to this site, and use funds available in this account to undertake appropriate cleanup measures. SUMMER OLYMPICS Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $14,400,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 15,000,000 Committee recommendation................................ 15,000,000 Change from budget request.............................................. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,000,000 for support of the 1996 Games of the XXVI Olympiad. These funds will be used for expenses of logistical support and personnel services provided by the Department of Defense for the Summer Olympic games. The Department is directed to follow normal reprogramming procedures for funds appropriated in this account. OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC AID Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................................... Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................................... Committee recommendation................................ $50,000,000 Change from budget request.............................. +50,000,000 The Committee notes that the Department of Defense budget request contains significant amounts for various relief efforts such as disaster assistance, humanitarian relief and civic aid. Despite the fact the Department has unique equipment assets and manpower which are useful in such endeavors, this does not imply that the Department of Defense budget request should include funding for this aspect of U.S. foreign policy. The Committee agrees with the position taken in the House-passed Defense authorization bill that such efforts should be combined into a single account and funded at a more modest level. HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $65,000,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 79,790,000 Committee recommendation................................................ Change from budget request.............................. 79,790,000 The budget requested funds for humanitarian relief activities including the acquisition, transportation, and distribution of humanitarian supplies and excess non-lethal property and other activities as authorized. The Committee recommends merging funds to support this request into a newly established account for Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster and Civic Aid as described previously FORMER SOVIET UNION THREAT REDUCTION Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $380,000,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 371,000,000 Committee recommendation................................ 200,000,000 Change from budget request.............................. -171,000,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $200,000,000 for the Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction program, a decrease of $171,000,000 from the budget request. The funds provided are at the level in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. The reduction is applied against funds to begin construction of a Russian chemical weapons destruction facility and fissile material storage facility, the Demilitarization Enterprise Fund and other program support activities. The funds provided will enable an aggressive program to continue for the dismantling and destruction of nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union. CONTRIBUTIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACEKEEPING AND PEACE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................................... Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... $65,000,000 Committee recommendation................................................ Change from budget request.............................. -65,000,000 The budget requested funding for expenses of the United Nations peacekeeping and peace enforcement forces when the Department of Defense has primary responsibility. Consistent with the recommendations of the House-passed Authorization bill, the Committee recommends no funding for this account. TITLE III PROCUREMENT Estimates and Appropriation Summary The fiscal year 1996 Department of Defense procurement budget request totals $38,662,049,000. The accompanying bill recommends $42,898,305,000. The total amount recommended is an increase of $4,236,256,000 above the fiscal year 1996 budget estimate, and is $226,331,000 less than the total provided for fiscal year 1995. The Committee recommendation includes $908,125,000 for National Guard and Reserve Equipment. The table below summarizes the budget estimates and the Committee's recommendations: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Multiyear Procurement The budget proposes to delete Section 8010 of the bill which deals with multiyear procurement. The Committee instead has included Section 8010 in the bill and has provided authority for the Department of the Navy to pursue multiyear procurement on the AV-8B, T-45, and E-2C aircraft programs, should it elect to do so and only within the general parameters for multiyear procurement as defined in law. The Committee also recommends an additional $100,000,000 in Aircraft Procurement, Navy which may be used only for multiyear procurement of any or all of these 3 programs and for no other purpose. A Department of Defense Inspector General report dated June 3, 1994 stated that the AV-8B remanufacture program meets all the criteria required by Congress for multiyear procurement. The report also stated that at the time savings of $123,000,000 million in the AV-8B airframe and $33,700,000 in the engine could have potentially been achieved through multiyear procurement of aircraft through the year 2000. While the AV-8B program today is not the same one which the Inspector General reviewed, which means the potential savings may now be different, it remains a fact that the Navy has stretched out the program in the near term and has not yet reached annual production of 12 aircraft per year where the most savings from multiyear procurement would occur. The Committee further understands that elements of AV-8B and T-45 aircraft production have been combined at the airframe prime contractor's facility, which means that there could also potentially be significant savings in the T-45 program as well. The E-2C aircraft program has a very stable production rate of 4 aircraft annually for a number of years, making it too an attractive candidate for multiyear procurement. The Committee directs the Navy to solicit bids from each of the contractors on the AV-8B, T-45, and E-2C programs for multiyear procurement of these programs. The Committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the Congressional defense committees prior to obligation of additional funds within the $100,000,000 allowance recommended by the Committee on the Navy's rationale, costs, and savings from multiyear procurement on any of these programs. The Committee suggests that the Navy solicit multiyear bids that have some degree of flexibility--such as a core multiyear annual quantity with annual options for higher levels of procurement--where practicable and that the bids address the all known aircraft production quantities as opposed to just the production forecast in the most recent Future Years Defense Plan. The conferees managing the fiscal year 1995 Appropriations Act strongly encouraged the Army to consider requesting multi- year procurement authority for Phase II of the M1 tank upgrade program if it could be fully documented that such a multi-year program met all the standard requirements of law, including guidelines for cost savings and outyear funding commitments. Although the Army has expressed an interest in pursuing this concept, the Committee has yet to be provided with sufficient justification materials to show that this program has reached the level of maturity and stability necessary to justify multi- year authority. The Committee continues to believe that a properly structured multi-year upgrade program could result in substantial cost savings. The Committee strongly urges the Army to fully consider this option for future budget requests. The Committee expects any multi-year proposal to be supported with the standard multi-year budget justification materials. The fiscal year 1996 budget provides a stable program for the modification of Apache A models to the more capable Apache Longbow. Based on the Apache Longbow funding profile, the Committee believes it may be a good candidate for a multi-year contract and encourages the Army to pursue a multi-year contract within the guidelines established by law. The Committee believes that cost savings and accelerated fielding may be achieved through a multi-year contract for Apache Longbow. The Committee believes that a multi-year contract is possible within the current budget. joint forces command, control and communications During the year, the Committee heard testimony from the Service Chiefs, Commander in Chiefs from the various Unified and Specified Commands, and the Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. All witnesses discussed critical deficiencies in command, control and communications systems. The Committee has provided an additional $103,300,000 to correct interoperability deficiencies identified by DoD. The additional funds improve the ability of the services to tactically exploit sensor data from other service sensors, improve situational awareness and allow the automatic dissemination of air tasking orders. The Committee recommends increases for the following programs: Theater Battle Management............................... +$5,000,000 Sensor sharing: Guardrail........................................... +9,000,000 Commander's Tactical Terminal (Army)................ +18,000,000 EP-3 (Reef Point-Storyteller)....................... +3,500,000 Intel support equipment (USMC)...................... +12,500,000 JSTARS Datalink..................................... +20,000,000 TADIL J/LINK 16: FAAD C2............................................. +7,400,000 LINK 16 Hardware.................................... +11,400,000 JSTARS (USMC)....................................... +16,500,000 high capacity air ambulance The Committee is deeply concerned by the failure of the Army to address the need for a high capacity air ambulance. The Army Surgeon General has stated that this is one of his highest priorities. The Committee urges the Army to seek an appropriate solution and advise the Committee no later than September 15, 1995. classified programs Adjustments to classified procurement programs are addressed in a classified annex accompanying this report. AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $1,028,753,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 1,223,067,000 Committee recommendation................................ 1,468,067,000 Change from budget request.............................. +245,000,000 This appropriation finances the acquisition of tactical and utility airplanes and helicopters, including associated electronics, electronic warfare and communications equipment and armament, modification of in-service aircraft; ground support equipment, components and parts such as spare engines, transmissions, gear boxes and sensor equipment. It also funds related training devices, such as combat mission flight simulators, and production base support. Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request in accordance with House authorization action: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Committee Change from Item Budget request recommended request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Blackhawk............... 0 75,000 +75,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fixed Wing Aircraft c-xx aircraft In fiscal year 1995, the Congress appropriated $11,000,000 for the C-XX medium range aircraft. The Committee understands that the original requirements outlined in the Operational Requirements Document for medium range aircraft have been modified. The Committee requests that the Army provide a report no later than January 15, 1996 outlining the original requirements, modified requirements, and rationale for any modifications. c-26 aircraft The Committee recognizes that a requirement exists to replace the U-21's in the Army's fleet assigned against short range mission profile requirements. The Committee urges the Army National Guard to complete the replacement of the U-21 with more capable and modern short range aircraft, such as the C-12 or C-26. Rotary Wing Aircraft uh-60 blackhawk helicopter The Army requested no advanced procurement funds for Blackhawk production. The Committee recommends $75,000,000 only for Blackhawk advance procurement items. Fiscal year 1996 is the last year funds are budgeted for Blackhawk production despite the fact that only 70% of the requirement for Blackhawk helicopters has been met. The Committee believes that maintaining the production line is crucial to ensure that the Army and National Guard's utility helicopter deficiencies are alleviated. Before obligating these funds, the Army is directed to provide to the Committee a procurement/production strategy and funding profile for Blackhawks. The Committee encourages the Army to provide Blackhawk production funds in the fiscal year 1997 budget request. Modification of Aircraft guardrail The Army requested $48,969,000 for Guardrail modifications. The Committee recommends $57,969,000, an increase of $9,000,000 only to provide a Tactical Information Broadcast System capability for Guardrail as discussed in the beginning of the procurement section of this report. kiowa warrior The Army requested $71,334,000 for the Kiowa Warrior. The Committee recommends $211,334,000, an increase of $140,000,000 to procure 20 Kiowa Warrior helicopters. The Committee believes that until the Comanche helicopter is fielded it is imperative that soldiers are provided with an interim armed scout helicopter to support today's battlespace dominance requirement. Support Equipment and Facilities Aircraft survivability equipment The Army requested $22,304,000 for aircraft survivability equipment. The Committee recommends $43,304,000, an increase of $21,000,000 only for Aircraft Survivability Equipment Trainers (ASET-IV) systems. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $813,795,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 676,430,000 Committee recommendation................................ 842,830,000 Change from budget request.............................. +166,400,000 This appropriation finances the acquisition of surface-to- air, surface-to-surface, and antitank/assault missile systems. Also included are major components, modifications, targets, test equipment, and production base support. Committee Recommendations AUTHORIZATION CHANGES The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request in accordance with House authorization action: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Committee Change from Item Budget request recommended request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hellfire................ 209,460 249,460 +40,000 Javelin................. 171,428 210,428 +39,000 MLRS rockets............ 3,086 46,086 +43,000 MLRS Launchers.......... 48,158 64,558 +16,400 ATACMS.................. 106,971 124,971 +18,000 Stinger Mods............ 10,095 20,095 +10,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Anti-Tank/Assault Missile Systems javelin The Army requested $171,428,000 for Javelin. The Committee recommends $210,428,000, an increase of $39,000,000 only for the procurement of Javelin. The Committee notes that $18,000,000 of fiscal year 1994 funds for Javelin are not obligated. The Army is directed to report to the Committee, no later than September 15, 1995, the obligation status of the fiscal year 1994 funds and the Army's plan and schedule for obligating available funds. multiple launch rocket system rockets The Army requested $3,086,000 for Multiple Launch Rocket System rockets. The Committee recommends $46,086,000, an increase of $43,000,000 only for the production of Extended- Range rockets. The Committee directs the Army to submit a report outlining the technical risks associated with accelerating the production of the Extended Range rocket and revised procurement/production scheduled by September 15, 1995. multiple launch rocket system launchers The Army requested $48,158,000 for Multiple Launch Rocket System launchers. The Committee recommends $64,558,000, an increase of $16,400,000 only for the refurbishment of existing launchers. Furthermore, the Committee directs the Army to transfer the refurbished launchers to the National Guard to correct shortfalls. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> PROCUREMENT OF WEAPONS AND TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES, ARMY Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $1,151,914,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 1,298,986,000 Committee recommendation................................ 1,616,964,000 Change from budget request.............................. +317,978,000 This appropriation finances the acquisition of tanks; personnel and cargo carriers; fighting vehicles; tracked recovery vehicles; self-propelled and towed howitzers; machine guns; mortars; modifications of in-service equipment; initial spares; and production base support. Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request in accordance with House authorization action: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Committee Change from Item Budget request recommended request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ M1 Abrams tank (MOD).... 77,076 46,754 -30,322 9mm Personal Defense Weapon................. 0 2,000 +2,000 Machine Gun, 5.56 (SAW). 0 28,500 +28,500 MK-19................... 0 20,000 +20,000 M16 Rifle............... 0 13,500 +13,500 M4 Carbine.............. 0 6,500 +6,500 Medium Machine Gun...... 0 6,500 +6,500 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Modification of Tracked Combat Vehicles carrier modifications The Army requested $48,067,000 for carrier modifications. The Committee recommends $49,667,000, an increase of $1,600,000 only for Opposing Forces Surrogate Vehicle modifications. bradley fighting vehicle modifications The Committee notes that fiscal year 1996 is the last year funding has been budgeted to upgrade A0 configuration Bradleys to the improved A2 model which is more survivable and less costly to maintain. Upon completion of the current program, 2,000 A0 vehicles will remain in the fleet. The Committee believes that the Army should consider the continuation of the A0 to A2 upgrade program. The Army is directed to submit a production/funding profile to complete the A0 upgrade program with the fiscal year 1997 budget request. Furthermore, the Committee directs that the fiscal year 1996 and any future programs be executed as currently structured. howitzer modifications The Army requested $220,239,000 for the modification of Paladins. The Committee recommends $302,039,000, an increase of $81,800,000. Of the increase, $14,800,000 is only for the Automated Fire Control System upgrade and $67,000,000 is only for the modification of two battalion sets of Paladins for the National Guard to modernize artillery support units. FAASV The Army requested no funds for Field Artillery Ammunition Supply Vehicle (FAASV) production. The Committee recommends $44,000,000 only for the production of two battalion sets of FAASV's for the National Guard to correct artillery deficiencies. improved recovery vehicle The Army requested $23,492,000 for the Improved Recovery Vehicle (M-88) modifications. The Committee recommends $57,392,000, an increase of $33,900,000 only for M-88 modifications. The additional funds enable the Army to field M- 88 at the same rate as the M1A2 tank alleviating logistics shortfalls in the armored units. abrams tank upgrade program (MCR) The Army's request does not include the transfer of M1A1 tanks to the Marine Corps. The Committee recommends that 24 tanks be transferred to the Marine Corps and provides an additional $110,000,000 to the Army Abrams upgrade program as reimbursement. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $1,125,321,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 795,015,000 Committee recommendation................................ 1,019,315,000 Change from budget request.............................. +224,300,000 This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, modification of in-service stock, and related production base support including the maintenance, expansion, and modernization of industrial facilities and equipment. Committee Recommendations overview In its fiscal year 1994 and 1995 reports, the Committee expressed concern about the health of the industrial base for ammunition and the Army's ammunition inventory levels. In response, the Army and DoD conducted various studies which all came to the same conclusion: ammunition inventories were inadequate and the industrial base was in trouble. One study, the Army's Functional Area Analysis (FAA) examined both Army and industrial base requirements. The FAA included recommended funding levels for ammunition in order to satisfy Army inventory shortfalls and retain core functions of the industrial base. To satisfy critical deficiencies in ammunition inventory levels, the Committee recommended an additional $400 million in fiscal year 1995. The Committee also directed DoD to adequately fund ammunition in future budget requests. The fiscal year 1996 budget did not include funding for 11 of the 17 required munitions identified in the FAA. The Committee is disappointed that DoD did not provide the additional funds required to satisfy the Army's critical requirements for ammunition. The Committee believes that adequate funding is necessary not only to ensure that the industrial base is maintained, but more importantly that sufficient quantities of ammunition are available to satisfy training and wartime requirements. Therefore, the Committee directs that DoD provide the funding necessary in future budgets to satisfy critical ammunition requirements. authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request in accordance with House authorization action: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Committee Change from Item Budget request recommended request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 40MM.................... 40,278 50,278 +10,000 60MM (M721)............. 13,021 23,021 +10,000 81MM (M880)............. 0 6,600 +6,600 120MM (XM929)........... 47,704 69,704 +22,000 120MM (M829A2).......... 0 82,100 +82,100 155MM (M795)............ 37,040 57,040 +20,000 Bunker Defeat Munition.. 0 15,000 +15,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ammunition shortfalls The Committee provided an additional $189,100,000 to satisfy critical ammunition shortfalls identified by the Army. The Committee provided funds for the following items: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Committee Change from Item Budget request recommended request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 25 MM................... 35,139 45,139 +10,000 40MM.................... 40,278 50,278 +10,000 120MM (XM929)........... 47,704 69,704 +22,000 120MM (M829A2).......... 0 82,100 +82,100 155MM (M795)............ 37,040 57,040 +20,000 Provision of Industrial Facilities............. 41,906 66,906 +25,000 Layaway of Industrial Facilities............. 13,663 23,663 +10,000 Demilitarization........ 96,280 106,280 +10,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mortar Ammunition 60mm mortar ammunition The Army requested no funds for the procurement of 60mm \1/ 10\ practice (M766) ammunition. The Committee recommends $3,600,000 only for 60mm \1/10\ practice (M766) ammunition. Artillery Ammunition sadarm The Army requested $24,284,000 for SADARM and has identified a $10,900,000 shortfall in the program. The Committee fully supports SADARM and recommends the requested amount. The Committee believes that until contractor verification testing is completed in March 1996, it is premature to conclude that the submunition collision problem has been fixed. Given the program's history of technical problems, the Committee does not believe that it is prudent to accelerate production at this time. Rockets hydra 70 The Army requested $28,087,000 for the Hydra 70 rocket and subsequently identified an additional $20,000,000 shortfall in funding. The Committee recommends the budgeted amount. The Hydra 70 contract is currently under protest; therefore, none of the fiscal year 1995 funds have been obligated and production has been delayed. Upon resolution of the protest the Army is directed to provide to the Committee the revised production schedule and funding profile for the Hydra 70. Special Purpose Ammunition The Army requested no funds for 7.62mm XM993, 5.6mm XM995, or .50 caliber MK211 ammunition rounds. The Committee directs the Army to provide no later than September 15, 1995 a report stating if there is a validated requirement for each round. If a validated requirement exists, inventory requirements, funds budgeted through 2000, and production schedules are also to be provided with the report. Conventional Ammunition Demilitarization The Army requested $96,280,000 for conventional ammunition demilitarization. The Committee recommends $106,280,000, an increase of $10,000,000 to alleviate ammunition demilitarization backlogs. The Committee is concerned about the Army's continuing practice of demilitarizing ammunition by open-air burning and detonation. The Committee believes other demilitarization methods may prove to be economically and environmentally sound alternatives, including technology which recycles and reuses waste products from the demilitarization of ammunition. The Army is directed to submit by March 1, 1996 an analysis of this proposal. The analysis should include: feasibility, benefits, costs and savings of the recycle and reuse technologies compared to open burning and detonation. The revenue derived from selling the recycled and reusable products and the ultimate cost of clean up for open burning and detonation sites are also to be included in the analysis. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $2,649,348,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 2,256,601,000 Committee recommendation................................ 2,570,125,000 Change from budget request.............................. +313,524,000 This appropriation finances the acquisition of: (a) tactical and commercial vehicles, including trucks, semi- trailers, and trailers of all types to provide mobility and utility support to field forces and the worldwide logistical system; (b) communications and electronics equipment of all types to provide fixed, semi-fixed, and mobile strategic and tactical communications equipment, (c) other support equipment, such as chemical defensive equipment, tactical bridging, shop sets, and construction equipment, floating and rail equipment, generators and power units, material handling equipment, medical support equipment, special equipment for user testing, and nonsystem training devices. In each of these activities funds are also included for modification of in-service equipment, investment spares and repair parts, and production base support. Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes in the budget estimate, in accordance with House authorization action: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Committee Change from Item Budget request recommendations request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles..... 39,692 149,692 +110,000 Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles..... 596 100,596 +100,000 Army Data Distribution System................ 19,968 44,968 +25,000 Commanders Tactical Terminal.............. 11,314 30,014 +18,700 FAAD GBS............... 44,678 63,878 +19,200 Integrated Family of Test Equipment........ 26,449 46,449 +20,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ tactical vehicles overview Last year, the Committee requested that the Army submit an investment strategy for tactical vehicles. The Committee believed that the decreasing tactical vehicle budget, shortfalls, and fragile industrial base all warranted the formulation of an investment strategy. The Army's report stated that a viable tactical vehicle program which satisfied both critical Army and industrial base requirements needed annual funding levels of $600,000,000 to $800,000,000. The Army's fiscal year 1996 budget request for tactical vehicles is less than $100,000,000. During testimony this year, the Committee learned that a tactical vehicle program was virtually non- existent for the Army. high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles The Army requested $57,690,000 for High Mobility Multi- purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV's). The Committee proposes $109,690,000, an increase of $52,000,000 only for the production of HMMWV's. The budget request does not maintain the HMMWV production line. Given the Army's current and growing requirement for HMMWV's, the Committee believes that maintaining the production capability is essential. The Committee believes that the manufacturer of HMMWV's has done an exceptional job of reducing costs and working with the Army to determine optimum fielding and production levels. The Committee directs the Army to submit, no later than September 15, 1995, the annual production level and funding required to satisfy both Army requirements and maintain the production line. family of medium tactical vehicles The Army requested $39,692,000 for the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV's). The Committee recommends $149,692,000, an increase of $110,000,000 only for the production of FMTV's. The Committee does not believe that it is prudent to cancel the last year of the FMTV program. Although the FMTV program was initially riddled with schedule delays and testing failures, the Committee believes that the majority of the testing problems have been corrected. The Army's current fleet is over twenty years old and terminating the program will only delay the delivery of new vehicles. The Committee believes that the recommended funding minimally sustains the production line for FMTV's. Based on the availability of previously appropriated funds and the uncertainty of the funding required to complete the contract, the Committee does not believe it makes sense to provide all of the funding for the contract at this time. The Committee believes that the medium tactical fleet is one of the most critical Army's modernization shortfalls and directs the Army and the manufacturer to determine the funding required to complete the first limited production contract. The Committee directs the Army to submit no later than September 15, 1995, a report that will provide the following information: the obligation status of previously appropriated funds, the schedule for obligating available funds and the schedule for modifications to already manufactured trucks for Army acceptance. The Army is also directed to provide a production/funding schedule to complete the first limited production contract based on full funding and the recommended level of funding by September 15, 1995. The Committee directs the Army to adequately fund the FMTV program in the fiscal year 1997 and subsequent budget requests. family of heavy tactical vehicles The Army requested $596,000 for the heavy tactical vehicle program. The Committee recommends $100,569,000, an increase of $100,000,000. Although the Army's current requirement for heavy vehicles is not as critical as for light and medium, future requirements dictate that the production capability must be maintained. The Committee believes that the manufacturer for heavy vehicles has gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the military is provided with an affordable, quality vehicle, by redesigning the production line to ensure that costs are stable, even when production is not. The Committee believes that the heavy tactical vehicle capability must be maintained and finds it unacceptable to terminate production in fiscal year 1996. The Committee directs the Army to submit adequate funding in the fiscal year 1997 program to sustain production and meet future requirements. service life extension programs The Committee believes that a service life extension may be a cost effective method for replacing old trucks in the fleet. Because of fiscal constraints, the Committee believes it would be impossible to field new trucks at a rate which would satisfy military requirements for tactical vehicles. A service life extension program would enable the services to replace old trucks with modified trucks at a reduced cost. Because all of the services have inventories of old tactical vehicles, the Committee believes that even more cost savings and efficiencies can be achieved through a joint program. The Committee directs the Army, with the approval of the other services, to submit a joint service life extension plan for tactical vehicles with the fiscal year 1997 budget. The plan is to include the feasibility and benefits of a service life extension program; estimated price per tactical vehicle; and production and funding requirements. Communications and Electronics navstar global positioning system The Army requested $32,502,000 for the Navstar Global Positioning System (GPS). The Committee recommends $50,002,000, an increase of $17,500,000. The additional funds are to complete the procurement and integration of Navstar GPS on fielded Army aircraft. sincgars The SINCGARS program has proven to be one of the more successful DOD acquisition programs. The Army's dual source strategy has led to lower unit costs, higher quality and faster fielding. The Committee commends the Army for its efforts in assuring that soldiers are provided with the most modern radio. Given the benefits of the program, the Committee encourages the Army to accelerate the SINCGARS program. joint stars The Army requested $82,984,000 for the Joint Stars (JSTARS) program. The Committee recommends $99,484,000, an increase of $16,500,000 only for the procurement of two JSTARS ground station modules. The Committee directs the Army to transfer these two JSTARS ground station modules to the Marine Corps. Further details are provided in the beginning of the procurement section. advanced field artillery tactical data system The Army requested $30,897,000 for the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS). The Committee recommends $29,397,000, a decrease of $1,500,000. Subsequent to the preparation of the budget, the Army changed its plan for the type of Army units to be equipped in fiscal year 1996. This resulted in a change of the mix of some of the hardware procured in the AFATDS program and a subsequent lower cost of those items. faad c2 The Army requested $32,942,000 for the FAAD C2 program. The Committee recommends $40,342,000, an increase of $7,400,000 only for Patriot TADIL J/LINK 16 modifications as discussed in the beginning of the procurement section. automated data processing equipment The Army requested $132,751,000 for automated data processing equipment. The Committee recommends $130,351,000, a decrease of $2,400,000. This includes a decrease of $12,000,000 as recommended by the House National Security Committee in its fiscal year 1996 report and an increase of $9,600,000 only for distance learning as explained in the Information Technology section of this report. reserve component automation system The Army requested $83,174,000 for the Reserve Component Automation System. The Committee recommends $113,174,000, an increase of $30,000,000 as explained in the Information Technology section of this report. information systems The Army requested $64,142,000 for Information Systems. The Committee recommends $40,142,000, a decrease of $24,000,000. The budget request for this program, which installs new switching systems at Army bases, is almost triple the program level of the current year. The Committee also notes that some of the installations scheduled to receive upgrades are ranked very low on the Army's sequence list to receive telecommunications upgrades. Local Area Network The Army requested $61,547,000 for the Local Area Network Program. The Committee recommends $41,547,000, a decrease of $20,000,000. The Committee notes that the request for this program, which improves data transfer capability, is almost triple the fiscal year 1995 level. Additionally, funds are requested to provide a LAN upgrade at the Schofield Barracks, however funds were provided for this project in fiscal year 1995. Despite the reduction, the LAN program will proceed at a very aggressive pace in fiscal year 1996. general defense intelligence program Details of the Committee's recommendation appear in the classified annex to this report. integrated family of test equipment An electro-optical capability should enhance the performance of the Integrated Family of Test Equipment (IFTE). The Army recently completed development and testing on the Electro Optics Augmentation (EOA) system. The Committee understands that the Army is not considering the EOA as a candidate for IFTE. By January 15, 1996, the Army is directed to provide to the Committee justification for eliminating EOA for integration into IFTE. The justification is to include comparisons of EOA to other systems in price, capability, and logistics support requirements. Other Support Equipment combat support medical The Army requested $14,310,000 for the Combat Support Medical program. The Committee recommends $8,810,000, a decrease of $5,500,000. The reduction is applied to the Field Medical Oxygen Generating and Distribution system (FMOGDS). There has been slippage in this program because of technical problems and funds provided in the past remain available. The Committee restates its direction of last year that the funds available for FMOGDS may not be expended until the Army certifies to the congressional defense committees that FMOGDS has successfully passed production testing and has received Milestone III approval. If the FMOGDS fails to receive Milestone III approval due to test failure, the committee recommends that the available funds be used to competitively procure the Liquid Oxygen Production, Storage and Distribution system. items less than $2,000,000 (float/rail) The Army requested $3,602,000 for ``Items Less than $2,000,000 (FLOAT/RAIL).'' The Committee recommends $2,602,000, a decrease of $1,000,000. The budget request included funds to procure 50 ton railway flatirons. Since the procurement will be of used rather than new railway cars, a savings of $1,000,000 is available. generators and associated equipment The Army requested $13,761,000 for Generators and Associated Equipment. The Committee recommends $8,761,000, a decrease of $5,000,000. The Committee is supportive of this program and recognizes its importance. Unfortunately, the program is undergoing considerable turbulence including cancellation of the 3 kW generator contract, changing emission standards bid protests and stop work orders. Simnet/close combat tactical trainer The Army requested $30,655,000 for the Close Combat Tactical trainer. The Committee recommends denial of the funds. The Committee notes that research and development funds of $60,000,000 are requested for this program for fiscal year 1996. An additional $33,000,000 is planned for research and development beyond fiscal year 1996. Furthermore, Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTE) of 49 developmental units procured with R&D funds is not scheduled for completion until April, 1997. Modification of in service equipment The Army requested $21,911,000 for Modification of In Service Equipment. The Committee recommends $14,411,000, a decrease of $7,500,000. Included in the request is $7,500,000 for hardware and installation costs for upgrading three of the Army's seven CONUS based 100 foot tugs. This work is presently planned to be done overseas. In order to save transportation costs of having the tugs go overseas and return, the Committee recommends that the funds be deferred and the Army develop specifications for the event to be conducted in U.S. shipyards. Fire fighting equipment The Army currently has twelve remaining fossil fueled fire fighting training facilities which are scheduled to close in the near future. Computer controlled, natural gas/propane fire fighting training systems are in operation in the other Services. The Committee directs the Army to develop a plan which identifies the appropriate locations for regional fire fighting training facilities using the natural gas, computer controlled system. The plan should include a funding profile and a schedule to replace the existing sites over a four year period. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $4,627,645,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 3,886,488,000 Committee recommendation................................ 4,310,703,000 Change from budget request.............................. +424,215,000 This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of aircraft and related supporting equipment and programs; flight simulators; equipment to modify in-service aircraft to extend their service life, eliminate safety hazards, and improve their operational effectiveness; and spares and ground support equipment for all end items procured by this appropriation. Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with authorization action: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Committee Change from Budget request recommendation request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ AV-8B (V/STOL) Harrier.. 148,163 308,163 +160,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Combat Aircraft f-18C/D Hornet The Navy requested $609,904,000 for procurement of 12 F- 18C/D aircraft. The Committee recommends $583,204,000, a reduction of $26,700,000 for procurement of ALR-67(V)3 radar warning receivers. The General Accounting Office indicates that the Navy plans to award the low rate production contract in March, 1996 even though operational evaluation of production representative units of the ALR-67(V)3 will not be completed until at least August, 1996. GAO warns that the original version of the ALR-67, which was already in production when operational testing began, failed to meet requirements. This resulted in the need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to procure the ALR-67(V)2, but several hundred ALR-67(V)2 units were then placed in storage until they could be modified after operational tests showed that the ALR-67(V)2 did not meet requirements. In light of the history of this program, in the context of the Defense Department's history of troubled electronic warfare acquisitions (such as the B-1B defensive avionics system, the Airborne Self-Protection Jammer, ALQ-135 pods, ALQ-181 pods, the ALR-69I radar warning receiver, and the EA-6B Advanced Capability Upgrades) the Committee urges caution. The Committee recommends that fiscal year 1996 funds for ALR-67(V)3 production be denied. ah-1W The Navy requested $10,385,000 to close down the AH-1W helicopter line. The Committee recommends $75,000,000, an increase of $64,615,000 for the procurement of 6 aircraft which will complete the Marine Corps Reserve requirement to replace the Vietnam era AH-1J helicopters. Modification of Aircraft f-14 engines In 1992 and again in 1993, the Congress provided funds to the Navy to install F-110 engines on early model F-14A aircraft to replace the original TF-30 engines introduced to the fleet with F-14A deliveries in the mid-1970s. This was done to improve the F-14A fleet's safety and reliability, and to afford full use of the F-14 envelope in air-to-air engagements. At the time TF-30 engine compressor stall susceptibility was the number one operational and safety concern within the F-14 community. This initiative was very successful, resulting in 47 reengined F-14B aircraft for the fleet that would have not been fielded had Congress not acted. This year the Committee examined the F-14 reengining issue in detail. The Navy testified that over the past ten years, there have been a total of 52 F-14A Class A mishaps, of which 12 (23 percent) were related to TF-30 malfunction. Over the past 21 years, there have been 34 Class A TF-30 engine-related F-14A mishaps which have claimed the lives of five Naval aviators. Mishap causes were undetermined in other F-14A mishaps which resulted in ten fatalities. This year, the Navy lost its first female pilot in an F-14 crash, which the Navy indicates resulted from a number of factors but principally left-engine failure due to engine stall. The Navy further testified that it will keep F-14A aircraft in the active inventory for nine more years and for an additional six years in the reserves. In the year 2004, the Navy will, under current plans, still have 24 TF-30 equipped F-14A aircraft to support one 14-aircraft squadron, which would be retained until at least the year 2010. The Committee is concerned that the Navy has no plan to address reengining the remaining F-14A aircraft in the fleet that will be retained well past the turn of the century. The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a plan to the congressional defense committees by January 1, 1996 on reengining at least 24 F-14As beginning in fiscal year 1997. The plan should address cost, benefits, schedule, and funding required to accomplish this objective. h-1 series The Navy requested $54,530,000 to modify H-1 series helicopters. The Committee recommends $66,530,000, an increase of $12,000,000 only for installation of 40 navigational thermal imaging system mission kits on Marine Corps' UH-1N helicopters. The Navy indicated to the Committee that there is a requirement for this equipment which has high military value, especially since the UH-1N helicopter will assume supporting arms coordination and forward air control missions once OV-10s are deactivated. The increase will result in 93 of the 105 aircraft inventory being equipped with this equipment which is essential to employment of the UH-1H helicopter during both day and night, during periods of reduced visibility or adverse weather, without degradation of air crew or aircraft mission performance. p-3 series The Navy requested $178,557,000 to modify P-3 aircraft. The Committee recommends $217,857,000, an increase of $39,300,000. This increase includes $31,800,000 to modify an additional 5 aircraft with the Antisurface Warfare (ASUW) Improvement Program upgrades, and an additional $4,000,000 only for a test of the AN/AAQ-22 thermal imager on the aircraft and $3,500,000 only for the integration of Storyteller on REEF POINT aircraft as discussed in the beginning of the procurement section. The Committee is disturbed with the Navy's acquisition profile for P-3 AIP modification kits, which is unnecessarily stretched out. Over the life of the current program, an increase of 27 percent to the program funding (about $172 million over 6 years) would more than double the amount of aircraft delivered to the fleet with this modern capability. The Committee's recommendation to increase the AIP funding is intended to move the program into an affordable production rate of 12 modifications per year. trainer aircraft series The Navy requested $727,000 for trainer aircraft modifications. The Committee recommends $45,727,000, an increase of $45,000,000 for procurement of T-39N aircraft and ground based training systems. The Navy has been funding with Operation and Maintenance funds a purchase of service contract for aircraft and logistical support for the Undergraduate Naval Flight Officer (UNFO) program. Significant savings in operation and maintenance and administrative costs would be realized by eliminating the continued requirement to pay for non-recurring development costs resulting from a follow-on services procurement. The Committee therefore directs the Department of the Navy to procure in fiscal year 1996 17 UNFO T-39N aircraft and eight ground based training systems (four air-to-air and four air-to-ground) and has included $45,000,000 for that purpose. The Committee also directs the Navy to transition from a single purchase of services contract for aircraft and logistical support to an aircraft procurement (T-39N) and a competitive purchase of services contract for logistical support. Aviation Support Equipment and Facilities common ground equipment The Navy requested $367,017,000 for common ground equipment. The Committee recommends $397,017,000, an increase of $30,000,000 only for procurement of 50 AN/APR-39A(V)2 radar signal detection sets. The Navy indicated to the Committee that there is a requirement for these units which are of high military value. Aviation Multiyear Fund The Committee recommends $100,000,000 and legislative authority in the bill which may be used by the Secretary of the Navy to enter into multi-year procurements for AV-8B, T-45, and/or E-2C aircraft as discussed in the Procurement Overview section of this report. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $2,159,080,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 1,787,121,000 Committee recommendation................................ 1,736,211,000 Change from budget request.............................. -50,910,000 This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of strategic and tactical missiles, target drones, torpedoes, guns, associated support equipment, and modification of in- service missiles, torpedoes, and guns. Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with authorization action: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Committee Change from Budget request recommendation request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Harpoon................. 46,368 86,368 +40,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Strategic Missiles tomahawk The Navy requested $161,727,000 for procurement of Tomahawk missiles. The Committee recommends $201,727,000, an increase of $40,000,000 for phased cut-in to the production line of reliability improvements for Tomahawk Block III missiles. By integrating certain Block IV reliability improvement components into the current production line earlier than the Navy's fiscal year 1996 budget plan allows, the Block III missiles that are produced in fiscal year 1997 and beyond will have greater reliability, enhanced collateral damage avoidance, and over $100,000,000 of life cycle cost savings. The Navy indicated to the Committee that these reliability changes would result in increased operational lethality, flexibility, and responsiveness. Tactical Missiles amraam The Navy requested $81,691,000 for production of AMRAAM missiles. The Committee recommends $77,491,000, a reduction of $4,200,000 due to contract savings in fiscal year 1995 as reported by the General Accounting Office. penguin The Navy requested no funds to procure Penguin missiles. The Committee is concerned that the Navy has failed to complete a commitment to procure 193 Penguin missiles in spite of an identified, on-going requirement. This could have an impact on readiness of Navy combat forces as well as future foreign military sales of U.S. weapon systems. The Committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report to the Congressional defense committees by February 1, 1996 on the status of the Penguin program, to include the success rate of the missile under the mandated rules of the insensitive munitions specification, the requirement to procure additional Penguin missiles, the unit cost of the missile, and the overall funding required to economically procure additional missiles to meet Navy requirements and to augment the Navy's current capability. Modification of Missiles tomahawk The Navy requested $684,000 for modification of Tomahawk missiles. The Committee recommends $60,684,000, an increase of $60,000,000. Within this increase, the Navy can remanufacture 120 Block IIC missiles to the Block IIIC configuration and 155 Block IID missiles into the Block IIID configuration. Concerning the Block IIC missiles, this action provides a modern configuration of the missile at about half the cost of manufacturing a new missile, replaces the unitary warhead with a lighter insensitive munition warhead which increases missile range 30 percent, and saves $9,000,000 in fiscal year 1996 Operation and Maintenance, Navy and an additional $18,000,000 in O&M costs over the life of the 120 missiles due to changes in recertification of the missiles. Concerning the Block IID missiles, this action provides a modern configuration of the missile at about one-third the cost of manufacturing a new missile. Both actions increase the operational capability and mission flexibility of these inventory missiles by providing on-board Global Positioning System guidance, thereby reducing mission response time from days to hours. Torpedoes and Related Equipment vertical launched anti-submarine rocket The Navy requested no funds for the vertical launched ASROC. The Committee recommends $14,000,000 to procure up to twenty missiles. This quantity, coupled with those to be manufactured in fiscal year 1996 for foreign military sales, should sustain the production line at an economical rate. The Navy indicated to the Committee that it has a requirement for these missiles that has not been met due to fiscal constraints and that this program has high military value. Procurement of Ammunition In fiscal year 1995, Congress directed that ammunition funds be budgeted in a new appropriation, ``Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps''. The Navy did not comply with Congressional direction; therefore, the Committee recommends the transfer of $200,710,000 from Weapons Procurement to the Procurement of Ammunition appropriation. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $417,779,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................................... Committee recommendation................................ 483,779,000 Change from budget request.............................. +483,779,000 This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, ammunition modernization, and ammunition-related material for the Navy and Marine Corps. Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request in accordance with House authorization action: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Committee Change from Item Budget request recommended request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Navy 5 inch gun.............. 21,501 51,701 +30,200 Marine Corps 7.62 MM................. 2,082 12,082 +10,000 .50 caliber............. 8,588 66,688 +58,100 .81 MM (XM816).......... 0 6,700 +6,700 155 MM Red Bag.......... 0 32,000 +32,000 Fuze (XM762)............ 0 10,000 +10,000 Grenades................ 474 1,174 +700 Items less than $2 million................ 8,711 11,211 +2,500 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ munitions transfer In fiscal year 1996, Congress directed that ammunition funds be budgeted in a new appropriation, ``Procurement of Ammunition Navy and Marine Corps.'' The Navy and Marine Corps did not comply with Congressional direction; therefore, the Committee recommends the transfer of $200,710,000 from Weapons Procurement Navy and $110,869,000 from Procurement, Marine Corps to the Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps. Procurement of Ammunition, Navy practice bombs The Navy requested $11,195,000 for practice bombs. The Committee recommends $26,195,000, an increase of $15,000,000 only for the procurement of the laser guided training round. air expendable countermeasures The Navy budgeted $22,828,000 for Air Expendable Countermeasures. The Committee recommends $24,828,000, an increase of $2,000,000 only for the procurement of LAU-138/A (Bol Chaff). other ship gun ammunition The Navy requested $5,148,000 for other ship gun ammunition. The Committee recommends $10,148,000, an increase of $5,000,000, only for the procurement of M72 Light Anti-armor Weapons for Special Forces requirements. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $5,412,464,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 5,051,935,000 Committee recommendation................................ 5,577,958,000 Change from budget request.............................. +526,023,000 This appropriation provides funds for the construction of new ships and the purchase and conversion of existing ships, including hull, mechanical, and electrical equipment, electronics, guns, torpedo and missile launching systems, and communications systems. Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with authorization action: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Committee Change from Budget request recommendation request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SSN-21.................. 1,507,477 0 -1,507,477 Enhanced SSN Capability. 0 1,000,000 +1,000,000 LPD-17.................. 0 974,000 +974,000 Fast Patrol Craft....... 0 9,500 +9,500 T-AGS-64................ 0 70,000 +70,000 Outfitting.............. 144,791 134,791 -10,000 Post Delivery........... 174,991 164,991 -10,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ shipbuilding funding allocations This year the Committee closely examined the issue of earmarking funds in the bill for specific ship programs in the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy appropriation. There generally have been no bill language earmarks in any other Navy acquisition appropriation or in any other service acquisition appropriation except on rare occasion due to a specific and limited issue. The implication of this policy is that the Army and Air Force can be trusted to manage large acquisition programs, but the Navy cannot. It appears that the issues which prompted the Congress originally to earmark shipbuilding funds in the bill many years ago are gone. The Committee believes this policy has outlived its usefulness. Some assert that earmarking funds for specific ships in bill language imposes management discipline on the Navy. The opposite is true: a system has been created which imposes burdens on both the legislative and executive branches with no benefit to either. Each year, the Congress has earmarked funds in Title IV of the bill for specific shipbuilding programs, yet in a general provision at the end of the bill there are annually multiple pages of bill language which modify legislative ship funding limitations from previous Appropriation Acts. The bill language earmarks are not cost ceilings in any sense because they are modified annually, without formal presentation in a budget request or a reprogramming request. Sometimes a funding earmark for a specific ship in an earlier Appropriation Act is modified multiple times in subsequent Appropriation Acts in the general provisions. The bottom line is that the Navy cannot move even a penny between programs within the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy appropriation without legislation and it can make such changes only once a year. Besides the fact that the Navy shipbuilding community is not afforded the same management flexibility that is afforded to all other Defense acquisition programs to move minor amounts of funds between programs without Congressional approval (so-called ``below-threshold'' reprogramming) or to move major amounts of funds through a formal reprogramming request, the Navy has experienced difficulty in implementing the account-closing legislation (which eliminated the ``M'' accounts) in instances where valid payments must be made for accounts that have been closed for older programs which are no longer in production. The Navy has also developed a procedure where it withholds funding sources from the annual DoD-wide omnibus reprogramming request to pay for ship cost adjustments for which it requests adjustments only from the Appropriations Committees. This procedure distorts the omnibus reprogramming process which is supposed to reflect the Secretary of Defense's highest priorities, which may or may not include all the Navy's proposed ship cost adjustments and which may or may not require financing from just Navy programs. The Committee feels that both the Secretary of Defense and the Congress would be better served if the Navy's ship cost adjustment increases and the sources of funds that it would use to finance them are part of the Secretary of Defense's omnibus reprogramming request. In order to eliminate unnecessary paperwork and to give the Navy increased management flexibility, the Committee has included no legislative earmarks of funds in the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy appropriation in this bill. The Committee has also modified Section 8005 of the bill, which provides general transfer authority to the Department of Defense, to allow use of general transfer authority to move funds only for valid ship cost adjustments using the prior approval reprogramming process for either funds appropriated in the bill or a previous Appropriations Act. The Committee directs that the reprogramming limitations which apply to procurement appropriations generally be applied to programs in the Shipbuilding and Construction, Navy appropriation as well. The Committee believes this action will provide the Navy with more flexibility to rapidly respond to financial situations and the opportunity to eliminate unnecessary administrative workload and paperwork. If the Navy abuses this authority, the Committee expresses its intention to revert back to legislative earmarks for Navy shipbuilding programs in future Appropriation Acts. new attack submarine Last year the Committee in its report and again in conference expressed grave concern about the cost of the New Attack Submarine. The conferees noted that the first ship will cost $3.4 billion to procure, nearly $1 billion more than the price of the Seawolf, a program the Navy truncated in part because it was too expensive. The conferees further stated that they are aware of no cost saving techniques or innovative manufacturing processes that can be expected to reduce follow- on submarine costs from $3.4 billion to $1.54 billion per ship. The conferees also indicated that the costs of the nuclear reactor represent 35% of the production costs of the ship, and believe the Navy should seriously consider designing a more cost effective reactor and making other non-mission changes to lower the overall cost of the submarine. In April, 1995 the Navy submitted a ``business as usual'' report to the Committee which did not address these goals. The Committee is disturbed that the Navy apparently ignored both Appropriations Committees and the concerns expressed in the conference report. The Committee directs the Navy to submit a responsive report to the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate prior to the conference on this fiscal year 1996 Department of Defense Appropriations Act that addresses in a comprehensive manner the concerns expressed in the fiscal year 1995 Appropriations conference report. aegis The Committee is concerned that the Navy's current acquisition strategy for Aegis ships is not focused on long term savings. The Navy plans to buy 23 more Aegis ships after fiscal year 1996. The Navy may be able to both introduce more stability into the Aegis shipbuilding program and obtain significant cost savings by formally examining more longer term acquisition strategies, such as multiyear procurement of ships and/or government furnished equipment, establishing contract options covering a number of years, or other economic order quantity procurements for major ship components. The Committee directs the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology to report the congressional defense committees by February 1, 1996 on alternatives to annual procurement of Aegis ships, the costs and benefits of each alternative, and the Defense Department's preferred strategy. alternatives to aluminum in ship construction Both the British Navy during the conflict in the Falklands and the U.S. Navy when the U.S.S. Stark was attacked experienced fatalities from ship fires after missile attacks. The aluminum in the superstructures of the ships that were attacked was ignited. While the use of aluminum is now the traditional method to reduce weight on combat ships, the Committee understands that new steel alloys have been developed that may offer similar weight savings and provide better protection from fire hazards aboard ships. The Committee directs the Navy to provide a report to the Committee by March 1, 1996 on the feasibility of making design changes to the superstructure of the LHD-6 amphibious ship and to the designs of all future Navy combat ships now under design to incorporate the increased use of new steel alloys that can better protect personnel and sensitive areas of each ship. The report shall address the amount of aluminum and steel now planned for use in each ship, the degree of risk of aluminum fire during combat attacks, the advantages, disadvantages, and costs of substituting modern steel alloys in lieu of aluminum in vital areas of each ship, and recommendations for any changes to the current designs of each ship based on the results of this review. Amphibious Ships lpd-17 The Navy requested no funds for construction of the LPD-17, the first in a new class of amphibious ships to support Marine Corps combat operations. The Committee recommends $974,000,000 as recommended by the House National Security Committee. The Chief of Naval Operations and the Secretary of the Navy testified before the Committee this year that the LPD-17 was one of the Navy's top unfunded priorities. The LPD-17 class, consisting of 12 ships, will when fielded replace a total of 41 older ships (LSTs, LKAs, LSDs, LPDs) and reduce manning requirements from 13,000 personnel to 5,000 personnel. The Navy informed the Committee that funding the LPD-17 ship in fiscal year 1996 will save the government $828,000,000. This consists of $650,000,000 in reduced escalation costs, and operation and maintenance savings of $30,000,000 to retire LPD-4 ships two years earlier than the current plan and savings of $140,000,000 to retire reserve LKA-LSTs. No other ship offers as much future operation and maintenance savings than does the LPD-17 in terms of accelerated funding in fiscal year 1996. The Committee notes that this ship will be subject to competitive bidding among a number of shipyards. The Committee reiterates its direction contained in the fiscal year 1995 conference report concerning radio communications systems for LPD-17 class ships. The Committee urges the Navy to locate LPD-17 ship radio communication engineering, production, integration, testing and training at the Navy facility currently used to perform these functions for DDG-51 class ships. Mine Warfare and Patrol Ships minehunting combat system The Committee views the hunting and neutralization of mines as one of the Navy's most critical operational shortcomings, and notes that the Navy has been considering ways to improve the situation. The combat weapon system currently on minehunting ships consists of a minehunting sonar (AN/SQQ-32), a mine neutralization system (AN/SLQ-48), and a navigation system (AN/SYQ-13). Each of these systems uses different architecture, hardware, display units and maintenance schemes, leading to a number of operational shortcomings and unnecessarily high maintenance costs. Concurrent improvements in all three would allow pursuit of an integrated approach to architecture and hardware selection. The Committee encourages the Navy to structure a competitive program for integrated development of a minehunting integrated combat weapon system which uses commercial off-the-shelf equipment and streamlined acquisition procedures. Auxiliaries, Craft, and Prior Year Programs service craft The Committee is very concerned with the age and safety of the Navy's single-hulled fuel barge (YON) service craft fleet. The Navy has stated that it currently operates more than 40 YON's in its fleet to meet petroleum requirements, yet only two of these craft will have double hulls. The Committee believes there is an urgent need for the Navy to plan and budget for a replacement program of its old, single-hulled YON fleet now if it is to be in compliance with the national environmental and safety laws by the year 2015. The Committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report to the congressional defense committees by February 1, 1996 on Navy plans to ensure that its active YON fleet will be equipped with double hulls by 2015. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY This appropriation finances the procurement of major equipment and weapons other than ships, aircraft, missiles, and torpedoes. Such equipment range from the latest electronic sensors for updating our naval forces to trucks, training equipment, and spare parts. Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $3,329,171,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 2,396,080,000 Committee recommendation................................ 2,480,670,000 Change from budget request.............................. +84,590,000 Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes in the budget estimate, in accordance with House authorization action: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Committee Change from Item Budget request recommended request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Elec Suspended Gyro Navigator.............. 4,108 \1\ 0 -4,108 Other Navigation Equipment.............. 17,688 27,688 +10,000 HM&E Items Under $2 million................ 43,389 33,389 -10,000 Fleet Modernization Program................ 0 3,000 +3,000 Radar Support........... 466 \2\ 14,446 \2\ +14,000 Surface Sonar Windows and Dome............... 0 6,000 +6,000 Safety & Survivability Items.................. 0 20,000 +20,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ This recommendation is made without prejudice. \2\ This includes an increase of $9,000,000 for the AN/BPS-16 submarine radar. The Committee has made an additional adjustment in this line as detailed later in the report. equipment shortfalls The Committee recommends the following adjustments to fund a portion of the shortfalls in the Other Procurement, Navy account. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Committee Item Budget request recommendation Changes ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Radar Support (AN/SPA- 25G Radar Display)..... 466 5,466 +5,000 Navy Tactical Data System................. 301 12,301 +12,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ship Support Equipment minesweeping equipment The Navy requested $12,985,000 for the procurement of AN/ SLQ-53 minesweeping systems. The Committee recommends $6,985,000, a decrease of $6,000,000. The Committee notes that research and development for a subcomponent of this program is ongoing. Initial tests on this component are scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1996 and operations tests are to follow. Considering the current status of development and the testing required before a production decision is made, the Committee recommends the above-mentioned reduction. Communications and Electronics surface electro-optical systems The Navy requested $3,542,000 for surface electro-optical systems. The Committee recommends $9,542,000, an increase of $6,000,000 to procure MK-46 MOD 0 optical sight systems for CG- 47 class cruisers. SSN Acoustics The Navy requested $42,269,000 for the SSN Acoustics program. The Committee recommends $33,269,000, a decrease of $9,000,000. Funds were requested to procure TB-29 Towed Array Systems which have undergone technical problems in research and development. Because of the delay in procuring this system, the Committee recommends the above reduction. surface ship torpedo defense (sstd) The Navy requested $13,751,000 for the Surface Ship Torpedo Defense program. The Committee recommends $11,051,000, a decrease of $2,700,000. The request included funds for Launch Subsystems for Expendable Acoustic Devices (LEAD). The schedule for this subsystem is very ambitious and assumes that the continued development, development testing, operational test and evaluation, availability of performance specifications, approval for service use and procurement contract can all be concluded by August of 1996. Because of doubts that this schedule can be met, the Committee recommends the above mentioned reduction. c-3 countermeasures The Navy requested $9,540,000 for the C-3 Countermeasures program. The Committee recommends $24,540,000, an increase of $15,000,000. Details of the Committee's recommendation appear in the classified annex to this report. navy tactical data system The Navy requested $301,000 for navy tactical data systems. The Committee recommends $12,301,000, an addition of $12,000,000 to the budget request. These funds shall be used only to support the replacement of mil-spec equipment ashore with low cost commercial emulator systems as well as upgrade existing emulator equipment at shore-based sites such as the fleet test and training ranges, fleet air control and surveillance facilities and Aegis training sites. The Committee directs the Naval Audit Service to oversee the obligation of these funds to ensure that these funds are used in accordance with the specific purpose directed by the Committee. The Committee designates this project to be an item of specific Committee interest. link 16 hardware In fiscal year 1995, Congress provided $41,911,000 for Link 16 hardware. Because the Navy was able to procure JTIDS terminals at a reduced price, $11,400,000 of the fiscal year 1995 funds are still available for obligation. The Committee directs that the unobligated fiscal year 1995 funds be used to procure Link 16 items for four CVBG ships. Further details are provided in the beginning of the procurement section. id systems The Navy requested $10,202,000 for the Identifications Systems program. The Committee recommends $9,702,000, a decrease of $500,000 because of lower than projected costs fort the AN/WPN-155 MK/XII Test Sets. shipboard tactical communications The Navy requested $6,635,000 for shipboard tactical communications. The Committee recommends $12,935,000, an increase of $6,300,000. Of the available funds, $3,000,000 is only for the procurement of one SHINCOM prototype system and $3,300,000 is for the procurement of shipboard integrated communication systems. The Committee directs that the $3,300,000 may not be obligated until the Navy has conducted a competition for shipboard integrated communications systems. an/sps--48 radar upgrade The Committee directs that the funds previously appropriated for Pulse Doppler Mod Kits for the AN/SPS-48E radars be released. The Navy is also directed to submit to the Committee, as soon as it is completed, the ongoing study to quantify the advantages of the PDM Upgrade to the AN/SPS-48E Radar when it operates in littoral waters. enhanced modular signal processor (emsp) The budget request includes $26,100,000 for the fifth and final year of the multiyear procurement for EMSP units to support various Navy Anti-Submarine programs which include SURTASS, BSY-2, SQQ-89 and ALFS (LAMPS). The Committee remains concerned that the LAMPS program will still have a shortage of EMSP units even with this procurement. The Committee understands that the LAMPS program is authorized 188 SH-60R aircraft and that only 108 EMSP units will be available to equip these aircraft after the fiscal year 1997 procurement. Consequently the Committee directs that these fiscal year 1996 funds only be spent for this procurement and that any effort to do otherwise must be approved by the congressional defense committees. In addition, the Committee believes the Navy should budget for the remaining 80 units in its fiscal year 1997 budget request. Aviation Support Equipment sonobuoys The Navy requested $8,902,000 for Sonobuoys. The Committee recommends a total of $26,200,000, a net increase of $17,398,000 to the budget request. The Committee notes that a recent Navy report revealed that a significant portion of the inventory is over five years old and thus unusable. The ``mix'' of sonobuoys recommended by the Committee follows. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Committee Budget request recommended ------------------------------------------------------------------------ AN/SSQ-36............................... 0 $200,000 AN/SSQ-53............................... $8,902,000 0 AN/SSQ-62............................... 0 4,090,000 AN/SSQ-110.............................. 0 21,910,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ weapons range support equipment The Navy requested $40,280,000 for the Weapons Range Support Equipment program. The Committee recommends $38,080,000, a decrease of $2,200,000. The reduction is to be applied to the Electronic Warfare Response Monitor subprogram which has experienced technical problems and slipped. lamps mk-iii shipboard equipment The Navy requested $17,914,000 for the LAMPS MK-III Shipboard Equipment program. The Committee recommends $16,714,000, a decrease of $1,200,000 to the budget request based on projected savings from lower than budgeted costs for installation. Ordnance Support Equipment rolling airframe missile guided missile launch system The Navy requested $50,037,000 for the Rolling Airframe Missile Guided Missile Launch System (RAM-GMLS) program. The Committee recommends $39,337,000 for this program, a decrease of $10,700,000. The reduction is based on contract savings of $8,700,000 in this program in the current fiscal year and projected savings of $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1996. ship self defense system The Navy requested $15,643,000 for the Ship Self Defense System. The Committee recommends $35,643,000, an increase of $20,000,000 for incorporation of a Ship Self Defense System (SSDS) MK-1 unit into construction of the LSD-52 amphibious ship. The Committee has been a strong proponent for a number of years of providing adequate self-defense capability for amphibious assault ships that deploy Marine Corps forces. While the budget provides production funds to allow backfit of the SSDS MK-1 on already deployed amphibious assault vessels, the Committee recommendation will accelerate the fielding of this vital equipment earlier than Navy plans would otherwise allow. anti-ship missile decoy system The Navy requested $15,199,000 for the Anti-Ship Missile Decoy System. The Committee recommends $2,599,000, a decrease of $12,600,000. The Committee notes that the first production contract for the NUKLA decoy system is scheduled to occur almost half a year prior to completion of testing. The Committee recommends delaying the contract until fiscal year 1997. Supply Support Equipment special purpose supply systems Details of the Committee's recommendation appear in the classified annex. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $422,410,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 474,116,000 Committee recommendation................................ 480,852,000 Change from budget request.............................. +6,736,000 This appropriation provides the Marine Corps with funds for procurement, delivery, and modification of missiles, armament, communication equipment, tracked and wheeled vehicles, and various support equipment. Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes in the budget estimate, in accordance with House authorization action: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Committee Change from Item Budget request recommended request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Light Recon Vehicle..... 0 2,000 +2,000 Training devices........ 17,792 51,792 +34,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ procurement of ammunition In fiscal year 1995, the Congress directed that ammunition funds be budgeted in a new appropriation, ``Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps.'' The Marine Corps did not comply with Congressional direction. Therefore, the Committee recommends the transfer of $110,869,000 from Procurement, Marine Corps to the Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps. ground system shortfalls During testimony this year, the Committee discovered that the Marine Corps acquisition accounts were severely underfunded. Therefore, the Committee recommends an additional $103,105,000 to satisfy inventory requirements for the following ground support systems: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Committee Change from Item Budget request recommended budget ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mod Kits (Tracked vehicles).............. 3,273 15,573 +12,300 HAWK Launch mod......... 3,040 4,688 +1,648 Manpack radio........... 9,735 12,735 +3,000 AFATDS.................. 12,140 23,140 +11,000 Night vision goggles.... 3,401 6,401 +3,000 Trailers................ 4,932 10,439 +5,507 Modification kits (IDASC)................ 6,496 7,496 +1,000 Water equipment......... 75 1,975 +1,900 Training devices (IMST). 17,792 51,792 +34,000 Precision Gunnery Training Systems....... 0 5,900 +5,900 M240 mods............... 0 2,200 +2,200 Asset Tracking Logistics System................. 0 17,850 +17,850 Lightweight computer.... 0 3,800 +3,800 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Intelligence and Communications Equipment intelligence support equipment The Marine Corps requested $6,283,000 for intelligence support equipment. The Committee recommends $18,783,000, an increase of $12,500,000 only for Commander's Tactical Terminals (CTT). Further details are provided in the beginning of the procurement section. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $6,352,462,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 6,183,886,000 Committee recommendation................................ 7,162,603,000 Change from budget request.............................. +978,717,000 This appropriation provides for the procurement of aircraft, and for modification of in-service aircraft to improve safety and enhance operational effectiveness. It also provides for initial spares and other support equipment to include aerospace ground equipment and industrial facilities. In addition, funds are provided for the procurement of flight training simulators to increase combat readiness and to provide for more economical training. Committee Recommendations AUTHORIZATION CHANGES The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request in accordance with House authorization action: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Committee Change from Item Budget request HNSC recommended request ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- F-15E........................................... 0 250,000 250,000 250,000 F-15 Post Production Support.................... 13,955 0 0 -13,955 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Strategic Strike Requirements Study The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit an analysis of the military capabilities of the B-2 bomber force to include range, payload, stealthiness and cost as compared to the same characteristics of an aircraft carrier battlegroup. The analysis should also address the weapons to be utilized and provide a comparison of the ability of B-2's and carrier strike aircraft to attack mobile targets using submunitions like the sensor fuzed weapon. The Committee notes the extensive background of the Rand Corporation and the Center of Naval Analyses in the study and research of strategic issues. The Committee therefore directs the Secretary to utilize these two institutions to conduct this study. The Committee also directs that this analysis shall be submitted to the congressional defense committees no later than May 1, 1996. Combat Aircraft b-2 The Air Force requested $279,921,000 for the B-2. The Committee recommends $772,921,000, an increase of $493,000,000 to the budget request. The Committee has included an additional $540,000,000 for non-recurring costs and long lead components associated with continued production of the B-2 aircraft. The Committee has also reduced the budget request by $47,000,000 for B-2 curtailment costs. f-16 The Air Force requested no funding for procurement of the F-16 aircraft. The Committee recommends $50,000,000, an increase of $50,000,000 to the budget request. The additional funding provided by the Committee can be used either for continued procurement of F-16 fighters in fiscal year 1996 or for advanced procurement of F-16 fighters in fiscal year 1997. Trainer Aircraft Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS) The Air Force requested $54,968,000 for the acquisition of three JPATS aircraft. The Committee recommends $44,968,000, a decrease of $10,000,000 to the budget request. The Committee is encouraged that the Air Force has completed the JPATS down selection and can now proceed with the acquisition program. The Committee notes, however, that the Air Force budgeted engineering change orders (ECOs) for JPATS using a planning factor of 70 percent of recurring airframe costs. This amount would be excessive for a highly experimental aircraft program much less one that takes a commercial ``off-the-shelf'' approach as called for by the JPATS program acquisition strategy. In making this recommendation, the Committee has provided sufficient funding for potential ECOs required by the JPATS program. Modification of Inservice Aircraft B-1B The Air Force requested $75,383,000 for modifications to the B-1B bomber fleet. The Committee recommends $82,593,000, an increase of $7,210,000 to the fiscal year 1996 budget request. The additional funds provided by the Committee are available only to implement reliability, maintainability, and process improvements to the B-1B fleet as identified in the B-1B Operational Readiness Assessment Final Report. B-52 The Air Force requested $4,908,000 for B-52 modifications. The Committee recommends $24,908,000, an increase of $20,000,000 to the budget request. The purpose of the additional funding is discussed in the Operations and Maintenance section of this report. F-15 The Air Force requested $79,488,000 for F-15 modifications. The Committee recommends $78,288,000, a decrease of $1,200,000 from the budget request. The Air Force requested $1,200,000 to install modification kits for a landing gear wiring switch in fiscal year 1996. It is the Committee's understanding that the schedule for this modification indicates that the kits will not be delivered until fiscal year 1997; therefore these installation funds are not required in fiscal year 1996. C-5 The Air Force requested $45,431,000 for C-5 modifications. The Committee recommends $51,631,000, an increase of $6,200,000 to the budget request. The additional funding provided by the Committee is available only for reliability modifications related to the TF39 high pressure turbine, corrosion prevention, and outflow drain valves. C-130 The Air Force requested $84,399,000 for C-130 modifications. The Committee recommends $94,399,000, an increase of $10,000,000 to the budget request. In making this recommendation the Committee notes the increasingly hostile environments the airlift fleet is being asked to operate in on a regular basis. In particular, the Committee is concerned that the C-130 fleet is inadequately equipped with defensive countermeasures for the threat environment in which it often performs its missions. The Committee therefore recommends an additional $10,000,000 only to equip C-130 aircraft with threat defensive systems. C-135 Modifications The Air Force requested $142,764,000 for C-135 modifications. The Committee recommends $334,764,000, an increase of $192,000,000 to the budget request. The additional funding provided by the Committee shall be available only for the continued reengining of KC-135E tankers to the ``R'' configuration for the Air National Guard. The Committee has provided sufficient funding for eight reengining kits and directs the Air Force to proceed expeditiously with the program. E-4 The Air Force requested $957,000 for E-4 modifications. The Committee recommends $957,000, the amount of the budget request. The Committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a report to the Committee detailing the present acquisition strategy for the high power transmit set modification program for the E-4 aircraft. This report shall be provided no later than January 30, 1996. Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Program Modifications Details of this adjustment are discussed in the classified annex to this report. Aircraft Support Equipment and Facilities Common AGE The Air Force requested $216,048,000 for common aerospace ground equipment. The Committee recommends $212,510,000, a decrease of $3,538,000 to the budget request. The Committee makes this recommendation without prejudice noting that the Air Force has reduced its requirements for the F-16 Improved Avionics Intermediate Test Shop (IAIS). F-15 Post Production Support The Air Force requested $13,955,000 for F-15 post production support. The Committee recommends no funding, a decrease of $13,955,000 to the budget request. The Committee has recommended continuing production of the F-15 in accordance with the authorization committee. F-16 Post Production Support The Air Force requested $194,672,000 for F-16 post production support. The Committee recommends $94,672,000, a decrease of $100,000,000 to the budget request. The Committee believes that the amount provided coupled with prior year funding for F-16 production support will be sufficient for the Air Force's fiscal year 1996 requirements. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $3,560,762,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request........................\1\ 3,647,711,000 Committee recommendation................................ 3,223,265,000 Change from budget request.............................. -424,446,000 \1\ Fiscal year 1996 request reduced by $321,328,000 and transferred to ``Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force''. This appropriation provides for the procurement, installation, and checkout of strategic ballistic and other missiles, modification of in-service missiles, and initial spares for missile systems. It also provides for operational space systems, boosters, payloads, drones, associated ground support equipment, non-recurring maintenance of industrial facilities, machine tool modernization, and special programs support. Committee Recommendations Authorization Changes The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request in accordance with House authorization action: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Budget Committee Change from Item request recommended request ------------------------------------------------------------- HAVE NAP.............. 0 39,000 39,000 AGM-130............... 69,303 109,303 40,000 CALCM................. 0 27,200 27,200 Minuteman III Modifications........ 19,344 29,344 10,000 Space Boosters........ 464,953 459,953 -5,000 Defense Satellite Communications System 25,666 23,166 -2,500 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tactical Missiles Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) The Department of the Air Force requested $190,672,000 for the advanced medium range air-to-air missile program (AMRAAM). The Committee recommends $178,366,000, a decrease of $12,306,000 to the fiscal year 1996 budget request. According to the General Accounting Office, prior year funds originally budgeted for engineering change orders or otherwise excess to contractual requirements are available for use in fiscal year 1996. The Committee therefore makes this recommendation without prejudice. target drones The Department of the Air Force requested $39,150,000 for target drones. The Committee recommends $36,150,000, a decrease of $3,000,000 to the budget request due to unjustified growth in aircraft withdrawal costs for the QF-4 aerial target drone program. Space Programs Global Positioning System (GPS) The Air Force requested $38,412,000 for advance procurement of the Global Positioning System (GPS) Block IIF follow-on satellite. The Committee recommends no funding, a decrease of $38,412,000 to the fiscal year 1996 budget request. It is the Committee's understanding that the present GPS Block IIR program is experiencing technical problems involving the navigation payload, and ground support software which may impact upon the launch date of the first Block IIR satellite. The Committee therefore believes it is premature to proceed with concurrent development and advance procurement of the Block IIF satellite until outstanding technical issues associated with the Block IIR are resolved and the impact to the GPS launch schedule is fully assessed. Defense Support Program (DSP) The Air Force requested $102,911,000 for the Defense Support Program (DSP). The Committee recommends $67,011,000, a decrease of $35,900,000 to the fiscal year 1996 budget request. This decrease is made without prejudice as the cancellation of DSP satellites 24 and 25 has made excess prior year funding available to fund fiscal year 1996 program requirements. special programs Details of this recommendation are found in the classified annex to this report. munitions transfer In fiscal year 1995, Congress directed that ammunition funds be budgeted in a new appropriation, Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force. The Air Force did not comply with Congressional direction; therefore, the Committee recommends the transfer of $321,328,000 from Missile Procurement to the Procurement of Ammunition appropriation. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $288,401,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................................... Committee recommendation................................ 321,328,000 Change from budget request.............................. +321,328,000 This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, modifications, spares, weapons, and other ammunition-related items for the Air Force. Committee Recommendations munitions transfer In fiscal year 1996, Congress directed that ammunition funds be budgeted in a new appropriation, ``Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force.'' The Air Force did not comply with Congressional direction; therefore, the Committee recommends the transfer of $321,328,000 from Missile Procurement, Air Force to the Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force. Program Recommended The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $6,959,101,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 6,804,696,000 Committee recommendation................................ 6,508,425,000 Change from budget request.............................. -296,271,000 This appropriation provides for the procurement of weapon systems and equipment other than aircraft and missiles. Included are vehicles, electronic and telecommunications systems for command and control of operational forces, and ground support equipment for weapons systems and supporting structure. Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following change in the budget estimate, in accordance with action taken by the National Security authorization action. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Committee Change from Item Budget request recommended request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Space Based IR Sensor Program................ 19,895 0 -19,895 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Vehicular Equipment 60k a/c loader The Air Force requested $35,336,000 for the 60K A/C Loader. The Committee recommends $42,336,000, an increase of $7,000,000. Testimony before the Committee indicated that the current 40K loader used for unloading and loading the supplies carried in transportation aircraft are an average of twenty three years old even though they had a design life of ten years. They are reportedly breaking down an average of every 20 hours of usage. Given the high priority of the Committee to upgrade the overall strategic and transportation capability of the DoD, the Committee has recommended an increase. items less than $2,000,000 The Air Force requested $2,352,000 for ``Items Less Than $2,000,000'' within the Base Maintenance Support subaccount. The Committee recommends $14,176,000, an increase of $11,824,000. The increase is for a wide variety of equipment-- snow plows, cranes, water distributors--identified by the Air Force as shortfalls within this line item. Electronics and Telecommunications Equipment automatic data processing equipment The Air Force requested $23,958,000 for the Automatic Data Processing Equipment program. The Committee recommends $32,458,000, an increase of $8,500,000. A total of $4,500,000 of the increase is to expand the computing capacity of the Air Force Equipment Management System. This system is responsible for inventory control, tracking and reporting for 250,000 stock numbered items. The addition of this capacity will greatly increase the Air Force's ability to accurately compute equipment requirements, track assets and forecast future equipment needs. The additional increase of $4,000,000 is for the core automated maintenance system as explained in the Information Technology section of this report. base information Infrastructure The Air Force requested $73,138,000 for the Base Information Infrastructure program. The Committee recommended $56,538,000, a decrease of $16,600,000. Included within this request is $16,600,000 for the Digital Switching System (DSS). The Committee is supportive of this program but notes that the funds provided for this program in fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 1995 are unexpended because of ongoing contract protests. The Committee recommends a deferral of the fiscal year 1996 request pending resolution of the bid protest. This deferral will allow for a restructuring of the fiscal year 1994 and 1995 programs and provide for a more orderly planned contract execution schedule. communications--electronic modifications The Air Force requested $20,424,000 for Communications-- Electronics Modifications. The Committee recommends $9,724,000, a decrease of $10,700,000. Within this program are funds for a subprogram entitled Atmospheric Early Warning System (AEWS). The Committee is supporting of the AEWS program but notes that there has been slippage in the program because of the delay of software reconfigurations and slippage in the delivery of equipment. Base Support Equipment Mobility Equipment The Air Force requested $17,670,000 for Mobility Equipment. The Committee recommends $31,770,000, an increase of $14,100,000. Of the increased funds $2,200,000 are to provide additional Reverse Osmosis Desalinators, which the Air Force has identified as an equipment shortfall. The additional $11,900,000 is for equipment for Harvest Eagle pre-positioning sets. intelligence production activity The Air Force requested $67,928,000 for Intelligence Production Activity. The Committee recommends $69,128,000, an increase of $1,200,000. Details of the Committee's recommendation are included in the classified annex to this report. selected activities Details of the Committee's recommendation appear in the classified annex to this report. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $2,056,230,000 Fiscal year 1996 appropriation.......................... 2,179,917,000 Committee recommendation................................ 2,187,085,000 Change from budget request.............................. +7,168,000 This appropriation provides for the procurement of capital equipment for the Defense Communications Agency, the Defense Logistics Agency, the Defense Mapping Agency, and other agencies of the Department of Defense. The fiscal year 1996 program includes procurement of automatic data processing equipment, mechanized materials handling systems, general and special purpose vehicular equipment, communications equipment, chemical and biological defense equipment, and many other items. Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes in the budget estimate, in accordance with House authorization action: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Committee Change from Item Budget request recommendation request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Light Strike Vehicle.... .............. 6,000 +6,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mentor-Protege Program The Committee understands that $30,000,000 has been budgeted to continue the Mentor-Protege program. This program has benefited many small business firms, including those that provide opportunities for disabled and handicapped individuals to use their valuable talents and abilities in the workplace. The Committee strongly supports the ideals and intents of this program and has fully funded the budget request. classified programs Details of the Committee's recommendation appear in the classified annex to this report. defense air reconnaissance program (DARP) Details of the Committee's recommendation appears in the classified annex to this report. defense information infrastructure The Defense Department requested $54,234,000 for the Defense information infrastructure. The Committee recommends $58,734,000, an increase of $4,500,000 for the Defense Information Systems Agency continuity of operations (COOP). chemical-biological warfare defense program The Committee is concerned that chemical and biological monitoring and detection systems be designed to meet the various needs of the Services. It appears that specific needs can best be met through the use of CB detectors linked by a hybrid fiber optic/radio transmission based sensornet system. Procurement should be initiated in fiscal year 1996 to meet urgent and immediate operational requirements of the Services. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $770,000,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................................... Committee recommendation................................ 908,125,000 Change from budget request.............................. 908,125,000 This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of tactical aircraft and other equipment for the National Guard and Reserve. Committee Recommendations The Committee has identified shortfalls in the inventories of the National Guard and Reserve in the amount of $12,504,908,000, which were not included in the fiscal year 1996 budget. The Committee recommends a total of $908,125,000 to meet high priority requirements. program recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY The Defense Department requested $9,080,491,000 for information technology. The Committee recommends $9,234,491,000, an increase of $154,000,000 as explained below. engineering data repositories The Committee recommends an increase of $4,000,000 for the Digital Storage and Retrieval Engineering System (DSREDS)/ Engineering Data Computer Assisted Retrieval System (EDCARS) as recommended by the House National Security Committee, for technology refreshment upgrades to the existing systems to guard against further delays in the development of Joint Engineering Data Management Information Control System (JEDMICS) which is to replace them. This action in no way diminishes the Committee's support for expeditious fielding of JEDMICS. Army Programs reserve component automation system The Army requested $155,800,000 for the Reserve Component Automation System. The Committee recommends $147,900,000, a net reduction of $7,900,000, as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Committee Change from Budget request recommendation request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ O&M, Army Reserve....... 18,300 13,900 -4,400 O&M, Army National Guard 54,300 20,800 -33,500 Other Procurement, Army. 83,200 113,200 +30,000 ----------------------------------------------- Total............. 155,800 147,900 -7,900 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Committee notes that the Army is restructuring the program, which has resulted in a temporary delay. Reductions can be made in the Operation and Maintenance appropriations to reflect the Army's most recent estimate in requirements. Additional funds are recommended in the Other Procurement appropriation to field equipment to more Army Guard and Reserve units than envisioned in the President's Budget. The Committee recommends that Section 8022 of the bill be retained until such time as the Office of the Secretary of Defense has approved the proposed restructure and formally requests the Congress to make changes to the bill language. Of the funds provided, the Committee recommends that at least $1,500,000 be provided for equipment for the Puerto Rico National Guard. The Committee directs that not more than half of the fiscal year 1996 procurement funds for the RCAS system may be obligated until the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs certifies to the Congressional defense committees that the Defense Department has a fully funded program that is executable, that meets the requirements of the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve, and there is a plan to eventually field the equipment to all operational units which have valid requirements for the system. The Committee also directs that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs conduct an independent technical assessment by the Defense Science Board, an FFRDC, or another organization which is independent of the Army. distance learning The Army National Guard requested no funds for distance learning. The Committee recommends $12,000,000 only to continue the multi-state distance learning initiative conducted by the National Guard Bureau. The Committee recommends $3,400,000 in the Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard and $8,600,000 in the Other Procurement, Army appropriations. Navy Programs naval standard integrated personnel system The Navy requested no funds for the Naval Standard Integrated Personnel System. The Committee recommends $18,000,000. The Committee continues to consider standardization and single source data collection of personnel information critical to management savings. The additional funding is only for the accelerated development and implementation, including rapid prototyping and adaptive oversight methodologies critical to migration and standard systems development, for the Naval Standard Integrated Personnel System (NSIPS). The Committee believes that parallel development of NSIPS is critical and directs the Navy, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence to continue NSIPS development as a joint active and reserve project and as a parallel or core migration system for development of an ultimate Defense standard personnel system or military personnel management system. The Navy shall be designated as the executive agent for the pay and personnel integrated field system. The Committee is aware of previous Naval audit reports and other studies that demonstrate savings by reducing overhead and other costs associated with multiple organizations performing information technology services. To realize further cost saving and efficiencies, the Committee directs the Department of Navy to place the collocated Naval Telecommunications and Communications Station under the operational control and command of the Naval Reserve Information Systems Office. Air Force Programs automated maintenance systems The Air Force requested $900,000 for continued development of automated maintenance systems. The Committee recommends $29,700,000, an increase of $28,800,000 as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Committee Change from Budget request recommendation request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Operation and Maintenance: Core Automated Maintenance System. 900 1,400 +500 Tactical Interim CAMS/REMIS Reporting system... 0 10,000 +10,000 Other Procurement: Core Automated Maintenance system. 0 4,000 +4,000 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation: Integrated Maintenance Data System............. 0 15,200 +15,200 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ base level systems modernizaton The Air Force requested $10,400,000 for the Base Level Systems Modernization program in the Operation and Maintenance, Air Force appropriation. The Committee is concerned that this program has simply become a billpayer to the Air Force operating commands, which continue to divert funds from this program to meet operating expenses. This prolongs the time it will take to modernize computers at all Air Force bases. The Committee therefore recommends that $10,400,000 be transferred to the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation appropriation where the program can be managed for what it is--a major acquisition. Defense-Wide Programs joint logistics systems center The Joint Logistics Systems Center's business areas of Materiel Management and Depot Maintenance support Department of Defense mission assets totaling $600 billion with an annual cost of operations of over $50 billion. Work performed today is predominately being accomplished with aging legacy computer systems based on 1970's technology. Older mainframe computers, batch processing, and incomplete or incompatible interfaces drive up costs of operations. Multiple, single-service business practices rely on hard-to-maintain, proprietary software. There is little opportunity to wring further improvements from these inflexible ``stovepipe'' systems by incremental upgrades. To correct these inefficiencies and nonstandard business practices, the Joint Logistics Systems Center is implementing functional process improvements and a standard information systems infrastracture to provide dramatic cost savings. The Joint Logistics Systems Center has demonstrated the proven payoffs of modern systems approaches to logistics automation and has already deployed portions of the ten element suite of Materiel Management Systems and the nine element suite of Depot Maintenance systems, with dramatic savings in dollars and with marked improvements in inventory reduction, flow time, and responsiveness to warfighters. Joint Logistics Systems Center success in deploying Depot Maintenance and Materiel Management systems range from improved throughput equal to two additional B-1s at the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center to a 52 percent labor reduction in E-2 propeller repair at Naval Aviation Depot Norfolk. The Committee recommends an increase of $100,000,000 which will have a positive impact on readiness through early reduction in inventory levels, decreased cycle time in mainframe and supply activities, and faster materiel delivery from vendors to warfighters. Also, the advantages of information technology modernization of on-line, real-time asset and capacity visibility, common technical platforms and software, locating materiel instead of buying, elimination of outdated legacy systems, and standard data for interoperability would be achieved much earlier than the current plan. Within the additional funding, $30,000,000 is for Depot Maintenance to improve the manufacturing resource planning capability and $70,000,000 is for Materiel Management to accelerate deployment of the requirements computation system, the stock control system and the configuration management information system. When fully implemented, the estimated steady state savings for Materiel Management and Depot Maintenance respectively are $900,000,000 and $345,000,000 per year. The additional dollars saved from earlier deployments can be used to support readiness enhancements. In summary, investing $100,000,000 will result in greater long-term savings, integrated systems are delivered at least two years earlier, overall cost to modernize Depot Maintenance and Materiel Management is reduced, and readiness is enhanced. disa continuity of operations The Defense Information Systems Agency requested no funds for continuity of operations. The Committee recommends $16,500,000, of which $12,000,000 is in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide and $4,500,000 is in Procurement, Defense-Wide. other defense agencies The Committee strongly supports the Department of Defense's data processing and megacenter consolidation efforts as long as these consolidations are based on the most cost effective rationale, military readiness, and mission needs. While the Committee believes that maximizing efforts to outsource defense data processing capabilities to the private sector is meritorious, the Committee cannot, at this time, support provisions in the House National Security Committee's fiscal year 1996 bill to conduct a pilot program for the private operation of all information technology services currently being consolidated in DoD megacenters. The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense not to conduct any pilot or demonstration programs for the private sector operation of the information technology functions performed by the DoD megacenters, or shift any workload to the private sector, until the legacy workload or data processing functions approved for consolidation into megacenters in previous base closing and realignment recommendations is completed. The Committee notes that no funds were requested by the President nor contained in this bill to outsource megacenter workload, and to use funds for this purpose would therefore require a prior approval reprogramming request to the Congress. The Committee directs the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) to submit a detailed report to the Committee by January 1, 1996 that: (1) provides a detailed economic feasibility analysis of outsourcing such functions; (2) provides an impact statement on outsourcing military essential activities, services, and functions; and, (3) provides a detailed assessment and breakout of the information technology functions and services performed by DoD megacenters that are not military essential and commercial versus military essential functions, information security functions and military readiness, training, or warfighting missions or functions. The Committee firmly believes restrictions on further DoD megacenter consolidations are not warranted and directs the Department to proceed with further consolidations if it deems it necessary and only if these consolidations are based on the most cost effective rationale and military readiness and mission needs. integrated recruiting information management systems Last year's House and conference reports directed that prior to making any final decisions on the Department's efforts to standardize or choose a migration system for its recruiting functions, the Department was to submit to Congress a fair and full evaluation report on the Navy Reserve's Command Integrated Recruiting Information Management System (CIRIMS), a proven system that is currently deployed and is cost effective. The Committee still stands by the direction in last year's report (House Report 103-562, page 59) and directs the Department to submit this report prior to the conference on the fiscal year 1996 bill. TITLE IV RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION Estimates and Appropriation Summary The fiscal year 1996 Department of Defense research, development, test and evaluation budget totals $34,331,953,000. The accompanying bill recommends $35,879,560,000. The total amount requested is an increase of $1,547,607,000 above the fiscal year 1996 budget estimate, and is $748,961,000 above the total provided for fiscal year 1995. The table below summarizes the budget estimates and the Committee's recommendations: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Budget Committee Change from request recommended request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Recapitulation: RDTE, ARMY................ 4,444,175 4,742,150 +297,975 RDTE, Navy................ 8,204,530 8,715,481 +510,951 RDTE, Air Force........... 12,598,439 13,110,335 +511,896 RDTE, Defense-wide........ 8,802,881 9,029,666 +226,785 Developmental test and evaluation............... 259,341 259,341 ............ Operational test and evaluation............... 22,587 22,587 ............ ----------------------------------------- Grand total, RDTE....... 34,331,953 35,879,560 +1,547,607 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ special interest items Items for which funds have specifically been provided in this report using the phrases ``only for'' or ``only to'' are Congressional interest items for the purpose of the Base for Reprogramming (DD Form 1414) for the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation programs. Each of these items must be carried on the DD Form 1414s at the stated amount, or a revised amount if changed during conference action on this bill, unless the item is denied in conference or if otherwise specifically addressed in the conference report. classified programs Adjustments to classified RDT&E programs are addressed in a classified annex accompanying this report. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, ARMY Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $5,478,413,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 4,444,175,000 Committee recommendation................................ 4,742,150,000 Change from budget request.............................. +297,975,000 This appropriation funds the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation activities of the Department of the Army. Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request in accordance with House authorization action: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Committee Change from Item Budget request recommended request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sensors and Electronic Survivability.......... 21,918 27,918 +6,000 Logistics Advanced Development............ 10,569 13,669 +3,100 Tractor Hike............ 14,588 31,588 +17,000 Industrial Preparedness Manufacturing Technology............. 17,776 0 -17,776 Artillery Propellent Development............ 10,946 30,546 +19,600 Engineer Mobility Equipment, Adv Dev..... 5,615 10,115 +4,500 Tactical Elect Supt Systems................ 2,937 5,937 +3,000 Aviation Adv Dev........ 8,430 14,430 +6,000 Javelin................. 0 2,000 +2,000 Heavy Tactical Vehicles. 0 2,745 +2,745 Armored Systems Modernization.......... 38,465 43,825 +5,360 Engineer Mobility Equipment.............. 21,831 35,984 +14,153 Tactical Surveillance System................. 0 3,100 +3,100 Automotive Test Equip Development............ 5,437 15,437 +10,000 Tractor Bat............. 193,303 200,303 +7,000 Combat Vehicle Improvement Programs... 197,669 198,978 +1,309 Maneuver Control System. 38,327 51,327 +13,000 Missile Air Defense Prod Improvement............ 17,069 26,869 +9,800 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Exploratory Development combat vehicle and automotive technology In fiscal year 1995, $6,000,000 was appropriated for the U.S. Army Ground Vehicle Simulation Upgrade Program at the Army's Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center. The Committee understands since the funds will be obligated late in fiscal year 1995, no additional funding is required for fiscal year 1996. The Committee urges the Army to provide adequate funds in the fiscal year 1997 budget request. ballistics technology The Army requested $28,126,000 for ballistics technology. The Committee recommends $39,126,000, an increase of $11,000,000. Of the additional funds, $9,000,000 are only for the development of electric gun technologies, and $2,000,000 are only to continue the Army Electrothermal-Chemical Technology (ETC) program with a goal of demonstrating a 40% performance improvement in a 60mm tank-scale fixture by fiscal year 1998. Furthermore, the Committee directs the Army to continue the ETC program with a goal of demonstrating 25% performance improvement in a 60mm tank-scale fixture by fiscal year 1996. electronics and electronic devices The Army requested $17,525,000 for electronics and electronic devices development. The Committee recommends $19,025,000, an increase of $1,500,000 only for the testing of battery maintainer systems. human factors engineering technology The Army requested $12,534,000 for human factors engineering technology. The Committee recommends $20,034,000, an increase of $7,500,000 as explained in the medical research (title VI) section of this report. army environmental quality technology The Committee supports the Army budget request for environmental quality technology of $21,304,000. The Committee directs that none of these funds may be used by the Department of Defense for activities that duplicate the work of the National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence. medical technology The Army requested $56,658,000 for medical technology. The Committee recommends $58,658,00, an increase of $2,000,000 as explained in the medical research (title VI) section of this report. Advanced Development medical advanced technology The Army requested $11,760,000 for medical advance technology. The Committee recommends $88,760,000, an increase of $77,000,000 as explained in the medical research (title VI) section of this report. aviation advanced technology The Army requested $48,593,000 for aviation advanced technology. The Committee recommends $59,093,000, an increase of $10,500,000. Within this increase, $4,000,000 is only for evaluation of the Chinook helicopter to determine the feasibility of a service life extension program and $6,500,000 is only to evaluate the Starstreak missile on the Apache helicopter. The Committee notes that unobligated fiscal year 1995 funds are also available to complete the Starstreak evaluation. weapons and munitions advanced technology The Army requested $18,518,000 for weapons and munitions advanced technology. The Committee recommends $21,518,000, an increase of $3,000,000. Of the additional funds $2,000,000 is only for XM982 and $1,000,000 is only for Electro-Rheological Fluid Recoil System development. combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology The Army requested $30,616,000 for combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology. The Committee recommends $31,616,000, an increase of $1,000,000 only for the armored vehicle self-protection program. missile and rocket advanced technology The Army requested $123,913,000 for missile and rocket advanced technology. The Committee recommends $126,413,000, an increase of $2,500,000 only for the development of a Low Cost Autonomous Attack Submunition. Demonstration and Validation army missile defense systems integration The Army requested $2,985,000 for Army missile defense systems integration. The Committee recommends $30,785,000, an increase of $27,800,000. Of the available funds, $5,000,000 is only for THEL, $5,000,000 is only for the Nautilus Laser, and $17,800,000 is only for the Battle Integration Center. Engineering and Manufacturing Development comanche The Comanche helicopter will be an integral part of Force XXI's combat capabilities. Comanche technologies will not only give the warfighter a clear advantage on the battlefield, but reduced maintenance requirements will drastically decrease operation and support costs. The Committee believes that the development and fielding of Comanche should be one of DoD's top priorities; however, the Comanche program is viewed by DoD as a ``billpayer.'' Because of DoD's reduction to the Comanche fiscal year 1996 program, production has been slipped once more. The Committee is extremely frustrated at DoD's lack of commitment to the Comanche program and believes this program should be accelerated in subsequent budget requests. The Committee understands that Comanche test and evaluation activities could be carried out at the Navy's Patuxent River complex. The Committee directs the Army to submit an analysis of this proposal, along with the Army's planned testing schedule, location, and related costs. light tactical wheeled vehicles The Army requested $2,187,000 for light tactical wheeled vehicles. The Committee recommends $4,187,000, an increase of $2,000,000 only for the development of a High Mobility Multi- purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) service life extension program. The Army is directed to provide to the Committee a plan outlining the feasibility, cost benefits, funding, and production schedule for a HMMWV service life extension program. weapons and munitions--eng dev The Army requested $15,928,000 for weapons and munitions engineering development. The Committee recommends $17,528,000, an increase of $1,600,000 only for the development of the XM- 931. RDT&E Management Support dod high energy laser test facility The Army requested $3,000,000 for the High Energy Laser Test Facility (HELSTF). The Committee recommends $24,808,000, an increase of $21,808,000 only for the operation of the Sea Lite Beam Director and the development, planning and execution of a laser technology demonstration program. The Committee directs that none of these funds may be used for any other purpose without prior approval from the Congress. Operational Systems Development aircraft engine component improvement program The Army requested $3,012,000 for the aircraft engine component improvement program. The Committee recommends $4,112,000, an increase of $1,100,000 only for the development of a liquid or light-end air boost pump to improve the T700 fuel system. industrial readiness activities The Army requested no funds for industrial preparedness activities. The Committee recommends $17,776,000. These funds are transferred from the industrial preparedness manufacturing technology program as recommended by the House National Security Committee. The Committee believes that optics and optoelectronics technologies play an important role in the Army's modernization efforts. Therefore, the Committee directs the Army to maintain optic and optoelectronics programs that includes strong industry involvement. program recommended The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, NAVY Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $8,727,368,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 8,204,530,000 Committee recommendation................................ 8,715,481,000 Change from budget request.............................. +510,951,000 This appropriation provides funds for the Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation activities of the Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps. Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with authorization action: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Committee Change from Budget request recommendation request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Surface/Aerospace Surveillance and Weapons Technology Exploratory Development 32,658 36,658 +4,000 Aircraft Technology Exploratory Development 22,238 24,738 +2,500 Materials, Electronics, and Computer Technology Exploratory Development 74,849 77,849 +3,000 Ship Propulsion System.. 43,544 17,986 -25,558 Environmental Quality and Logistics Advanced Technology Development. 21,504 33,504 +12,000 Industrial Preparedness Manufacturing Technology............. 41,251 0 -41,251 Advanced Submarine Combat Systems Development............ 21,281 28,181 +6,900 Surface and Shallow Water Mine Countermeasures........ 54,527 56,177 +1,650 Advanced Submarine System Development..... 35,748 55,748 +20,000 Marine Corps Assault Vehicles............... 34,157 40,157 +6,000 Retract Maple........... 82,932 90,932 +8,000 Gun Weapon System Technology............. 12,028 37,028 +25,000 ASW and Other Helicopter Development............ 91,803 80,175 -11,628 AV-8B Aircraft.......... 11,309 26,909 +15,600 S-3 Weapon System Improvement............ 12,872 27,872 +15,000 P-3 Modernization Program................ 1,945 16,945 +15,000 Aircrew Systems Development............ 9,788 17,688 +7,900 Aegis Combat Systems Engineering............ 105,683 89,883 -15,800 Submarine Combat System. 43,302 37,151 -6,151 Submarine Tactical Warfare System......... 38,479 20,487 -17,992 Test and Evaluation Support................ 245,911 247,911 +2,000 Consolidated Training Systems Development.... 48,058 51,058 +3,000 Free Electron Laser..... 0 9,000 +9,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Exploratory Development vectored thrust combat agility demonstrator The Committee provided $5,000,000 in fiscal year 1995 for the vectored thrust combat agility demonstrator (VTCAD) program (PE 602122N) which, when combined with $1,000,000 in fiscal year 1994 funding (PE 602211A), would allow the Navy to accomplish the full-scale vectored thrust ducted propeller (VTDP) ground testing. The Committee understands that the Navy Program Executive Office has developed a program to accomplish the design, fabrication and testing of the full-scale VTDP and has requested the release of funds for these efforts. The Commitee continues its interest in the VTCAD program, and suggests the implementation of this VTDP effort so that the technology is postured for possible insertion into the AH-1W mid-life upgrade program, anticipated to start as soon as fiscal year 1997. surface ship technology The Navy requested $36,786,000 for surface ship technology exploratory development. The Committee recommends $46,786,000, an increase of $10,000,000 for submarine technology as recommended by the House National Security Committee. Readiness, Training, and Environmental Quality Technology The Navy requested $40,511,000 for readiness, training, and environmental quality technology. The Committee recommends $45,311,000, an increase of $4,800,000 only for aircrew and chemical/biological protection. mine countermeasures, mining, and special warfare The Navy requested $43,384,000 for mine countermeasures, mining, and special warfare. The Committee recommends $51,384,000, an increase of $8,000,000 only to continue development of the Rapid Airborne Mine Clearance System. oceanographic and atmospheric technology The Navy requested $45,526,000 for oceanographic and atmospheric technology. The Committee recommends $60,526,000, an increase of $15,000,000. Within this amount, $10,000,000 is only for continued development and application of sensing systems and unmanned underwater vehicles for land margin continental shelf oceanographic and environmental measurements for mine countermeasures and other applications, and $5,000,000 is only for continued development of POAM-II. Advanced Development air systems and weapons advanced technology The Navy requested $17,082,000 for air systems and weapons advanced technology. The Committee recommends $71,082,000, an increase of $54,000,000. Within this amount, an additional $35,000,000 is only for the Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile as recommended by the House National Security Committee, an additional $10,000,000 is only for continuation of the Navy's Maritime Avionics Subsystems and Technology (MAST) program within Naval Air Systems Command to provide valuable avionics technologies for future Navy aircraft as well as upgrades of existing Navy aircraft, and an additional $9,000,000 is to be used by the Chief of Naval Operations to make emerging technologies available to operational forces through the Technologies for Rapid Response initiative. ship propulsion system The Navy requested $43,544,000 for ship propulsion system advanced development, of which $25,558,000 was requested for the Intercooled Recuperative (ICR) Gas Turbine Engine. The Committee recommends $17,986,000, a decrease of $25,558,000 and directs that the ICR gas turbine development be terminated. In the past, a number of Congressional Committees expressed concern over the Navy's lack of commitment to install the ICR engine on any class of ships. Last year, the Navy committed to put the ICR engine on 10 Aegis ships as reported in the December, 1994 DDG-51 Selected Acquisition Report to Congress. The Navy recently informed the Committee that the report was in error, and that it actually meant 13 ships. Through the end of fiscal year 1995, the Navy has spent $199,420,000 to develop the ICR engine and plans to spend at least an additional $197,600,000 to complete its development for a total development cost of $397,000,000. The December, 1994 Selected Acquisition Report to Congress for the Aegis ship program included $250,000,000 to install ICR on just 13 ships, which is about $19,000,000 each. The pro-rata share of development cost based on the same number of ships is about $30,500,000 each. The total ICR acquisition cost per ship is therefore about $49,500,000. However, the Navy has indicated that the ICR program will save only $650,000 per ship annually in fuel costs. Given these Navy estimates, it would take 76 years just to reach the break-even point to pay back the investment in this program, which is twice as long as the service life of Aegis ships. In the fiscal year 1996 budget the ICR development has reverted from demonstration/validation to advanced development as the Navy has detected serious technical problems in the program. The more time the system spends in advanced development, the less able the Navy would be to actually install the device on Aegis ships. The Committee also understands that the ICR engine requires approximately three times the volume and twice the weight of the current turbine engine system on Aegis ships. This greatly reduced ``power density'' alone makes the program questionable, but when coupled with the serious technical problems exhibited in system testing and the inability of the system to reach an investment payback over the life of the ships on which it is to be installed makes continuation of the ICR development program unwise. The Committee specifically denies all funds for ICR development and recommends that the program be terminated. This action will save the Government $25,558,000 in fiscal year 1996 and $422,000,000 in subsequent fiscal years. medical development The Navy requested $27,754,000 for medical development. The Committee recommends $62,754,000, an increase of $35,000,000 as explained in the medical research (title VI) section of this report. Advanced Undersea Warfare Technology The Navy requested and the Committee recommends $51,816,000 for advanced undersea warfare technology. The Committee has been interested in work being done to develop low low frequency active technology since fiscal year 1992 and understands that the Navy has sufficient funding available in prior years to complete the testing and evaluation planned for fiscal year 1996. The Committee would support a Navy plan, upon successful completion of testing, to move low low frequency active technology to the LFA SURTASS program. The Committee believes that the very broad frequency band LLFA projector offers the most promising frequency regime for the positive detection of quiet, slow moving diesel submarines operating in the widely variable acoustic environment of shallow littoral waters. The Committee therefore expresses its interest in the continuation of this project. shallow water mcm demos The Navy requested $50,958,000 for shallow water mine countermeasure demonstrations. This is about ten times the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1995. The Committee recommends $25,000,000, a reduction of $25,958,000 due to fiscal constraints. advanced technology transition The Navy requested $96,825,000 for advanced technology transition. This is an increase of 29 percent from the fiscal year 1995 appropriated level. The Committee recommends $78,000,000, a reduction of $18,825,000 due to fiscal constraints. Demonstration and Validation air/ocean tactical applications The Navy requested $16,621,000 for air/ocean tactical applications. The Committee recommends $19,821,000, an increase of $3,200,000 only to continue research and further development, validation, and demonstration efforts for the Navy's oceanographic remotely controlled automation system, to increase the productivity of the Navy's littoral nautical charting efforts. aviation survivability The Navy requested $7,477,000 for aviation survivability. The Committee recommends $16,377,000, an increase of $8,900,000. Within the increase, $7,400,000 is only to continue development of the advanced integrated life support system and for an advanced technology aircrew escape system for aircrews as recommended by the House National Security Committee, and $1,500,000 is only for the Naval Biodynamics Laboratory to continue at the fiscal year 1995 level of effort. submarine tactical warfare systems The Navy requested $5,070,000 for submarine tactical warfare systems. The Committee recommends $8,570,000, an increase of $3,500,000 only for continued development of the Passive Subsurface Topographical Defense and Navigation System submarine tactical navigation system. ship concept advanced design The Navy requested $16,736,000 for ship concept advanced design. The Committee recommends $53,736,000, an increase of $37,000,000 only for a Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) service life extension. The Committee recognizes the critical role of the LCAC in making operational maneuver from the sea a reality and in addressing the Navy's evolving multimission needs. Given the absence of a planned follow on program, the LCAC must maintain its high levels of combat readiness for Marine Corps missions beyond the current 20 year design life. The Committee believes that comprehensive corrosion control and service life extension programs and plans must be addressed and initiated immediately to maintain the Marine Corps' only over-the-horizon landing capability and to take advantage of existing industrial base capabilities. Modifications and improvements of certain craft components are necessary to reverse the current upward maintenance cost trends as the LCAC fleet ages. These improvements may include upgrading the crew station electronics, replacing the existing skirt system with an improved design, upgrading the propulsion system, and other structural modifications. The Committee has provided $37,000,000 for the Naval Sea Systems Command only for use in advanced planning and the engineering necessary to begin incorporating changes that ensure a 30 plus year design life and accomplish possible life cycle cost initiatives and structural modifications. These initiatives will be phased into craft 91 during production and into existing fleet craft beginning in fiscal year 1996 as an expansion of the current corrosion effort. No more than $20,000,000 of this amount shall be obligated until the Secretary of the Navy provides a report to the Committee by January 1, 1996, on the Navy's plan for an ongoing and comprehensive program to extend the service life of the LCAC fleet beyond its current 20 year design and service life. ship self-defense The Navy requested $245,620,000 for ship self-defense technology programs. The Committee recommends $365,120,000, an increase of $119,500,000. Within this increase: $26,500,000 is to convert a Naval Research Laboratory P-3 aircraft to facilitate cooperative engagement airborne testing; $11,500,000 is to use a fleet P-3 for cooperative engagement airborne testing; $8,000,000 is to facilitate E-2 aircraft cooperative engagement airborne testing; $49,000,000 is only for demonstration of the feasibility of integrating the cooperative engagement system with other defense weapon systems such as Patriot, Theater High Altitude Air Defense, Hawk, E-3 AWACS, E- 8 JSTARS, and national sensors; $4,500,000 is for integration of high definition displays into the cooperative engagement system; $16,000,000 is only for continued adaptation of the AN/ UYQ-70 to support cooperative engagement capability applications including a P-3C AIP demonstration; and $4,000,000 is for continued self-defense sensor integration at the Aegis communications test and checkout site. The Committee notes that the Defense Department currently plans to spend $2,600,000,000 to develop, test, and acquire the cooperative engagement system and a total of over $5,000,000,000 during its lifecycle. After at-sea tests last summer, the Secretary of Defense directed that development of the cooperative engagement system be accelerated. The additional funds recommended by the Committee are intended to capitalize on this huge warfighting investment by keeping the test program on-track and facilitating the systems' use in services other than the Navy. joint advanced strike technology The Navy requested $149,295,000 for Joint Advanced Strike Technology. The Committee recommends $143,795,000, a decrease of $5,500,000. This consists of a decrease of $25,500,000 as recommended by the House National Security Committee in its fiscal year 1996 report and an increase of $20,000,000 only to ensure the evaluation of two propulsion concepts from competing engine companies. The history of recent fighter engine propulsion plants demonstrates that development of new engines is difficult. The Navy has generally been dissatisfied with the engine performance of early model F-14s, and it eventually upgraded later model F-14s with an Air Force engine. The Air Force in the late 1970s and early 1980s was dissatisfied with both the performance and cost of engines on early models of the F-15 and the F-16, and it spent over a billion dollars to bring a second engine manufacturer into a position where competition could be conducted between two companies for future Air Force fighter aircraft. The new engine for the F-22 has suffered technical problems and is undergoing a redesign. The Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program envisions building a common aircraft to satisfy the needs of the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps for fighter aircraft in the next century. Yet, it has selected a single power plant design, a derivative of the F-22 engine which has yet to be proven. Given the engine performance difficulties experienced over the last two decades, this is unwise. To cede the manufacture of all jet engines for three services' future aircraft without any additional competition is not likely to be cost effective. For these reasons, the Committee believes it is imperative for the JAST program to actively pursue an engine design from a second manufacturer and has provided an additional $20,000,000 only for this purpose. The Committee is also concerned that the JAST program intends to build demonstrator aircraft which are not full-sized nor powered at full thrust. Understanding that this is planned in order to save development costs, it nevertheless postpones development risk into the next phase of the program (engineering/manufacturing development). The Committee would like the Department to provide a detailed justification of this strategy, and clearly explain the costs, benefits, and risks of the current JAST plan compared to demonstrating aircraft and engine performance through construction of full scale demonstrator aircraft. The Committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by January 1, 1996 on the Department's strategy for development of engine and construction of full-sized/full-powered demonstrator aircraft in the JAST program. The Committee understands that the JAST program office is housed in a temporary location. The Committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology to report to the congressional defense committees of the Department's plan for permanent location of the JAST program office. The plan should address cost and ability to best utilize the in- place acquisition workforce, laboratories, and technology infrastructure. Engineering and Manufacturing Development standard missile The Navy requested $8,572,000 for Standard missile improvements. The Committee recommends $2,572,000, a decrease of $6,000,000 reported by the General Accounting Office due to savings in fiscal year 1995. enhanced modular signal processor The Navy requested $8,342,000 for the enhanced modular signal processor. The Committee recommends $14,842,000, an increase of $6,500,000 only to develop a commercial/off-the- shelf variant of the system. navy tactical computer resources The Navy requested $5,499,000 for tactical computer resources. The Committee recommends $15,499,000, an increase of $10,000,000 only to support the continued adaptation of the AN/ UYQ-70 equipment for candidate shipboard, subsurface and airborne applications. unguided conventional air-launched weapons The Navy requested $40,517,000 for unguided conventional air-launched weapons. The Committee recommends $43,517,000, an increase of $3,000,000 to accelerate development of the Extended Range Standoff Land Attack Missile. This increase is necessary to capture ``lessons-learned'' from Operation Desert Storm and to compensate in part for the Defense Department's decision to terminate the Tri-Service Standoff Attack Missile. ship self-defense The Navy requested $165,997,000 for ship self-defense programs. The Committee recommends $201,997,000, an increase of $36,000,000. Within the increase, $7,900,000 is for modifications to the ship self-defense test ship; $2,500,000 is for Quick Reaction Combat Capability; $4,500,000 is for electronic support measures; $9,500,000 is for infrared search and track; $4,800,000 is for the SPQ-9 system development; and $6,800,000 is for the Enhanced Sea Sparrow missile. An additional $14,300,000 is recommended in the RDT&E, Defense- wide appropriation for ARPA to continue research into advanced ship self-defense concepts. RDT&E Management Support studies and analysis support--navy The Navy requested $9,281,000 for studies and analysis support, an increase of over 50 percent from the fiscal year 1995 appropriated amount. The Committee recommends $7,000,000, a decrease of $2,281,000 due to fiscal constraints. management, technical, and international support The Navy requested $20,371,000 for management, technical, and international support, about a 50 percent increase from the fiscal year 1995 appropriated amount. The Committee recommends $12,000,000, a decrease of $8,371,000 due to fiscal constraints. strategic technical support The Navy requested $3,584,000 for strategic technical support, about a 30 percent increase from the fiscal year 1995 appropriated amount. The Committee recommends $3,000,000, a reduction of $584,000 due to fiscal constraints. Operational Systems Development ssbn security technology program The Navy requested $25,078,000 for the SSBN security technology program. The Committee recommends $30,578,000, an increase of $5,500,000. The increase is for projects to explore the potential for detecting submarines acoustically in shallow water: shallow water forward barrier, passive automation, and active acoustics. f/a-18 Squadrons The Navy requested $919,484,000 for F/A-18 squadrons. The Committee recommends $923,984,000, an increase of $4,500,000 only to allow integration of the BOL chaff system into the F-18 aircraft. tomahawk and tomahawk mission planning system The Navy requested $141,440,000 for Tomahawk systems. The Committee recommends $176,440,000, an increase of $35,000,000. This includes an increase of $25,000,000 to allow acceleration of development and test of the more accurate Block IV variant, and an increase of $10,000,000 for a joint targeting test bed as proposed by the House National Security Committee. The increase for Tomahawk accelerates development of the Block IV navigation and mission computer assembly, anti-jam GPS, and a satellite data link. marine corps combat services support The Marine Corps requested $3,915,000 for Marine Corps combat services support. The Committee recommends $6,915,000, an increase of $3,000,000 only for the development of a lightweight, all-terrain, high performance vehicle. integrated surveillance system The Navy requested $16,440,000 for the integrated surveillance system. The Committee recommends $32,640,000, an increase of $16,200,000. The additional funds are for development of full system integration of twin-line towed arrays, expanding SURTASS twin-line array signal processing into frequency regions common with tactical surface combatant and submarine processing systems, and development of additional low frequency active littoral performance improvements. industrial preparedness Funds for manufacturing technology were requested in another line. The Committee recommends $88,000,000. This includes $51,251,000 as recommended by the House National Security Committee and an increase of $36,749,000 to continue ongoing projects. Other Items general reduction An October, 1994 DOD Inspector General report indicates that the Navy has contracted over $6,000,000,000 on a sole- source basis to the Johns Hopkins University since World War II. The fee paid to the Johns Hopkins' Applied Physics Laboratory has not been evaluated since 1962. In response to the report, the Navy decided after the fiscal year 1996 budget was submitted to Congress to compete about ten percent of the work that would have gone to Johns Hopkins, for which the fiscal year 1996 budget includes up to $383,000,000 (the contract ceiling). The Committee recommends a general reduction of $10,000,000 in anticipation of savings through improved management of this contract. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, AIR FORCE Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $12,011,372,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 12,598,439,000 Committee recommendation................................ 13,110,335,000 Change from budget request.............................. +511,896,000 This appropriation funds the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation activities of the Department of the Air Force. Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with authorization action: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Change Item Budget Committee from request recommended request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Aerospace Propulsion............... 78,592 81,592 +3,000 Advanced Weapons................... 124,446 130,446 +6,000 Command, Control and Communications 98,477 96,477 -2,000 Crew Systems and Personnel Protection........................ 18,953 21,953 +3,000 Space and Missile Rocket Propulsion 15,203 20,203 +5,000 Ballistic Missile Technology....... 3,085 8,785 +5,700 Conventional Weapons Technology.... 31,637 34,137 +2,500 Industrial Preparedness Manufacturing Technology.......... 53,332 0 -53,332 NPOOESS............................ 23,861 18,861 -5,000 Joint Advanced Strike Technology- Dem/Val........................... 151,186 125,686 -25,500 UHF Sat Com........................ 15,568 13,068 -2,500 Test and Evaluation Support........ 454,067 444,167 -9,900 Environmental Conservation......... 14,169 4,169 -10,000 AMRAAM............................. 42,311 50,311 +8,000 Industrial Preparedness............ 0 53,332 +53,332 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ program growth/budget execution adjustments The budget request included amount for some programs which exceed by an unjustifiably large margin the amounts provided for fiscal year 1994 or 1995. Other programs had significant prior year unobligated balances, and budget adjustments are necessary due to poor budget execution. The Committee therefore recommends the following reductions: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Budget Committee Change from Item request recommended request ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Materials...................... 74,534 71,000 -3,534 Aerospace Flight Dynamics...... 66,268 62,768 -3,500 Human Systems Technology....... 90,311 86,911 -3,400 Advanced Avionics Integation... 20,421 17,621 -2,800 EW Technology.................. 25,079 20,079 -5,000 Civil and Environmental Engineering Technology........ 9,835 7,835 -2,000 Satellite Control Network...... 89,717 82,717 -7,000 Nudet Detection System......... 16,277 13,277 -3,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ computer assisted technology transfer The Committee directs that from within funds available to the Air Force research and development appropriation for fiscal year 1996 efforts related to the Computer Assisted Technology Transfer program should be continued. Basic Research defense research sciences The Air Force requested $239,893,000 for defense research sciences. The Committee recommends $254,393,000, an increase of $14,500,000. The Committee recommendation includes the requested amount of $650,000 for support to the Sacramento Peak Observatory. The Committee directs that the full amount be provided to Sacramento Peak and designates this project to be an item of specific Committee interest. Of the total increase, $5,000,000 is provided by the Committee only for the adaptive optics project. The Committee has also provided an increase of $9,500,000 only for the Global Seismographic Network and the Joint Seismic Program which provides an expanded capability to seismically monitor potential nuclear tests and a more robust monitoring research program. The Committee has serious concerns regarding the Department's delay in releasing $12,000,000 in fiscal year 1995 funds made available for this program. These funds, provided in P.L. 103-335, are not available for reprogramming. The Committee directs the Department to obligate these funds promptly. Advanced Development advanced materials for weapons development The Air Force requested $23,283,000 for advanced materials for weapons development. The Committee recommends $25,283,000, an increase of $2,000,000 to the budget request. The additional funding provided by the committee is only for the infrared signature control program. advanced spacecraft technology The Air Force requested $32,627,000 for advanced spacecraft technology. The Committee recommends $83,627,000, an increase of $51,000,000 to the budget request. The additional funding provided by the Committee is allocated as follows: $1,000,000 only for the miniature satellite threat reporting system project and $50,000,000 only for the continued involvement of the Defense Department in developing reusable launch vehicle technologies under the management of the Air Force Phillips Laboratory. advanced computing technology The Air Force requested $11,005,000 for advanced computing technology. The Committee recommends $36,605,000, an increase of $25,600,000 as explained in the Information Technology section of this report. Demonstration and Validation space based infrared architecture (SBIR) The Department requested $130,744,000 for Space Based Infrared Architecture. The Committee recommends $230,744,000, an increase of $100,000,000 only for the Space and Missile Tracking System (SMTS). Engineering and Manufacturing Development b-1b The Air Force requested $173,838,000 for the B-1B conventional upgrade program. The Committee recommends $197,438,000, an increase of $23,600,000 to the budget request. The additional funding is allocated as follows: $7,000,000 only to support early integration of the JDAM munition on the B-1 aircraft and $6,600,000 only for electronic countermeasures upgrade risk reduction activities. In addition, the Committee has provided $10,000,000, for the B-1 virtual umbilical demonstration program (BVUD). The Committee directs that none of the funds appropriated for BVUD may be obligated until the Secretary of the Air Force provides the Committee the following certifications: (a) A certification from the Commander of the Air Combat Command and the Air Force Director of operational requirements that a documented requirement for BVUD on the B-1 bomber exists; (b) A certification from the Commander of the Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center that BVUD has completed all testing and been found operationally suitable for integration on the B- 1 aircraft; (c) A certification that BVUD will be incorporated as part of the B-1 conventional upgrade program. The Committee also directs that if the Air Force determines that a requirement for BVUD exists, the acquisition of such a capability will be conducted on the basis of a full and open competition. f-22 advanced tactical fighter The Air Force requested $2,138,718,000 for F-22 development. The Committee recommends $2,338,718,000, an increase of $200,000,000 to the budget request. It is the Committee's understanding that the additional funding provided will mitigate the cost growth that resulted from the last program rephase. The Department of the Air Force estimates that the restoration of funds to the F-22 program will result in a cost savings of approximately $350 to $400 million on the total F-22 EMD contract. The funding provided by the Committee will also enable the Air Force to maintain the original production and initial operational capability schedules for the F-22. The Committee supports this top unfunded priority of the Air Force and makes its recommendation accordingly. submunitions The Air Force budgeted $4,953,000 for submunitions development. The Committee recommends $14,953,000, an increase of $10,000,000 to the budget request. The additional funding is available only for the sensor fuzed weapon enhancement program. jstars The Air Force budgeted $169,702,000 for JSTARS development. The Committee recommends $189,702,000, an increase of $20,000,000 to the budget request. The additional funding provided by the Committee is for projects related to data link development and data dissemination technologies. RDT&E Management Support navigation/radar/sled track test support The Air Force requested no funds for the Navigation/Radar/ Sled Track Test Support program. The Committee recommends $3,000,000, an increase of $3,000,000 to the budget request. The Committee is aware of the progress being made in modernizing the Holloman Air Force Base High Speed Test Track which is used for hypersonic lethality testing. The Committee supports this program and recommends the additional funding to accelerate the Holloman Test Track modernization. Base operations The Air Force requested $117,083,000 for base operations. The Committee recommends $120,683,000, an increase of $3,600,000 to the budget request. The recommended amount includes an increase of $9,900,000 transferred from the test and evaluation support program element as requested by the Air Force and a reduction of $6,300,000 due to unjustified program budget growth from prior fiscal years. Operational Systems Development aircraft engine component improvement program The Air Force requested $103,700,000 for the aircraft engine component program. The Committee recommends $101,730,000, a decrease of $1,970,000 to the budget request. The Committee recommends that funds requested for the B-2 engine be denied without prejudice since there are no known deficiencies in the engine at this time. theater battle management C41 The Air Force requested $24,813,000 for theater battle management. The Committee recommends $29,813,000, an increase of $5,000,000 only for Air Tasking Order format improvements. The additional funds will provide the capability to generate and automatically disseminate Air Tasking Orders. Further explanation is provided in the beginning of the Procurement section of this report. classified programs Details of this adjustment are discussed in the classified annex to this report. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE-WIDE Fiscal Year 1995 appropriation.......................... $8,662,942,000 Fiscal Year 1996 budget request......................... 8,802,881,000 Committee recommendation................................ 9,029,666,000 Change from budget request.............................. +226,785,000 This appropriation provides funds for the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation activities of centrally managed programs and the Defense Agencies. Committee Recommendations information security Computers and communication networks are the backbone of DoD command and control, logistics, personnel systems, and even weapons acquisition activities. Protecting the information carried on these systems from attack is essential for national security. The fiscal year 1996 budget requests additional funds over the fiscal year 1995 budget for information security activities. The majority of the funds are infrastructure and encryption product costs; only a small portion of the requested funds are to protect, detect and react to attacks on DoD's information network. Although DoD's Joint Security Commission has recommended an increase of funding to decrease the risk of attack on information systems, the Committee has learned that the Department has no budgeted funds to correct this major deficiency. The Committee understands that it is impossible to totally protect information systems from attacks; however, more emphasis should be put on the detection and response to attacks on information systems, not just the protection of classified systems. The Department is directed to provide with the fiscal year 1997 budget request a plan for an information security program that satisfies major deficiencies in the detection and response to attacks. The plan is to include identified shortfalls, required funding, and implementation schedule. The Committee believes that no additional funding is required to implement an information security protection, detection and response program, but merely a shift in priorities from infrastructure and classified programs. stu-iii modernization The Committee understands that the current secure telephone, the STU III, is not compatible with future digital switches. Although the development and fielding of a replacement telephone is crucial to ensure secure communications in the near future, the Department will not have a replacement when communication networks move from analog to digital. In the fiscal year 1993, 1994, and 1995 reports, the Committee requested that DoD provide a plan and funding in subsequent budget requests for a realistic STU-III modernization program. The Committee provided seed monies to begin the program; however, it appears this effort is no further along than it was three years ago. The Committee directs that the DoD, with the concurrence of the Services, submit a STU-III modernization plan that includes the funding required and the development and procurement schedule with the fiscal year 1997 budget. The Committee notes that previous plans have not been supported by the services, deemed too costly, and not supported in the budget. authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with authorization action: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Change Budget Committee from request recommendations request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Defense Research Sciences...... 89,732 84,732 -5,000 Focused Research Initiatives... 14,009 9,009 -5,000 Chemical and Biological Defense 23,947 28,547 +4,600 Lincoln Laboratory Research.... 19,903 10,000 -9,903 Chemical and Biological Defense 60,665 84,165 +23,500 Chemical and Biological Defense Program....................... 25,684 38,284 +12,600 Advanced Submarine Technology.. 7,473 30,473 +23,000 Defense Laboratory Partnership Program....................... 16,106 ............... -16,106 Defense Reinvestment........... 500,000 ............... -500,000 Advanced Sensor Applications Program....................... 25,923 35,923 +10,000 Chemical and Biological Defense Program....................... 32,461 36,861 +4,400 Chemical and Biological Defense Program....................... 95,324 107,324 +12,000 Technical Studies, Support & Analysis...................... 39,302 24,302 -15,000 Special Operations Advanced Technology Development........ 13,288 14,788 +1,500 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ basic research The Department requested $236,165,000 for University Research Initiatives. The Committee recommends $221,165,000, a reduction of $15,000,000. This includes an increase of $20,000,000 only for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCOR) and a reduction of $35,000,000 due to program growth in multidisciplinary and young- investigator programs. focused research initiatives The Department requested $14,009,000 to continue the Focused Research Initiative. The Committee recommends $9,009,000 due to fiscal constraints. The Committee believes that ARPA should give priority to continuing programs already initiated in conjunction with the National Medical Technology Testbed. counterproliferation support The Department requested $9,952,000 for counterproliferation support. The Committee recommends $14,452,000, an increase of $4,500,000 only for continuing research on and systematic monitoring of the proliferation of missile technology and biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. historically black colleges, universities, and minority institutions The Department requested $14,779,000 for historically black colleges, universities, and minority institutions (HBCU/MI). The Committee approves this amount. The Committee fully concurs with the House National Security Committee that these funds should be focused on encouraging students to pursue combined studies in critical languages and international affairs and advanced science and engineering degrees. Exploratory Development computing systems and communications technology The Department requested $403,875,000 for computing systems and communications technology. The Committee recommends $402,875,000, a net reduction of $1,000,000. This includes an increase of $11,000,000 only for nuclear monitoring technologies, an increase of $10,000,000 only for continued operation of the software managers network, $5,000,000 only for natural language text, an increase of $8,000,000 only for the Global Broadcast Service and a decrease of $25,000,000 as proposed by the House National Security Committee in its 1996 report. The Committee recommends a reduction of $10,000,000 for seismic monitoring research. The Committee believes that, in general, ARPA should pursue cutting edge, high risk/high pay off research and advanced technologies. The Committee notes that this is not the case with seismic monitoring--which has been a long-term project which ARPA has performed for decades. In light of increased international terrorism as well as violations of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and attempted acquisition of weapons-grade nuclear materials by criminal groups, the Committee believes it is imperative that the development of improved nuclear detection and forensics analysis capabilities be accelerated. The Committee therefore appropriates an additional $11,000,000 only for the Monitoring Technologies sub-element of the Computing Systems and Communications Systems program. Of this amount $5,000,000 is only for an industry-based program to accelerate development of nuclear detection systems, $3,000,000 is only for an industry- based laboratory for forensic analysis in support of counter terrorism, and $3,000,000 is only for the acceleration of the development of nuclear sensor data analysis capabilities. The Committee believes that communications planning, especially for the tactical forces, needs to be improved. In the past the Committee has added funds to facilities of the DOD Commercial Satellite Communications initiative and has also required that DOD develop a comprehensive architecture for all space-based communications systems. Although some improvements have been made, the Committee is concerned over the slow pace of the progress. The Global Broadcast Service (GBS) is one technology that promises dramatic improvements in the quality and timeliness of information available to the battlefield commander. Several such systems are already commercially available for audio and video broadcast service. To date, several DOD organizations have begun planning to incorporate a GBS capability in future years. The Navy has run some preliminary demonstrations of the GBS concept. The Committee believes that DOD should be more aggressive in pursuing a GBS capability. The Committee provides the additional $8,000,000 with the following stipulations; (a) in order to ensure that the initiative is compatible with other existing space-base communications systems, the initiative is to be managed by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology (USD(A&T)); (b) by October 15, 1995, the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) shall certify to the Committee that $8,000,000 has been released to the Navy and that the USD(A&T) has approved a plan for the Navy to conduct a near-term GBS pilot program; and (c) no later than March 1, 1996 the USD(A&T) shall provide a long-term master architecture for fielding a comprehensive GBS system and also provide a plan for commercially available GBS hardware, technology, and/or services to support tactically deployed forces, including the Guard and Reserve. tactical technology The Department requested $113,168,000 for tactical technology. The Committee recommends $132,168,000, an increase of $19,000,000. Within this increase, $5,000,000 is only for simulation based design, $7,000,000 is only for the tactical landing system, and $7,000,000 is only for the multiple object tracking sensor system. The Committee supports the Ship System Automation (SSA) program and believes that priority should be given to programs like SSA which are making serious inroads in the reduction of personnel requirements for Naval combatants. integrated command and control technology The Department requested $48,000,000 for integrated command and control technology. The Committee recommends $50,000,000, an increase of $2,000,000 only for high definition optoelectronic digital cameras. The Committee recognizes the potential value of field emission displays (FEDs) for military applications. The Committee therefore encourages ARPA to examine the benefits of FEDs versus active matrix liquid crystal display (AMLCD) technology for reducing the size and power requirements of flat panel displays. materials and electronics technology The Department requested $226,045,000 for materials and electronics technology. The Committee recommends $236,045,000, an increase of $10,000,000 only for high temperature superconducting materials. The Committee is also interested in seamless high off-chip connectivity technology which may reduce cost and increase performance of advanced military electronic systems by increasing manufacturing yields of highly complex electronic circuits. The Committee directs ARPA to provide a report on the feasibility of this technology by April 1, 1996. The Committee supports the effort to maintain the Synthetic Theater of War (STOW) demonstration program as proposed by the House National Security Committee. The Committee directs that within available funds, $4,000,000 be used only for the Life Support for Trauma and Transport (LSTAT) concepts and technologies. In addition, the Committee directs that an additional $500,000 be available only for the Navy and the Air Force to reconcile joint LSTAT requirements. defense nuclear agency The Department requested $219,003,000 for the Defense Nuclear Agency. The Committee recommends $231,703,000, an increase of $12,700,000. Within this increase, $4,700,000 is available only for high power microwave technology, $4,000,000 is only for counter-terrorist explosive research, and $4,000,000 is only for the development of electrothermal gun technology. radiation hardened electronics The Committee recognizes the continued need for radiation hardened electronics for DOD space and strategic applications. The Committee is also concerned there is a serious erosion of the U.S. Radiation Hardened Micro-Electronics Technology Base. The Committee, therefore, directs that of the funds made available to the Defense Nuclear Agency in fiscal year 1996, not less than $15,000,000 shall be allocated to radiation hardened electronics research and development. Additionally, the Defense Nuclear Agency is directed to increase future funding allocated to radiation hardened electronics research and development in equal annual increments in order to achieve a funding level of $20,000,000 per year by fiscal year 2000. ballistic missile technology The Department requested $2,442,199,000 for Ballistic Missile Defense in the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation title of the bill. The Committee recommends $3,041,138,000 for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization's (BMDO) research and development programs, an increase of $598,939,000. The Committee recommends specific changes in Ballistic Missile Defense Organization programs as detailed in the table below. BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE [In thousands of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Committee Change from Budget request recommendation request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ National Missile Defense $370,621 $820,621 +$450,000 Navy Upper Tier......... 30,442 200,442 +170,000 MEADS (Corps SAM)....... 30,442 20,442 -10,000 Other TMD............... 460,470 423,470 -37,000 Ballistic Missile Management............. 185,542 165,542 -20,000 Theater High-Altitude Area Defense (EMD)..... .............. 50,000 +50,000 Navy Lower Tier......... 237,473 282,473 +45,000 Boost Phase Intercept... 49,061 .............. -49,061 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ theater missile defense The Committee believes that Theater Missile Defense (TMD) is a top national security priority and that TMD systems should be deployed at the earliest possible date. The Committee therefore recommends an increase of $45,000,000 to Navy Lower Tier and an increase of $50,000,000 to the Army's Theater High- Altitude Area Defense System (THAAD) to ensure that these programs remain on schedule. In addition, the Committee believes that the Navy Upper Tier program will provide a substantial defense capability and therefore recommends an increase of $170,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee is concerned about the lack of focus in the Medium Extended Area Defense System (MEADS) program, formerly Corps SAM, and the Boost Phase Interceptor (BPI) program. While the Committee supports the general concept underlying both programs, it believes that neither program is workable or affordable as currently conceived. Therefore, the Committee recommends no appropriation for BPI. Furthermore, the Committee recommends a reduction to Other TMD and Follow-on activities of $37,000,000 as proposed by the House National Security Committee. While the Committee understands and endorses the Army requirement for Corps SAM, the Committee questions the expense and risk associated with a multinational codevelopment program. Consequently, the Committee recommends the program be reduced by $10,000,000 and that within 90 days the Department of the Army propose a restructured program consisting of current technology and ongoing efforts that will provide ground forces with mobile 360 degree protection against cruise missiles and very short range tactical ballistic missiles. The Army should consider cost reduction measures which streamline acquisition and capitalize on the current PAC-3 development activities. The Committee is concerned that the Arrow program has not been successful. Since 1986, the U.S. has spent nearly $500 million on the Arrow program. However, the program has been plagued with serious technical problems and has had few successes--including only one successful intercept out of six tests. While the Committee supports efforts to defend Israel from ballistic missile attack, the track record of the Arrow program suggests it will not readily accomplish that goal. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned about the total cost of the system, which some estimate to be as high as $10 billion. There has also been some question about Israel's commitment to deploy Arrow, as well as the degree to which U.S. funds would be used to support procurement of a deployed system. Based on these factors, the Committee seriously considered terminating the Arrow program. However, based on assurances from the Israeli government about its commitment to deployment and its recognition of its responsibility for production costs, the Committee approves the requested amount of $56,500,000. However, the Committee strongly believes that U.S. funding support for Arrow is more appropriately regarded as foreign assistance rather than a program requiring direct funding from the Department of Defense. Therefore, the Committee directs that any future funding request for the Arrow Weapon System should be budgeted within function 150 and should be considered by the Foreign Operations Subcommittee on Appropriations for funding. The Committee believes that the Wide Area Missile (WAM) concept should be considered for inclusion in the Navy's TMD Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analysis (COEA). The Committee further believes that the WAM concept has not received a thorough objective analysis of its potential in the area of missile defense. The Navy is directed to work in close consultation with the concept developers to provide a complete analysis of the WAM concept, including its relative costs, operational effectivness, and compatibility within the Navy's TMD architecture as part of the Navy COEA. The Committee recognizes the importance of the Extended Airborne Global Launch Evaluation (EAGLE) program. Therefore, the Committee strongly recommends that $19.9 million, as requested in the fiscal year 1996 budget, be obligated for this program. national missile defense The Committee believes that National Missile Defense (NMD) is one of the highest national security priorities. The Committee is concerned about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the possible emergence of a ballistic missile threat from a rogue nation. However, the Committee does not believe that the Administration's program of ``technology readiness'' is sufficient to address this threat. Therefore, the Committee recommends an increase of $450,000,000 to significantly accelerate the development of a national missile defense system that will be capable of defending the United States from a limited ballistic missile attack. Furthermore, the Committee agrees with the House National Security Committee that the NMD program should be structured so as to support deployment of an NMD system at the soonest possible date--now estimated to be within four to six years. Advanced Development explosives demilitarization technology The Department requested no funding for explosives demilitarization technology. The Committee recommends $15,000,000 only for explosives demilitarization technology, as proposed by the House National Security Committee. counterterror technical support The Defense Department requested $12,044,000 for the Counterterror Support program. The Committee recommends $24,044,000, an increase of $12,000,000 to the budget request. The increase is for the Pulsed Fast Neutron Analysis (PFNA) program for detecting chemical agents, biological and nuclear material, and a wide range of toxic substances through non- intrusive means. The additional funds are for a field demonstration of the PFNA cargo inspection system under the direction of the Technical Support Working Group of the Defense Department. experimental evaluation of major innovative technologies The Department requested $618,005,000 for Experimental Evaluation of Major Innovative Technologies (EEMIT). The Committee recommends $671,005,000, an increase of $53,000,000 only for the following projects: Shallow water ASW....................................... $5,000,000 Classified programs..................................... 35,000,000 Small Satellites........................................ 1,000,000 Safety and Survivability................................ 2,000,000 GEOSAR.................................................. 10,000,000 The Committee believes ARPA should give consideration to continuing the thermophotovoltaic electric power generator program which was begun in fiscal year 1995. chemical and biological defense program As noted in the table earlier in this section, in accordance with the House authorization action the Committee has provided an additional $12,600,000 for ``Chemical and Biological Defense Program--Advanced Development''. The Committee is impressed with the progress made by the Navy in the areas of chemical and biological warfare detection. Of the total increase provided for this program, $10,000,000 is to accelerate the development of ongoing programs, provide for potential civil applications of these technologies, and initiate new programs with a similar focus. The Committee encourages the Department of Defense to budget additional resources in support of these programs in fiscal year 1997. advanced submarine technology The Department requested $7,473,000 for advanced submarine technology. The Committee recommends $30,473,000, an increase of $23,000,000 as recommended by the House National Security Committee. The increase includes funds to continue the active structural control helicopter program. Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program The Department requested $58,435,000 for the SERDP program. The Committee recommends $58,155,000, a decrease of $280,000. This represents a reduction of $4,280,000 as proposed by the House National Security Committee, and an increase of $4,000,000 to allow the Army Materiel Command Advanced Systems Integration Directorate under the Program Executive Office (PEO) Armament Research and Development Life Cycle Readiness Initiative to continue efforts to develop environmentally sound, cost effective ordnance/armaments production, maintenance, use and disposal technologies, and pollution prevention programs as they relate to the armament acquisition cycle, environmentally damaging munitions, and environmental compliance issues of the military industry base. advanced electronics technologies The Department requested $419,863,000 for Advanced Electronics Technologies. The Committee recommends $434,863,000, a net increase of $15,000,000. Within this amount is a $25,000,000 increase only for advanced lithography, and a decrease of $10,000,000 for U.S.-Japan management training. The Committee notes that the execution plan underlying the fiscal year 1996 budget for the Electronic Commerce Resource Centers (ECRC) Program provides continued funding at the fiscal year 1995 level of effort for a National ECRC as the electronic commerce standards and technologies development, deployment, training and education hub for the ECRC Program; and a network of eleven Regional ECRCs. The successful maturation of this program now justifies moving it to the Defense Logistics Agency to better integrate the EC needs of the Department and its suppliers. The Committee directs that this program be shifted to DLA accounts beginning in the FY 1997 budget cycle. The Committee concurs in the Department's decision to direct the Regional ECRCs to play a direct role in the Department's implementation of the EC component of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994. The Committee also reaffirms its intent that the Department establish a five-year contract with the current nonprofit organization operating the National ECRC to implement the ECRC Program in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the fiscal year 1995 Department of Defense Appropriations Act and accompanying conference report. The Committee also encourages the Department to coordinate its ECRC initiative with the Manufacturing Technology Center (MTC) program and to explore the possibility of collocating its MTCs with existing ECRC locations. semiconductor manufacturing technology The Department requested $89,554,000 for semiconductor manufacturing technology (SEMATECH). SEMATECH, a consortium of eleven companies, was formed in 1987 to address the long-term semiconductor requirements of the nation and of the military and specifically to rectify problems of U.S. competitiveness in the worldwide semiconductor market. The Committee notes that nearly $800 million has been provided by DoD to SEMATECH to support this effort. By all accounts this program has achieved its goals. U.S. industry has now recaptured its leadership role in this arena with over 45 percent of the market share. Current plans are to transition this effort to private industry by 1997. However, the Committee believes this transition can be accelerated by one year and therefore recommends no appropriation. advanced concept technology demonstrations The Department requested $63,251,000 for advanced concept technology demonstrations (ACTDs). The Committee recommends $32,251,000, a reduction of $31,000,000 due to unsubstantiated program growth. joint robotics program The Department requested $17,382,000 for the joint robotics program. The Committee recommends $22,382,000, an increase of $5,000,000 only for the mobile detection assessment response system (MDARS). nato research and development The Department requested $45,642,000 for NATO Research and Development. The NATO Research and Development program is an example of a well intentioned federal program which once begun, never ends. This program, which provides initial funding for international cooperative research and development projects, began in fiscal year 1986 at the height of the Cold War. Since that time, over $800,000,000 has been spent to start cooperative projects, very few of which have actually resulted in systems being fielded to U.S. troops. In addition, the military departments are required to finance outyear costs. The Committee believes that this type of program is no longer affordable, particularly as the Department and Services are trying to find ways of financing higher priority requirements in areas such as readiness and modernization. The Committee recommends no appropriation. environmental security and technical certification The Department requested $14,939,000 for environmental security and technical certification. The Committee recommends $26,939,000, an increase of $12,000,000 only for a competitive, cost-shared, alternative fuel cell program initiated in Fiscal Year 1995 under the same guidelines, limitations, and directives established for this program in House Report 103- 747. Operational Systems Development defense airborne reconnaissance program Details of this recommendation are discussed in the classified annex to this report. special operations tactical systems development The Department requested $101,602,000 for Special Operations tactical systems development. The Committee recommends $105,602,000, an increase of $4,000,000. Of the additional funds $1,500,000 is only for the development of an lightweight, all-terrain reconnaissance/light strike vehicle and $2,500,000 is only for the design and development of the Full Authority Digital Electronic Control system for the Army's AH-6 helicopter. The Committee fully supports the Quiet Knight advanced concept technology demonstration for both fixed and rotary wing aircraft. The Committee encourages the DOD to budget for the completion of the Phase II demonstration in the fiscal year 1997 budget request. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> DEVELOPMENTAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $238,003,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 259,341,000 Committee recommendation................................ 259,341,000 Change from budget request.............................................. This appropriation funds Developmental Test and Evaluation, Defense activities, for direction and supervision of test and evaluation, joint testing, improvement of the effectiveness and efficiency of the DoD major ranges and test facilities, and technical and/or operational evaluation of foreign nations' weapons systems, equipment, and technologies. Committee Recommendations program recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Budget Committee Change from request recommended request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Director of test and evaluation defense......................... ........... ........... ........... Central test and evaluation investment development (CT)..... 119,714 119,714 ........... Foreign comparative testing...... 34,062 34,062 ........... Development test and evaluation.. 105,565 105,565 ........... Total, director of test and evaluation defense........ 259,341 259,341 ........... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $12,501,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 22,587,000 Committee recommendation................................ 22,587,000 Change from budget request.............................................. This appropriation funds the activities of the Office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation. Committee Recommendations program recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Change Budget Committee from request recommended request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Director of operational test and evaluation.......................... ......... ........... ......... Operational test and evaluation...... 12,183 12,183 ......... Live fire testing.................... 10,404 10,404 ......... Total, director of operational test and evaluation........... 22,587 22,587 ......... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ TITLE V REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS DEFENSE BUSINESS OPERATIONS FUND Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $945,238,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 878,700,000 Committee recommendation................................ 1,573,800,000 Change from budget request.............................. +695,100,000 Acquisition Reform.--As described in Title II, Operation and maintenance, the Department has begun a series of initiatives to improve acquisition efficiency. The Committee recommends transferring $59,100,000 from the supply management business area of the Defense Business Operations Fund in anticipation of the savings realized from these initiatives. Cash Management.--The committee shares the concerns expressed in the House passed authorization bill regarding the management of DBOF cash balances and the level of cash required to ensure the solvency of the Fund. It appears, with the return of cash management responsibilities to the Military Services, there is a perception that the requirements for cash will necessarily increase thus leading to the most recent round of advance billings. However, it is not clear what level of cash is required. The current practice appears to be to advance bill in an amount sufficient to ``buy time'' to get to the end of the current fiscal year. Ultimately, the Committee is concerned about the methods the Department will use to resolve the problem. There have been a number of suggestions including higher productivity (and attendant cost reductions), continuing to rely on cash generated as supply management sells off inventory, and increasing prices in future years. Unfortunately, the Committee believes that the last alternative, higher prices to DBOF customers, is the most plausible outcome. A concept outlined early in the deliberations over DBOF, the use of intrafund transactions, appeared to represent a method of reducing the cash requirements of the DBOF compared to the previous regime of nine stock and industrial funds. These transactions are based on the recognition that significant amounts of DBOF sales are transacted between the business areas of the Fund. The Department had argued that modifying the accounting procedures for such transactions could result in the Department recognizing the costs and revenues of such transactions as well as the movement of inventory, but that cash would not have to flow along with such transactions. While the Committee recognizes that the Department has numerous accounting system problems which make implementation of such procedures very difficult, it seems appropriate to pursue development of such procedures because of the benefit they promise in driving down the total resource requirements of the Department. Prior Year Gains and Losses.--The Navy O&M budget includes a request for $695,100,000 to fund prior year accumulated operating losses at a number of depot maintenance activities. The Committee recognizes, and supports the general practice followed by the Department in such matters, that prior year accumulated gains or losses should be resolved in subsequent year pricing. However, the Committee believes that the Department's request in this case is reasonable because these losses were accumulated at activities now scheduled for closure. Further, the Committee recommends appropriating these funds directly to the DBOF rather than Navy. Operation and maintenance noting that the Navy O&M accounts (along with those of all other services) have been the source of funding for contingency operations. Defense Business Operations Fund Implementation Report.--A report, due March 31, 1996, should be provided to the congressional defense committees addressing the following issues: methods and results of calculating the cash requirements of DBOF; fiscal year 1996 advance billing requirements; progress on resolving prior year advance billings; a review of net and accumulated operating results by component and business area from the inception of DBOF to the present (i.e., fiscal year 1992-1996); a review of the definition of operating results as portrayed in the President's Budget request versus the definition used in preparing the DoD Chief Financial Officers' Statements; a complete review of progress toward finalizing implementation of revised DBOF policies; and, progress on identifying intrafund transactions and implementing revised accounting procedures for such transactions. aviation fuel reimbursement pricing study The Committee directs an independent review by the General Accounting Office evaluating the reimbursement pricing policies of the Defense Logistics Agency's Bulk and Into-plane aviation fuel programs administered by the Defense Fuel Supply Center (DFSC) to be completed by March 30, 1996. The study should include an analysis of the costs which are included in the rates billed to government aircraft operators for purchases under the Bulk Fuel program. Elements to be evaluated include, but are not limited to the costs associated with personnel, training, equipment, environmental compliance, inventory, maintenance, insurance, consumables and Federal excise taxes. NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $724,400,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 974,220,000 Committee recommendation................................ 974,220,000 Change from budget request.............................................. This appropriation provides funds for the lease, operation, and supply of prepositioning ships; operation of the Ready Reserve Force; acquisition of large medium speed roll-on/roll- off ships for the Military Sealift Command; and acquisition of ships for the Ready Reserve Force. The Committee reiterates its strong support for improving the nation's strategic sealift capability and commends the Department for its commitment to this effort. Due to fiscal constraints, the Committee was unable to provide additional funds above the request for procurement of additional large medium-speed roll-on/roll-off ships (LMSRs), as proposed by the House National Security Committee. The Committee notes its recommendation does provide for acquisition of two LMSRs as requested by the Department and does not impede the Department's program to procure a total of 19 LMSRs as planned. The Committee shares the views of the House National Security Committee, as expressed in the report accompanying the fiscal year 1996 House-passed Defense Authorization bill, regarding the LMSR acquisition strategy and encourages the Department to follow that guidance. TITLE VI OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS Defense Health Program Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $9,943,959,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 10,153,558,000 Committee recommendation................................ 10,205,158,000 Change from budget request.............................. +51,600,000 The Department requested $10,153,558,000 for the Defense Health Program. The Committee recommends $10,205,158,000, an increase of $51,600,000 in operations and maintenance only for the following: PACMEDNET............................................... $16,000,000 Beaumont Army Medical Center Computer Support........... 1,500,000 Currency Fluctuation.................................... 8,100,000 Breast Cancer........................................... 25,000,000 American Red Cross Emergency Support Communications..... 1,000,000 Medical Research The Committee recommends increases to research and development accounts only for the following programs: 602716A: Med Teams........................................... $4,000,000 Rural Health........................................ 3,500,000 602787A: Wound Healing....................................... 2,000,000 603002A: Breast Cancer....................................... 75,000,000 Blood Analyzer...................................... 2,000,000 603706N: Bone Marrow......................................... 24,000,000 Prostate Cancer..................................... 7,500,000 DoD Head Injury..................................... 1,000,000 Blood Storage....................................... 1,000,000 Naval Biodynamics Laboratory........................ 1,500,000 tricare The Department has done a commendable job in meeting Congressional guidance to develop a comprehensive managed care program, known as TRICARE, with a defined standard benefit, health care choices and an equitable beneficiary cost share structure. The Committee recognizes that implementing TRICARE throughout the country by the end of fiscal year 1997 is an ambitious endeavor and is concerned about the Department's ability to meet this milestone given the complex contract requirements, effects of the new benefit structure on the demand for services and costs, and the incomplete fielding of the Composite Health Care Computer System (CHCS). The Committee understands that as the military medical infrastructure is reduced due to base closing and downsizing, access to health care for active duty members and their families will also be reduced unless TRICARE is implemented. Nonetheless, the Committee believes that a balance must be struck between meeting the growing needs of the defense medical population and proceeding in a reasoned fashion with TRICARE. The Committee believes moving toward this system should not be driven by an arbitrary date for full implementation but rather a phased approach that takes advantage of lessons learned from earlier regional awards. The Committee directs the Department to provide a report on the status of TRICARE implementation by February 15, 1996. The Committee continues to be concerned about the quality of care for children as DoD moves to the TRICARE managed care program. The Committee believes that DoD should ensure that the system has a sufficient number of pediatric providers. Furthermore, the Committee believes that the TRICARE program should include specialized care for children with complex and chronic conditions and provide access to care in areas where a military facility has closed or will close. The Committee directs the Department to provide a report to the Committee by January 15, 1996 on pediatric care and the implementation of the TRICARE managed care program. uniformed services treatment facilities The Department requested $315,900,000 for Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities. The Committee recommends the budgeted amount. bone marrow research The Navy requested $10,000,000 for bone marrow research, donor recruitment, and tissue-typing activities. The Committee recommends $34,000,000, an increase of $24,000,000. The Committee is aware of the continuing success of the Navy's Marrow Donor Recruitment and Research Program and the National Marrow Donor Program, a life-saving program for military contingencies and civilian patients which now includes 1,600,000 potential volunteer donors. The DOD donor center has recruited 80,000 DOD volunteers, and provides more marrow donors per week than any other donor center in the nation. The funds provided by the Committee are for the continuation of contingency support for marrow and platelet donation in the event of a national or international emergency, national donor recruitment, research to improve tissue typing, and formal international agreements with foreign donor registries. DD Form 1414 shall show this is a special Congressional interest item. breast cancer The Committee has provided an increase of $100,000,000 only for breast cancer prevention, treatment and research. The Committee notes that funds appropriated to the Army in prior years for breast cancer research have been well used. This year the Committee has provided funds to continue valuable research, as well as help improve access to care and improve treatment for military members and their dependents with breast cancer. The Committee recognizes that breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer deaths for women between the ages of 15 to 54. The Committee also notes that the incidence of breast cancer has steadily risen over the past several decades. The risk of getting breast cancer has gone from 1 in 20 to 1 in every 8 women today. The Committee is concerned about these statistics particularly as they affect active duty and retired military members and their dependents. The Department of Defense has worked to encourage screening tests for breast cancer to include clinical examination, self-examination and mammography. Of funds appropriated last year by this Committee, $20,000,000 was used for mammography to include extremely promising work in advanced detection techniques such as digital mammography. The Committee applauds this work and urges continuation of the highly promising digital mammography efforts begun in previous years. In addition, the Committee is concerned that military members and their dependents have timely access and immediate care in cases involving breast cancer. The Committee is aware of instances where access to care was wholly inadequate and strongly urges the Department to improve this problem. The Committee understands that TRICARE may well help to solve overall problems of access to essential care. However, the Committee believes that special attention should be given to addressing access to care for breast cancer patients. Accordingly, in view of the exceedingly small number of cancer specialists in the military medical community the Committee has provided $10,000,000 for increased recruitment, training and education for cancer specialists. In addition, the Committee believes that military facilities should have appropriate diagnostic equipment to help improve detection and treatment, as well as improved detection technologies such as digital mammography equipment, and has recommended $10,000,000 for these efforts. Education and awareness are critical to the prevention and early detection of breast cancer. The Committee encourages the Department to begin a program of breast cancer prevention and education for military members and their dependents and recommends $5,000,000 for such a program. Finally, the Committee recommends an increase of $75,000,000 to continue the Army's highly successful peer- reviewed breast cancer research program. american red cross emergency communications support The Committee recognizes the excellent services that the Red Cross provides to our service members in times of emergency. Therefore, the Committee recommends an increase of $1,000,000 only for the Red Cross Emergency Communications Service for members of our Armed Forces and their families. dental readiness The Committee supports the efforts of the House National Security Committee to begin addressing the reserve dental readiness problems as identified by the GAO and in lessons learned from Desert Storm. The Committee believes that a viable, long term solution to these problems must be achieved. uncompensated health care In 1993 and 1994 the Committee expressed its concern regarding the fact that many military treatment facilities provide emergency health and trauma care to indigent civilians for which billing costs are uncollected. The most recent data available to the Committee suggests this has created an annual funding shortfall approaching $10,000,000. This situation is particularly acute at William Beaumont Army Medical Center. The Committee urges the Department of Defense to develop a mechanism to provide annual funds for military facilities affected by these unforeseen expenses, and requests the Department to report back to the Committee on its recommendations to address this problem. CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION, DEFENSE Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $575,449,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 746,698,000 Committee Recommendation................................ 746,698,000 Change from budget request.............................................. Committee Recommendations cost savings The chemical demilitarization program is marked with schedule delays and escalating costs. The Committee believes that cost savings and delays can be achieved through innovative approaches for chemical demilitarization. The Committee directs the Department to provide with the fiscal year 1997 budget request, suggestions for cost reductions, alternative demilitarization methods, and acceleration of the program while minimizing the risk to the environment and public. Program Recommended The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Budget request Committee Change from request --------------------- recommended -------------------- --------------------- Quantity Amount Quantity Amount Quantity Amount ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chem Agents and Munitions Destruction, Destruction, DEF: Chem demilitarization--RDTE.................. ........ 53,400 ........ 53,400 ........ ......... Chem demilitarization--PROC.................. ........ 299,448 ........ 299,448 ........ ......... Chem demilitarization--O&M................... ........ 393,850 ........ 393,850 ........ ......... -------------------------------------------------------------- Total, chem agents and munitions destruction, Def.......................... ........ 746,698 ........ 746,698 ........ ......... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEFENSE Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $721,266,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 680,432,000 Committee Recommendation................................ 688,432,000 Change from budget request.............................. +8,000,000 This appropriation provides funds for Military Personnel; Operation and Maintenance; Procurement; and Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation for drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the Department of Defense. Committee Recommendations The Department of Defense requested $680,432,000 for Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities. The Committee recommends $688,432,000, an increase of $8,000,000. The recommendation includes a reduction of $8,236,000 for community outreach programs and an increase of $1,500,000 in the Southern Command Radars project as proposed by the House National Security Committee. The Committee also recommends an increase of $1,150,000 to the Caribbean Regional Operations Center communications project, an increase of $1,200,000 to the Civil Air Patrol for additional flying hours, an increase of $1,841,000 to the Gulf States Counterdrug Initiative for additional command, control, communications, and computer support to local law enforcement counternarcotics efforts, and an increase of $2,545,000 to the Southwest Border Information Systems project. classified programs Classified programs under the Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense, are addressed in the classified annex accompanying this report. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1996: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Committee Change from Budget recommended budget ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Military Personnel............... $152,787 $152,787 ........... Operation and Maintenance........ 442,633 441,633 -1,000 South Comm Radars............ 20,282 21,782 1,500 CARIBROC Communications...... 206 1,356 1,150 Community Outreach........... 8,236 0 -8,236 Gulf States CI-C4I........... 2,059 3,900 1,841 Southwest Border Info Systems 4,000 5,545 1,545 Civil Air Patrol............. 2,224 3,424 1,200 Procurement...................... 48,659 57,659 9,000 Southwest Border Info systems 5,265 6,265 1,000 Classified program........... ........... ........... 8,000 RDT&E............................ 36,353 36,353 ........... -------------------------------------- Total, Drug Interdiction... 680,432 688,432 8,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $140,872,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 139,226,000 Committee Recommendation................................ 178,226,000 Change from budget request.............................. +39,000,000 The Committee recommends an increase of $39,000,000 in order to consolidate fraud investigation with the DoD Inspector General as described elsewhere in this report. TITLE VII RELATED AGENCIES NATIONAL FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM Introduction The National Foreign Intelligence Program consists of those intelligence activities of the Government which provide the President, other officers of the Executive Branch, and the Congress with national foreign intelligence on broad strategic concerns bearing on U.S. national security. These concerns are stated by the National Security Council in the form of long- range and short-range requirements for the principal users of intelligence, and include political trends, military balance trends, economic trends, treaty monitoring and support to military theater commanders. The National Foreign Intelligence Program budget funded in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act consists primarily of resources of the Central Intelligence Agency; the Defense Intelligence Agency; the National Reconnaissance Office; the National Security Agency; the intelligence services of the Departments of the Army, Navy and the Air Force; the Intelligence Community Management Staff; and the CIA Retirement and Disability System Fund. Classified Report Because of the highly sensitive nature of intelligence programs, the results of the Committee's budget review are published in a separate, detailed and comprehensive classified report. The intelligence community, Department of Defense and other organizations are expected to comply fully with the recommendations and directives in the classified report accompanying the fiscal year 1996 DOD Appropriations Act. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM FUND Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $198,000,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 213,900,000 Committee recommendation................................ 213,900,000 Change from budget request.............................................. This appropriation provides payments of benefits to qualified beneficiaries in accordance with the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act of 1964 for Certain Employees (P.L. 88-643). This statute authorized the establishment of a CIA Retirement and Disability System (CIARDS) for a limited number of CIA employees, and authorized the establishment and maintenance of a Fund from which benefits would be paid to those beneficiaries. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $92,684,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 93,283,000 Committee recommendation................................ 75,683,000 Change from budget request.............................. -17,600,000 This appropriation provides funds for the activities that support the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) and the Intelligence Community (IC). Committee Recommendation The Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) requested $93,283,000 for the Intelligence Community Management Account. The Committee recommends $75,683,000, a decrease of $17,600,000. environmental task force The DCI requested $17,600,000 for the Environmental Task Force. The Committee does not believe that this program should be funded by the Intelligence Community. The Committee believes the NFIP-collected data provided by the Intelligence Community to environmental agencies beyond the national security arena should be budgeted by the recipient agencies. The costs associated with retaining approximately 60 scientists, processing and declassifying intelligence data for use by environmental agencies and scientists, and supporting the management and coordination of the Environmental Program should no longer be supported by the intelligence budget. For these reasons, the Committee denies the funds for the Environmental Task Force. NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION TRUST FUND Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $8,500,000 Fiscal year 1996 budget request......................... 15,000,000 Committee recommendation................................................ Change from budget request.............................. -15,000,000 The Department requested $15,000,000 for the National Security Education Trust Fund (NSETF). The Committee recommends no funds be appropriated and termination of the NSETF. In fiscal year 1991 the Congress appropriated $150,000,000 for the NSETF. The NSETF was established to provide scholarships and fellowships to U.S. students to pursue higher education studies abroad and grants to U.S. institutions for programs of study in foreign areas and languages. The Committee believes that funding for programs of this nature should fall under the jurisdiction of other Federal agencies and not the Department of Defense. TITLE VIII GENERAL PROVISIONS The accompanying bill includes 106 general provisions. Most of these provisions were included in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1995 and many have been included in the Defense Appropriations Acts for a number of years. Actions taken by the Committee to amend last year's provisions or new provisions recommended by the Committee are discussed below or in the applicable section of the report. definition of program, project, and activity For purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177) as amended by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-119) and by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508), the following information provides the definition of the term ``program, project, and activity'' for appropriations contained in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act. The term ``program, project, and activity'' shall include the most specific level of budget items, identified in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1996, the accompanying House and Senate Committee reports, the conference report and accompanying joint explanatory statement of the managers of the Committee on Conference, the related classified annexes, and the P-1 and R-1 budget justification documents as subsequently modified by Congressional action. In carrying out any Presidential sequestration, the Department of Defense and agencies shall conform to the definition for ``program, project, and activity'' set forth above with the following exception: For the Military Personnel and the Operations and Maintenance accounts the term ``program, project, and activity'' is defined as the appropriations accounts contained in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act. The Department and agencies should carry forth the Presidential sequestration order in a manner that would not adversely affect or alter Congressional policies and priorities established for the Department of Defense and the related agencies and no program, project, and activity should be eliminated or be reduced to a level of funding which would adversely affect the Department's ability to effectively continue any program, project and activity. contractor software charges An October, 1994 DOD Inspector General Report on contractor software charges indicates that defense contractors charge the government $5 billion annually, through indirect rates, for internal contractor automatic data processing activities. The report indicates that the Defense Contract Management Command provided insufficient priority to effectively monitor contractor automatic processing costs that are charged to DOD contracts. As a result, DOD was exposed to potential unwarranted contractor automatic data processing costs. The Inspector General estimated that the Defense Department could reduce costs by $164,000,000 during fiscal years 1995 to 1999 through improved technical oversight of contractor ADP activities. In Section 8089, the Committee recommends a general reduction of $30,000,000 in anticipation of savings resulting from improved management of contractor ADP charges in fiscal year 1996. incremental funding The Congress and the Secretary of Defense have insisted on full funding for the procurement of Department of Defense weapon systems for many years. Because it requires full disclosure of all likely costs before Congress appropriates funds for an item, the full funding policy imposes a financial discipline at all levels of management to ensure that cost goals are met or, when significant changes occur, that all oversight required by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Congress is conducted through the reprogramming process prior to committing to significant new increases. This is a sound and time-proven policy that has worked well since it was first implemented in a Defense appropriation in 1951. In a letter to the Committee dated April 17, 1995 Secretary of Defense Perry informed the Committee: Let me also reiterate again the Department's opposition to incremental funding of weapon systems. I know that you are facing great pressure to start new commitments with small initial increments to cover first year outlays. But that would reverse a well founded twenty-year old policy for full funding of weapons systems. That policy protects the Department and the taxpayer. I have observed the pressures you face because of deficits, and I doubt that our budget will be increased in future years. Thus any incremental of new commitments only constitutes a threat to future readiness or modernization programs. I have resisted this easy path as I develop a budget. I ask you to do the same. For these reasons, the Committee applauds the House National Security Committee for its thoughtful restatement of the full funding policy for Department of Defense weapon system acquisitions in Section 1007 of its fiscal year 1996 bill. The Committee has included a new general provision (Sec. 8090) in this bill to complement that legislation. spent nuclear Fuel The Committee recommends a new general provision (Section 8094) to facilitate shipments of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear ship overhauls, refuelings, and decommissionings that are funded in the Operation and Maintenance, Navy appropriation. Since 1992, the State of Idaho and the United States Government have been involved in a legal dispute concerning shipments of spent nuclear fuel to the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. In 1993, both parties entered an agreement concerning interim shipments during the time a court injunction was in place. The injunction was planned to end in June, 1995 but has recently been extended for an indefinite period. The Navy has informed the Committee that this situation will have an adverse impact on impending overhauls of its nuclear warships, both in terms of orderly completion of the overhauls and in order to get the ships back into service on schedule. The Committee understands that representatives of the State of Idaho and of the United States Government will meet soon in an attempt to reach an agreement for interim shipments of spent nuclear fuel to the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory for national security reasons. The Committee recognizes that reaching an agreement is vital to avoid an adverse impact to Navy ship overhauls which could affect readiness. The authority provided by the new general provision is temporary and can only be used if the parties cannot reach a timely agreement and if the Secretary of Defense so certifies in writing to the congressional defense committees. military sealift command ship charters The Military Sealift Command leases commercial ships to move fuel in support of military operations. Federal law requires that by the year 2015 all commercial tankers operating in United States waters be constructed with double hulls which afford additional protection to the environment from oil spills. Few of the ships which the Military Sealift Command leases today are double hull tankers and the military is not required by law to meet the 2015 deadline. However, the Committee strongly feels that the Federal Government should lead by example in the area of environmental protection, and that the Government should not impose standards on industry which it is not willing to impose on itself. The Committee therefore recommends a new general provision (Section 8095) which requires that: (1) when the Military Sealift Command leases or charters a commercial ship on a long-term basis involving construction of a new ship, the ship must be double hulled; (2) that by 1997 at least 20 percent of the ships which the Military Sealift Command leases or charters must involve ships of new construction; and (3) that the Military Sealift Command must plan to eliminate all single hull ship leases and charters by the year 2015. lpd-17 main propulsion engines The Committee recommends a new general provision (Section 8096) which requires that none of the funds appropriated or made available to the Department of the Navy shall be used to develop or procure main propulsion engines for the LPD-17 class of ships unless such equipment is powered by a diesel engine manufactured in the United States by a domestically operated entity, unless the Secretary of Defense waives the restriction on a case-by-case basis for national security reasons or due to significant price or quality differences. new attack submarine emergency generator set The Committee recommends a new general provision (Section 8097) which requires that none of the funds appropriated or made available to the Department of the Navy shall be used to develop or procure an emergency generator set for the New Attack Submarine class of ships unless such equipment is powered by a diesel engine manufactured in the United States by a domestically operated entity, unless the Secretary of Defense waives the restriction on a case-by-case basis for national security reasons or due to significant price or quality differences. energy and water efficiency The Committee recommends a new General Provision (Section 8086) proposed in the budget that allows the Department flexibility with respect to energy conservation projects which may need to be funded from appropriations other than the ones in which they are realized. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORTING REQUIREMENTS The following items are included in accordance with various requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives: Changes in Application of Existing Law Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of Representatives, the following statements are submitted describing the effect of provisions which directly or indirectly change the application of existing law. Language is included in various parts of the bill to continue ongoing activities which require annual authorization or additional legislation, which to date has not been enacted. The bill includes a number of provisions which place limitations on the use of funds in the bill or change existing limitations and which might, under some circumstances, be construed as changing the application of existing law. The bill includes a number of provisions, which have been virtually unchanged for many years, that are technically considered legislation. The bill provides that appropriations shall remain available for more than one year for some programs for which the basic authorizing legislation does not presently authorize such extended availability. In various places in the bill, the Committee has earmarked funds within appropriation accounts in order to fund specific programs and has adjusted some existing earmarkings. The bill includes a number of provisions which make portions of the appropriations subject to enactment of authorizing legislation. Those additional changes in the fiscal year 1996 bill, which might be interpreted as changing existing law, are as follows: appropriation language Language has been included in ``Reserve Personnel, Army'', ``Reserve Personnel, Navy'', ``Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps'', ``Reserve Personnel, Air Force'', ``National Guard Personnel, Army'', and ``National Guard Personnel, Air Force'', which amends statutory citations due to the enactment of the Reserve Officers, Personnel Management Act. Language has been included in ``Court of Military Appeals, Defense'' which changes the title of the appropriation to, ``United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces''. A new appropriation paragraph ``Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid Programs'' has been added that provides funds for relief efforts and activities other than war. Language has been amended in the ``Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction'' paragraph to delete some of the activities previously funded under this program. Language has been included in ``Other Procurement, Army'' which provides for the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for replacement. Language has been included in ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy'' which provides that V-22 funds may be used to meet requirements of the Special Operations Forces. Language has been included in ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force'' that earmarks funds for reusable space launch technology. Language has been included in ``Research Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' that amends funds available for the Sea-Based Wide Area Defense program. Language has been included in ``Defense Business Operations Fund'' that earmarks funds for the liquidation of prior year operating losses of the Department of the Navy. Language has been included in ``National Defense Sealift Fund'' for the operation of the Ready Reserve Fleet. Language has been included in ``National Security Education Trust Fund'' which rescinds prior year funds. Language has been included in ``Community Management Account'' which amends the appropriation to read ``Intelligence Community Management Account''. general provisions Section 8002 has been amended which deletes the reference to foreign national employees of the DoD in the Republic of Turkey. Section 8004 has been amended which limits appropriations in the last two months of a single fiscal year, and which deletes reference to the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice, Army. Section 8005 has been amended which provides authority to transfer prior year funds for valid ship cost adjustments related to the ``Shipbuilding and Construction, Navy'' appropriation. Section 8009 has been amended which prohibits funds available for the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services for payments to physicians and other non- institutional health care providers in excess of the amount allowed in fiscal year 1995. Section 8010 has been amended that changes notification to the ``Congressional Defense Committees''; and amends language on multiyear procurement contracts. Section 8011 has been amended which deletes a provision allowing the Secretary of the Army to authorize certain medical services. Section 8012 has been amended which excludes military (civilian) technician personnel from being managed on the basis of any end strength. Section 8015 has been amended to make permanent that Army Reserve military (civilian) technicians shall be required to be dual status members of the troop program unit as a condition of employment. Section 8016 has been amended to make permanent which allows military (civilian) technicians who have, as a condition of employment membership in the selected reserve, to be retained in an active status in the reserve until they qualify for a Civil Service retirement. Section 8018 has been amended to make permanent limitations on tuition assistance for reserve officers for postsecondary educational expenses. Section 8022 has been amended to revise funding for the Reserve Component Automation System. Section 8033 has been amended which deletes a provision prohibiting the relocation of the medical support function from Brooks Air Force Base. Section 8041 has been amended to increase the amount of obligations authorized for DoD to incur in anticipation of receiving contributions from the Government of Kuwait, and to credit those accounts which incurred obligations upon receipt of those contributions. Section 8042 has been amended to earmark funds for financing activities of Federally Funded Research and Development Centers; and amends the reduction for non-FFRDC consulting services. Section 8050 has been amended to make permanent the authority that allows DoD to make voluntary separation incentives payable from the Voluntary Separation Incentive Fund. Section 8051 has been amended which makes amounts deposited for non-excess property leases available for the current fiscal year only. Section 8053 has been amended which deletes the proviso concerning investigations by the Secretary of the Navy with the Tailhook Association. Section 8056 has been amended to make permanent the authority that allows DOD to make early retirement payments for reserve component personnel. Section 8059 has been amended to make permanent the authority that allows DOD to make early retirement payments for active duty members. Section 8063 has been amended to change the percentage of personnel which are assigned to the National Foreign Intelligence programs. Section 8068 has been amended concerning the High Performance Computing Modernization program. Section 8074 has been amended which earmarks funds for development of a new family of expendable launch vehicles. Section 8078 has been amended which deletes the proviso requiring DOD to report on reductions of civilian technician force structure. Section 8079 has been amended which amends statutory citations due to the enactment of the Reserve Officers' Personnel Management Act. Section 8081 has been amended which changes the estimated Federal cost of construction, or improvement to any facility used primarily by personnel of the intelligence community. Section 8086 has been added that allows transfer of appropriations to DOD for projects related to increasing energy and water efficiency. Section 8087 has been added which directs that funds reimbursed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to the Department of the Air Force be available for obligation only for Titan IV vehicles and related activities. Section 8088 has been added which appropriates $44,000,000 to DOD and then transfers those funds to the U.S. Coast Guard for national security activities. Section 8089 has been added that reduces amounts appropriated elsewhere in this bill by $30,000,000 for savings from contractor automatic data processing costs charged to DoD weapon system acquisitions. Section 8090 has been added that prohibits acquisition or advance procurement of weapon systems on an incremental funding basis. Section 8091 has been amended to delete language concerning the United States Army Engineer's Waterways Experiment Station. Section 8093 has been added which releases funds available for the HAVE GAZE program. Section 8094 has been added which facilitates shipments of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear ship overhauls, refuelings, and decommissionings. Section 8095 has been added concerning lease or charter of double hull ships by the Military Sealift Command which involve the construction of new ships, and which requires that by 1997 at least 20 percent of annual leases and charters be for ships of new construction and that the Military Sealift Command shall plan to eliminate single hull leases by 2015. Section 8096 has been added which requires that main propulsion engines for the LPD-17 Class be manufactured in the United States. Section 8097 has been added which requires that emergency generator sets for the New Attack Submarine Class be manufactured in the United States. Section 8098 has been added which provides for establishment of an interim National Training Center airhead at the former George Air Force Base, and a permanent airhead at Barstow-Daggett Airfield. Section 8099 has been added which provides additional transfer authority for interim funding of unfunded contingency operations. Section 8100 has been added which restricts certain funds from being used to finance Operation Southern Watch and Operation Provide Comfort unless the costs are included in the budget request for fiscal year 1997. Section 8101 has been amended to require a quarterly report of costs incurred by DOD in implementing or supporting resolutions of the United Nations Security Council to the congressional defense committees, and deletes the proviso which included the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives. Section 8102 has been amended which prohibits funds for new international peacekeeping, humanitarian, or disaster relief operations unless the President consults with Congress. Section 8103 has been added which places a prior notification requirement on the transfer of defense articles and services in support of international peackeeping, humanitarian, or disaster relief operations. Section 8104 has been amended to prohibit funds to deploy United States troops to Bosnia to help implement a negotiated peace settlement without Congressional authorization. Section 8105 has been amended which prohibits defense funds from being used to finance activities which are the responsibility of other Federal agencies. Section 8106 has been added which prohibits defense funds from being used to finance United Nations assessed contributions or arrearages. Appropriations Not Authorized by Law Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of Representatives, the following lists the appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not authorized by law: Military Personnel, Army Military Personnel, Navy Military Personnel, Marine Corps Military Personnel, Air Force Reserve Personnel, Army Reserve Personnel, Navy Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps Reserve Personnel, Air Force National Guard Personnel, Army National Guard Personnel, Air Force Operation and Maintenance, Army Operation and Maintenance, Navy Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Environmental Restoration, Defense Summer Olympics Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction Aircraft Procurement, Army Missile Procurement, Army Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army Procurement of Ammunition, Army Other Procurement, Army Aircraft Procurement, Navy Weapons Procurement, Navy Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy Other Procurement, Navy Procurement, Marine Corps Aircraft Procurement, Air Force Missile Procurement, Air Force Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force Other Procurement, Air Force Procurement, Defense-Wide National Guard and Reserve Equipment Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide Developmental Test and Evaluation, Defense Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense Defense Business Operations Fund National Defense Sealift Fund Defense Health Program Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense Office of the Inspector General Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund Intelligence Community Management Account General Provision--Section 8088. Transfer of Funds Pursuant to clause 1(b), rule X of the House of Representatives the following is submitted describing the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Appropriations to Appropriations from which transfer is Amount which transfer is Amount made made ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Operation and $50,000,000 National Defense $150,000,000 maintenance, Army. Stockpile Transaction Fund. Operation and 50,000,000 ..................... maintenance, Navy. Operation and 50,000,000 ..................... maintenance, Air Force. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, Defense'' which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this account. Language has been included in ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense'' which transfers funds to other appropriations accounts of the Department of Defense. Seven provisions (Section 8005, 8006, 8020, 8024, 8051, 8084 and 8086) contain language which allows transfers of funds between accounts. Section 8088 has been included which appropriates $44,000,000 to DoD for transfer to the Coast Guard for activities relating to national security. Section 8099 has been included which provides transfer authority of not to exceed $200,000,000 for interim funding of unfunded contingency operations. Rescission of Funds Pursuant to clause 1(b), rule X of the House of Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill: RESCISSIONS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Amounts Department and activity recommended for rescission ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Related agencies: National Security, Education Trust Fund, fiscal years 1993, 1994, 1995............................. $78,100,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Inflationary Impact Statement Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4), Rule XI of the House of Representatives, the following statement is made: The bill reported will provide $244,119,400,000 in new budget obligational authority. This is an increase of $7,775,383,000 above the budget request for fiscal year 1996 and $2,516,329,000 above the fiscal year 1995 funding level. The appropriation as proposed by the Committee should not cause inflation to increase greatly. This level of Defense spending will have little inflationary effect in comparison to the forecasted size of the gross national product for 1996. Comparison With Budget Resolution Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), requires that the report accompanying a bill providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing how the authority compares with the reports submitted under section 602(b) of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year. This information follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 602(b) allocation This bill ----------------------------------------- Budget Budget authority Outlays authority Outlays ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Discretionary................. 243,910 244,072 243,906 243,959 Mandatory..................... 214 214 214 214 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The bill provides no new spending authority as described in section 401(c)(2) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended. Five-Year Projection of Outlays In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following table contains five-year projections associated with the budget authority provided in the accompanying bill. (In millions of dollars) Budget authority in the bill............................ $244,119 1996................................................ 164,455 1997................................................ 46,522 1998................................................ 17,554 1999................................................ 7,861 2000................................................ 5,804 The bill will not affect the levels of revenues, tax expenditures, direct loan obligations, or primary loan guarantee commitments under existing law. Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(D) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended, no new budget or outlays are provided by the accompanying bill for financial assistance to state and local governments. Committee Votes Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2(l)(2)(b) of rule XI of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of those voting for and those voting against, are printed below: ROLLCALL NUMBER: 1 Date: July 25, 1995. Measure: Defense appropriations, fiscal year 1996. Motion by: Mr. Obey. Description of Motion: To reduce funding to procure the F- 22 fighter and to require Defense to submit a plan for reduced procurement for the outyears. Results: Rejected 8 to 32. Members Voting Yea Member Voting Nay Mr. Durbin Mr. Bevill Mrs. Lowey Mr. Bonilla Mr. Obey Mr. Bunn Ms. Pelosi Mr. Callahan Mr. Sabo Mr. Coleman Mr. Skaggs Mr. Dicks Mr. Stokes Mr. Fazio Mr. Yates Mr. Forbes Mr. Frelinghuysen Mr. Hefner Mr. Hobson Mr. Hoyer Mr. Kingston Mr. Knollenberg Mr. Kolbe Mr. Lewis Mr. Lightfoot Mr. Livingston Mr. McDade Mr. Murtha Mr. Nethercutt Mr. Neumann Mr. Packard Mr. Rogers Mr. Skeen Mr. Thornton Mrs. Vucanovich Mr. Walsh Mr. Wicker Mr. Wilson Mr. Wolf Mr. Young Committee Votes Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2(l)(2)(b) of rule XI of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of those voting for and those voting against, are printed below: ROLLCALL NUMBER: 2 Date: July 25, 1995. Measure: Defense appropriations, fiscal year 1996. Motion by: Mr. Obey. Description of Motion: To reduce funding for national missile defense. Results: Rejected 10 to 33. Members Voting Yea Member Voting Nay Mr. Chapman Mr. Bevill Mr. Durbin Mr. Bonilla Mr. Fazio Mr. Bunn Mrs. Lowey Mr. Coleman Mr. Obey Mr. DeLay Ms. Pelosi Mr. Dicks Mr. Sabo Mr. Forbes Mr. Skaggs Mr. Frelinghuysen Mr. Stokes Mr. Hefner Mr. Yates Mr. Hobson Mr. Hoyer Mr. Kingston Mr. Knollenberg Mr. Kolbe Mr. Lewis Mr. Lightfoot Mr. Livingston Mr. McDade Mr. Murtha Mr. Nethercutt Mr. Neumann Mr. Packard Mr. Porter Mr. Regula Mr. Rogers Mr. Skeen Mr. Thornton Mrs. Vucanovich Mr. Walsh Mr. Wicker Mr. Wilson Mr. Wolf Mr. Young <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> DISSENTING VIEWS OF HON. DAVE OBEY It will come as no surprise to any Member that I am opposed to this bill. But I really believe that Members who make military spending their first priority and others who call themselves ``Cheap Hawks'' ought to think twice about where this bill is taking us. This bill, because it tracks so closely with the authorizing bill, is out of touch with what has happened around the world. It seems that some of our friends on the authorizing committees don't want to admit this, but the Cold War is over. And the hard truth is that we better start adjusting our priorities towards the challenges of the future instead of the past because, if nothing else, there simply won't be money available to continue all these weapon systems that were designed to fight Cold War enemies. seven-year plan for military spending If you look at the Republican seven-year military spending plan, you will find that Republican ``doomsday'' rhetoric on defense is not matched by their own budget numbers. The majority party gnashes its teeth and sheds crocodile tears about the inadequacy of President Clinton's seven-year defense budget, even going so far as to imply that it puts our national security at risk. Yet when you look at the Republican's seven-year military spending plan in the Budget Resolution, you find it adds 96-one hundredths of one percent to President Clinton defense budget. Apparently, the Republicans can solve all of the national security inadequacies of the President's defense budget by increasing it be less than one percent. military spending comparison (function 050) 1996 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET RESOLUTION VS. PRESIDENT'S BUDGET [Budget authority in billions of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 cum ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- President's Budget............................ 257.8 253.4 259.6 266.3 276.0 286.5 286.5 1,886.1 1996 Budget Resolution........................ 264.7 267.3 269.0 271.7 274.4 277.1 280.0 1,904.2 Bud Res. over/under President................. +6.9 +13.9 +9.4 +5.4 -1.6 -9.4 -6.5 18.1 Change (in percent)..................... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... +0.96 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Data supplied by Department of Defense. The Military Spending ``Roller Coaster''. Instead of making unfounded attacks on the President's Budget, our defense committees should turn their attention to a very real problem caused by the new Republican budget plan. In what I can only guess was a political decision, the Republican seven-year Budget Resolution front loads its military spending increases the Pentagon's Budget over the first two years of the plan and then sets into place very steep cuts for the remaining five years. The Republican Military Budget is actually below the Clinton defense budget in each of the last three years of the plan by a total of $17.5 billion. In fact, if it weren't for the first several years of needlessly piling in excess military spending increases before the next election, it is a plan that I find hard to criticize. The following chart illustrates the roller coaster ride we can expect to see for Pentagon budgets over the next seven years. It compares the annual amounts that military spending levels set in the 1996 Budget Resolution (function 050) will be over or under the amounts set forth in the President's defense budget. It also shows the added shortfall that would be experienced if the Congress committed to buy 20 additional B-2 bombers under the contractor's proposal to finance three planes a year. All data for this chart were supplied by the Defense Department. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Excessive Multi-Year Commitments. This Republican ``roller coaster'' military budget will cause very severe problems in a few short years because of the multi-year spending commitments we are being asked to make this year. The Republican Congress this year and next will attempt to load up the Pentagon with: extra B-2 bombers; extra Aegis destroyers and other Navy and Marine surface ships funded on an incremental basis; extra aircraft, helicopters and tanks funded under new multi-year contracts; acceleration of the F 22 program; more for National Missile Defense; and a host of other new multi-year commitments. This is going to put the Pentagon in an incredible box in the last five years of the seven-year plan because all the bills for these new commitments will come due just as the total of available defense dollars compared to the President's Budget begins to plummet. The Pentagon will then have to choose between more cuts in troop strength, more base closures, or the wasting literally billions of dollars by canceling some of these procurements in mid-stream. The other option would be to cut Medicare even further to pay for the excesses that we commit to now. The self-styled ``Cheap Hawks'' in the House ought to think twice about what we are buying in our military spending bills this year and take a hard look at what it means for the future. We should stop these big new multi-year commitments before they begin. I offered amendments in the full committee mark-up to start bringing this problem under control by slowing down development of the F-22 fighter and by cutting the excessive 121 percent increase to the budget request for national missile defense research and development. The combined multi-year impact of these amendments would be to take out roughly $12 billion in future cost over the next seven years ($6.5 billion for F-22, and at least $5.6 billion for national missile defense). My substantive reasons for these proposals are explained more fully below. Although, the Committee did not accept these amendments, I believe support for them will grow as the Pentagon's funding mismatch becomes more fully understood. In addition, I plan to co-sponsor an amendment when this bill is considered on the House floor to strike $493 million provided in the bill for a down payment on 20 more B-2 bombers. This would save $18.5 billion in added cost over the next seven years and $38 billion over the next twenty years. deferring the F-22 fighter aircraft My F-22 amendment would have cut $1 billion out of the $2.34 billion appropriation in the bill to continue research and development for the F-22 fighter program. My amendment would also have directed the Air Force to use the remaining $1.34 billion to restructure and delay this program by five years in line with recommendations of the GAO that this program should be delayed by 7 years. The reason for this is simple. The Air Force and F-22 supporters want to spend billions of tax dollars we don't have for a plane whose time has not yet come. We already have the best air superiority fighter in the world--the F-15E--and the threat to that plane has been shrinking, not growing. The GAO tells us the 743 F-15Es we have on hand will last at least until the Year 2015 and probably a whole lot longer than that. The Air Force wants to spend $73.5 billion to buy 442 F-22 replacements planes for deployment between 2004 and 2010. Each plane is now projected to cost $162 million and we all know that this cost has nowhere to go but up. The GAO believes there is at least a seven year overlap that is unnecessary. Program Slow Down, Not Termination. We hear all kinds of scary talk from the F-22 proponents. For instance, we are told that spending only $1.34 billion next year instead of $2.34 billion will kill the program. Only in the dream world of the Pentagon and $600 dollar toilet seats do they believe that spending nearly a billion and a half dollars on a program will kill it. It will be restructured and slowed down but not killed. The ``Threat''. We also hear that even though this plane was designed specifically to fight Soviet planes in an old Cold War scenario where our people would be vastly outnumbered and face ultra-sophisticated defenses, there are now new ``threats'' from some 20 other countries who possess aircraft that are nearly as sophisticated as the F-15E. What they don't tell you that those ``threats'' include such countries as Switzerland, Israel, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Brazil and Argentina. They also won't tell you that much of this so- called ``threat'' is from our own aircraft that we sell to these countries--particularly the 1,700 F-16s we have sold to our friends and allies. For the countries that are legitimate concerns, like Iraq or North Korea, we learned in Desert Storm that possession of a few sophisticated aircraft does not necessarily represent a legitimate, serious ``threat'' to our Air Force. Many other things are necessary besides fancy planes such as highly trained air crews, AWACs air control systems, and other support infrastructure. In fact, the trend is going sharply in the other direction. The GAO reports that the break up of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union has greatly lessened the quantity and quality of the potential fighter threat to United States forces. Compared to over 740 F-15's in the US inventory, potential foreign adversaries have only a handful of expensive high performance fighters that come close to matching the F-15's performance. Other experts agree with this assessment. The RAND think tank is reported to have said the following about the threat to our air security: The airpower forces of the former Soviet Union have fragmented and their recovery would take many years. The air fleets fielded by other potential adversaries are small and aging. Another RAND study concludes that China will retire about half of its fighters and attack aircraft within the next ten years, and cannot afford to replace them. This situation is not expected to change in the foreseeable future. Because of their expense, the GAO reports that the Defense Department does not believe that our potential adversaries will buy more than a few high performance fighter aircraft anytime soon. Potential F-22 Cost Growth. We also hear that not spending billions of dollars now will actually cost us billions of dollars later. This is a standard Pentagon response when they can't argue the facts. It's like telling your son or daughter that they better go out and trade in their Ford for that shiny new Mercedes now even though they're up to their ears in debt, because if they put it off for several years that Mercedes is going to cost more. And of course the Air Force takes this one step better by saying that you should buy two new Mercedes now because you will save that much more. The bottom line is we should buy what we need, when we need it. We don't need the F-22 right now when we already have the best plane around, the best pilots around, and the best command and control structure around. There simply is no threat to justify putting this on the fast track. F-22 Foreign Sales. Last, for those of you who scratch your heads about how our military-industrial complex works, I would commend to you the July 15, 1995 issue of the National Journal which reports that the President of Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems plans to begin foreign sales of the F-22 at the Paris Air Show next year. One must question the Air Force's burning need for this new plane if it is willing to disseminate this technology across the world. Of course, as is the case with the F-15 and F-16, selling this technology to foreign governments perpetuates the ``threat'' and justifies the next 100 billion dollar project. excessive growth for national missile defense The Administration requested almost $2.44 billion for the ballistic missile defense activities of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. The bill increases that amount by $600 million, or about 25%. Within this increase, the Committee more than doubled the President's request for national missile defense (commonly referred to as ``Son of Star Wars'') from $371 million to $821 million. I proposed an amendment in full committee to strike this $450 million increase designated for national missile defense while still leaving $2.6 billion for missile defense work focused mainly against the immediate threat to our troops--which is theater ballistic missiles. The Committee did not agree to this amendment. We must Focus Our Limited Resources on Countering The Most Urgent Threats. This ``Star Wars'' debate is at heart a debate over perceptions. The perception clearly is that the threat of a ballistic missile attack against the US is so great that we need to embark on a crash program to build a very limited national missile defense (NMD) system within perhaps six years. By contrast, the Administration proposes to fund activities leading to a more effective system in a decade or so. Most experts, including Secretary Perry and General Shalikashvili, simply disagree with Congressional advocates of this crash program about the increased urgency and immediacy of this particular threat. Right now only two potentially hostile countries can reach the continental US with ballistic missiles--China and Russia. And these are two countries that have been able to hit us with missiles for decades. The new national missile defense system being developed would not address this threat, since not even the most enthusiastic supporters of missile defense claim this new system could protect against a full-fledged nuclear attack. Ironically, the best way to address the Russian missile threat is to continue to dismantle them under the Nunn-Lugar program. Unfortunately, the Committee proposes to cut the request for the Nunn-Lugar program almost in half. It is a far higher National priority to invest our limited funds to dismantle existing missiles that could obliterate our country tomorrow than to accelerate a haphazard crash program of very limited effectiveness with the added consequence of unraveling several very important nuclear weapons treaties. Proponents of this multi-billion dollar crash program for a limited NMD system talk about the 20 or so other countries that may have or are working on ballistic missile capabilities. But there are two important points here. First, most of these countries pose no threat to the US. They are countries like the United Kingdom, Brazil, and Israel. In reality we are talking about a handful of rogue countries like Libya and North Korea. The second point in that within this rouge country category, the most common missile is the short and medium range SCUD ``theater'' missile that cannot reach the continental US. The unpleasant fact is, if these nations wish to unleash weapons of mass destruction on our territory, chemical or biological weapons represent more of a near term threat than intercontinental ballistic missiles. The Administration has set the right priorities by robustly funding programs that counter the real threats we face today; the massive arsenal of nuclear ICBM's in the former Soviet Union; chemical and biological warfare defense; and theater missile defense. A Crash NMD Program Will End Up Hunting Theater Missile Defense Efforts. I am also concerned that overlaying a new multi-year, multi-billion NMD requirement on the existing missile defense program will end up sucking funds away from the higher priority threater missile defense program in just few short years. Given the seven-year budget plan in the Republican Budget Resolution, it's clear we don't have the money to sustain both a large theater missile defense program and a hyped-up national missile defense program unless we cut other weapons systems. And I see no willingness for the leadership of this Congress to do that. Crash NMD Program Could Be Obsolete Before It Is Implemented. We are told by the Administration that their current NMD program is keeping pace with technology rather than outstripping it. A crash effort to deploy a national missile defense before this technology is fully developed will end up costing more, delivering less, and saddling us with a system that will quickly become obsolete. And in the absence of an immediate or even mid-term threat, we simply shouldn't go down that road. I fully recognize that the world is still a dangerous place. I also know that some hostile states such as North Korea are probably pursuing more advanced missile development programs. But the fact remains--and the intelligence community agrees--that we don't face any credible threat for at least a decade. That is the time frame being proposed for national missile defense by the Pentagon experts. Many things could change in the next decade both good and bad. There is certainly a chance that North Korea will be peacefully unified with South Korea. A peace process that moves forward in the Middle East could further isolate and weaken Iran, Iraq, and Libya. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is serious and deserves constant vigilance. But our decisions in this area should be based on careful and reasoned assessments, not on the basis of polls that are ginned up to make this a political issue. Let's take a step back and spend our money wisely. We should bring the national missile defense budget back down to the level requested by the Administration. Strike $493 Million for More B-2 Bombers When this bill is considered on the floor, I plan to cosponsor an amendment to eliminate half a billion dollars of waste in this bill by simply reaffirming the decision of President Bush's Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney, and the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell. Those gentlemen proposed to cap the B-2 bomber fleet at twenty airplanes. That decision has been reviewed in depth by a variety of defense experts including Secretary Perry and General Shalikashvili, and they strongly concur with Secretary Cheney's basic decision--that 20 airplanes is the right number. Ever since the Cheney decision, we have had Congressional B-2 advocates on both sides of the aisle try to knock holes in the Defense Department's decision with little success. Heavy Bomber Study. Last year, after meeting a stone wall, the B-2 advocates pushed through a requirement for the Defense Department to spend $3 million for an independent study on the future heavy bomber force and another $1.5 million for a study on the B-2 industrial base. Those studies were indeed conducted and the results are now out. And much to the chagrin of the B-2 advocates, these studies completely refute their position. The Heavy Bomber Force Study was conducted by an independent study group--the Institute for Defense Analysis-- under the overall direction of a highly-respected DoD official who has been involved with bomber issues since 1977. That study assessed the results of numerous other studies--including the RAND study that B-2 advocates talk about. The Heavy Bomber Force Study is widely hailed as one of the most complete and objective studies of its type ever conducted. Contrary to assertions of B-2 lobbyists, this study assessed numerous alternative scenarios (called ``excursions'') including short warning time, no available carriers, and the denial of tactical airbases for 8 to 15 days. What did this study conclude? (1) ``the planned force [which includes 20 B-2s] can meet the national security requirements of two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts''; (2) ``additional quantities of accurate guided munitions would be more cost effective than procuring 20 additional B-2s''; and (3) ``planned conventional upgrades to the B-1, [which are already bought and paid for,] are more cost effective than procuring an additional 20 B-2s''. In other words, if you want to do what's right for the defense of this country and what's right for the safety of our fighting men and women, you won't buy more B-2s. Instead, if additional funds are available, you will spend them on buying more smart bombs and making upgrades to the B-1. This study makes an overwhelming case that what makes the critical difference isn't so much the platform as it is what is dropped from the platform. And our efforts should be directed at better and cheaper smart munitions that can be dropped from longer ranges. That is in fact what the Pentagon plans to do. B-2 Industrial Base Study. The second independent study on the B-2 industrial base was released in June. That study also makes an overwhelming case that no unique industrial capabilities will be lost when the B-2 production line is shut down after 20 planes. Stealth and other key technologies will continue to be produced and improved through the ongoing F-22 and JAST programs. Industrial capabilities exist at all other prime aircraft manufacturing contractors to build next generation bombers. If necessary, steps have been taken so that the B-2 production line could be restarted in the future. So the argument that we need to buy more B-2s to preserve a unique technology just doesn't hold up. Faulty B-2 Force Comparisons. Many Members have seen charts from B-2 advocates stating that the B-2 is a cost-saver because ``each pair of B-2s replaces 75 other aircraft and 132 other crew members.'' The assumption is that all of the various support aircraft in a typical Air force ``strike package'' would be made unnecessary by the B-2 and therefore could be eliminated. The Defense Department tells us this is just plain wrong. They say: (1) These comparisons assume that the B-2 would not have fighter or air suppression escorts. This may be true for the bombing runs on lightly defended targets, but fighters and enemy defense suppression aircraft will still be required for other missions in the theater and cannot be struck from the inventory. It is unlikely that a two billion dollar B-2 aircraft will be sent to heavily defended areas without escort. (2) The comparisons used are faulty because they assume only B-2s carry smart weapons, and that the B-2 carries 8 times the payload of light bombers. In reality other aircraft have precision guided weapons capability as good or better than the B-2, and the B-2 carries closer to 4 times the payload of light bombers. B-1s on the other hand have a larger payload and a better suite of available weapons than the B-2 . (3) The B-2 advocates conveniently forget about the higher sortie rate of lighter bombers that reduces even further the impact of the B-2s payload advantage. (4) The aircraft the B-2 is compared to are already in the inventory and do not have to be purchased as the B-2 does. If the B-2 advocates truly believe their own argument, they should clearly and specifically identify the Air Force, Navy, and Army units that they would deactivate because of the addition of more B-2 aircraft. Affordability. Last, I want to point out that, even under the new Republican budget plan, we can't afford this new bomber without cutting out one or two other major procurements. And no one on the majority side has shown any inclination to do that when it comes to military spending. The Defense Department tells us that Republican budget plan provides only $18 billion more than the President's defense plan for the next seven years. The B-2 procurement alone will cost an additional $18.5 billion over that time period. The outyear funding commitments for this program combined with the other new multi-year commitments for ships, tanks, and other planes will simply wash away the Republican increase. Two years from now we will either have to cut off half-paid-for procurements resulting in a tremendous multi-billion dollar waste, or cut back on troop strength and close more bases. For all these reasons, we should do the right thing when this bill reaches the floor. We will have a chance to vote for sound defense policy and to reduce the deficit. We should vote to strip out this money and cap the B-2 fleet at 20 planes. Dave Obey. <greek-d> <greek-d>

NEWSLETTER

Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list