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

From the Senate Reports Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] 104th Congress 1st Session SENATE Report 104-112 _______________________________________________________________________ Calendar No. 145 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 REPORT [to accompany s. 1026] on AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES together with ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS ---------- COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES UNITED STATES SENATE <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> July 12 (legislative day, July 10), 1995.--Ordered to be printed NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 104th Congress 1st SENATE Report Session 104-112 _______________________________________________________________________ Calendar No. 145 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 REPORT [to accompany s. 1026] on AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES together with ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS __________ COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES UNITED STATES SENATE <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> July 12 (legislative day, July 10), 1995.--Ordered to be printed COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES (104th Congress, 1st Session) STROM THURMOND, South Carolina, Chairman SAM NUNN, Georgia JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia J. JAMES EXON, Nebraska WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine CARL LEVIN, Michigan JOHN McCAIN, Arizona EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico DAN COATS, Indiana JOHN GLENN, Ohio BOB SMITH, New Hampshire ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho CHARLES S. ROBB, Virginia KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania Richard L. Reynard, Staff Director Arnold L. Punaro, Staff Director for the Minority (ii) C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Purpose of the bill.............................................. 1 Committee overview and recommendations........................... 2 Explanation of funding summary................................... 3 Division A--Department of Defense Authorizations Title I--Procurement............................................. 11 Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 12 Section 107. Chemical demilitarization program............... 12 Use of unobligated fiscal year 1994 and 1995 funds... 13 Transportation of the unitary stockpile.............. 13 Subtitle B--Army Programs.................................... 14 Section 111. AH-64D Longbow Apache attack helicopter..... 26 Section 112. OH-58D AHIP Scout helicopter................ 26 Section 113. Hydra 70 rocket............................. 26 Other Army Programs.......................................... 27 Army aircraft............................................ 27 C-XX mid-range turbofan aircraft..................... 27 UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter.......................... 27 Army Missile............................................. 27 Hellfire missile..................................... 27 Javelin medium anti-tank weapon...................... 27 TOW missile.......................................... 28 Multiple launch rocket system (MLRS)................. 28 Army tactical missile system (ATACMS)................ 28 Stinger missile modifications........................ 29 Weapons and tracked combat vehicles...................... 29 M113 family of vehicles (FOV)........................ 29 Bradley fighting vehicle............................. 29 Improved recovery vehicle (IRV)...................... 30 M1A2 tank upgrades................................... 30 Small arms programs.................................. 31 7.62 millimeter medium machine gun................... 31 Army ammunition.......................................... 31 Army ammunition...................................... 31 Selectable lightweight attack munition XM94.......... 32 Procurement of M-795 artillery projectile............ 32 Armament retooling and manufacturing support (ARMS).. 32 Other Army procurement................................... 32 High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV)... 32 Family of medium tactical vehicles (FMTV)............ 33 Family of heavy tactical vehicles (FHTV)............. 33 Medium truck extended service program (ESP).......... 34 Communications and intelligence systems.............. 35 Army data distribution system (ADDS)................. 35 Single channel ground and airborne radio system (SINCGARS)......................................... 35 Commanders tactical terminal......................... 35 Forward area air defense-ground based sensor (FAAD- GBS)............................................... 35 Night vision devices................................. 36 Tactical quiet generators............................ 36 Subtitle C--Navy Programs.................................... 37 Section 121. Seawolf and new attack submarine programs... 55 Section 124. Split funding for construction of naval vessels................................................ 59 Other Navy Programs.......................................... 61 Navy aircraft............................................ 61 AV-8B remanufacture.................................. 61 Additional F/A-18C/D strike fighters................. 61 CH-53E helicopters................................... 62 F-14 Forward looking infrared (FLIR)/Laser........... 62 Thermal imaging modifications for USMC aircraft...... 62 AN/APR-39A(V)-2 radar warning receiver............... 63 Undergraduate NFO training........................... 63 Navy weapons............................................. 63 Tomahawk missile..................................... 63 Direct broadcast service............................. 63 Navy shipbuilding and conversion......................... 64 Amphibious lift...................................... 64 LCAC service life extension program.................. 65 Shipbuilding contract retentions..................... 65 Other Navy procurement................................... 66 Submarine navigation sets............................ 66 AN/SLQ-32 electronic warfare system.................. 66 Integrated communications for aircraft carriers...... 67 Challenge Athena..................................... 67 Sonobuoy procurement................................. 68 Electro-optical sight/weapons director............... 68 Vertical launch system............................... 69 Forklift trucks...................................... 69 Marine Corps ammunition.................................. 69 Marine Corps ammunition.............................. 69 Marine Corps............................................. 69 M1A1 tank modifications.............................. 69 Operational enhancements............................. 70 PSC-5 radios......................................... 70 Advanced field artillery tactical data systems (AFATDS)........................................... 70 Night vision devices (NVD)........................... 70 Computer upgrades.................................... 71 Trailers............................................. 71 Water purification and support equipment............. 71 Training simulators.................................. 71 Air Force programs........................................... 72 Air Force aircraft....................................... 84 Strategic airlift.................................... 84 C-17 Spares.......................................... 84 Air Force ammunition..................................... 84 Air Force ammunition................................. 84 Air Force missile........................................ 84 Defense support program procurement.................. 84 Minuteman guidance replacement program............... 84 Global positioning system block IIF advanced procurement........................................ 85 Space boosters....................................... 85 Defense satellite communications system.............. 85 Other Air Force procurement.............................. 85 Avionics support equipment........................... 85 Subtitle D--Other programs................................... 86 Section 131. Tier II predator unmanned aerial vehicle program................................................ 86 Section 132. Pioneer unmanned aerial vehicle program..... 86 Defense-Wide procurement................................. 88 Mark V special operations craft...................... 92 Rigid hull inflatable boat (RHIB).................... 92 National Guard and Reserve equipment..................... 92 National Guard artillery modernization............... 93 High capacity air ambulances......................... 94 Naval Reserve C-9B aircraft.......................... 94 Title II--Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E)..... 95 Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations................................................ 95 Section 211. A/F117X long-range, medium attack aircraft.. 95 Risk reduction--current program...................... 96 Risk reduction--additional program scope............. 96 Section 212. Navy mine countermeasures program........... 97 Section 213. Marine Corps shore fire support............. 98 Section 214. Space and missile tracking system program... 99 Section 215. Precision guided munitions.................. 101 Interim PGM.......................................... 101 Section 216. Defense Nuclear Agency programs............. 102 DNA mission.......................................... 102 DNA budget request................................... 103 Electro-thermal chemical (ETC) gun program........... 103 Thermionics.......................................... 104 Section 217. Counterproliferation support program........ 104 Biological detection................................. 105 Special Operations Forces............................ 105 Underground and deep underground structures.......... 105 Cruise Missile proliferation......................... 106 Proliferation of space technology.................... 106 Emergency preparedness and response.................. 107 Transfer authority................................... 107 Report to Congress................................... 107 Section 218. Nonlethal weapons program................... 108 Section 219. Federally funded research and development centers................................................ 109 Section 220. States eligible for assistance under Defense Experimental Program To Stimulate Competitive Research. 109 Section 221. National defense technology and industrial base, defense reinvestment, and conversion............. 110 Section 222. Revisions of manufacturing of science and technology programs.................................... 111 Section 223. Preparedness of the Department of Defense to respond to military and civil defense emergencies resulting from a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear attack......................................... 112 Subtitle C--Missile Defense.................................. 113 Sections 231 through 241................................. 113 Missile Defense Act of 1995.............................. 113 Theater missile defense architecture................. 113 National missile defense architecture................ 117 Cruise missile defense initiative.................... 119 Policy regarding the ABM Treaty...................... 119 Development, testing and deployment of non-ABM systems............................................ 120 Ballistic Missile Defense Program elements........... 121 Ballistic missile defense funding........................ 121 Core theater missile defense programs................ 122 Other theater missile defense activities............. 122 National missile defense............................. 123 Support technologies................................. 124 Cruise missile defense funding........................... 124 Other Programs............................................... 126 Army..................................................... 126 High modulus polycrylonitrile (PAN) carbon fiber..... 131 Army technology base programs........................ 131 Environmental Policy Simulation Laboratory (EPSL).... 131 Funding for medical total access programs (telemedicine)..................................... 132 Wave net technology.................................. 132 Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)........... 133 Multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) enhancements.... 133 Objective individual combat weapon (OICW)............ 133 Advanced artillery propellant development............ 133 Armored systems modernization (ASM).................. 134 Small arms common module fire control system (SACMFS) 134 Command and control centers.......................... 134 Comanche helicopter.................................. 134 Medium tactical truck extended service program (ESP). 135 Heavy tactical vehicles.............................. 135 High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV)... 135 Laser warning component-suite of survivability enhancements....................................... 136 Mark-19 universal bracket............................ 136 High energy laser systems test facility.............. 136 Nautilus/Tactical High Energy Laser Program.......... 136 Army field artillery tactical data system (AFATDS)... 137 Stinger missile modifications........................ 137 Communications enhancements.......................... 137 Navy..................................................... 138 Defense research sciences (Navy)..................... 143 Power electronics building block..................... 143 Parametric airborne dipping sonar.................... 143 Air Systems and Weapons Advanced Technology.......... 144 Intercooled recuperated gas turbine.................. 144 Remote minehunting vehicle........................... 144 Advanced armored amphibious vehicle (AAAV)........... 144 Lightweight 155mm howitzer........................... 145 Cooperative engagement capability.................... 145 Naval surface fire support........................... 145 S-3B Project Gray Wolf............................... 146 V-22 Osprey.......................................... 147 Airborne electronic warfare.......................... 147 Infrared search and track............................ 149 BARAK 1--ship self defense........................... 149 Medium tactical vehicle remanufacture (MTVR)......... 150 Crash attenuating seats for helicopters.............. 150 Plasma Electric Waste Converter Program.............. 150 Air Force................................................ 151 Adaptive optics...................................... 157 Defense research sciences (Air Force)................ 157 Human systems technology............................. 157 Thermally stable jet fuels........................... 157 Range tracking and safety............................ 157 Micro-satellite development program.................. 157 Polar satellite communications....................... 157 National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System................................... 158 Reentry vehicle applications......................... 158 Interim precision guided munitions (PGM)............. 158 F-22 Program......................................... 159 Sensor Fuzed Weapon Improvement Program.............. 161 Ultra-high frequency satellite communications........ 162 RC-135 Re-engining................................... 162 Joint air-to-surface standoff missile (JASSM)........ 162 Standoff land attack missile extended response... 162 Rivet Joint technology transfer program............. 162 Information systems security......................... 163 Defense Support Program.............................. 163 Fighter data links................................... 163 Defense-Wide............................................. 165 Combat readiness research............................ 169 DODDS Director's fund for science, mathematics, and engineering........................................ 169 University research initiatives...................... 170 Medical Free Electron Laser Program.................. 170 Software reuse....................................... 170 Tactical landing system.............................. 170 Diamond substrates................................... 170 High temperature superconductivity................... 171 Pulsed fast neutron analysis (PFNA) technology....... 171 Thermophotovoltaics.................................. 171 Large millimeter wave telescope...................... 172 Rapid acquisition of manufactured parts.............. 172 Advanced electronics technologies.................... 172 Semiconductor manufacturing technology (SEMATECH).... 172 ATD-111 non-acoustic sensor technology............... 173 NATO research and development program................ 173 Fuel cells........................................... 174 Special Operations Forces counterproliferation support............................................ 174 Technical studies, support and analysis.............. 174 Technical assistance and SBIR administration......... 174 U-2 Signals intelligence (SIGINT) sensor upgrades.... 174 U-2 defensive system upgrade......................... 175 Maritime unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)............... 175 Advanced SEAL delivery system (ASDS)................. 175 Rigid hull inflatable boat (RHIB).................... 176 Expertise on defense trade and international technology......................................... 176 RDT&E infrastructure................................. 176 Individual lift vehicle development.................. 177 Defense developmental test and evaluation................ 177 Environmental technology............................. 177 Title III--Operation and Maintenance............................. 179 Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 209 Section 303. Armed Forces retirement home................ 209 Section 304. Transfer from National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund....................................... 209 Subtitle B--Depot-level Maintenance and Repair............... 209 Section 311. Policy regarding performance of depot-level maintenance and repair for the Department of Defense... 209 Section 312. Extension of authority for aviation depots and naval shipyards to engage in defense-related production and services................................ 210 Subtitle C--Environmental Provisions......................... 210 Section 321. Revision of requirements for agreements for services under environmental restoration program....... 210 Section 322. Discharges from vessels of the Armed Forces. 211 Section 323. Revision of authorities relating to restoration advisory boards............................ 211 Subtitle D--Civilian Employees............................... 212 Section 331. Minimum number of military reserve technicians............................................ 212 Section 332. Exemption of Department of Defense from personnel ceilings for civilian personnel.............. 212 Section 333. Wearing of uniform by National Guard technicians............................................ 213 Section 334. Extension of temporary authority to pay civilian employees with respect to the evacuation from Guantanamo, Cuba....................................... 213 Section 335. Sharing of personnel of Department of Defense domestic dependent schools and Defense Dependents' Education System........................... 214 Section 336. Revision of authority for appointments of involuntarily separated military reserve technicians... 214 Section 337. Cost of continuing health insurance coverage for employees voluntarily separated from positions to be eliminated in a reduction in force.................. 214 Section 338. Elimination of 120-day limitation on details of certain employees................................... 214 Section 339. Repeal of requirement for part-time career opportunity employment reports......................... 214 Section 340. Authority of civilian employees of Department of Defense to participate voluntarily in reductions in force.................................... 215 Section 341. Authority to pay severance payments in lump sums................................................... 215 Section 342. Holidays for employees whose basic workweek is other than Monday through Friday.................... 215 Section 343. Coverage of nonappropriated fund employees under authority for flexible and compressed work schedules.............................................. 215 Subtitle E--Defense Financial Management..................... 215 Section 351. Financial management training............... 215 Section 352. Limitation on opening of new centers for Defense Finance and Accounting Service................. 216 Subtitle F--Miscellaneous Assistance......................... 216 Section 361. Department of Defense funding for National Guard participation in joint disaster and emergency assistance exercises................................... 216 Section 362. Office of Civil-Military Programs........... 216 Section 363. Revision of authority for Civil-Military Cooperative Action Program............................. 216 Section 364. Office of Humanitarian and Refugee Affairs.. 216 Subtitle G--Operation of Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Funds...................................................... 217 Section 371. Disposition of excess morale, welfare, and recreation funds....................................... 217 Section 372. Elimination of certain restrictions on purchases and sales of items by exchange stores and other morale, welfare, and recreation facilities....... 217 Section 373. Repeal of requirement to convert ships' stores to nonappropriated fund instrumentalities....... 217 Subtitle H--Other Matters.................................... 217 Section 381. National Defense Sealift Fund: availability for Ready Reserve component of the Ready Reserve Fleet. 217 Section 382. Limitation on contracting with same contractor for construction of additional new sealift ships.................................................. 217 Section 383. Availability of recovered losses resulting from contractor fraud.................................. 218 Section 384. Permanent authority for use of proceeds from the sale of certain lost, abandoned, or unclaimed property............................................... 218 Section 385. Sale of military clothing and subsistence and other supplies of the Navy and Marine Corps........ 219 Section 386. Conversion of Civilian Marksmanship Program to nonappropriated fund instrumentality and activities under program.......................................... 219 Section 387. Report on contracting out certain functions of Department of Defense............................... 219 Section 390. Impact aid.................................. 219 Other items of interest...................................... 219 Army..................................................... 219 Army reimbursable positions.......................... 219 Historically black colleges and universities fellowships........................................ 219 National Science Center.............................. 220 Navy..................................................... 220 Nimitz Center........................................ 220 Active and Reserve P-3 squadrons..................... 220 Yard tugboat service................................. 221 Marine Corps............................................. 221 Marine Corps extended cold weather clothing system (ECWCS)............................................ 221 Air Force................................................ 221 Civil Air Patrol..................................... 221 Civilian personnel policy................................ 222 Modernization and regionalization of civilian personnel management functions..................... 222 Defense-Wide............................................. 222 Multi-technology automated reader card (MARC)........ 222 SR-71................................................ 223 Museums.............................................. 223 Spending for non-military missions................... 223 International peacekeeping........................... 224 Humanitarian assistance and foreign disaster assistance......................................... 224 Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps................ 224 Civilian personnel levels............................ 225 Federal Energy Management Program.................... 225 Homeless support initiative.......................... 225 Civil-military/youth outreach programs............... 225 United Services Organization......................... 226 Revolving funds.......................................... 226 National defense features............................ 226 Maritime prepositioning ship leases.................. 227 Maritime prepositioning ship enhancement............. 228 Defense environment...................................... 229 Defense environmental compliance..................... 229 Legacy resource management program................... 229 Environmental management............................. 230 Cleanup of National Presto Industries Plant, Eau Claire, Wisconsin.................................. 230 Title IV--Military Personnel Authorizations...................... 231 Subtitle A--Active Forces.................................... 231 Section 401. End strengths for active forces............. 231 Section 402. Temporary variation in DOPMA authorized end strength limitations for active duty Air Force and Navy officers in certain grades............................. 232 Section 403. Certain general and flag officers awaiting retirement not to be counted........................... 233 Subtitle B--Reserve Forces................................... 233 Section 411. End strengths for Selected Reserve.......... 233 Section 412. End strengths for reserves on active duty in support of the reserves................................ 234 Section 414. Reserves on active duty in support of cooperative threat reduction programs not to be counted 235 Section 415. Reserves on active duty for military-to- military contacts and comparable activities not to be counted................................................ 236 Subtitle C--Military Training Student Loads.................. 236 Section 421. Authorization of training student loads..... 236 Title V--Military Personnel Policy............................... 237 Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy......................... 237 Section 501. Joint officer management.................... 237 Section 502. Revision of service obligation for graduates of the service academies............................... 238 Section 503. Qualifications for appointment as Surgeon General of an Armed Force.............................. 238 Section 504. Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Air Force.................................................. 238 Section 505. Retiring general and flag officers: applicability of uniform criteria and procedures for retiring in highest grade in which served.............. 238 Section 506. Extension of certain reserve officer management authorities................................. 239 Section 507. Restrictions on wearing insignia for higher grade before promotion................................. 239 Section 508. Director of Admissions, United States Military Academy: retirement for years of service...... 240 Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Reserve Components........... 240 Section 511. Mobilization income insurance program for members of Ready Reserve............................... 240 Section 512. Eligibility of dentists to receive assistance under the financial assistance program for health care professionals in reserve components........ 241 Section 513. Leave for members of reserve components performing public safety duty.......................... 241 Subtitle C--Uniform Code of Military Justice................. 241 Section 522. Definitions................................. 241 Section 523. Article 32 investigations................... 241 Section 524. Refusal to testify before court-martial..... 241 Section 525. Commitment of accused to treatment facility by reason of lack of mental capacity or mental responsibility......................................... 242 Section 527. Deferment of confinement.................... 242 Section 528. Submission of matters to the convening authority for consideration............................ 242 Section 529. Proceedings in revision..................... 243 Section 530. Appeal by the United States................. 243 Section 531. Flight from apprehension.................... 243 Section 532. Carnal knowledge............................ 243 Section 533. Time after accession for initial instruction in the Uniform Code of Military Justice................ 243 Section 535. Permanent authority concerning temporary vacancies on the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. 244 Section 536. Advisory panel on UCMJ jurisdiction over civilians accompanying the Armed Forces in time of armed conflict......................................... 244 Subtitle D--Decorations and Awards........................... 244 Section 541. Award of Purple Heart to certain former prisoners of war....................................... 244 Section 542. Meritorious and valorous service during Vietnam era: review and awards......................... 245 Section 543. Military intelligence personnel prevented by secrecy from being considered for decorations and awards................................................. 245 Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 245 Section 551. Determination of whereabouts and status of missing persons........................................ 245 Section 552. Service not creditable for periods of unavailability or incapacity due to misconduct......... 245 Section 553. Separation in cases involving extended confinement............................................ 245 Section 526. Forfeiture of pay and allowances and reduction in grade..................................... 245 Section 554. Duration of field training or practice cruise required under the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps program................................. 246 Section 555. Correction of military records.............. 246 Section 556. Limitation on reductions in medical personnel.............................................. 247 Section 557. Repeal of requirement for athletic director and nonappropriated fund account for the athletics programs at the service academies...................... 247 Section 558. Prohibition on use of funds for service academy preparatory school test program................ 247 Section 559. Centralized judicial review of Department of Defense personnel actions.............................. 247 Other Items of Interest...................................... 248 Capstone course for new general and flag officers........ 248 Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act (ROPMA)......... 248 Reserve officers not on the active duty list............. 249 Service academy directives............................... 249 Tuition assistance program............................... 250 Quality of life while on independent duty................ 250 Recoupment............................................... 251 Title VI--Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits.............. 253 Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances............................... 253 Section 601. Military pay raise for fiscal year 1996..... 253 Section 602. Election of basic allowance for quarters instead of assignment to inadequate quarters........... 253 Section 603. Payment of basic allowance for quarters to members of the uniformed services in pay grade E-6 who are assigned to sea duty............................... 253 Section 604. Limitation on reduction of variable housing allowance for certain members.......................... 254 Section 605. Clarification of limitation on eligibility for family separation allowance........................ 254 Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays........... 254 Section 611. Extension of certain bonuses for reserve forces................................................. 254 Section 612. Extension of certain bonuses and special pay for nurse officer candidates, registered nurses, and nurse anesthetists..................................... 254 Section 613. Extension of authority relating to payment of other bonuses and special pays...................... 254 Section 614. Hazardous duty incentive pay for warrant officers and enlisted members serving as air weapons controllers............................................ 255 Section 615. Aviation career incentive pay............... 255 Section 616. Clarification of authority to provide special pay for nurses................................. 255 Section 617. Continuous entitlement to career sea pay for crew members of ships designated as tenders............ 256 Section 618. Increase in maximum rate of special duty assignment pay for enlisted members serving as recruiters............................................. 256 Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances............. Section 621. Calculation on basis of mileage tables of Secretary of Defense: repeal........................... 256 Section 622. Departure allowances........................ 256 Section 623. Dislocation allowance for moves resulting from a base closure or realignment..................... 256 Section 624. Transportation of nondependent child from sponsor's station overseas after loss of dependent status while overseas.................................. 256 Subtitle D--Commissaries and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities.......................................... 257 Section 631. Use of commissary stores by members of the Ready Reserve.......................................... 257 Section 632. Use of commissary stores by retired Reserves under age 60 and their survivors....................... 257 Section 633. Use of morale, welfare, and recreation facilities by members of reserve components and dependents: clarification of entitlement............... 257 Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 257 Section 641. Cost-of-living increases for retired pay.... 257 Section 642. Eligibility for retired pay for non-regular service denied for members receiving certain sentences in courts-martial...................................... 257 Section 643. Recoupment of administrative expenses in garnishment actions.................................... 257 Section 644. Automatic maximum coverage under Servicemen's Group Life Insurance...................... 258 Section 645. Termination of Servicemen's Group Life Insurance for members of the Ready Reserve who fail to pay premiums........................................... 258 Section 646. Report on extending to junior noncommissioned officers privileges provided for senior noncommissioned officers............................... 258 Section 647. Payment to survivors of deceased members of the uniformed services for all leave accrued........... 258 Section 648. Annuities for certain military surviving spouses................................................ 258 Section 649. Transitional compensation for dependents of members of the Armed Forces separated for dependent abuse: clarification of entitlement.................... 259 Other Item of Interest....................................... 259 Title VII--Health Care........................................... 261 Tricare...................................................... 261 Subtitle A--Health Care Services............................. 264 Section 701. Medical care for surviving dependents of retired Reserves who die before age 60................. 264 Section 702. Dental insurance for members of the Selected Reserve................................................ 264 Section 703. Modification of requirements regarding routine physical examinations and immunizations under CHAMPUS................................................ 264 Section 704. Permanent authority to carry out specialized treatment facility program............................. 265 Section 705. Waiver of medicare part B late enrollment penalty and establishment of special enrollment period for certain military retirees and dependents........... 265 Subtitle B--Tricare Program.................................. 265 Section 712. Provision of TRICARE uniform benefits by uniformed services treatment facilities................ 265 Section 713. Sense of Senate on access of medicare eligible beneficiaries of CHAMPUS to health care under TRICARE................................................ 265 Section 714. Pilot program of individualized residential mental health services................................. 265 Subtitle C--Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities.......... 266 Section 721. Delay of termination of status of certain facilities as uniformed services treatment facilities.. 266 Section 722. Applicability of Federal Acquisition Regulation to participation agreements with uniformed services treatment facilities.......................... 266 Section 723. Amount payable by uniformed services treatment facilities for health care services provided outside the catchment areas of the facilities.......... 266 Subtitle D--Other Changes to Existing Laws Regarding Health Care Management............................................ 266 Section 731. Investment incentive for managed health care in medical treatment facilities........................ 266 Section 732. Revision and codification of limitations on physician payments under CHAMPUS....................... 267 Section 733. Personal services contracts for medical treatment facilities of the Coast Guard................ 267 Section 734. Disclosure of information in Medicare and Medicaid coverage data bank to improve collection from responsible parties for health care services furnished under CHAMPUS.......................................... 267 Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 267 Section 741. TriService nursing research................. 267 Section 742. Fisher House trust funds.................... 267 Section 744. Applicability of limitation on prices of pharmaceuticals procured for Coast Guard............... 267 Other Item of Interest........................................... 268 Telemedicine............................................. 268 Title VIII--Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and Related Matters................................................ 269 Subtitle A--Acquisition Reform............................... 269 Section 801. Waivers from cancellation of funds.......... 269 Section 802. Procurement notice posting thresholds....... 269 Section 803. Prompt resolution of audit recommendations.. 269 Section 804. Test program for negotiation of comprehensive subcontracting plans..................... 269 Section 805. Naval salvage facilities.................... 270 Section 806. Authority to delegate contracting authority. 270 Section 807. Coordination and communication of defense research activities.................................... 270 Section 808. Procurement of items for experimental or test purposes.......................................... 270 Section 809. Quality control in procurements of critical aircraft and ship spare parts.......................... 270 Section 810. Use of funds for acquisition of rights to use designs, processes, technical data and computer software............................................... 270 Section 811. Independent cost estimates for major defense acquisition programs................................... 270 Section 812. Fees for certain testing services........... 271 Section 813. Construction, repair, alteration, furnishing, and equipping of naval vessels............. 271 Section 814. Civil Reserve Air Fleet..................... 271 Subtitle B--Other Matters.................................... 271 Section 821. Procurement technical assistance programs... 271 Section 822. Treatment of Department of Defense cable television franchise agreements........................ 271 Other Items of Interest...................................... 271 Ship propellers.......................................... 271 Worker's compensation coverage on overseas contracts..... 272 Title IX--Department of Defense Organization and Management...... 275 Section 901. Redesignation of the position of Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Atomic Energy.......... 275 Other Matters................................................ 275 Joint Exercise, Training, and Doctrine Command........... 275 Reorganization of the Office of the Secretary of Defense. 275 Title X--General Provisions...................................... 279 Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................ 279 Section 1002. Disbursing and certifying officials........ 279 Section 1003. Defense modernization account.............. 279 Section 1004. Authorization of prior emergency supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1995....... 280 Section 1005. Limitation on use of authority to pay for emergency and extraordinary expenses................... 280 Section 1006. Transfer authority regarding funds available for foreign currency fluctuations............ 280 Section 1007. Report on budget submission regarding reserve components..................................... 281 Subtitle B--Naval Vessels.................................... 281 Section 1011. Iowa class battleships..................... 281 Section 1012. Transfer of naval vessels to certain foreign countries...................................... 281 Subtitle C--Counter-Drug Activities.......................... 282 Section 1021. Revision and clarification of authority for Federal support of drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the National Guard....................... 282 Section 1022. National Drug Intelligence Center.......... 282 Section 1023. Assistance to Customs Service.............. 282 Subtitle D--Department of Defense Education Programs......... 284 Section 1031. Continuation of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences...................... 284 Section 1032. Additional graduate schools and programs at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences............................................... 284 Section 1033. Funding for basic adult education programs for military personnel and dependents outside the United States.......................................... 284 Section 1034. Scope of education programs of Community College of the Air Force............................... 284 Section 1035. Date for annual report on Selected Reserve Educational Assistance Program......................... 284 Subtitle E--Cooperative Threat Reduction With States of the Former Soviet Union........................................ 284 Section 1041. Cooperative threat reduction programs defined................................................ 284 Section 1042. Funding matters............................ 284 Section 1043. Limitation relating to offensive biological warfare program of Russia.............................. 284 Subtitle F--Matters Relating to Other Nations................ 285 Section 1051. Cooperative research and development agreements with NATO organizations..................... 285 Section 1052. National security implications of United States export control policy........................... 285 Review of export licenses for biological pathogens... 286 Section 1053. Defense export loan guarantees............. 286 Section 1054. Landmine clearing assistance program....... 287 Landmine Convention.................................. 287 Section 1055. Strategic cooperation between the United States and Israel...................................... 288 Section 1056. Support services for the Navy at the Port of Haifa, Israel....................................... 288 Section 1057. Prohibition on assistance to terrorist countries.............................................. 289 Section 1058. International military education and training............................................... 289 Section 1060. Implementation of arms control agreements.. 289 Section 1061. Sense of Congress on limiting the placing of United States forces under United Nations Command or Control................................................ 290 Subtitle G--Repeal of Certain Reporting Requirements......... 291 Reduction of reporting requirements...................... 291 Subtitle H--Other Matters.................................... 291 Section 1081. Global positioning system.................. 291 Section 1082. Limitation on retirement or dismantlement of strategic nuclear delivery systems.................. 292 Section 1083. National Guard Civilian Youth Opportunities Pilot Program.......................................... 294 Section 1084. Report on Department of Defense boards and commissions............................................ 294 Section 1085. Revision of authority for providing Army support for the National Science Center for Communications and Electronics......................... 295 Section 1086. Authority to suspend or terminate collection actions against deceased members............ 295 Section 1087. Damage or loss to personal property due to emergency evacuation or extraordinary circumstances.... 295 Section 1088. Check cashing and exchange transactions for dependents of United States Government personnel....... 295 Section 1089. Travel of disabled veterans on military aircraft............................................... 296 Section 1090. Transportation of crippled children in Pacific rim region to Hawaii for medical care.......... 296 Section 1091. Student information for recruiting purposes 296 Section 1092. State recognition of military advance medical directives..................................... 296 Section 1093. Report on personnel requirements for control of transfer of certain weapons................. 297 Section 1094. Extension of period of Vietnam era......... 297 Other Items of Interest...................................... 297 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)............... 297 Department of Defense space management and organization.. 297 Joint military intelligence program...................... 298 Reusable launch vehicles................................. 299 Chinese military developments............................ 300 Private contracting for military assistance to Newly Independent Democracies of Eastern Europe.............. 300 Division B--Military Construction Authorizations Committee Action................................................. 301 Base closure and realignment accounts............................ 317 Title XXII--Navy................................................. 323 Section 2205. Authorization of appropriations............ 323 Section 2206. Authority to carry out land acquisition project, Norfolk Naval Base, Virginia.................. 323 Section 2207. Acquisition of land, Henderson Hall, Arlington, Virginia.................................... 323 Title XXIV--Defense Agencies..................................... 325 Chemical munitions disposal facilities................... 325 Title XXVIII--General Provisions................................. 327 Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing.................................................... 327 Section 2801. Special threshold for unspecified minor construction projects to correct life, health, or safety deficiencies.................................... 327 Section 2802. Clarification of scope of unspecified minor construction authority................................. 327 Section 2803. Temporary waiver of net floor area limitation for family housing acquired in lieu of construction........................................... 327 Section 2804. Reestablishment of authority to waive net floor area limitation on acquisition by purchase of certain military family housing........................ 327 Section 2805. Temporary waiver of limitations on space by pay grade for military family housing units............ 327 Section 2806. Increase in number of family housing units subject to foreign country maximum lease amount........ 328 Section 2807. Expansion of authority for limited partnerships for development of military family housing 328 Section 2809. Authority to convey damaged or deteriorated military family housing................................ 328 Section 2810. Energy and water conservation savings for the Department of Defense.............................. 328 Section 2811. Alternative authority for construction and improvement of military housing........................ 328 Section 2812. Permanent authority to enter into leases of land for special operations activities................. 329 Section 2813. Authority to use funds for certain educational purposes................................... 329 Subtitle B--Defense Base Closure and Realignment............. 329 Section 2821. In-kind consideration for leases at installations to be closed or realigned................ 329 Section 2822. Clarification of authority regarding contracts for community services at installations being closed................................................. 330 Section 2823. Clarification of funding for environmental restoration at installations approved for closure or realignment in 1995.................................... 330 Section 2824. Authority to lease property requiring environmental remediation at installations approved for closure................................................ 330 Subtitle C--Land Conveyances................................. 330 Section 2831. Land acquisition or exchange, Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina............................. 330 Section 2832. Authority for Port Authority of State of Mississippi to use certain Navy property in Gulfport, Mississippi............................................ 330 Section 2833. Conveyance of resource recovery facility, Fort Dix, New Jersey................................... 331 Section 2834. Conveyance of water and wastewater treatment plants, Fort Gordon, Georgia................. 331 Section 2835. Conveyance of water treatment plant, Fort Pickett, Virginia...................................... 331 Section 2836. Conveyance of electric power distribution system, Fort Irwin, California......................... 331 Section 2837. Land exchange, Fort Lewis, Washington...... 331 Subtitle D--Transfer of Jurisdiction and Establishment of MIDEWIN National Tallgrass Prairie......................... 332 Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 332 Section 2861. Department of Defense laboratory revitalization demonstration program................... 332 Section 2862. Prohibition on joint civil aviation use of Miramar Naval Air Station, California.................. 333 Section 2863. Report on agreement relating to conveyance of land, Fort Belvoir, Virginia........................ 333 Other Items of Interest...................................... 333 Planning and design...................................... 334 Joint Armed Forces Reserve Center, Fort Lawton, Washington............................................. 334 Fire fighting training system, Department of the Army.... 334 Repair of unsafe bridges................................. 334 Division C--Department of Energy National Security Authorizations and Other Authorizations Title XXXI--Department of Energy National Security Programs...... 335 Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations........ 368 Section 3101. Weapons activities......................... 368 Congressional Guidance on Stockpile Stewardship...... 368 Stockpile Confidence Concerns........................ 368 Stockpile Confidence Strategy........................ 369 Stockpile Confidence: Testing Strategy............... 369 Maintaining Integrity of Test Readiness Capability... 369 Reemphasis on Maintaining the Stockpile is Required.. 369 Conclusion from the Nuclear Posture Review........... 370 Tritium Production Strategy.......................... 370 Human Resources for the Weapons Activity Mission..... 370 Technology Partnerships.............................. 370 Inertial Confinement Fusion.......................... 371 National Ignition Facility........................... 371 Stockpile Management................................. 372 Section 3102. Environmental restoration and waste management............................................. 373 Assessment of Environmental Waste Management Program. 373 Providing the Tools for a Solution................... 373 Section 3103. Other defense activities................... 374 Section 3142. Authority to reprogram funds for disposition of certain spent nuclear fuel.............. 374 Korean reactor reprogramming......................... 374 Arms Control......................................... 374 Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development........................................ 375 Section 3104. Defense nuclear waste disposal............. 375 Section 3105. Payment of penalties assessed against Rocky Flats Site............................................. 375 Subtitle B--Recurring General Provisions..................... 375 Section 3121. Reprogramming.............................. 375 Section 3122. Limits on general plant projects........... 376 Section 3123. Limits on construction projects............ 376 Section 3124. Fund transfer authority.................... 376 Section 3125. Authority for conceptual and construction design................................................. 376 Section 3126. Authority for emergency planning, design, and construction activities............................ 377 Section 3127. Funds available for all national security programs of the Department of Energy................... 377 Section 3128. Availability of funds...................... 377 Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations................................................ 377 Section 3131. Tritium production......................... 377 Section 3132. Plutonium disposition...................... 377 Section 3133. Tritium recycling.......................... 378 Section 3134. Manufacturing infrastructure for refabrication and certification of enduring nuclear weapons stockpile...................................... 378 Weapons refabrication strategy....................... 378 Defense Programs Planning Council.................... 379 Integrated Weapons Refabrication Plan................ 379 Section 3135. Hydronuclear experiments................... 379 Section 3136. Fellowship program for development of skills critical to the Department of Energy nuclear weapons complex........................................ 379 Section 3137. Effect of issuance of environmental impact statements on use of funds for certain Department of Energy facilities...................................... 380 Section 3138. Dual-axis Radiographic Hydrotest Facility.. 381 Section 3139. Limitation on use of funds for certain research and education purposes........................ 381 Section 3140. Processing of high level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel rods................................ 381 Section 3141. Department of Energy Declassification Productivity Initiative................................ 382 Section 3143. Protection of Workers at Nuclear Weapons Facilities............................................. 382 Subtitle D--Transfer of Jurisdiction Over Department of Energy National Security Functions......................... 382 Section 3151. Plans for transfer of jurisdiction over Department of Energy national security functions....... 382 Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 382 Section 3161. Responsibility for Defense Programs Emergency Response Program............................. 382 Section 3162. Requirements for Department of Energy weapons activities budgets for fiscal years after fiscal year 1996....................................... 383 Section 3163. Enduring nuclear weapons stockpile......... 383 Section 3164. Report on proposed purchases of tritium from foreign suppliers................................. 383 Section 3165. Report on hydronuclear testing............. 383 Section 3166. Master plan on warheads in the enduring nuclear weapons stockpile.............................. 384 Section 3167. Prohibition on international inspections of Department of Energy facilities pending certification of protection of restricted data....................... 384 Other Items of Interest...................................... 384 Merger of operating and capital resources into one category............................................... 384 Nuclear stockpile dismantlement.......................... 384 Nuclear reactor safety in Ukraine........................ 385 Accountability for civilian nuclear materials............ 385 Title XXXIII--Naval Petroleum Reserves........................... 387 Section 3301. Sale of Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 1 (Elk Hills)............................................ 387 Section 3302. Study regarding future of Naval Petroleum Reserves (other than Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 1)..................................................... 388 Title XXXIV--National Defense Stockpile.......................... 389 Section 3401. Authorized uses of stockpile funds......... 389 Section 3402. Disposal of obsolete and excess materials contained in the National Defense Stockpile............ 389 Section 3403. Disposal of chromite and manganese ores and chromium ferro and manganese metal electrolytic........ 389 Section 3404. Restrictions on disposal of manganese ferro 389 Section 3405. Excess defense-related materials: transfer to Stockpile and disposal.............................. 389 Title XXXV--Panama Canal Commission.............................. 391 Legislative Requirements......................................... 392 Departmental recommendations................................. 392 Committee action............................................. 392 Fiscal data.................................................. 393 Congressional Budget Office cost estimate.................... 394 Regulatory input............................................. 394 Changes in existing law...................................... 394 Additional and Minority Views.................................... 395 Additional Views: Mr. McCain............................................... 395 Mr. Exon................................................. 401 Mr. Kennedy.............................................. 403 Mr. Glenn................................................ 406 Mr. Lieberman............................................ 409 Mr. Bryan................................................ 412 Minority Views: Mr. Levin................................................ 413 Mr. Bingaman............................................. 417 104th Congress Report SENATE 1st Session 104-112 _______________________________________________________________________ AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES _______ July 12 (legislative day, July 10), 1995.--Ordered to be printed _______________________________________________________________________ Mr. Thurmond, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the following R E P O R T together with ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS [To accompany S. 1026] The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an original bill to authorize appropriations during the fiscal year 1996 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the armed forces, and for other purposes, and, recommends that the bill do pass. PURPOSE OF THE BILL This bill would: (1) authorize appropriations for (a) procurement, (b) research, development, test and evaluation, (c) operation and maintenance and the revolving and management funds of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1996; (2) authorize the personnel end strength for each military active duty component of the armed forces for fiscal year 1996; (3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the Selected Reserve of each of the reserve components of the armed forces for fiscal year 1996; (4) authorize the annual average military training student loads for the active and reserve components of the armed forces for fiscal year 1996; (5) impose certain reporting requirements; (6) impose certain limitations with regard to specific procurement, research, development, test and evaluation actions, and manpower strengths; provide certain additional legislative authority, and make certain changes to existing law; (7) authorize appropriations for military construction programs of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1996; and (8) authorize appropriations for national security programs of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 1996. Committee overview and recommendations As the committee organized to carry out its constitutional responsibilities and those assigned by the Senate for the 104th Congress, the Chairman and the Members established priorities which guided the committee through the authorization process. As its top priority, the committee recognized that well- motivated, well-trained, well-led soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are the bedrock of national security. The committee's goal was to ensure that forces remain effective and force levels remain sufficient, and that the services are manned by personnel of the highest quality. This in turn required strong congressional support for equitable pay and benefits, bachelor and family housing, and other quality of life measures. The committee emphasized the need to protect the combat readiness of the armed forces. A prime concern was to establish a proper balance between near-term and long-term readiness. Although near-term readiness is a matter of critical importance, a disproportionate allocation of scarce resources to operation and maintenance accounts would unwisely limit funds for research, development and procurement activities essential to modernization. This could leave the force ill- prepared for a future conflict. The committee sought to achieve a reasonable balance by providing adequate funds for training, and operation and maintenance accounts while authorizing increases both for weapons and equipment currently in production and for multiyear procurement. This will help to avoid creating ``bow waves'' of funding requirements in subsequent years. The committee has recommended a level of funding for research and development which should assure U.S. military superiority in the future. To make the best use of the funds available, the committee made a concerted effort to reduce spending for non-defense programs in the defense budget. The committee was also concerned about the viability of the nation's nuclear forces. According to the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), the United States will continue to depend on these forces for nuclear deterrence into the foreseeable future. Safe, reliable, and effective nuclear weapons are at the core of this deterrence. In this bill the committee sought to redirect the focus of the Department of Energy toward its primary responsibility of maintaining the nation's nuclear capability. To do this the department must emphasize a stockpile management program geared to the near-term refabrication and certification requirements outlined in the NPR. Finally, the committee addressed the proliferation of missile technology and weapons of mass destruction. With an increasing number of nations acquiring or developing long-range missile technology, the United States must be able to defend both its deployed forces and the homeland. The committee provided direction and funds for both of these requirements. It initiated a program to enhance defense against cruise missiles while funding robust Theater Missile Defenses and mandating a National Missile Defense program that will lead to the deployment of a limited defense of the United States in the foreseeable future. The committee reaffirmed its support for cooperative threat reductions with Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. The committee is concerned that the administration's budget request did not include funding for numerous operations which the armed forces are conducting currently, despite the fact that the administration fully expects that these operations will continue into fiscal year 1996. The committee has therefore authorized $125.0 million to pay for these ongoing operations. The committee cautions the administration that the consequence of paying for these operations on an unprogrammed, ad hoc basis, is often to deny necessary funds to maintain force readiness. Last year the importance of timely, full funding for such operations became apparent in lower readiness ratings and curtailed training in some military units. Unless the Department of Defense includes the funds for such operations in the budget request, the committee's ability to assess the impact these operations will have on other accounts throughout the department and the services will be impaired. The committee and the Congress have oversight responsibilities which are hindered when the department does not budget for known requirements. The committee has long expressed its concern about the decreasing levels of defense funding. The trend over the past 10 years has been one of constant decline. The administration's request for procurement this year is at the lowest level since 1950, declining about 40 percent since 1985. Each successive budget since 1993 has continued to push recapitalization further into the outyears. As a result, the services have been forced to delay the fielding of critical modern systems while maintaining aging equipment at ever-increasing operating and maintenance costs. The committee remains concerned about the adequacy of funding levels for national defense programs in the coming years. Despite the recommended fiscal year 1996 funding increase of $7.0 billion above the administration request, budget levels proposed for future years do not adequately fund even the level of forces required for the Bottom-Up Review Force. These levels cannot meet modernization needs and do not cover inflation. This shortfall will seriously impair the ability of the Department of Defense to field the ready, modern forces essential to our national security. The limited progress reflected in this bill cannot be maintained unless future funding is increased. Department of Defense decisions to cancel or delay modernization programs create unrealistic modernization funding requirements for the future. In this bill, the committee has addressed critical modernization needs by adding $5.3 billion in procurement and $1.7 billion in research and development accounts to offset some of these problems. The committee believes that the Department of Defense must continue to fund these accounts at similar, inflation-adjusted levels in future budget requests. Throughout the past six months, the committee worked in its traditional bi-partisan manner which places the national security interests of the United States and the safety of the American people above other considerations. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 reflects this cooperative effort and provides a clear direction for U.S. national security policy, and a foundation for the defense of the nation. Explanation of funding summary The administration's budget request for the national defense function of the federal budget for fiscal year 1996 was $257.7 billion, of which $189.5 billion was for programs which require specific funding authorization. The committee's authorization recommendation is substantially larger ($264.70 billion in budget authority) than the amount requested. The primary reason for this difference is that the committee authorized an additional $5.3 billion in procurement and $1.7 billion in research and development. The following table summarizes both the direct authorizations and equivalent budget authority levels for fiscal year 1996 defense programs. The columns relating to the authorization request do not include funding for the following items: military personnel funding; military construction authorizations provided in prior years; and other small portions of the defense budget that are not within the jurisdiction of this committee or which do not require an annual authorization. As explained above, funding for military personnel is included in the amounts authorized by the committee, but not in the total funding requested for authorization. Funding for all programs in the national defense function is reflected in the columns relating to the budget authority request and the total budget authority implication of the authorizations in this bill. The committee recommends funding for national defense programs totalling $264.7 billion in budget authority, which is consistent with the fiscal year 1996 Budget Resolution, an increase of $7 billion above the President's budget request. The committee decided to allocate this increase to the modernization accounts, authorizing an additional $5.7 billion in procurement and an additional $1.3 billion in research and development. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION TITLE I--PROCUREMENT The committee's concerns over continually declining defense budgets and the impact of these lower budgets on long-term readiness was reinforced during both committee and subcommittee hearings. The senior leaders of the military services repeatedly expressed their concerns about the effects that sharply reduced funding for modernization would have on future capabilities. Procurement accounts, including the current budget request, have been cut 44 percent since fiscal year 1992, and the current budget request does not provide sufficient funds to address the needs of long-term readiness (modernization). Basic items of equipment have not been procured in sufficient quantities. Requirements for additional operating funds have grown sharply in order to support the higher costs of maintaining older equipment in reliable operating condition. The committee has given priority to increasing the modernization accounts in order to buy the weapons and equipment needed to fight and win decisively with minimal risk to personnel. The committee has utilized the following precepts in allocating congressional increases to the defense budget: --buy basics; --invest to achieve savings; and --invest in the future. The committee notes that procurement of basic weapons and items of equipment has been neglected during the decline in defense spending. Consequently, the committee recommended increases in such basic items as new ships, trucks, small arms and upgrades to weapon systems and items of equipment already in the inventory. To avoid creating ``bow-waves'' of funding that the military services could not afford in the outyears, the committee has recommended increases for weapons and items of equipment currently in production and the use of multiyear procurement contracts, as well as a new concept of ``split- funding'' for ships, where savings might be achieved. Buying more weapons and equipment currently in production at more efficient rates lowers overall costs to the government. It also avoids overlapping procurement sequencing and reduces competition for procurement resources in the future. In summary, the committee's recommendation reprioritizes the defense budget to ensure an appropriate balance between near-term readiness and long-term readiness (modernization). The committee also recommends a level of funding for research and development to assure U.S. military superiority in the future. Budget requests for weapons and equipment The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense and the military services frequently fail to request funding for essential weapons and equipment, believing that the Congress will provide the necessary funds through the legislative process. This practice of not funding essential weapons and equipment, commonly known as ``gold-watching'', occurs more frequently as the budgets of the military services decline and they are hard-pressed to find the funds necessary to fill their requirements. All the military services have employed this practice in some form or other, and the Department of Defense apparently has not exerted appropriate discipline in order to bring this fiscal ``gaming'' under control. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the budget requests of the military services as well as that of defense agencies in order to eliminate the practice of ``gold- watching''. Where sufficient funds are not requested for essential weapons and items of equipment, the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the Military Service will include a statement explaining why the weapon or item of equipment was not funded or severely underfunded. Explanation of tables The tables in this title display items requested by the administration for fiscal year 1996 and the committee's actions in regard to the requested amounts. As in the past, the administration may not exceed the amounts approved by the committee (as set forth in the tables or if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in the Department of Defense's budget justification documents) without a reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures. SUBTITLE A--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS Section - 107. Chemical demilitarization program. The budget request included $854.7 million for the chemical agents and munitions destruction program for operation and maintenance ($393.9 million), procurement ($299.4 million), research and development of alternative technologies for the unitary and nonstockpile chemical agents ($53.4 million), and military construction ($108.0 million). The committee recommends a reduction of $170.0 million to the budget request, $75.0 million from the procurement account, defense-wide and $95.0 million from the military construction account, defense-wide. The committee's recommendation is based on the information provided to it that funds appropriated in fiscal years 1994 and 1995 and allocated for procurement and military construction for the Anniston Chemical Agent Disposal Facility have not been obligated because of delays caused by the lack of environmental permits from the State of Alabama, as well as other contracting, fiscal, and political considerations. Use of Unobligated Fiscal Year 1994 and 1995 Funds The recent decision of the Department of Defense and the Army to place Fort McClellan, Alabama, on the base closure list has caused a delay in the issuance of environmental permits by the State of Alabama, and resulted in the inability to award contracts for the Anniston facility. The committee recommends that unobligated fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 1995 funds in the procurement and military construction accounts which have been allocated for use at the Anniston Chemical Agent Disposal Facility be reallocated for procurement of equipment and facilities design and construction at Pine Bluff, Arkansas and Umatilla, Oregon. Transportation of the Unitary Stockpile The committee also directs the Department of Defense to conduct a study to assess the risk associated with transportation of the unitary stockpile from one location to another within the continental United States. The study shall also include the following: the results of the physical and chemical integrity report conducted by the Army on the existing stockpile; a determination of the viability of transportation of any portion of the stockpile, to include drained agent from munitions and the munitions. The report shall consider the safety, cost-effectiveness, and public acceptability of transporting the stockpile, in its current configuration, or in alternate configurations. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Section - 111. AH-64D Longbow Apache Attack helicopter. The budget request included $354.0 million to buy 18 AH-64D aircraft and 13 Longbow fire control radars. The program would buy 227 fire control radars by 2002 and 758 AH-64D by 2012. The committee is advised that fielding of the Longbow Apache aircraft to high priority units can be accelerated significantly with substantial savings by providing for multiyear procurement for fiscal years 1996 through fiscal year 2000. The Army indicates that the proposed multiyear plan would: --increase fiscal years 1996 to 2000 production from 182 to 240 aircraft--an additional 58 aircraft--which allows fielding 86 percent of active duty force package one units within the five year period versus the current plan which fields only 57 percent; --lower the unit cost from $13.3 million to $10.6 million per aircraft; ramps up to most efficient production rates while taking advantage of economic order quantities; and --provide for estimated savings of up to $630.0 million over five years and potential savings of $1,000.0 million over the life of the program. The committee understands that an additional $82.0 million is required for fiscal year 1996, $16.0 million in fiscal year 1999, and $43.0 million in fiscal year 2000 in order to execute the proposed multiyear. The committee recommends an increase of $82.0 million for fiscal year 1996 and directs the Secretary of the Army to ensure necessary funding is provided in future years to execute the multiyear procurement. The committee recommends a provision that would provide authorization for multiyear procurement of the AH-64D Longbow Apache helicopter. Section - 112. OH-58D AHIP Scout helicopter. The budget request included $71.3 million to retrofit 33 OH-58D's to the armed configuration. No funds were included for conversion of OH-58A to the much more capable OH-58D Kiowa Warrior. The Army is still far short of its requirement for 507 Kiowa Warrior scout helicopters and the Comanche program is unfortunately, once again experiencing program delays. Therefore, the committee considers it imprudent to terminate production of the Army's only scout helicopter and recommends an additional authorization of $125.0 million for 20 OH-58D Kiowa Warrior aircraft. The committee recommends a provision that would repeal current law to permit this procurement. Section - 113. Hydra 70 Rocket. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million for procurement of Hydra 70 rockets. However, no funds may be expended until the Army certifies the rocket motor failure problem has been corrected and alternative motor systems have been examined. The conference report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 noted limitations of the current Hydra 70 rocket and encouraged investigation of non- developmental motor systems in the section pertaining to advanced rocket systems. OTHER ARMY PROGRAMS Army Aircraft C-XX Mid-Range turbofan aircraft The committee recommends an increase of $23.0 million for competitive procurement by the Army of four new production C-XX Mid-Range turbofan aircraft. The Army has identified the C-XX Mid-Range program as its highest priority fixed wing program due to cost and operational efficiencies. These efficiencies will be achieved by the procurement of the C-XX planes in conjunction with the retirement of older turboprops as well as the enhanced level of standardization in the Army's aviation fleet, thus reducing training and support costs. UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter Current Army plans would terminate UH-60 production after the procurement of 60 UH-60 helicopters included in the fiscal year 1996 budget request, the final year of a five-year multiyear procurement. The committee believes it is necessary to continue production of UH-60 helicopters to maintain a production base until the Comanche helicopter is ready for procurement. With continually declining defense budgets, the Army is unable to afford to buy UH-60's at the annual levels within the current multiyear contract. The committee is convinced that the Army and the contractor should work together toward a future multiyear contract at annual levels which the Army can afford and at which the contractor can produce the aircraft efficiently. The committee recommends an authorization of $281.7 million for approximately 50 UH-60 helicopters. Army Missile Hellfire missile The budget request included $197.5 million to procure 352 Longbow Hellfire missiles and $12.0 million for post-production support, for a total of $209.5 million. Due to funding shortfalls, the Army has stopped production of the Hellfire II missile despite the fact that stocks are well short of the requirement for 6,000 missiles. The committee notes that the Army could take advantage of favorable contract options by using the $12.0 million of post-production support funds plus an additional $40.0 million to procure 750 additional Hellfire II missiles. The committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million for a total of $249.5 million, $52.0 million of which is for the procurement of 750 Hellfire II missiles. Javelin medium anti-tank weapon The budget request included $171.4 million which would procure 557 Javelin missiles. The committee is pleased with reports of the performance of the Javelin anti-tank system, but notes that a reduction in fiscal year 1996 funding in the budget request resulted in a decrease of $39.0 million from previously planned levels. Restoration of these funds would provide for the procurement of an additional 453 missiles--a 45 percent increase in missiles for an 18 percent increase in funds. The committee, therefore, recommends an increase of $39.0 million for Javelin procurement. TOW missile The budget request included $7.4 million for plant closure and production support of prior year TOW missile deliveries. No funds were requested for continued TOW missile production. The TOW remains the centerpiece antiarmor weapon of U.S. ground forces. Under current Army plans, a replacement for the TOW missile will not be fielded until sometime after 2003. As a result of normal shelf-life aging and the expenditure of missiles in training and testing, the TOW missile inventory will fall below levels required to equip contingency forces by 2003. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million to procure 1,000 TOW 2B missiles. Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) The committee provided funds in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1995 to procure MLRS launchers and associated equipment for an MLRS battalion for the Army National Guard. Unfortunately, the funds provided were not sufficient to complete fielding the entire battalion. The committee recommends an increase of $16.4 million to recondition nine MLRS launchers and provide ancillary equipment to complete fielding of the MLRS battalion in the South Carolina National Guard. The committee continues to support the conversion of artillery battalions to MLRS battalions, and recommends an increase of $48.0 million to recondition 29 more MLRS launchers and provide necessary equipment for another MLRS battalion. The committee has strongly supported the expeditious fielding of the Extended Range-MLRS (ER-MLRS) rocket to assist in overcoming range deficiencies in U.S. Army artillery. The ER-MLRS rocket will extend the range of the MLRS from 30 to 45 kilometers. The committee recommends an increase of $43.0 million dollars to produce 1500 extended range rockets in fiscal year 1996. The committee directs that in meeting requirements, the Secretary of the Army continue the successful arrangement for procurement of MLRS rockets, including rocket motor cases and warhead metal parts by sustaining the current production team. The committee is aware of the Army's proposal to initiate foreign military sales (FMS) of the Extended Range MLRS (ER- MLRS) during low rate initial production. The committee understands that the initial funded ER-MLRS production levels will be well below the industrial capacity. Utilizing this unused production capacity for FMS will result in better efficiency for U.S. production. The committee supports this initiative to use FMS production to benefit the U.S. planned program. Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) The budget request included $106.97 million for 91 ATACMS missiles (50 block I, 41 block IA). The block IA missile is the version which provides exceptionally greater capability in terms of extended range. The committee has consistently supported ATACMS and was impressed by its performance in the Persian Gulf War. The committee recommends an increase of $18.0 million to procure 29 additional extended range ATACMS missiles (50 block I, 70 block IA). Stinger missile modifications The budget request included $10.1 million for the modification of 650 Stinger missiles. These retrofits will increase overall missile performance in certain engagement situations and resolve a key aviation deficiency which requires aviation platforms to super elevate. The committee is informed that current funding is inadequate to provide economical production rates for the Block 1 retrofit program and could cause shutdown of critical elements of the industrial and technical base. The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million to retrofit Block 1 upgrades to an additional 650 Stinger missiles, and $3.0 million to modify 45 percent of Force Package I platforms to accommodate the Block 1 configured missiles. Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles M113 family of vehicles (FOV) The budget request included $48.1 million to continue the modernization of the M113 armored personnel carrier family of vehicles. The committee fully supports the Army's efforts to upgrade the M113 FOV. M113A3 family vehicles are used by the Army for a variety of critical combat, logistical, and command and control functions within its heavy divisions. In fiscal year 1995, the Army proposed a five-year, level-funded program to continue to upgrade this critical armored vehicle fleet. However, the Army's fiscal year 1996 request reflects a decrease of $20.0 million in fiscal year 1997. The committee remains convinced that the level-funded program is far more advantageous for the Army. The Army is directed to restore the $20.0 million to the fiscal year 1997 program, and ensure that the fully-funded program is reflected in the fiscal year 1997 budget request. Bradley fighting vehicle The budget request included $138.3 million for the Bradley Base Sustainment Program. The committee notes that no funding is provided for continuing the upgrade of the oldest configuration of the Bradley fighting vehicle (BFV), the A0, to the more modern, survivable A2 version. Under current plans, there will still be approximately 2,000 of the A0 BFV's in the fleet, when the upgrade program would be terminated. Even with a reduced force structure, the Army will not be able to fill its total BFV requirement. The committee believes this plan to terminate A0 to A2 BFV upgrades may be premature, since the A0's lack the survivability and improvements needed for the modern battlefield. Commanders in Operation Desert Storm demanded the more modern configuration when facing actual combat. It is also likely that significant operation and support cost savings can be realized by continuing to modernize the BFV fleet. The committee believes the Army should consider continuation of the A0 to A2 BFV upgrade program, and directs the Army to submit a plan which addresses funding profile and procurement strategy for continuation of the upgrade program. The plan should be submitted with the fiscal year 1997 budget. The committee also recommends an increase of $14.0 million to buy one battalion set of reactive armor tiles for BFV. Improved Recovery Vehicle (IRV) The budget request included $23.5 million to procure nine M88A1E1 Improved Recovery Vehicles (IRV). The IRV is a product- improved tank recovery vehicle capable of independent recovery (lift, winch and tow) of the Abrams series tank. Fielding of the IRV is essential for battlefield recovery of the latest, heavier (70 ton) M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams tanks. Fielding of the IRV has been delayed due to lack of modernization funds in the Army. The committee recommends an increase of $33.9 million to procure 12 more IRV's for the Army. M1A2 tank upgrades The budget request included $473.8 million for 100 M1A2 tank upgrades for the Army. Section 111(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 authorized the use of multiyear procurement contracts for the M1A2 tank upgrade program. The committee continues to be supportive of multiyear procurement but notes that the Army has not proposed such a strategy in the fiscal year 1996 budget. The committee believes that procurement of tracked combat vehicles (TCV) now and in the future must continue to maintain a proper balance between the heavy and medium portions of the fleet. The Army needs to field required modern equipment and to protect critical elements of the industrial base as well. The committee is concerned that multiyear contracting for the tank upgrade program could result in an unbalanced TCV procurement program if currently projected future budget increases do not materialize. This would occur if funds committed to multiyear contracts consumed the major share of a smaller than currently projected TCV procurement account. The committee, therefore, insists that any multiyear procurement proposals must include sufficient flexibility in both quantity of upgrades and funding to ensure appropriate balance in future TCV procurement. The committee directs the Army Acquisition Executive to demonstrate to the defense committees how this flexibility is achieved before he agrees to multiyear contracts for M1A2 tank upgrades. The National Defense Authorization Act Fiscal Year 1995 also included a provision (section 112) which directed the Army to transfer 24 M1A1 common tanks to the Marine Corps Reserve in conjunction with receipt of an additional 24 M1A2 tank upgrades provided to the Army by an increase of $108.0 million to the Abrams upgrade program. The intent of the committee, according to the report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1995 (S. Rept. 103-282) and of the conferees, according to the statement of managers in the conference report accompanying that Act (H. Rept. 103-701), was that the transfer in fiscal year 1995 was the first year of a two-year program to eliminate a shortfall of 48 tanks in the Marine Corps Reserve tank battalions. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $110.0 million for 24 additional M1A2 tank upgrades for the Army. The Army is directed to transfer 24 additional M1A1 common tanks to the Marine Corps Reserve in accordance with procedures set out in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995. Small arms programs The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 directed the Secretary of the Army to enter into multiyear contracts for the MK-19 Grenade machine gun, the M-16A2 rifle, the M-249 squad automatic weapon, and the M-4 Carbine in fiscal year 1996 if he did not do so in fiscal year 1995. Despite congressional direction, the Army did not request any funds for small arms in the fiscal year 1996 budget request. The committee expects the Secretary of the Army to comply with congressional direction for multiyear procurements and recommends increases for fiscal year 1996 as indicated below for these programs: --MK-19: $33.9 million for approximately 2100 weapons. --M-249: $28.5 million for approximately 10,420 weapons. --M-16A2: $13.5 million for approximately 25,000 weapons. --M-4: $13.5 million for approximately 25,000 weapons. The committee is aware of a requirement for the Army to procure approximately 1434 modification kits for medium machine guns, and recommends an increase of $6.5 million for this procurement. The committee also understands that there is an outstanding requirement for M-9 9mm Personal Defense Weapons, and recommends an increase of $4.0 million for approximately 10,000 pistols. The committee is also aware of a requirement for a universal mounting bracket for the MK-19, and recommends an increase of $1.5 million within program modifications under $2 million, to begin initial production of a nondevelopmental universal bracket, and $0.5 million in program element 604802 to type-classify this bracket. 7.62 millimeter medium machine gun The committee understands that the Army has a requirement to upgrade its current 7.62 millimeter medium machine gun. The committee further understands that the requirement for non- vehicular, 7.62 millimeter machine guns is in excess of 20,000 weapons for the Army's current force structure. Therefore, to ensure the viability of the U.S. small arms industrial base, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to ensure that long-term production to meet this requirement will be done in the United States. Army Ammunition Army ammunition The committee recommends the following adjustments to the budget request for Army ammunition procurement: Item Millions 7.62mm............................................................ $10.0 25mm M792 HEIT.................................................... 20.0 40mm M430A1....................................................... 10.0 60mm Illum M721................................................... 7.0 120mm APFSDS-T M829A2............................................. 87.1 120mm M830A1 HEAT-MP-T............................................ 20.0 120mm M929 (HV MORT).............................................. 20.0 155mm M795 (ex rge)............................................... 20.0 HYDRA 70 M264 (smoke)............................................. 20.0 M87A1 (Volcano)................................................... 30.0 BDM............................................................... 15.0 SLAM XM94......................................................... 9.5 SLAM XM94 (SOCOM)................................................. 1.5 Demolition Items.................................................. 6.0 Conventional Demilitarization..................................... 4.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________ Subtotal...................................................... 280.1 Selectable Lightweight Attack Munition XM94 The committee recommends an addition of $11.0 million for procurement of the Selectable Lightweight Attack Munition (SLAM). Of this amount, $9.5 million shall be available for Army SLAM inventory, and $1.5 million shall be available for the Special Operations Command. Procurement of M-795 artillery projectile The committee recognizes a need to provide land combat forces with extended range artillery munitions, and recommends an increase of $20.0 million to procure the M-795 round. The committee also recognizes the value of soliciting competitive bids for procurement items, and directs the Secretary of the Army to consider competition among public and private entities for procurement of this item. Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support (ARMS) The committee recommends an increase of $45.0 million to compensate for unobligated funds rescinded in 1995 to offset contingency operation expenses in the administration's emergency supplemental request. ARMS has proven to be a highly successful program which allows DOD to avoid costs for operating and maintaining government ammunition facilities still necessary for national security requirements. The committee strongly recommends that the DOD study an ARMS-like approach as a viable method of controlling costs at other DOD facilities. Other Army Procurement High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) The budget request included $57.7 million for 546 HMMWV's. These numbers are significantly reduced from levels previously presented by the Army. The need for additional HMMWV's, however, has been indicated by both the Army and the Marine Corps during testimony before the committee. The recently released Tactical Wheeled Vehicle investment strategy outlining the Army's long range acquisition strategy for its truck programs, reflects increased funding for trucks beginning in fiscal year 1997. However, funding shortfalls in fiscal year 1996 jeopardize HMMWV production capabilities. In order to continue to fill the needs of the military services and maintain minimum levels of production, the committee recommends an increase of $72.0 million to procure approximately 1,300 additional HMMWV's for the Army in fiscal year 1996. The committee is also concerned about the increasing age and condition of the HMMWV fleet and recommends an increase of $5.0 million in the Army's research and development accounts to initiate prototype development of a HMMWV Extended Service Program (ESP). Family of medium tactical vehicles (FMTV) The Office of the Secretary of Defense recently published a new Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Investment Strategy (TWVIS) in response to concern expressed by all four defense committees of the Congress. This strategy described the extreme underfunding of the Army's truck fleets, the rapidly deteriorating age and condition of the fleets, and what can be accomplished at different levels of increased funding. The committee has been concerned about the Army's truck fleets for several years, and notes the increased operation and maintenance costs and declining readiness as these fleets continue in use without replacement or remanufacture. The committee notes that the Army failed to request funds for the fifth year of a multiyear contract for the FMTV in the fiscal year 1996 budget request. The committee is aware that the Army has been forced to cut deeply into its modernization efforts in order to fund immediate readiness shortfalls resulting from inadequate budget levels. As the TWVIS indicated, ``At this funding level there is no modernization * * *'' As a result, the fiscal year 1996 funding for FMTV procurement was reduced from $384.0 million to $39.7 million, which would effectively terminate this vitally-needed modernization program. The committee understands that the contractor has indicated a willingness to negotiate a production ``stretch-out'' if additional funding is provided in fiscal year 1996 that is less than the contractually required amount. The committee recommends an increase of $110.0 million for the FMTV program and expects the Army and the contractor to cooperate fully in contract renegotiations to maintain favorable pricing for the government and to avoid delays in delivery of trucks to the Army. The committee expects the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army to ensure that the military services' truck programs are adequately funded in fiscal year 1997 and throughout the Future Years Defense Plan. Family of heavy tactical vehicles (FHTV) The Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Investment Strategy (TWVIS) recently forwarded to the congressional defense committees by the Secretary of Defense indicated significant problems in the Army's light, medium and heavy truck fleets. Nonetheless, the committee notes that funding provided in the Army's truck procurement account for fiscal year 1996 is far below levels provided in previous years. The amount in this account over the past ten years ranges from a high of $917.0 million to a low of $419.0 million and averages $738.0 million per year. The Army's fiscal year 1996 funding is only $128.0 million. While the most severe problems are currently found in the medium fleet, there are serious problems in the other fleets as well. Critically important heavy fleets such as the Heavy Equipment Transporter (HET), the transporter for the Abrams main battle tank, with an estimated economic life of 14 years, reached a fleet average age of 13.1 years in 1995. The committee, therefore, recommends increases in the amounts indicated below within the Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles budget line for the following components of the heavy vehicle fleet: In millions --Heavy Equipment Transporters.............................. $17.0 (buys 38 HET's toward Force Package (FP)1 prepositioned ship requirements) --Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Trucks................... 33.0 (HEMTT 10 ton)(buys 125 wreckers and tankers for FP 1) --Flatracks (for Palletized Loading System)................. 30.0 (buys 2500 flatracks for PLS) --Yard Tractors............................................. 15.0 (procures 202 vehicles to replace overage fleet) --HEMTT 10 ton Extended Service Program (ESP)............... 30.0 (Refurbishes 196----------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________ --Total.....................................................$125.0 Medium truck extended service program (ESP) The committee is aware that the medium truck fleets (2\1/2\ ton and 5 ton) are in worse shape than the other truck fleets in the Army in terms of both age and condition. Sixty-one percent of the 2\1/2\ ton trucks and seventeen percent of the 5 ton trucks in the Army qualify for antique license plates in several states. The committee has supported programs to procure new medium trucks as well as programs to remanufacture trucks currently in the fleet. A program is currently underway to remanufacture 2\1/2\ ton trucks for the Army National Guard. Both the Army and DOD now agree that a comprehensive extended service program for medium trucks for both the active and reserve components is necessary. The Marine Corps has decided to upgrade its medium trucks through an extended service program. The committee supports the conclusions of the recent Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Investment Strategy which endorses new vehicle procurement, as well as remanufacture with technology insertion for the light, medium and heavy truck fleets. The committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million for the medium truck extended service program. The committee is concerned, however, about the possibility of initiating several truck remanufacture programs, thereby creating excess capacity in the industry. The committee is also concerned about the Army's past selection of firms to manufacture military trucks which had never done so, with extremely troublesome results. The committee prefers that maximum use be made of the medium truck ESP currently underway; that separate, additional procurements be kept to a minimum to avoid industrial overcapacity; and that, for future procurements, consideration be given to reliable manufacturers who have demonstrated capabilities to produce military trucks. In that regard, the committee expects the Army and Marine Corps requirements for medium truck ESP will be harmonized to provide for the most efficient procurement and to take maximum advantage of economies of scale. Communications and intelligence systems The committee is aware of several communications and intelligence systems where small investments now will provide performance enhancements and significant potential for savings. The committee recommends the following increases: --$3.3 million to procure CHS-2 hardware for the Army Global Command and Control System; --$2.8 million to accelerate procurement of the Defense Messaging System (DMS); --$6.4 million to initiate the CHS-2 buy and accelerate software insertion in the All Source Analysis System (ASAS); --$5.0 million to procure hardware to support the initial operational test and evaluation and the Task Force XXI operational evaluation for the Maneuver Control System (MCS). Army Data Distribution System (ADDS) The budget request included $19.9 million for the ADDS- Enhanced Position Location Reporting System (EPLRS). ADDS-EPLRS is a state-of-the-art radio network developed to provide robust, wide-area secure tactical data communication, friendly identification, and position location/navigation information. The committee is impressed with the performance of ADDS-EPLRS and recommends an increase of $25.0 million for the procurement of 300 EPLRS units, necessary support and field testing. Single channel ground and airborne radio system (SINCGARS) The committee is aware of significant savings that can be achieved through accelerated procurement of SINCGARS radios. The committee recommends an increase of $54.1 million to buy an additional 9600 radios, and urges the Army to add funds in fiscal years 1997 and 1998 to allow fielding three years earlier than planned. Commanders Tactical Terminal The budget request included $11.3 million for 33 Commanders Tactical Terminals (CTT). The committee is aware of the capability of CTT to rapidly deliver critical, time-sensitive intelligence and targeting information to Army air defense, aviation, field artillery and military intelligence units. The committee notes the inefficient rates at which the CTT is being procured and recommends an increase of $18.7 million to procure an additional 55 units. Forward area air defense-ground based sensor (FAAD-GBS) The budget request included $44.7 million to procure eight FAAD-GBS systems. The committee is advised that additional funds will provide for more efficient rates of production and lower unit acquisition costs. Added funding to procure another 12 systems would lower the unit acquisition cost from $3.7 million to $2.7 million--a reduction of $1.0 million per unit. The committee, therefore, recommends an increase of $19.2 million for a total of $63.9 million to procure 24 systems in fiscal year 1996. Night vision devices In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, the committee supported efforts by the Army to upgrade night weapon sights which incorporate older generation night vision technology. This support included the authorization of $2.25 million for generation III image intensification technology which, as a direct drop-in replacement for the older tubes, would double the range of these weapons sights and increase the useful life of the image tube by a factor of five times that currently experienced. The Army is currently in the process of procuring the first 500 25 millimeter image tubes. The committee understands that the Army has provided funding in future budgets for this upgrade program. In the interim, to ensure continuation of production of the 25 millimeter tube, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million for the Army and an increase of $2.0 million for the Marine Corps within their respective night vision devices funding lines. Tactical quiet generators The committee is aware of an effort the Army has pursued for several years to replace its old, inefficient family of generators for field use. The new family of generators will be quieter and far more dependable than generators currently in use. Significant savings are anticipated through reduced maintenance and operating costs and changes in maintenance procedures resulting from the procurement of the new family of generators. The committee provides an increase of $35.0 million to procure new, tactical, quiet generators from 5kw up to 60kw for force package 1. The committee expects the Army to include funding in fiscal years 1997 through 1999 to continue procurement through force package 2. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Section - 121. Seawolf and New Attack Submarine programs. The budget request included $1.5 billion to complete acquisition of the third and final Seawolf class attack submarine, known as SSN-23. The budget request also contains $455.4 million for development and $704.5 million for advanced procurement for a lead ship of a new class of attack submarine, now known as the new attack submarine (NAS). The Navy plan, reflected in the budget request, has been to obtain authorization for SSN-23 in fiscal year 1996 and continue what it calls a design/build process for the NAS with lead ship authorization in fiscal year 1998. Design/build, as described by the Navy, would be conducted by close coordination between the Navy and the proposed builder, Electric Boat. Process teams composed of design engineers, waterfront production trades, key suppliers, and the Navy, would pool their technical and engineering knowledge and employ state-of- the-art CAD/CAM computer programs to execute preliminary and contract design. If the design/build process works as planned, it will produce far greater progress toward completion of detailed design than is normal at contract award, optimize the design for Electric Boat's production process, and produce significant overall cost savings. Production efficiencies introduced during design and a lower potential for disruptive design changes are examples offered by the Navy of the potential benefits of the design/build process. The Navy contends that its plan would be the most cost- effective way of delivering advanced capability nuclear submarines to satisfy JCS requirements. However, the plan derives from a premise that it is vital to national security to maintain two nuclear capable shipbuilders--Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock for nuclear aircraft carrier construction and refueling overhauls and Electric Boat for nuclear submarines. During hearings held by the committee this year, some questioned the validity of the Navy's underlying premise. Testimony and correspondence on submarine procurement that the committee received this year dealt with two central issues--the requirement to build SSN-23 and competition between General Dynamics Electric Boat Division and Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company for construction of the NAS. At issue with respect to SSN-23 was whether the requirement to build the submarine is based on industrial concerns, operational requirements, or both and whether the submarine is affordable in today's budget environment. At issue with respect to the NAS was whether the Navy's plan to allocate all future submarine construction to Electric Boat without competition, a plan that derives from the Department of Defense's Bottom Up Review, was an acceptable course of action for the Navy to follow. To properly consider these issues, the committee heard testimony from the Navy, the shipbuilders, the General Accounting Office (GAO), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Prior to this year the Navy advanced an industrial base argument for SSN-23, asserting that the submarine was necessary as an ``industrial bridge'' that will provide sufficient work at Electric Boat for that company to remain viable as a shipbuilder until construction of the NAS begins in fiscal year 1998. This year the Navy also introduced an operational requirements argument for SSN-23, based on intelligence estimates that the worldwide submarine threat from modern, quiet submarines is proliferating rapidly. The Navy directed specific attention to the Russian submarine program--the quietness of both its existing and new construction boats relative to the Navy's current front-line attack submarine, the SSN-688 class, and the large commitment of resources that Russia was devoting to submarine construction. In evaluating this threat-based argument, the committee was informed by witnesses that, while there is little doubt that the SSN-23 will perform superbly compared to any submarine now built or under construction in both open ocean and littoral missions, the existing JCS requirement, 10-12 submarines with quietness equivalent to Seawolf (SSN-21), by the year 2012, can be met if the Navy executes its current construction plan for the NAS without the need to build SSN-23. Thus the committee did not find the Navy's operational requirement argument a compelling reason to authorize SSN-23. Based on testimony and independent evaluation, the committee does not take issue with the argument that construction work on a scope comparable to that associated with SSN-23 is needed for Electric Boat to remain a viable shipbuilder for the NAS class. While the committee received testimony on other possible construction options that might sustain Electric Boat until fiscal year 1998, none appears more cost-effective than building SSN-23. Even with SSN-23, Electric Boat must reduce its work force from about 18,000 to a steady state of about 6,000 and introduce a wide range of management and labor efficiencies to remain profitable while building the NAS at the rate projected in the future years defense program. The issue of competition for the NAS produced strong, forceful, and conflicting testimony. Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock introduced strong objections, echoed by committee members, to the Navy's plan to allocate submarine construction to Electric Boat. Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock is the lead design yard for the SSN-688 class and the Seawolf class, and has been actively involved in construction of SSN-688 class submarines for the past twenty years. It desires to remain in the submarine construction business and is seeking competitive access to the NAS program as a means to do so. In pursuit of this goal Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock performed an economic analysis of the savings to the Navy that would result if it decided to build all nuclear ships--aircraft carriers and submarines, at Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock and determined the savings would be substantial. Initially, the Navy chose not to offer a comparable analysis, maintaining the position that two nuclear capable yards were essential to national security and citing the findings of the Bottom Up Review as justification. After conflicting testimony before the House National Security Committee (HNSC) revealed glaring disparities between the Navy and Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock over the potential cost benefits associated with carrying out the Navy's plan or shifting all construction to Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock, the HNSC commissioned the Congressional Research Service to conduct an independent analysis for purposes of resolving the confusion. Preliminary results of this analysis were available when the committee held its hearing on submarine procurement. Further, the Navy had decided to prepare its own assessment of the savings and offered it for consideration shortly before the committee's hearing. Much of the testimony on submarine construction received by the committee at its hearing on submarine procurement has been summarized in the preceding paragraphs. Additional information provided by the witnesses included: 1. the Navy's position on competition for the NAS had evolved. The Navy testified that it was now agreeable to competition at a time, not precisely specified, when the design of the NAS was mature and a building rate that would support competition was achieved; 2. testimony by GAO included observations that there is some disagreement within the intelligence community on the severity of the potential foreign submarine threat, which could imply a future reassessment of the requirement for U.S. submarine construction; 3. CBO, which had performed an assessment at the request of a committee member, focused primarily on short-term cost effects associated with not authorizing SSN-23 in fiscal year 1996; 4. the CRS witness, based on analysis performed by CRS at the request of the HNSC, devoted attention to both the transient short-term and long-term recurring savings that would occur in the period fiscal year 2006-fiscal year 2012. Summarizing major items from his testimony: a. when consistent assumptions regarding building rate and future inflation are applied to the Navy and Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock estimates, savings associated with reducing to a single building yard for submarine construction over the period from fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 2012 would be: --Newport News--$5.8 billion --Navy-- $1.9 billion; and b. the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock and Navy estimates of average annual recurring savings after a steady state is reached differed by about $200 million per year. Different estimates for direct labor and material account for most of this difference rather than fixed overhead costs; 5. both Navy and Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock agreed that a one yard strategy would be cheaper but disagreed substantially on the amount of savings that could be realized; 6. the Navy, based on its assessment of cost savings associated with a single yard strategy, believes that the 3 percent penalty it will have to pay to keep two yards is worth the additional cost; 7. there is no significant difference in the quality of the submarines built by the two shipyards; 8. there appeared to be a general consensus among the witnesses that, if a competition for the fiscal year 1998 lead NAS occurred and the follow ship profile currently planned remained valid, the competition would be winner take all, i.e., the losing yard could not sustain its submarine construction capability until fiscal year 2000 when the Navy plans to request authorization of the second submarine; 9. some provision must be made to give Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock access to design information if the shipyard is to be competitive for the lead NAS in fiscal year 1998; and 10. Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock asserted that modification of the NAS design that is produced by the design/build process at Electric Boat would not be necessary for Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock to compete, provided that Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock could remain current on the design as it evolved. While the committee intends to pursue the most cost effective approach to the NAS program, it is reluctant to rely exclusively on the accuracy of cost estimates presented at its hearing on submarine procurement. The Navy and the shipbuilders clearly had positions to defend, and the assumptions underlying their analysis were in general favorable to the outcome they desired. Attempts at objective analysis by the GAO, CBO, and CRS were handicapped by uncertain and incomplete data, or data withheld as proprietary. While the estimates tended to bound the potential savings associated with shifting to a single shipyard for submarine construction, they lacked sufficient precision to permit the committee to use them as sole justification for a recommendation that would likely cause the loss of submarine construction capability at Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock or the extinction of Electric Boat as a shipbuilder. Further, while the design/build concept appears a sound approach to designing an affordable submarine, the committee is concerned that the Navy may wait too long before starting competition for the NAS. With regard to competition the committee considers that: 1. competition in shipbuilding is an effective means to minimize cost to the government; 2. without authorizing and appropriating the necessary funds for the third Seawolf class submarine, SSN-23, in fiscal year 1996, Electric Boat may likely go out of business and competition for the NAS would not be possible; and 3. for real competition to occur, both shipbuilders must possess a sufficient level of knowledge about the design that either could build the NAS. After extensive additional review and consultation the committee recommends a provision that would: 1. authorize the SSN-23 at $1.5 billion, the budget request; 2. limit the ability of the Secretary of the Navy to obligate or expend funds for SSN-23 until he restructures the NAS program to provide for: a. procurement of the lead NAS from Electric Boat in fiscal year 1998; b. procurement of the second NAS from Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock in fiscal year 1999; and c. competitive procurement of any other vessels under the NAS program with potential competitors being any source to which the Secretary of the Navy has awarded a contract for construction of nuclear attack submarines during the past 10 years. 3. direct the Secretary of the Navy to solicit competitive proposals and award the contract or contracts for NAS submarines after the second one on the basis of price; 4. direct the Secretary of the Navy to take no action that would impair the design, engineering, construction, and maintenance competencies of either Electric Boat or Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock to construct the NAS. 5. direct the Secretary of the Navy to report every six months to the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House National Security Committee the obligation and expenditure of funds for SSN-23 and the NAS; 6. authorize $814.5 million in fiscal year 1996 for design and advance procurement of the lead and second NAS. Of this amount $10.0 million would be available only for participation of Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock in the NAS design; and $100.0 million would be available only for advance procurement and design of the second submarine under the NAS program; 7. authorize $802.0 million in fiscal year 1997 for the lead and second NAS. Of this amount $75.0 million would be available only for participation by Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock in the design of the NAS; and $427.0 million would be available only for advanced procurement and design of the second submarine under the NAS program; and 8. authorize $455.4, the budget request, for research, development, test, and evaluation for the NAS program. Section - 124. Split funding for construction of naval vessels. Documentation provided with the budget request and testimony offered by witnesses at the committee's hearing on shipbuilding programs painted a bleak picture of the current projections for modernization of the fleet. Navy ship procurement is at its lowest level in real terms since the years immediately following World War II. The Navy, which testified that it is seeking to sustain a force structure of 336 ships, will procure an average of 4.67 new ships per year under the six year plan accompanying the budget request. Even with an optimistic 35 year life expectancy for these ships, this procurement rate would produce a steady state fleet size of less than 200 ships. Further, when the overlapping period included in the fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996 budget requests were compared, the fiscal year 1996 shipbuilding plan lost seven of 22 ships, a 30 percent reduction. This phenomenon of unrealized outyear expectations is not uncommon and reflects a siphoning away of planned modernization to accommodate emerging operational requirements associated with Bosnia, Haiti, and Somalia, and reordering of modernization priorities for the other services. Aside from the impact that such volatile shipbuilding plans may have on force structure planning, they can also have a dramatic effect on the shipbuilding industrial base. For example, a Congressional Research Service study, Navy DDG-51 Destroyer Procurement Rate: Issues and Options for Congress (CRS Rept. 94-343F), published in April 1994, concluded that a production rate below three DDG-51s per year would be inadequate to sustain the two shipyards that the Navy, based on a recently completed acquisition study, concluded are necessary for continued procurement of the DDG-51 Aegis Class destroyers at an efficient rate. Hearing testimony and the committee's analysis of the budget request yielded the following observations: 1. as previously described, the Navy's budget request does not provide sufficient funding to meet its force structure goals; 2. the construction rate of the six year shipbuilding plan will create a funding ``bow wave'' in fiscal years 2002-2005 that will be between two and three times the average funding for construction of new ships during the next six years; and 3. the shipbuilding industrial base is severely under-utilized, resulting in production inefficiencies and increased unit costs. For example, during his review of the Navy's fiscal year 1996 Program Objective Memorandum, the Secretary of Defense chose to defer the acquisition of two DDG-51 Class destroyers in order to meet what he considered higher priority needs. Aside from further exacerbating the underfunding of ship procurement relative to force structure requirements, this action increased the total cost of the remaining 13 destroyers by almost $800.0 million dollars. Since the early 1960's the Department of Defense has followed a policy for acquisition of major weapons systems, shipbuilding being a prime example, that requires full funding in the year of authorization--all the funds necessary to procure the ship, including a provision for future inflation, are included in the budget request even though actual expenditures for the ship will occur over five or more years. The full funding approach was adopted because unpredictable cost growth once construction had begun generated unexpected pressure on the annual appropriations process and in the worst case caused partially completed projects to be abandoned. While this conservative approach helps to insulate the ship acquisition process from the impact of unexpected cost growth, rigid adherence to it is apt to generate volatile annual funding requirements and put extraordinary stress on shipbuilding budgets that require a very large commitment of capital resources for each ship that is bought. When modernization is underfunded relative to requirement and capacity, both force structure and the shipbuilding industrial base are jeopardized. Based on these considerations the committee recommends a provision that would permit the Department of Defense to modify its acquisition policy for specific shipbuilding programs, in selected cases, to allow split funding of ship acquisition. This provision incorporates the following concepts: 1. applies only to shipbuilding programs because of the extraordinary unit cost and the time required to construct; 2. in preparing its budget request the Department of Defense would divide the total amount required for procurement of a ship, including provision for escalation, into two equal parts that would be requested in consecutive budget requests; 3. authorization and appropriation of the first increment of funding would be sufficient for the Navy to enter into a contract for the full cost of the ship; 4. the contract would include a provision for a termination liability reserve in the event that the second increment of funding does not become available; 5. only ship construction programs that have been in progress for a sufficient amount of time for the costs to be well understood and predictable will be eligible for split funding; and 6. the Secretary of Defense will propose ships for split funding subject to approval of the committee and the House National Security Committee. The committee has incorporated split funding into its recommendations on the fiscal year 1996 budget request. Accordingly, in fiscal year 1996 the committee recommends authorization of $2.2 billion, the budget request, for the full funding procurement of two DDG-51 Class destroyers. Of this amount $6.8 million is advanced procurement in fiscal year 1996 to support the fiscal year 1997 DDG-51 budget request. Further, the committee recommends an increase of $650.0 million for the acquisition of two additional DDG-51 Class destroyers under the split funding provision. OTHER NAVY PROGRAMS Navy Aircraft AV-8B remanufacture The budget request contained $148.0 million for the remanufacture of four US Marine Corps AV-8B harrier aircraft into the Harrier II Plus configuration. The Harrier II Plus configuration provides needed radar-equipped aircraft for day/ night/adverse weather use with improved survivability and enhanced multi-mission capability. Because additional aircraft are needed for fleet deployments of radar-equipped aircraft, the committee recommends an increase of $100.0 million to procure an additional four aircraft. Procurement of eight AV-8B aircraft is a more cost-effective approach than the budget request and provides the Marine Corps with increased combat capability at a more efficient production rate. Additional F/A-18C/D strike fighters The committee understands that the F/A-18C has substantial upgrades over the older F/A-18A's that significantly increase its operational capability and warfighting effectiveness. Improvements such as AMRAAM, JSOW, JDAM, APG-73 radar, and night vision compatibility provide the F/A-18C greater capability with greater survivability. When the last F/A-18C is delivered in 1998, the F/A-18C inventory will peak at approximately 400 aircraft, 36 short of the requirement for an all F/A-18C carrier force. This figure, 436, includes regular squadrons, RDT&E, and pipeline aircraft. It does not account for attrition. The budget request for 12 F/A-18C's in fiscal year 1996 and none in fiscal year 1997 is a reduction of 36 aircraft from the Navy's plan for 24 in each of those years. However, the requirement for those aircraft still exists to sustain combat effectiveness through the early 21st century as the Navy transitions to the newer F/A-18 E/F. The night strike F/A-18C's will serve until 2015 and beyond. The committee is persuaded by the need for more capable strike fighter aircraft on carrier decks both now and in the future, and recommends the acquisition of 24 F/A-18C's, an increase of twelve, and an increase of $564.0 million in the APN account of the fiscal year 1996 budget request to provide the needed capability. CH-53E helicopters This year the committee is aware of the continuing need of the Marine Corps for additional CH-53E helicopters for its active and reserve component. In fiscal year 1995 the Navy proposed to resolve Marine Corps CH-53E shortages by transferring MH-53E helicopters from its airborne mine countermeasures (AMCM) squadrons. The committee remains concerned about the overall condition of the Navy's mine countermeasures capability and has concluded that any reductions in the Navy's AMCM squadrons to help satisfy the requirement of the Marine Corps would be imprudent. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $90.0 million for the purpose of buying additional CH-53E helicopters for the Marine Corps. This action should eliminate any need for the Navy to transfer more CH-53E helicopters from the Navy to the Marine Corps. F-14 Forward looking infrared (FLIR)/Laser The committee understands the Navy has a continuing need for F-14 capability upgrades as the A-6 medium attack aircraft retires, and the F-14 assumes the A-6's long range strike role. Operational requirements for a FLIR/Laser Designator system have only recently been documented in an Operational Requirements Document (ORD 406-88-95) of June 1995. This emergent requirement is a high priority for carrier operations, and will be budgeted in future years by the Navy in the budget request. However, the committee understands that before the Navy can proceed with any upgrades, it must comply with requirements in the Appropriations Conference Committee Report (H. Rpt. 103-747) regarding F-14 modernization programs. The committee recognizes the need for upgrading F-14 capabilities and recommends an increase in aircraft procurement Navy (APN-5) of $17.1 million to be used with existing funds to incorporate a FLIR/Laser in the F-14. These additional funds are not to be obligated until previous reporting requirements are complied with. The committee understands that the Navy will not obligate these funds without providing for funding in the FYDP. Thermal imaging modifications for USMC aircraft In order to improve flight safety and navigation, and enhance effectiveness of USMC UH-1N helicopters in search and rescue missions, the Navy has undertaken a program to upgrade them with AN/AAQ-22 navigation thermal imaging systems. To ensure that this equipment is procured at an efficient and cost-effective rate, the committee recommends an increase of $13.0 million to the budget request for the purpose of equipping UH-1N helicopters of the Marine Corps' active helicopter fleet. AN/APR-39A(V)-2 radar warning receiver The committee has been made aware of the status and need for radar warning receivers in helicopters and other low flying aircraft. The AN/APR-39A(V)-2 provides warning against radar- guided and radar-aided threats, and is a joint program led by the Army. Now in engineering and manufacturing development, the system recently passed Operational Test and Evaluation, but was not included in the fiscal year 1996 budget request because the services were awaiting the completion of testing before requesting funding. The committee recognizes the need for the system and recommends an increase of $30.0 million for initial procurement of the AN/APR-39A(V)-2 radar warning receiver. The committee's recommendation supports the non-recurring engineering field support and procurement of an estimated 50 systems. The committee further expects the department to ensure future year acquisition of the system will be budgeted for by the department in the FYDP prior to obligating any amounts for the acquisition of the initial sets. Undergraduate NFO Training The committee has been advised of a proposal to sell seventeen T-39N aircraft plus spare engines and simulators for $45.0 million. The aircraft are now leased to the Navy for undergraduate Naval Flight Officer flight training. This is the only undergraduate aircrew training system in the DOD that is not owned by the military. The committee has been informed that ownership of these assets by the Navy may result in future savings amounting to over $100.0 million. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide an analysis of the proposal to the committee no later than March 29, 1996, so that it can be reviewed for possible further action. Navy Weapons Tomahawk missile In its review of the budget request, the committee determined that $41.7 million, authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 1995, had not been obligated because contract savings eliminated the need. Therefore, the committee recommends an authorization of $120.0 million in fiscal year 1996 for the procurement and remanufacture of Tomahawk missiles and further recommends that $41.7 million of funds previously authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 1995 be made available in fiscal year 1996 to satisfy the balance of funds required for the procurement of 164 Tomahawk missiles, the quantity of missiles contained in the budget request. Direct broadcast service The committee has followed the progress of several new commercial satellite communications (SATCOM) technologies with special interest in direct broadcast service. The committee supports insertion of this technology into the military communications master plan to reduce the load on dedicated military SATCOM systems as well as to provide near-real-time information to the warfighter. The committee believes that the most affordable means for achieving a near-term Global Broadcast Service (GBS) capability is to use the Navy's ultra- high frequency follow-on (UFO) satellite system. The committee is aware of other concepts to provide a GBS capability, and is willing to allow the newly established Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (DUSD) for Space to evaluate the tradeoffs. In order to support a timely resolution of this issue, the committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million to PE 0303109N. If the DUSD for Space does not submit a written report justifying an alternative GBS concept to the congressional defense committees within 30 days after the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, the Secretary of the Navy shall proceed to obligate the $30.0 million to integrate a direct broadcast capability on UFO satellites 8, 9, and 10. If the DUSD for Space selects, and justifies in writing, an alternative approach, the committee authorizes the DUSD for Space to proceed to employ the $30.0 million on the preferred GBS approach, beginning 30 days after the committees have received the written report. The committee will consider the selected approach to be a pilot program for a future military GBS system, which will be incorporated into the Department of Defense's future MILSATCOM architecture. Navy Shipbuilding and Conversion Amphibious lift The budget request did not contain funds for procurement of additional amphibious lift. The committee understands that there exists a shortfall in the Navy's ability to satisfy the 2.5 Marine expeditionary brigade (MEB) requirement of the Defense Planning Guidance with active ships. This lift is badly needed by the Marine Corps to satisfy its mission as an expeditionary force that is ready to respond to emerging crises on short notice. One prominent shortfall is in the area of large deck, aviation-capable, amphibious assault ships with the command and control capabilities needed to support amphibious task force commanders. The LHD-7, for which a negotiated contract option exists, would satisfy that shortfall. The operational requirement for LHD-7 is clear. In written reports and testimony before the committee a series of senior military leaders have confirmed the strong requirement of LHD-7 as the anchor for a twelfth amphibious ready group (ARG). Last year Congress authorized $50.0 million for the purpose of extending the existing contract option for LHD-7 until this year. The contractor agreed to extend the option at no cost to the government. An additional $50.0 million was appropriated in fiscal year 1994. Exercising the contract option at this point, while the production is in progress, rather that procuring LHD-7 in 2001, as currently reflected in the six-year shipbuilding plan, will result in a substantial cost savings. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase to the budget request of $1.3 billion for LHD-7 with the understanding that funds previously appropriated in fiscal years 1994 and 1995 will be made available as the additional increment needed to fully fund LHD- 7 at $1.4 billion. LCAC service life extension program During its consideration of the budget request, the committee received a contractor proposal for a service life extension program (SLEP) for the Navy's fleet of landing craft, air cushion (LCAC). The proposal raised the committee's awareness on how best to maintain the future condition of the Navy's LCACs over their projected twenty year service life. A related question concerns any capability improvements that may be needed to deal with increased lift demands of new weapons systems that have been fielded since the LCAC was originally designed. Of concern is the fact that production of new LCACs already on contract will be completed in fiscal year 1997. It may be necessary to take action to preserve the LCAC contractor's production capability if it is determined that an LCAC SLEP would best be conducted at his production facility rather than in home port. Discussions between the committee and the Navy determined that the Navy has not yet developed a detailed plan for a LCAC SLEP program, based on its evaluation that the need for such a plan was not imminent. Given current affordability constraints in its budget, the Navy had decided that a decision on a LCAC SLEP program could be deferred for at least two years. It is not clear, however, that the Navy fully considered the future status of the LCAC production line when it made this decision. The committee also determined that there had not been any substantive dialogue between the contractor and the Navy about the scope, timing, and costs of a LCAC SLEP program. The committee needs more information before it can act on the LCAC SLEP program. Accordingly, the Navy is directed to prepare a detailed plan for such a program and submit it to the committee in company with its fiscal year 1997 budget request, ensuring that the costs, benefits, and timing of an option to perform the LCAC SLEP on the exiting production line are fully considered. Shipbuilding contract retentions The committee is concerned that the Navy may need to revise its current procedures for retaining payments on shipbuilding and conversion contracts. The committee fears that current practices may provide insufficient incentive to the builder for improved performance, or may deny shipbuilders needed operating capital. These procedures could weaken the Navy's fragile shipbuilding industrial base. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to work with the shipbuilding industry to review its practices with respect to progress payments, retentions, and dispute resolution. The committee directs the Secretary to report on the results of this review to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the House by March 1, 1996. The committee expects that the report will propose any procedural changes that may better sustain the naval shipbuilding industrial base and encourage improved shipbuilder performance, without forgoing protection of the taxpayers' interests. Other Navy Procurement Submarine navigation sets In fiscal year 1995 the Navy began limited rate procurement of the MK-49 ring laser gyro (RLG) navigator. These navigation sets will be installed on DDG-51 class destroyers. Other candidate ships for this system include cruisers, attack submarines, aircraft carriers, and other major combatants. An attractive aspect of this plan is that for the first time a common navigation set will be installed on surface combatants and submarines, greatly simplifying logistics support. The navigation system currently installed on U.S. Navy submarines is the electrically suspended gyro navigator (ESGN). Input from senior submarine force commanders in both the Atlantic and Pacific fleets indicates that the ESGN continues to be a maintenance and fiscal burden. They recommend replacement of submarine force ESGN sets with RLG sets at the earliest opportunity. Although the Navy has just begun to procure the MK-49 RLG navigator, they have been in service as a NATO standard and in continuous production since 1987. In service they have proven more reliable and accurate than the older spinning mass units that they will replace. The committee acknowledges the strong recommendations of the Navy's senior submarine force operational commanders. It is mindful of their conclusion that prompt installation of RLG navigation sets in place of existing ESGN sets will generate an immediate and significant drop in maintenance costs for the U.S. Navy's submarine force. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to purchase and install MK-49 RLG navigators in U.S. Navy submarines. As a partial offset for this increase, the committee authorizes only $1.6 million, a reduction of $2.5 million, for the ESGN. The $2.5 million reduction was included in the budget request for ESGN reliability modifications. The committee believes that these funds would be better utilized for the purchase and installation of new MK-49 RLG navigators rather than for modifying a system they will soon replace. AN/SLQ-32 electronic warfare system The SLQ-32 advanced capability (ADCAP) program has been designed to improve the SLQ-32's active countermeasures capabilities against modern threats, support combined and integrated operation with decoys, and improve the system's counter-targeting capabilities against advanced search and targeting radars. The SLQ-32 ADCAP successfully completed operational testing after the budget request had been prepared. Consequently, the request contained no provision for procurement of the SLQ-32 ADCAP in fiscal year 1996. Because of affordability constraints, the current future years program spreads production over several years at quantities that are below economically efficient rates. Upgrades to the system can be accomplished by simple removal of old components and insertion of new components without the need for a shipyard availability. The committee believes that the improvements afforded by SLQ-32 ADCAP provide badly needed capabilities against modern threats and will provide far better electronic countermeasures in littoral operations. Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $23.0 million for this program and recommends that the Secretary of the Navy consider a multiyear procurement approach that will permit the program to be executed in a cost effective manner. Integrated communications for aircraft carriers In recent years, major technological improvements have been made in command and control systems installed in the Navy's aircraft carriers. However, it is the committee's opinion that no substantial progress has been made in fielding improvements to the interior communications (IC) systems on the aircraft carriers or to effectively integrate them with other shipboard communications systems. For example, the Navy's newest aircraft carrier, CVN 74, will get underway for sea trials with an IC system that is not integrated and is based on 40 year old technology. A formal operational requirement exists for the Navy to provide an integrated wired IC system that would provide seamless interior and exterior connectivity for the aircraft carriers. The committee is aware of a non-developmental item system that has been tested aboard CVN 73 with very positive results, indicating that there are systems currently available that will correct this serious deficiency in the IC systems on the aircraft carriers. Whether this system is the best one to meet the Navy's needs remains to be fully evaluated. However, the committee believes that the Navy needs to promptly survey available candidate systems and initiate a procurement program for the most suitable one, rather than continuing to pursue the lengthy development process that is ill-suited to the rapid evolution occurring in information systems technology. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to prepare a report on its plan to replace the obsolete IC technology currently installed on the Navy's aircraft carriers and submit it to the committee no later than December 31, 1995. The committee also authorizes an increase of $3.5 million in the budget request for the purpose of procuring the best candidate system and installing it in an aircraft carrier that the Secretary deems most suitable. Challenge Athena The committee has followed the progress of several commercial satellite communications (SATCOM) technologies with special interest in commercial wideband service such as that demonstrated by the Chief of Naval Operations special project Challenge Athena. The committee is interested in how this technology could be effectively inserted into the military communications master plan to reduce over-subscribership to current military SATCOM systems as well as provide near real- time information to the warfighter. Operationally, these commercial systems will provide near real-time imagery for precision targeting/precision strike, video teleconferencing, as well as other high data rate computer capabilities. In addition, this connectivity will provide for the health and welfare of deployed sailors through the use of video telemedicine/telepsychiatry, sailor telephone, and video training. The committee recommends an increase of $14.4 million to fund wideband terminals in support of commercial communications for afloat warfighters. Sonobuoy procurement The statement of managers accompanying the conference report on the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal Year 1994 (H. Rept. 103-254) directed the Navy to submit a report on sonobuoy inventories. That report was supposed to project inventories over a five year period, by accounting for: (1) shelf life, (2) procurement rates, (3) usage rates, and (4) future inventory requirements. The Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition submitted the report on April 13, 1994. In reviewing the Navy's report, the committee found that the Navy's fiscal year 1995 budget did not carry out the report's recommendations. Consequently, the committee shifted funds among the individual types of sonobuoys without adding funds to the sonobuoy request. The Navy budget request for fiscal year 1996 also fails to implement the Navy's requirements. The committee understands that the Navy made a combination of errors in preparing and establishing priorities when developing its budget. More important, the budget request fails to satisfy the requirements of the Unified and Specified Commanders in Chief. They have supported buying roughly 125,000 sonobuoys per year as necessary to meet minimum training and operational requirements. Accordingly, the committee recommends the following: Sonobuoy Million AN/SSQ-36......................................................... $0.2 AN/SSQ-53......................................................... 0 AN/SSQ-62......................................................... 4.1 AN/SSQ-110........................................................ 21.9 Electro-optical sight/weapons director The committee is aware that the Navy has a broad range of electro-optical (E-O) requirements for day/night surveillance that the gunfire control systems installed on its surface combatants should satisfy. The committee is also aware that a wide variety of E-O devices and systems are currently installed on Navy combatants. While many of these systems perform similar or nearly similar functions, each requires unique life cycle support, maintenance and operator training. The committee has been informed that the MK-46 E-O sight and gun director has demonstrated excellent at-sea performance aboard the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke Class destroyers. The committee questions why the Navy has chosen not to use this E-O system, which is a congressionally funded Navy program, fully life- cycle supported, and has established Navy school house maintenance and operator training in place, for the Navy's CG- 47 Aegis class cruisers and DD-963 Spruance Class destroyers. Instead the Navy appears intent on developing and introducing yet another E-O system with its own set of unique support requirements. In the absence of additional information it would appear that the Navy has not been pursuing a cost effective approach to procurement of E-O systems for its ships. To clarify this situation, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the committee by February 1, 1996 that will specifically address the Navy's E-O plans and the future funding requirements required to provide the CG-47 Aegis class cruiser, the DD-963 class destroyer, and other classes of ships with a fully integrated E-O surveillance sight and gun director. Vertical launch system During its review of the budget request, the committee determined that the Navy's fiscal year 1996 budget could be reduced by $1.9 million because fiscal year 1995 installation costs for vertical launch systems had proven lower than expected. The excess fiscal year 1995 funds can be used in fiscal year 1996. Therefore, the committee recommends authorization of only $3.6 million for the vertical launch system in fiscal year 1996, a reduction of $1.9 million. Forklift trucks During the review of the Navy's fiscal year 1996 budget request, the committee determined that funds requested for the procurement of forklift trucks can be reduced by $2.0 million because excess fiscal year 1995 funds are available to satisfy the requirement. Therefore, the committee recommends authorization of $1.8 million for the procurement of Navy forklift trucks, a reduction of $2.0 million. Marine Corps Ammunition Marine Corps ammunition The committee recommends the following adjustments to the budget request for Marine Corps ammunition procurement: Item Millions 7.62mm............................................................ $10.0 cal. .50 SLAP..................................................... 10.0 cal. .50 4&1...................................................... 15.0 81mm M889A1 (HE).................................................. 24.0 81mm M816 (IR).................................................... 11.4 120mm APFSDS-T M829A2............................................. 5.0 120mm M830A1 HEAT-MP-T............................................ 5.0 Prop Charge, M203A1............................................... 26.0 Grenade, Smoke, V. G955........................................... 0.7 Igniter, M766..................................................... 0.4 Demo Sheet........................................................ 2.2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________ Subtotal....................................................$109.7 Marine Corps M1A1 tank modifications The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, directed that 24 M1A1 tanks be transferred to the Marine Corps Reserves. The statement of managers in the conference report accompanying the Act (H. Rept. 103-701) indicated that the transfer in fiscal year 1995 was intended to be the first year of a two-year program to eliminate a shortfall of 48 tanks in the Marine Corps Reserve tank battalions. The committee recommends an increase of $110.0 million for an additional 24 M1A2 upgrades for the Army and directs the Army to transfer 24 M1A1 tanks to the Marine Corps Reserve in accordance with procedures set out in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995. The Marine Corps has indicated a requirement to modify these tanks to standards of the Marine tank fleet. The committee recommends an increase of $12.3 million to the modification kits (trkd veh) program to modify 48 M1A1 tanks to Marine Corps baseline configuration. The committee also recommends an increase of $2.2 million to the same program to procure 268 modification kits and other enhancements for M240G ground-mount medium machine guns. Operational enhancements The committee is aware of several enhancements which would provide significant operational improvements for the Marine Corps. The committee recommends increases indicated below to implement these enhancements: --$1.6 million for HAWK Launch modifications. --$1.0 million in items less than $2 million for procurement, modification, and downsizing of four Improved Direct Air Support System Central (IDASC) systems. PSC-5 radios The committee understands that the Marine Corps has a requirement for critical satellite communications with multi- service interoperability. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to procure 174 PSC-5 radios to complete the planned acquisition. Advanced field artillery tactical data systems (AFATDS) The committee strongly supports the AFATDS and is advised that operations will be substantially enhanced and savings achieved by accelerating procurement and completing the planned acquisition for the Marine Corps. The committee recommends an increase of $11.0 million to procure 186 AFATDS units currently planned for fiscal year 1997, in fiscal year 1996. Night vision devices (NVD) The committee supported efforts last year to upgrade night weapon sights which incorporate older generation night vision technology. Generation III image intensification technology is available as direct drop-in replacements for older tubes. The replacement tubes double the range of the weapon's sights and increase the useful life of the image tube by a factor of five times over that currently experienced. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in the Night Vision Equipment program for procurement of the 25 millimeter replacement tubes. The committee also recommends an increase of $3.0 million in the Marine Enhancement Program for procurement of Night Vision Magnification Devices which provide 3X magnification, significantly extending the range of the current night vision goggles. Computer upgrades The committee is advised that the Marine Corps has a requirement to upgrade selected computer networks which have become technically obsolete and do not interface effectively with more modern equipment used by the other services. The committee recommends increases indicated below within the ADP Equipment program to facilitate necessary upgrades. --$17.8 million for Asset Tracking Logistics and Supply System to replace current supply and maintenance system with deployable, integrated system. --$3.8 million for procurement of 1580 Lightweight Tactical Computer Units to replace obsolete units. Trailers The committee is aware of the need for the Marine Corps to replace its fleet of 40-ton low-bed trailers which are reaching the end of service life. The committee recommends an increase of $5.5 million for the procurement of M101A3 and M870A2 trailers. Water purification and support equipment The committee is aware of the need to provide additional equipment for both active and reserve Marine Corps units to enable Marine forces to purify, store and distribute water in tactical operations. The committee recommends increases in the tactical fuel systems as indicated below to enhance current capabilities: --$1.9 million to procure additional equipment used for water storage and distribution. --$.5 million to procure 13 medium freshwater purification units for the Marine Corps Reserve. Training simulators The committee strongly supports increased use of training simulators by Marines, especially during extended deployments aboard ship, when combat skills are subject to rapid deterioration. The committee encourages the Marine Corps to explore opportunities for greater use of simulation for active units and reserve units, especially aboard amphibious ships to maintain Marine combat skills. The committee recommends the following increases to the training devices program for various simulators and devices: --$27.5 million for 181 Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Trainers. --$5.9 million to modify 287 systems and procure 48 additional system trainers for TOW and Dragon antitank weapons. --$0.6 million to procure Marine Corps Tank Full Crew Interactive Simulator. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Air Force Aircraft Strategic airlift The Milestone III Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) Integrated Airlift Force Decision is planned for November, 1995. The committee understands this decision will determine the proper size and composition of the airlift fleet. If the November Milestone III DAB Integrated Airlift Force Decision recommends a mixed fleet of additional C-17 and Non Developmental Airlift Aircraft (NDAA) to best support our airlift requirements, the committee encourages the Air Force to begin a robust procurement of those aircraft. To initiate this effort, of the funds provided in the fiscal year 1996 budget request in the Strategic Airlift account, $183.0 million may be used for the NDAA program or for advanced procurement for the C-17. The committee also encourages the Air Force to merge the $85.0 million remaining from fiscal year 1994 with these funds. The committee further expects the Air Force to program funds in the future year defense program, starting with fiscal year 1997, for procurement of the recommended NDAA program in order to accelerate and achieve the airlift goals. C-17 Spares The committee is aware that the Air Force's fiscal year 1996 request for spares and repair parts can be reduced by $21.9 million for initial spares allocated to the C-17 because the aircraft requires only $95.6 million for initial spares instead of the requested $117.5 million. These data are based on the assumption of a 120 aircraft C-17 program. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease in aircraft procurement, Air Force spares and repair parts. Air Force Ammunition Air Force ammunition The committee recommends the following adjustment to the budget request for Air Force ammunition procurement: Item Millions CBU 87............................................................ $30.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________ Subtotal.................................................... 30.0 Air Force Missile Defense Support Program procurement The budget request included $102.9 million for Defense Support Program (DSP) procurement. The committee understands that $35.9 million in fiscal year 1995 funds are excess and being considered for reprogramming for non-DSP purposes. The committee, therefore, reduces the fiscal year 1996 DSP procurement budget by $35.9 million and directs the Air Force to use the excess fiscal year 1995 funds to fulfill fiscal year 1996 requirements. Minuteman guidance replacement program The Department of Defense's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) recommended that the United States maintain three wings of Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) for the foreseeable future. The NPR recommended the replacement of the aging Minuteman III guidance system electronics and the remotoring of the missiles. The committee strongly supports rapid implementation of these recommendations and the maintenance of 500 operational Minuteman III missiles. Minuteman III guidance systems were produced from 1970 to 1978 with all systems now 7 to 15 years beyond their design life of 10 years. To ensure the timely replacement of the aging Minuteman III guidance system, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in procurement funds to begin the guidance replacement program and to ensure that the first article delivery, now scheduled for September 1998, does not slip again, and that all installations on the 500 Minuteman III missiles are complete in the 2002 timeframe. Global Positioning System block IIF advanced procurement In fiscal year 1996 the Air Force plans to begin both development and advanced procurement of the Block IIF Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites. The budget request for advanced procurement was $38.4 million. Due to the excessive amount of concurrency between development and procurement of this system, the committee believes that a one year delay is warranted. The committee believes that this delay will not seriously impact the Air Force's ability to develop and deploy the Block IIF. Moreover, the delay will allow time to solve technical issues associated with the Block IIR. The committee therefore recommends no funds for GPS Block IIF advanced procurement in fiscal year 1996. Space boosters Due to savings possible by combining Titan, Atlas and Centaur activities at the launch bases and manufacturing facilities, the committee recommends a $15.0 million reduction in the Air Force budget for space booster procurement. Defense Satellite Communications System The budget request for the Defense Satellite Communications System (DSCS) procurement was $25.7 million. Due to reduced launch costs, the committee recommends a reduction of $7.5 million in Air Force procurement for DSCS. Other Air Force Procurement Avionics support equipment The Navy has been developing the consolidated automated support system (CASS) to provide a common ground support system for its sophisticated aircraft avionics. The committee notes that the Navy has been making progress on CASS, with reliability currently at rates greater than three times the operational requirement. Further, the recent competition for CASS production has provided significant procurement cost savings. The Navy expects that fully fielding the CASS program will yield up to $8.0 billion in life-cycle cost savings for Navy aviation units. The committee is concerned about the Air Force's plans to pursue a separate path for supporting each of its aircraft avionics systems, despite the similarities among different aircraft avionics. Since the Navy has consolidated its support requirements for multiple types of aircraft, the committee questions whether the additional research and development, procurement, and support for each Air Force aircraft system is a prudent expense. The committee believes that the Air Force should investigate using the Navy CASS program as the basis for consolidating its avionics support requirements. The committee notes that the Air Force has identified airlifting support equipment as a major concern for any future deployments. Since the Air Force has also established several composite wings, it seems reasonable to consider providing common support equipment to lessen the potential deployment burdens for these wings. The committee understands that the Navy's CASS architecture would allow repackaging for a deployable configuration to meet this requirement. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a report to the congressional defense committees on the potential of applying the Navy's CASS program to meet the Air Force's requirements. The Secretary should submit the report by March 1, 1996. SUBTITLE D--OTHER PROGRAMS Section - 131. Tier II predator unmanned aerial vehicle program. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 limited the Tier II UAV to ten air vehicles and three ground stations, and expressed concern regarding the overall DOD management of UAV programs. The committee is unaware of additional requirements for Tier II UAV that would justify continued procurement, and continues to be concerned about the proliferation of different types of UAV's and the capability of the DOD organizational structure to manage the number of complex and diverse UAV programs in development and procurement. The committee notes the lack of progress in fielding effective, operational UAV systems, and believes that the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office and the UAV Joint Program Office could manage fewer programs more effectively. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision which would prohibit obligating or expending funds for further procurement, research, development, test or evaluation of the Tier II Predator UAV program. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the defense committees along with the fiscal year 1997 budget request indicating measures to strengthen the management of UAV programs in order to facilitate more timely fielding of required operationally effective systems. Section - 132. Pioneer unmanned aerial vehicle program. The committee has strongly supported the adaptation of the CARS to the entire family of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) for several years to reduce total personnel requirements, reduce the requirement for pilot training, and extend operational capabilities by enabling UAV recoveries in all weather conditions during day and night operations. The committee is convinced that use of CARS will dramatically reduce accidents during UAV recoveries, currently a major source of aircraft loss and damage. The committee has repeatedly identified this system as an example of desired commonality, and directed that it be applied promptly to all UAV systems in use and under development. The committee understands that five sets of CARS are to be procured in the summer of 1995 for Pioneer UAVs, and that the remaining four of the nine Pioneer systems are to be transferred to the Navy. As a result of the continuing delay in fielding of CARS on UAVs, the committee directs that the Secretary of the Navy ensure that five sets of CARS are procured as government furnished equipment (GFE) and installed on Navy UAVs as soon as possible. The committee recommends an increase of $4.5 million and directs the Secretary of the Navy to procure four additional sets of CARS as GFE and install them on the four remaining Pioneer systems. The committee reaffirms its commitment that CARS should be integral to every UAV system used by U.S. military services, and directs the Secretary of the Navy to report to the defense committees with the fiscal year 1997 budget submission a plan for procurement and integration of CARS to all U.S. military UAVs. The committee recommends a provision which would restrict the obligation of funds for the operations and activities of the UAV Joint Program Office until all nine Pioneer systems are equipped with CARS. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Mark V special operations craft The Mark V special operations craft is an 81-foot aluminum monohull craft with a displacement of 55 tons, a sustained top speed of 45 to 50 knots and a range of 250 to 300 nautical miles. The Mark V is intended to provide a medium range insertion and extraction capability for Special Operations Forces in a low to medium threat environment and a secondary mission of coastal patrol and interdiction. The budget request provided $19.5 million for the procurement of two Mark V craft with associated equipment. Commander-in-Chief, Special Operations Command in testimony before the Armed Services Committee in February, 1995 stated that four craft were required in fiscal year 1996. The committee recommends an increase of $17.7 million to procure two additional Mark V craft and associated equipment in fiscal year 1996. Rigid hull inflatable boat (RHIB) The committee supports the effort to acquire a fleet of RHIBs as the standard mobility platform for SEAL platoons, and is aware that the initial 10-meter RHIB design proved unsatisfactory. The committee recommends a decrease of $4.3 million in Special Operations Forces (SOF) Maritime Equipment and a corresponding increase of that amount to the RDT&E account program element 116404BB to provide adequate funds for a follow-on developmental effort. The committee authorizes the Special Operations Command to use funds remaining in the SOF Maritime Equipment account to procure 24-foot RHIB craft from industry until the new RHIB under development can be procured in sufficient quantities. National Guard and Reserve Equipment The committee continues its strong support for the National Guard and the other reserve components but remains concerned about the degree to which the National Guard and the other reserve components are being modernized. The committee is convinced that the Department of Defense has grown to rely on annual congressional increases for equipment for the National Guard and the other reserve components and does not include in annual budget requests adequate resources to properly equip the reserve components. The committee recommends a provision in title X, described elsewhere in this report, which would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a special report to the congressional defense committees dealing with these issues. The committee recommends an increase of $777.4 million for equipment for the National Guard and the other reserve components as indicated in the following table: Title I Procurement National Guard and Reserve Equipment Army Reserve Thousands Medium Truck ESP...................................... $10,000 Heavy Truck Modernization............................. 15,000 Night Vision Equipment................................ 5,000 Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS).......................................... 5,000 Chemical/Biological Defense Equipment................. 2,000 Miscellaneous Equipment............................... 25,000 -------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ $62,000 Naval Reserve C9 Upgrade............................................ $25,000 F-18 Upgrades......................................... 24,000 MIUW TS Q-108......................................... 10,000 Miscellaneous Equipment............................... 15,000 -------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ $74,000 Marine Corps Reserve AH-1W Helicopters (3)................................. $35,000 SINCGARS.............................................. 5,000 Night Vision Equipment................................ 5,000 Miscellaneous Equipment............................... 10,000 -------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ $55,000 Air Force Reserve C-130J (5)............................................ $210,000 C-20G (1)............................................. 30,000 -------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ $240,000 Army National Guard Avenger (1BN)......................................... $54,000 Paladin/FAASV (1BN)................................... 55,000 MLRS (1BTRY).......................................... 16,400 M113A3 Upgrades....................................... 10,000 M113A3 Night Viewers.................................. 2,000 Medium Truck ESP...................................... 10,000 Heavy Truck Modernization............................. 10,000 Night Vision Equipment................................ 5,000 Chemical/Biological Defense Equipment................. 2,000 SINCGARS.............................................. 5,000 AH-64 Mission Simulator............................... 15,000 AH-1 Boresighting Device.............................. 5,000 Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (CH-47)..... 5,000 Miscellaneous Equipment............................... 15,000 -------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ $209,400 Air National Guard C-130 H (3)........................................... $102,000 KC-135 Re-engining (1)................................ 26,000 C-26 (2).............................................. 9,000 -------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ $137,000 Total................................................. $777,400 National Guard artillery modernization The committee remains committed to ensuring the Army National Guard is adequately modernized. A key component in the modernization plan of the Army National Guard is the upgrade of 51 battalions and seven additional batteries with the M109A6 Paladin system. Initial cost estimates of this modernization exceed current levels of funding. A possible interim solution to this modernization problem is an upgrade of the M109A5 system currently in the Army National Guard inventory. The committee encourages the Army to evaluate the M109A5 upgrade for digital and survivability advantages and other enhancements until the M109A6 can be fielded to all appropriate Army National Guard units. In order to accomplish this evaluation, the Army is authorized to use RDTE funds to prototype and evaluate not more than two M109A5 systems for use by the Army National Guard. High Capacity Air Ambulances The committee understands the Army will complete a mission needs statement (MNS) and operational requirements document (ORD) before October 1, 1995 for a High Capacity Air Ambulance (HCAA). These documents will provide the rationale and definition for a program of responsive casualty evacuation combined with enroute treatment. Because of the existing expertise within the National Guard in emergency medical service, aviation, and operations, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense to assign the mission, once developed, to the National Guard; and to report to the committee not later than April 15, 1996 on the recommended doctrine, organization, and mission statement for the High Capacity Air Ambulance concept. Naval Reserve C-9B Aircraft The committee is aware of the need to get the longest use of existing systems through periodic upgrades. The committee recommends $25.0 million of the total funds authorized for National Guard and Reserve equipment be used for the purpose of continuing the avionics modernization program for the C-9B aircraft in an effort to avoid block obsolescence of these efficient and durable aircraft. TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION (RDT&E) The committee recommends investments in research and development to address mission needs and to ensure that military systems embody the most advanced technologies. Appropriate subcommittees of the full committee conducted hearings and reviewed information on various research and development program requests including: national and theater missile defense programs; Army general purpose programs; new ships and related ship programs; tactical and strategic aircraft and associated systems; counterproliferation programs; command, control and communications programs; science and technology programs; and DOD dual-use technology programs. The committee's research and development priorities were to focus on improving battlefield capabilities assuring contingency U.S. military superiority and to achieving future savings. In the case of the request for science and technology programs, the committee agreed to reduce funding for the maintenance of the RDT&E infrastructure and for unspecified investment in favor of maintaining strong technology base programs in the military departments. The committee recommendations appear in subsequent tables. Explanation of tables The tables in this title display items requested by the administration for fiscal year 1996 and the committee's actions in regard to the requested amounts. As in the past, the administration may not exceed the amounts approved by the committee (as set forth in the tables or if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in the Department of Defense's budget justification documents) without a reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures. SUBTITLE B--PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, AND LIMITATIONS Section - 211. A/F117X long-range, medium attack aircraft. Joint advanced strike technology program The Department of Defense established the joint advanced strike technology (JAST) program to develop technologies that would lead to replacements for several different aircraft systems for the Air Force, the Marine Corps, and the Navy. Each of the three services has distinctly different requirements. The Air Force needs a conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) aircraft to replace the F-16. The Marine Corps needs a vertical/short takeoff and landing (VSTOL) aircraft to replace the AV-8B. The Navy needs a survivable medium attack variant to meet the requirements formerly filled by the A-6. The committee believes that the JAST program represents a bold leap ahead in technology integration, with an emphasis on cost-effective solutions. The organization, management and technical expertise embodied in the JAST program leadership have made a favorable impression on the committee. However, even with the best leadership and expertise, the program faces substantial challenges. The most doubtful aspect of the program's future is its ability to fulfill the needs of three different services. Two years ago, the committee asked the Department to report on the potential for having the Navy participate in the F-22 program as a way to meet the Navy's requirements for a highly capable aircraft platform. The DOD report explained the difficulty of having the Navy join the F-22 program, although the F-22 program had not completed a single engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) aircraft. So, while the Department claims that the F-22 cannot be modified before production for a naval mission, the Department asserts that the JAST program will provide Air Force, Marine and Navy variants. The committee believes that there are two separate approaches that would be appropriate to reduce risk that JAST will not meet expectations. Risk Reduction--Current Program For the JAST program to be deemed a complete success, the program must deliver a true, low cost family of operational aircraft to meet the needs of the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. The committee believes that concept demonstration aircraft flight testing is critical to making such a successful transition. A test of full scale, full thrust demonstration aircraft by competing contractors would provide test data applicable to evaluating the unique attributes required by each Service. It would also be in keeping with the committee's longstanding ``fly-before-buy'' philosophy. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, from within funds in the original fiscal year 1996 budget, to ensure that the JAST program leads to such a competitive demonstration. Further, the committee believes supporting competitive propulsion programs would help reduce risk and lead to higher confidence of achieving more affordable life cycle costs. The committee fears that the current JAST approach may lead to selecting one power plant manufacturer prematurely. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary to evaluate at least two propulsion concepts from competing engine companies as part of the full scale, full thrust aircraft demonstrators. Risk Reduction--Additional Program Scope Of the three sets of requirements, the committee believes that Navy's is most demanding. Unfortunately, the Department of Defense will have few alternatives for meeting the medium attack variant requirement if the JAST program cannot. The committee is aware of a proposal to develop a carrier- capable variant of the F-117 stealth fighter that could greatly benefit from capabilities pioneered in the F-117 program. The F-117 has a distinguished combat record. Developing a carrier- capable variant would be in keeping with a near-term modernization strategy of acquiring developed systems. This could help provide confidence in a workable solution to meet the Navy's needs through capitalizing on development already done, and could provide an available alternative in case the JAST program is unable to fulfill all three sets of requirements. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to conduct a thorough examination of this proposal in fiscal year 1996 to develop a carrier-capable variant of the F-117 stealth fighter, a so-called ``A/F-117X,'' in defining a potential program. The committee expects the essential risk reduction efforts to include: large scale high and low speed wind tunnel testing, radar cross section (RCS) component testing, detailed propulsion design, structural analysis to validate carrier suitability, and completion of required trade studies and reports to validate A/F-117X capability to meet defined Navy requirements. The committee recommends an additional $175.0 million in fiscal year 1996. The committee directs that the Navy not expend more than $25.0 million of this amount to conduct the initial examination. The Secretary shall submit a report on the results of this examination to the congressional defense committees by March 29, 1996. Final analysis by the Navy should assess production risk, scope, aircraft performance, and cost for engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) program. The remaining $150.0 million would be made available to execute an A/F-117X EMD program, presuming that the Secretary of the Navy approves the results of program definition effort. The committee expects that these additional EMD funds will be used to modify an existing F-117A test asset to a configuration able to demonstrate carrier suitability, flying qualities, and low observables durability in a shipboard environment in the near-term. Such demonstrations should allow the Navy to assess the critical carrier suitability qualities of the A/F-117X design concept early in the execution of a full EMD program. The committee also directs the Secretary of the Air Force to review the manufacturer's offer to complete the originally planned F-117 force structure, including potential upgrades through inserting technology from present development efforts. This effort should serve as the basis for comparing alternatives for meeting future Air Force requirements, including JAST products, F-22 attack variants, and an upgraded F-117. Section - 212. Navy mine countermeasures program. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 included a provision that transferred the primary responsibility for developing and testing naval mine countermeasures systems to the Director, Defense Research and Engineering during fiscal years 1993 through 1997. The provision contained a waiver that would permit the Navy to retain responsibility for developing and testing naval mine countermeasures if (1) the Secretary of Defense determined that the Secretary of the Navy had annually submitted to him an updated mine countermeasures master plan whose budget was adequately funded in the future years defense plan and (2) the Secretary of Defense certified the adequacy of the Navy's plan to the congressional defense committees each year during the effective period of the provision. The National Defense Authorization Act of 1994 amended the applicable period to include fiscal years 1995 through 1999. To better assign responsibility to the cognizant official in the Department of Defense, the committee recommends an amendment that would substitute the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology in lieu of the Director, Defense Research and Engineering as the person responsible for developing and testing naval mine countermeasures systems. The amendment would also change the applicable period to include fiscal years 1997 through 1999. Section - 213. Marine Corps shore fire support. The committee has strongly encouraged the Navy/Marine Corps team over the past five years to develop or acquire shore fire support capability to supplant the firepower lost when the Navy's battleships were decommissioned. The committee has repeatedly indicated its views to the Navy and the Marine Corps that the capability to provide indirect fire suppression, essential for the conduct of amphibious operations, is an urgent requirement. The committee is unimpressed with Navy/ Marine Corps efforts to date to devise a solution to this deficiency. The committee is aware of improvements to the Army Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) which may make the MLRS a suitable system to provide requisite shipboard indirect fire suppression for Marine Corps amphibious operations. The Army has already developed and will soon begin production of the Extended Range (ER) rocket which will increase the range from 30 to 45 kilometers. The Army also has a program underway to improve the actuator system on the launcher which may provide sufficient stabilization to the system to enable MLRS to be fired effectively from the deck of a ship. The Army also has a developmental program to adapt Global Positioning System (GPS) guidance to both the MLRS launcher and rocket. These improvements indicate the potential of the MLRS to assume a major role in filling the Marine Corps requirement for sea- based indirect fire suppression. The committee believes the Navy could conduct a live-fire demonstration in fiscal year 1997 if funding is provided in fiscal year 1996 to allow preparation for such demonstration. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million and recommends a provision which would direct the Secretary of the Navy to make necessary preparations in fiscal year 1996 to conduct a shipboard demonstration of ER-MLRS, incorporating the improved launcher mechanical system (ILMS) and a guided rocket in fiscal year 1997. The Secretary of the Navy is also directed to ensure that the Navy/Marine Corps team thoroughly examines two potential applications of ER-MLRS: (1) firing the improved ER-MLRS from the deck of a ship to support an amphibious assault; and, (2) transporting the MLRS launchers via LCAC to the beach where these launchers then would become the Marine Corps general support artillery. The Secretary of the Navy shall also submit to the congressional defense committees a progress report on this program in May and September, 1996. The committee does not intend this effort to supplant Navy shore fire support developmental efforts, but to complement such efforts. The committee believes, however, that the sea- based MLRS concept could be fielded early, providing a near- term capability. Section - 214. Space and missile tracking system program. The Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) will replace and provide increased performance over the existing Defense Support Program (DSP) system. SBIRS will incorporate new technologies to enhance detection, provide direct reporting of strategic and theater ballistic missile launches, and provide mid-course tracking and discrimination data for national and theater missile defense. The system will consist of sensors located in geosynchronous orbits (GEO), highly elliptical orbits (HEO), and low earth orbits (LEO), and an integrated centralized ground station serving all space elements of SBIRS as well as DSP. The committee commends the Department of Defense for the process that was employed in deciding upon the SBIRS architecture and the streamlined acquisition strategy that has been adopted. The committee expects the resulting integrated structure to provide the basis for program stability and efficiency in what has been an overly turbulent and protracted search for a DSP follow-on. More importantly, the committee expects the SBIRS program to be a catalyst in the development of a new approach to missile warning. Tactical Warning and Attack Assessment (TW/AA) can no longer be viewed as a mission which stands separate from ballistic missile defense. Future national and theater missile defenses must be integrated with, and take maximum advantage of, the SBIRS architecture. SBIRS also signals a dramatic technical departure from past approaches. The introduction of a distributed LEO constellation will provide tremendous advantages and opportunities, some of which are not yet fully understood. In addition to its role in missile defense, the LEO system will make major contributions in the areas of technical intelligence and space object characterization and surveillance. The budget request for SBIRS included $130.7 million for Demonstration/Validation (Dem/Val), $152.2 for Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD), and $19.9 million for Procurement. Of the funds requested for Dem/Val, $114.8 million was for the Space and Missile Tracking System (SMTS), formerly known as ``Brilliant Eyes.'' After evaluation of its original ground system development plan, the Air Force has decided to restructure the program to re-phase hardware purchases and software engineering to allow for a more careful evaluation of system costs versus military utility. Hence, the $19.9 million procurement request is no longer needed for the previously identified purpose. The committee, therefore, recommends no funding for SBIRS procurement (PE 35915F), and recommends that $10.0 million of these funds be transferred to SBIRS EMD (PE 0604441F) to support ground system risk reduction, for a total of $162.2 million. Of this amount, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to use $9.4 million to launch the third Miniature Sensor Technology Integration (MSTI-3) satellite. MSTI-3 will provide critical infrared background clutter phenomenology data for the SBIRS high element EMD program. Although the committee endorses the priority and schedule for the GEO and HEO components of SBIRS, it views the current schedule for the LEO segment to be unacceptably prolonged. Current plans do not call for the first launch of an objective SMTS satellite until 2006. This leisurely schedule is based on the assumption that SMTS will not be needed to support national or theater missile defenses before this date. The committee strongly disputes this planning assumption. Theater missile defense systems that will be able to exploit SMTS data will become operational before the turn of the century. More important, the Missile Defense Act of 1995 (Subtitle C of Title II), is premised in part on an SMTS initial operational capability in fiscal year 2003. The committee notes that there are no technical obstacles to having a first launch of an SMTS user operational evaluation system (UOES) satellite in 2001. The committee, therefore, recommends a provision which requires the Secretary of the Air Force to restructure the SMTS program to support a first launch of UOES satellites in fiscal year 2001, with the full SMTS constellation (consisting of a combination of UOES satellites and objective satellites) on orbit by the end of fiscal year 2003. To support this restructured schedule, the committee recommends an authorization of $250.0 million in fiscal year 1996 for the SMTS program, an increase of $135.0 million over the budget request. The committee directs the Air Force to restructure the SMTS schedule to meet the following milestones: --Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and Critical Design Review (CDR) of the flight demonstration system (FDS) in fiscal year 1996. --System Requirements Review (SRR) for the objective SMTS satellites in fiscal year 1996. --Formal Requirements Review (FRR), deployment decision, and PDR for the objective SMTS satellites in fiscal year 1997. --Launch of the FDS satellites in fiscal year 1998. --CDR for the objective satellites in fiscal year 1999. The objective SMTS system shall be designed, developed, tested and constructed to detect, characterize, track, and synthesize stereo track information concerning ballistic missile attack. The system shall be designed to generate and transmit, in a sufficiently timely manner, all data necessary to enable defensive interceptors to commit, launch, fly-out, and receive in flight target updates and guidance information in advance of--or in place of--the defensive system's associated radar, and in a way which maximizes the kinematic potential of the defensive interceptor to conduct ballistic missile intercepts. To ensure that this schedule and these technical specifications are met, the committee recommends a provision which would require the Air Force to seek the concurrence of the Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization before implementing any decision that would have any of the following results regarding SMTS: (1) a reduction in funds available in any fiscal year; (2) an increase in the total program cost; (3) a schedule delay; or (4) a modification of the performance parameters or specifications. As a result of budgetary constraints, the Air Force has been forced to down-select to a single flying contractor for the SMTS FDS. While the committee does not oppose this decision, it does believe that the Air Force should consider alternatives for maintaining competition and reducing risk. The committee is aware of proposals to have the non-flying contractor conduct a low-cost flight experiment to provide a second SMTS concept capable of moving forward into EMD. The committee understands that such a flight experiment could be conducted for a total of $80 million over three years. The committee urges the Air Force to carefully evaluate this alternative and to determine whether this approach could in fact reduce risk and help meet the deployment goals specified above. If the Secretary of the Air Force determines that this approach would help achieve the deployment goals specified above, the committee authorizes the use of up to $40 million of the funds authorized for SMTS in fiscal year 1996 to begin such a low-cost flight experiment. Section - 215. Precision guided munitions. The Heavy Bomber Study required by the National Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 1995 emphasized the value of precision guided munitions (PGM) in future air campaigns as an especially cost effective warfighting capability. While the committee is persuaded of the importance and value of precision guided munitions, it is also concerned over the management and rationalization of the many disparate programs in production and under development. The military services have bought or are developing 33 types of PGM with over 300,000 individual munitions to attack surface targets. The services estimate that when planned development and procurement are complete, the United States will have invested nearly $58.6 billion (then year dollars) in the 33 PGM types. Presently there are 19 munition types in inventory and production with a total of 130,422 munitions acquired at a cost of $30.4 billion. Within the overall category of PGM, the committee has acknowledged three areas for concern: upgrades to the bomber force to enable them to employ PGM; the need for a long-term cohesive, joint PGM program; and a coherent, interim plan to provide limited numbers of precision munitions that are now available while the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) family of weapons completes development. Interim PGM The committee acknowledges the requirement for precision munitions, both those than can be procured now as ``interim'' capability, and those under development for the future. However, the committee also recognizes the need for a rational, structured program for both near-term and long-term PGM requirements, while acknowledging the individual Services' concepts of operations and unique platform characteristics. In requiring a comprehensive review of PGM procurement and development, the committee's intent is not to develop a single weapon that embodies excessive compromises to fit each service's platform characteristics, but rather to ensure complementary development of systems to cover a wide range of targets. The committee is persuaded of the need to rationalize and oversee the acquisition of PGM's to ensure: --adequate future commitment to completion of the acquisition programs; --a comprehensive evaluation of complementary and joint use of weapons to attack a comprehensive target set (fixed, mobile, land and sea) from a variety of delivery systems; --efficient development and procurement of systems. Section - 216. Defense Nuclear Agency programs. The committee is concerned with the decline in funding for research and development for the Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA) and the resulting detrimental impact on nuclear expertise and the ability of the Services to operate in a nuclear, biological, and chemical environments. Funding for DNA research and development has declined by around 40 percent over the past fifteen years, and based on documents provided to the committee, it appears that the Secretary of Defense intends to make even further reductions. This action is extremely disturbing, considering the threat of the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and technology, as stated by the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Commanders in Chief and the Services, in statements and testimony before the Congress. Equally, if not more troubling, is the idea that radiation hardening of microelectronics to protect space-based systems is unnecessary and not affordable in today's security environment. The demand for radiation hardened chips has dropped since the end of the Cold War, however, the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction makes limited nuclear use in regional conflicts much more likely. Current U.S. strategy and conventional superiority relies on high technology systems which are becoming inherently vulnerable to the effects of radiation and electromagnetic pulse (EMP). Current and next generation military satellites are vulnerable to a single nuclear strike, undermining our conventional warfighting capability. Given the attention the Department places on proliferation and the maintenance of conventional superiority in a regional contingency, the current lack of attention on radiation hardening is strategically shortsighted. DNA Mission The committee is also concerned that the Office of the Secretary of Defense continues to question DNA's mission, despite a series of exhaustive congressionally-mandated reviews spanning several years, which concluded that DNA should serve as the Department of Defense's center for nuclear expertise; and that its expertise should be applied to the emerging nuclear and related weapons of mass destruction (WMD) challenges and related defense needs, particularly in the area of counterproliferation targeting technologies and biological and chemical agent destruction. The committee expects the Department of Defense to maintain this mission and to maximize the DNA's inherent expertise over a wide range of national security challenges, as well as consolidate further nuclear support missions within the Agency. Furthermore, as the agency with expertise in nuclear matters for the Department, the committee expects DNA to be an outspoken advocate for its missions. In order to be effective, the resources necessary to perform simulation of weapons effects using non-nuclear testing methods and other applications to enhance the span of lethality options must be included in its budget. The committee is not convinced that in this era of declining budgets that the Services will allocate or prioritize the necessary funds to compensate DNA for such tests. It is the committee's experience that, faced with conflicting priorities, the Services would place simulation and testing near the bottom of their priority lists. Additionally, DNA can offer efficiencies, as DOD's center for nuclear expertise, which the Services cannot offer. In this era of declining budgets, consolidating funding and effort should be guiding principles in dealing with the WMD threat. DNA remains a key player in the national nuclear support infrastructure and a central participant in the national response to the WMD challenge. DNA Budget Request The committee recommends authorization of $252.9 million for fiscal year 1996 for the Defense Nuclear Agency, a $23.0 million increase to the fiscal year 1996 budget request. Of those funds authorized, the committee directs the following: --$3.0 million for the establishment of a tunnel characterization/neutralization program to be managed by DNA as part of the department's counterproliferation effort. The initial source of funding for this effort shall include the $10 million directed by the Deputy Secretary to DNA in Fiscal Year 1996 for this purpose; --$6.0 million for the establishment of a long-term radiation tolerant microelectronics program to ensure the continued operability of U.S. military systems in regional WMD-threat scenarios. DNA shall serve as the focal point for this DOD-wide effort to develop affordable and effective hardening technologies, ensure their incorporation into systems, and sustain the supporting industrial base. Additionally, the Secretary is directed to provide a report to Congress on the effort to be conducted and the outyear funding required, no later than 120 days after the enactment of this Act. The committee strongly encourages the Department to maintain DNA research and development funding at no less than the current level and to apply greater resources in the outyears to ensure continued nuclear competence. Electro-Thermal Chemical (ETC) Gun Program Lastly, the committee is pleased to learn of the significant technical progress of DNA's Electro-Thermal Chemical (ETC) Gun Program. This program is an ideal example of the outgrowth of DNA nuclear expertise being used for conventional purposes. Using nuclear expertise developed at DNA for pulse power and plasma physics, the DNA ETC gun program meets the United States Navy's requirement for Naval Surface Fire Support as a low cost, high performance alternative with sufficient range and lethality, as well as required rate-of- fire. This past year, DNA completed a series of firings with a conventional propelling charge and a low vulnerability (LOVA) propellant which demonstrated better repeatability than the current naval gun system. Equally significant, DNA technological advancements have dramatically reduced the electrical requirement, significantly reducing the size of the Pulse Forming Network. Recognizing the revolutionary potential of this new technology, the United States, British, German, and French armies are now pursuing analogous electric armaments research. The committee encourages Army consideration of ETC propulsion for future tank applications. DNA is encouraged to support these expanded U.S. and allied efforts. To compensate for the reduction made in the fiscal year 1995 appropriations process, the committee recommends an additional $4 million in fiscal year 1996 for the DNA ETC Gun Program. Thermionics The committee is dissatisfied with the slow pace of the thermionics conversion technology under Air Force management, and therefore recommends the transfer of the thermionics conversion technology from the Air Force Weapons program (PE62601F) and unobligated funds authorized and appropriated in prior years, totalling around $12.0 million to the Defense Nuclear Agency program (PE62715H). This program converts thermal energy from a number of different sources into electricity without the use of moving parts. There are a number of defense applications for satellite power and propulsion systems as well as potential commercial applications in energy conservation. The committee also recommends an increase of $10.0 million to accelerate this program in fiscal year 1996. Section - 217. Counterproliferation support program. The fiscal year 1996 budget request included $108.2 million for the Counterproliferation Support Program to accelerate the development and deployment of essential military counterproliferation technologies and capabilities in the Department and the military services. The committee recommends an increase of $36.3 million to the budget request. Since the end of the Cold War, the committee has been reviewing programs of the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and the intelligence community to prevent the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and their delivery systems. The committee has supported robust funding in research and development programs for near-, mid-, and long-term approaches to addressing the problem. To prioritize and optimize funding for non/counterproliferation initiatives, the Congress created the Counterproliferation Program Review Committee (CPRC). The proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are a major potential threat to national security. Areas of continuing concern to the committee are biological detection, deep underground detection and attack, and emergency preparedness and response. The committee is also concerned that funds requested for the Counterproliferation Support Program for accelerating or enhancing research and development activities in the chemical and biological weapons defense program are not being used appropriately. Funds in this program should be used to significantly accelerate or enhance programs, or to promote advanced procurement of advanced commercial technologies which would provide the services with operation capabilities in a cost-effective manner. Biological Detection Biological agents and weapons are a powerful threat to the security of our nation, our allies, and innocent people everywhere because they are easy to produce, easy to conceal, cheap, and extremely lethal. The Department of Defense has established programs to develop capabilities to detect and defend against biological agents. However, delivery to the services, with limited exceptions, is expected to be around between the years 2000 to 2005. DOD's Defense Science and Technology Strategy states that ``Bolder detection of and defense against biological agents, however they are developed, is needed today.'' Universities and non-profit industry have developed potential technologies for biological detection which include ultraviolet fluorescence sensors, fiber optic wave guide biodetectors, upconverting phosophor detectors, micro- electromechanical systems, whole cell biosensors, and bio- sensing mini-mass spectrometers, which could provide the military Services with operational capability at an earlier date. The committee recommends that $15.0 million of the funds authorized for the Counterproliferation Support Program for fiscal year 1996 be used for biological detection research and development. It is the committee's view that used separately or jointly, the above mentioned biological detectors would provide for much earlier operational capability for detection and, in some cases, near real-time detection of biological agents. Special Operations Forces In recognition of the Secretary of Defense's direction to prepare United States special operations forces to conduct operations in support of counterproliferation objectives, the committee recommends that $6.3 million of the funds authorized for the Counterproliferation Support Program be allocated to the Special Operations Command (SOCOM). Funds are provided expressly for the purposes of broadening SOCOM's counterproliferation activities to include those needs consistent with the Commanders-in-Chiefs' (CINCs) priorities and the program guidance reflected in the May 1995 Report on Activities and Programs for Countering Proliferation. Underground and Deep Underground Structures The United States' record of detecting underground facilities is very poor. The number of facilities, activities in the facilities, and equipment stored in facilities, has been consistently underestimated. U.S. intelligence clearly underestimated the number and size of underground facilities, the amount of equipment stored, and the number of research and prototype production facilities built in the underground facilities in Germany, Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, South Africa, and Iraq. Tunnels and underground facilities in North Korea and China are even more difficult for current detection systems to penetrate. The Department must continue to pursue an aggressive program of developing detection and attack capabilities. Discriminate destruction of deep underground targets remains important, and concepts such as ``deep digger'' should be explored for discriminate attack on such facilities. ``Deep digger'' can potentially be used for a variety of missions, especially special operations, and can be delivered a number ways, ranging from special forces to aircraft. The committee directs that $1.5 million of the funds identified for hard target characterization be used to explore the ``deep digger'' concept. Cruise Missile Proliferation The committee is concerned about the growing threat posed by cruise missiles. At least a dozen countries now have land- attack cruise missiles under development. Several of those countries appear willing to export complete systems, including systems with low observable features and component technologies and development expertise. The widespread availability of cheap guidance, navigation, and digital mapping technologies would enable developing countries to convert widely proliferated anti-ship cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles to land- attack roles. Cruise missile accuracy and aerodynamic stability make them excellent platforms for delivery of biological and chemical agents, which could threaten U.S. and allied projection forces. Given the emerging cruise missile threat, the committee believes that certain prudent measures should be taken, and recommends an increase of $35.0 million in program element 0203801A to upgrade Patriot PAC-1 missiles to provide an improved anti-cruise missile capability. Further details of this recommendation are contained in the report section on Army research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) programs. Proliferation of Space Technology Now more than ever before, the United States military relies on space. The military owns, operates, and sustains a broad mix of space and ground-based capabilities to meet the spectrum of multi-service and joint warfighting requirements. The Department of Defense and the military services are moving to greater use of commercial-off-the-shelf space technology. At the same time, the United States is granting export licenses for a number of these commercial technologies to foreign countries. Items which have been exported include commercial satellite communications, remote sensing, satellite- based navigation, and space launch services. In a conflict the United States could be faced by an adversary with significant space capabilities, or with access to space-derived data. The administration believes it is in the United States' interests to export these technologies so that the nation can compete effectively in the foreign market. However, the committee is concerned about the ability of the United States to counter the technological gains by proliferant countries who may gain access through massive decontrol of these technologies for export. The committee is committed to ensuring that the United States can influence when and how those capabilities are used in a conflict. The committee recommends $30.0 million for the continuation of the Army tactical antisatellite technologies (ASAT) program (PE 633292A) for a user operational evaluation system (UOES) contingency capability. This program would provide a contingency capability enabling the United States, if necessary, to influence the use of these technologies in a conflict, and prevent the misuse or denial of space systems and access to space. Emergency Preparedness and Response The nerve gas attack in Japan, the bombing in Oklahoma this year, and the 1981 contamination of the New York City water supply with U-235 serve to highlight the need for disaster preparedness. Additionally, because of recent reports of attempts to smuggle highly enriched uranium and plutonium in Eastern Europe and Russia, there is concern that those materials could make their way into the United States. The Congress included a provision (section 1704) in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 expressing the sense of the Congress that the President should strengthen the capabilities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) interagency emergency planning and other appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies to respond to the use of chemical or biological agents by terrorists against the United States. The following year, the Congress included provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 to enable FEMA to provide, among other things, financial assistance, training, and equipment by loan or grant to the states for emergency preparedness to respond to the use of radiological, chemical, bacteriological, and biological agents or weapons. The committee directs the Secretaries of Defense and Energy and the intelligence community to conduct an assessment of its military disaster preparedness and civil defense plans and programs, including who will coordinate those programs, and how, to anticipate and respond to the use of chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological agents or weapons. Transfer Authority The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Department of Defense to transfer up to $50.0 million from fiscal year 1996 defense-wide research and development accounts for counterproliferation support activities that are determined by the Counterproliferation Program Review Committee (CPRC) to be necessary and in the national security interests. Report to Congress The CPRC failed to meet the requirement to provide the Congress with the annexes on special compartmented programs and special access and activity programs. The committee reminds the Department that the decision of a program manager to compartment information does not supersede the law, nor grant him the right not to produce and send the information required by law to the Congress. The committee directs the Department to comply with the legislation in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995. Section - 218. Nonlethal weapons program. Non-lethal weapons (NLW) offer field commanders important new capabilities across the spectrum of conflict, but are especially valuable in non-traditional operations where high collateral damage can inflame the situation, put U.S. lives at risk, and undermine the political objectives of the mission. NLW disable or incapacitate personnel and equipment while causing minimal collateral damage. They can also be used to make reversible attacks against infrastructure--roads or power grids, for example. NLW systems can also locate and destroy an enemy's weapons or the projectiles fired by them. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 authorized $41.0 million for work on non-lethal weapons technology applicable to peacekeeping and law enforcement. The committee supports the continuation of the effort to identify, evaluate, develop, and field non-lethal systems and technologies, and recommends $37.2 million for fiscal year 1996. This effort includes dual use technologies that will benefit both military forces and law enforcement. Thus the fiscal year 1996 authorization for a NLW program will incorporate the joint program conducted under the Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense, and managed in fiscal year 1995 by the Advanced Research Projects Agency. The committee notes the interest on the part of the Department of Defense in developing near-term NLW capabilities because of their possible value in complex, ambiguous situations that demand operational flexibility. In particular, the committee commends the initiative of the Marine Corps in transitioning non-lethal technologies for employment in Operation United Shield. Although limited in scope, the Marine Corps experience validated the operational utility of NLW. It also revealed significant shortcomings in the U.S. military's ability to deploy nonlethal and less-than-lethal systems. Consequently, the committee directs that a new, consolidated program for non-lethal systems and technology be established and managed by the Office of Strategic and Tactical Systems of the Under Secretary for Acquisition and Technology, which has demonstrated a commitment to systemization and fielding of mature NLW technologies. The focus of this new Program Office shall be to create the earliest possible operational capabilities for deployed forces. The committee establishes a new Program Element/budget line item for this program, and directs the following transfer of funds to the new Program Element: from PE 603570D Defense Laboratory Partnership Program, $6.0 million; from PE 603750D Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations, $3.4 million; from PE 602702E Tactical Technology (Advanced Land Systems), $17.8 million; and from PE 603226E Experimental Evaluation of Major Innovative Technologies, $10.0 million. The committee intends that these funds be used to execute the NLW program plan recently approved by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquistion and Technology. However, the committee is also aware of other funds being used to support highly classified programs in non-lethal technology and Operations Other Than War. The committee recommends that the new Program Office for Non-lethal Systems and Technology be given responsibility for coordinating a comprehensive, Department-wide effort in NLW and Operations Other Than War, including currently classified programs. Section - 219. Federally funded research and development centers. The committee is pleased at the degree to which the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology is attempting to assert greater management control over the 11 Department of Defense federally-funded research and development centers (FFRDC) and the similar university affiliated research centers (UARC). The committee supports the current initiatives within the Department of Defense to improve the management of fees, to define the core work that FFRDC's and UARC's perform, to compete the non-core work, and to establish an independent advisory committee to review and report annually on Department of Defense management of FFRDC's and UARC's. The committee intends to review the implementation of these initiatives in future hearings to insure that implementation is timely and aggressive. The committee notes that the recent DOD FFRDC management efforts have included two independent reviews of the controversial issue of executive compensation. Both the DOD Inspector General and the private sector Hay Group analyzed this issue and found that executive compensation levels at FFRDC's were generally either at or below the market averages. Therefore, the committee believes that continuation of a congressionally-mandated salary ceiling is inappropriate. In recognition of the continuing decline in funding for research and development, the committee recommends an undistributed reduction in FFRDC funding of $90.0 million below the ceiling for fiscal year 1995 and has established a statutory ceiling for FFRDC's of $1.162 billion in fiscal year 1996. The committee expects that this reduction will be implemented by moving non-core work, from FFRDCs other than Studies and Anaylses FFRDCs, to other competitively-awarded contracts as determined by the ongoing DOD review of core capabilities for FFRDC's. The committee directs the Department to ensure adequate funding this year for those FFRDCs engaging in studies and analyses for the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the services. The committee further directs the Department to provide Congress with a recommended funding ceiling for the UARCs for fiscal year 1996. The committee directs that no more than one third of the total funds for UARCs be released until the proposed ceiling is transmitted to Congress. Section - 220. States eligible for assistance under Defense Experimental Program To Stimulate Competitive Research. The committee recommends an amendment to section 257 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 that would modify the graduation criteria for states participating in the Department of Defense EPSCoR program. Section - 221. National defense technology and industrial base, defense reinvestment, and conversion. In fiscal year 1993 the committee created the Technology Reinvestment Project (TRP), in response to the rapidly declining percentage of the national research program devoted to military research. This investment was part of a larger defense reinvestment program designed to respond to the declining defense budget. For the last three years, the committee has supported large investments in the TRP portion of the defense reinvestment program. The projects under the TRP have been required to be competitively selected and have incorporated a requirement that the non-government participants at least match the funds invested by the federal government in the development of the technology. This year a number of policy issues have arisen that require the committee to consider the degree to which the TRP should be funded in fiscal year 1996 and beyond. The Subcommittee on Acquisition and Technology reviewed these issues during a hearing on May 17, 1995. The first issue involves the relevance of the selected projects to the science and technology priorities of the Department of Defense and the degree to which the military services are involved in the process of selecting the technology projects. The committee has heard a number of criticisms about the insufficient involvement of the military services in the selection process for the fiscal year 1993 competition. The General Accounting Office provided testimony indicating that some of the projects, especially in the deployment portion of the program, had only an indirect relevance to a military mission. The GAO also testified, however, that defense relevance has played an increasing role in the selection process since fiscal year 1993. The committee is pleased to see the emphasis on defense relevance underscored further in the most recent solicitation for the fiscal year 1995 competition. The committee is concerned, however, that statutory selection criteria for the Defense Advanced Manufacturing Technology Partnerships are still being interpreted by the Department of Defense to allow benefits such as environmental hazard reduction to be given weight equal to the potential direct defense benefits of the proposed project. Another management concern is the outyear funding associated with some of the technology projects and the lack of congressional oversight of the expenditure of these funds. For example, the Affordable Composites for Propulsion project will have required a total of $130 million in federal funds over five years for completion. The option for fiscal year 1996 requires $35.0 million. The justification documentation supporting the request for defense reinvestment gives no insight into such amounts that, on an annual basis, are larger than many separate programs which the committee reviews and approves. Consequently, the committee has inadequate insight into the degree to which many of the projects in the TRP are integrated with other programs in similar technology thrust areas. Finally, the committee is faced with the difficult choice of either funding a new competition in fiscal year 1996 under the TRP, or putting priority on the technology programs of the services. At the hearing on May 17, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology voiced strong support for continuing this program because of its unique collaborative features. Despite this strong support for the TRP, the Department of Defense has yet to define the technology thrusts that would be the subject of a new competition. Therefore, under the current budget constraints, the committee believes that a new TRP competition in fiscal year 1996 involving unspecified technologies is a lower priority than ensuring the funding of defined research and development projects in the technology base programs of the services. To reflect this, the committee has recommended reducing the amount of the request by $262.0 million. In order to preserve the proven benefits of the competitive and collaborative approach under the TRP, however, the committee recommends an authorization of $238.0 million in the defense reinvestment account (PE 603570E) to continue the existing program. The committee expects that these funds will be used to fund options on 20 major and small business innovative research projects awarded in prior fiscal years as well as to allow full funding of the fiscal year 1995 competition. The committee directs that the Secretary of Defense provide to the Committees on Armed Services and National Security by December 15, 1995, a list of all projects, including the Small Business Innovative Research Program's Phase II projects, which are under consideration for funding under the TRP in future fiscal years. This list should include the proposed federal and non-federal funding required to complete each. The committee has also recommended legislation which would redesignate the program as the Defense Dual-use Technology Initiative, repeal the statutory authorization for all but the Defense Dual-use Critical Technology Partnerships and the Defense Advanced Manufacturing Technology Partnerships, and clarify the primacy of direct defense relevance in the criteria for the award of the projects under the program. Section - 222. Revisions of manufacturing of science and technology programs The committee remains disappointed that the Department of Defense has yet to develop an adequate program for the development and implementation of process technologies for the production of systems and subsystems for military services. The request for $119.3 for the total programs of the services and OSD is substantially less than current requirements for these efforts. The goal of increasing the affordability of DOD programs will not be achieved unless the Department succeeds to a much greater extent than in the past in linking funding requests for the manufacturing science and technology program with the requirements of the individual program managers. The Department must also strengthen the interservice coordination process through such organizations as the Joint Directors of Laboratories to avoid duplication and to ensure that priority technology thrusts within manufacturing science and technology are addressed. A further prerequisite of a sound investment approach is the ability to more adequately measure the return on manufacturing technology investments. While recognizing that the manufacturing science and technology programs remain underfunded, the committee recommends approval only of funding at the requested amount. In the case of the Navy, the committee directs that funding for the Navy program in PE603771N be allocated strictly in accordance with the budget item justification exhibit R-2, dated February 1995, submitted for the program. The committee reiterates its strong support for requirements for cost-sharing by non-federal participants in all cases where there is a potential for the development of dual-use technologies. The committee urges the services to more aggressively seek cost- sharing in the projects under their programs. The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2525 of title 10, United States Code, in two ways. First, the committee recommends a change that would clarify the role of the Joint Directors of Laboratories in establishing the Manufacturing Science and Technology Program. Second, the committee has recommended language that would clarify its intent that producers of manufacturing equipment be involved more directly in the projects funded under this program. Such producers are a primary mechanism for the dissemination of new technologies throughout the defense industrial base. As such, they should be involved as partners in the individual projects wherever practicable. Section - 223. Preparedness of the Department of Defense to respond to military and civil defense emergencies resulting from a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear attack. The tragic events of the past--the nerve gas attack in Japan and the bombing in Oklahoma this year, and the 1981 contamination of the New York City water supply with U-235-- serve to highlight the need for disaster preparedness. There are also reports of highly enriched uranium and plutonium being smuggled out of Eastern Europe and Russia, which could potentially find its way to the United States. These are only recent manifestations of a continuing problem. Due to concern with the threat of possible use of these weapons of mass destruction in the United States by terrorist or subnational groups, a provision (Section 1704) was included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 expressing the sense of the Congress that the President should strengthen the capabilities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) interagency emergency planning and other appropriate federal, state, and local agencies to respond to the potential use of chemical or biological agents or weapons use by terrorists against the United States. The following year, the Congress included provisions (Title VI) in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 that would enable FEMA to provide financial assistance, training, and equipment by loan or grant, to the states for emergency preparedness to respond to the use of radiological, chemical, bacteriological, and biological agents or weapons. The committee directs the Secretaries of Defense and Energy, in consultation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to submit a report to Congress by February 28, 1996 of its military and civil defense plans and programs to respond to the use of chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological agents or weapons. SUBTITLE C--MISSILE DEFENSE Sections 231 through 241 Missile Defense Act of 1995 The committee recommends that the Missile Defense Act of 1991 be replaced by a provision (Subtitle C of Title II) that more completely responds to the challenges and opportunities of the post-Cold War era, and which charts a firmer and clearer course for missile defenses than the United States is currently on. The Missile Defense Act of 1995 would: (1) accelerate and focus U.S. theater missile defense (TMD) efforts; (2) establish a deployment plan for a national missile defense (NMD) system; (3) establish a cruise missile defense (CMD) initiative to strengthen and coordinate current CMD programs while preparing systems that will be highly capable against future threats; (4) set forth a compliance standard for air and theater missile defense with regard to the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty; (5) advocate a cooperative transition to a regime that does not feature mutual assured destruction as the basis for strategic deterrence and stability; and (6) recommend establishment of a Senate select committee to conduct a comprehensive review of the continuing value and validity of the ABM Treaty and recommend a specific course of action. The committee has received extensive testimony and briefings from the intelligence community, administration officials, and non-governmental experts on the expanding ballistic and cruise missile threat. It is clear that the threat to the national security of the United States posed by the proliferation of such missiles is significant and growing, both qualitatively and quantitatively. It is equally clear in the committee's view that the United States must respond aggressively by deploying effective defenses against ballistic missiles of all ranges and against cruise missiles. Theater Missile Defense Architecture The committee recommends rapid development and deployment of a core theater missile defense program. The committee recommends a provision that would specify that the following systems shall define the core program: the Patriot PAC-3 system, the Navy Lower Tier system, the Theater High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, and the Navy Upper Tier system. The provision would also establish guidelines for advancing new systems into the core TMD program. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the systems in the core program are developed aggressively so that they become operational as soon as possible. THAAD--The committee understands that the THAAD user operational evaluation system (UOES), consisting of operational prototype hardware, will meet the primary system performance requirements against the full threat spectrum. The budget request for the THAAD program in fiscal year 1996 includes funds to acquire 40 UOES missiles. Additional funding will be required to support testing of the UOES missiles in fiscal year 1997. The THAAD UOES systems delivered during 1997 and 1998 will provide a warfighting commander-in-chief (CINC) with a critical capability to deploy advanced theater missile defenses in the event of a crisis. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to execute the option to procure the UOES missiles. Upon completion of the demonstration/validation (DemVal) phase, the THAAD program will enter a four year engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase. Limited rate initial production (LRIP) will begin after adequate testing of the EMD missiles. The purpose of the EMD program should be to build on the DemVal system by addressing the manufacturing technology, producibility, and reliability improvements, all while maintaining the continuity necessary to achieve reductions in procurement and life cycle costs. Thus, the committee believes there should be a smooth transition from DemVal to EMD and LRIP. Since the UOES missile appears to meet most system performance requirements in its current configuration, the committee believes that additional missiles should be made available for contingency use before the year 2000. To accomplish all these objectives, the committee believes that LRIP could be initiated concurrently with the testing of the EMD missiles, once initial tests have verified that performance has not been degraded by any EMD design changes. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit, as part of the TMD reporting requirement contained in the Missile Defense Act of 1995, an analysis of these planning issues and the department's plan for implementing a smooth transition from DemVal to production, all while providing additional EMD missiles to augment the initial UOES inventory. NAVY LOWER AND UPPER TIER--The committee is equally concerned that the Navy Lower Tier and Upper Tier systems become operational as soon as possible. The committee has recommended sufficient funding, which, if continued in the out years, would ensure availability of Navy Lower Tier UOES missiles in fiscal year 1997 and an initial operational capability (IOC) of the objective system in fiscal year 1999. For Navy Upper Tier, the committee's recommended funding would provide a UOES in fiscal year 1999 and an IOC in fiscal year 2001. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide sufficient funding to ensure that these schedules are met. Regarding Navy Upper Tier, the committee supports a thorough comparison of the Lightweight Exoatmospheric Projectile (LEAP) system and a ``marinized'' version of the THAAD kill vehicle, along with associated boosters, to reduce risk and ensure that the best system is selected. This comparison should reflect the results of the ongoing cost and operational effectiveness analysis (COEA), as well as actual technical developments and demonstrated performance. The committee urges the Navy to consider developing a program plan for a competition between these two kill vehicle/missile concepts, including parallel development activities and flight tests, followed by a down- select in time to achieve a UOES capability in fiscal year 1999 and an IOC in fiscal year 2001. TMD BATTLE MANAGEMENT/COMMAND AND CONTROL--The committee is aware both of an ongoing Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) study on missile defense command and control, and of individual missile defense command and control efforts by the services, notably the Navy's Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) and the Army's Battlefield Integration Center (BIC). The committee welcomes the effort by the Department to examine the command and control requirements for effective theater missile defenses, in light of the numerous programs currently under development. However, the committee is concerned that the CEC and BIC efforts appear to be proceeding on independent paths, with little interaction between them; and even less effort on the requirement for their ultimate integration into a ``seamless'' theater-level command and control network under the control of a Theater CINC. The committee sees little evidence that Theater CINCs--the ultimate users--have been consulted as to their preferences for the design and operation of theater missile defense command and control centers. Moreover, any command and control solution for Theater CINCs must be designed for effective operations under a variety of possible scenarios, including such variants as the CINC's initial command center being remote from the theater of operations, or initial operations from shipboard with a subsequent transfer of command and control authority to a facility ashore. Finally, the theater missile defense center has to be capable of dealing with both ballistic missile and cruise missile threats within the theater. Because of the evident complexity of the theater missile defense command and control problem, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to expand the charter and focus of this ongoing study effort. This effort should involve close consultation and interaction with Theater CINCs regarding the development of a ``seamless'' command and control center capable of rapid integration of sensor information, surveillance information, and interceptor allocations, whether land or sea based. OTHER TMD ACTIVITIES--Despite its strong support for TMD in general and the core programs in particular, the committee is concerned that approximately eighty percent of our investments in BMD are currently being directed to TMD activities. The committee is also troubled by the expanding number of new TMD systems that are headed for acquisition. If the current course is allowed to continue, the United States will expend virtually all its effort and resources on a plethora of TMD systems that are designed for narrow in-theater applications. The committee does not understand how the Department of Defense can contemplate an entirely new development and acquisition program to provide air and missile defense for maneuver forces when it is already planning to spend $15.8 billion on the Patriot PAC-3 and THAAD systems. Also, while the committee is strongly supportive of developing systems capable of intercepting ballistic missiles in the boost phase, it does not understand how the Department of Defense can push a fighter-launched kinetic energy boost-phase intercept (BPI) system in the direction of acquisition when serious technical and operational obstacles remain to be solved. The committee recommends a more focused TMD investment strategy and increases to other BMD activities to restore a more balanced BMD program. The committee is not opposed to the emergence of new core TMD systems, but insists that such systems be coherent and affordable, and that they leverage to the extent possible existing systems and technologies. Follow- on TMD investments must be targeted so as to build on existing investments, or to support significant leaps ahead in the technological state of the art. The United States cannot afford and does not need six kinetic-energy TMD systems that approach the threat fundamentally in the same technical manner. The committee, therefore, recommends the termination of the existing Corps SAM and kinetic-energy BPI programs. To satisfy the Corps SAM requirement, which the committee views as valid, the Department of Defense should propose a restructured program, which essentially merges ongoing efforts in PAC-3 and THAAD to produce a mobile hybrid system with 360 degree coverage. The committee believes that such a system will satisfy the requirement more rapidly and in a more cost- effective manner than the Corps SAM/MEADS program. The committee also believes that this will present an opportunity to begin replacing existing Patriot infrastructure, which is excessively large and manpower-intensive, with a new type of system that is essentially a mobile PAC-3. If implemented properly, production of the new system could be phased into ongoing PAC-3 production, thereby providing savings from both ends of the spectrum. The committee is sensitive to the diplomatic implications of canceling the MEADS program, but believes that it is better to restructure the program in its infancy rather than later. The committee is not opposed to having an international aspect to the restructured program. More important, the committee believes that the United States should seek to foster cooperation with its allies on wide-area missile defense. The primary threat to our European and Asian allies will not be countered by a MEADS-like system. The committee believes that the United States should place greater emphasis on fostering cooperation on programs such as THAAD and Navy Upper Tier. With regard to boost-phase intercept, the committee remains highly skeptical about a BPI system based on manned tactical aircraft. Even if the needed interceptor technology should mature, the operational implications of this system make it almost unsustainable. To the extent that kinetic-energy BPI systems hold promise for TMD applications, the committee believes that reliance should be placed on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The committee notes that the United States is conducting extensive work on UAVs and has an ongoing, though severely under-funded, program to study a UAV/BPI concept with the State of Israel. The committee believes that leveraging existing U.S. UAV programs and the ongoing effort with Israel would provide the basis for a much more cost-effective BPI program. The committee, therefore, recommends that the Secretary of Defense initiate a cooperative program between the United States and Israel, which leverages the work both countries have done on missile defense and UAVs. National Missile Defense Architecture The committee notes that there is greater ambiguity and more disagreement regarding the future ballistic missile threat to the territory of the United States than there is regarding the threat posed by short- and medium-range missiles, which are already deployed in large numbers throughout the world. With regard to ballistic missile threats to the United States itself, there are really two subcategories--existing threats that we have lived with for some time, and emerging new threats. Most of the debate has surrounded the question of new threats. The committee notes that the intelligence community does not presently forecast the emergence of a new indigenously- developed ballistic missile threat to the continental United States within the next ten years. Nevertheless, the intelligence community does confirm that the proliferation trend is toward longer-range and more sophisticated ballistic missiles, and that there are a number of ways for determined countries to rapidly acquire intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) by means other than indigenous development. The intelligence community also confirms that North Korea is developing an ICBM class missile (the Taepo Dong II), which may become operational within five years, and which may have sufficient range to target Alaska. Some analysts speculate that this missile could have an even longer range. In any event, the mere existence of this North Korean program is cause for questioning the intelligence community's ten year forecast. It also highlights how suddenly a new ICBM threat can emerge. Given North Korea's history as a missile proliferator and its ongoing cooperation with Iran on such programs, the committee views these developments as extremely threatening. The committee does not believe that the intelligence community's ten year threat assessment in any way undermines the case for accelerating deployment of a national missile defense system. Even if it were certain that a new threat would not materialize for ten years, the United States would still need to get started now to ensure that it develops a highly effective and affordable system in time. As previously noted, however, there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the ten year estimate. The United States must be prepared to respond earlier if necessary. Perhaps more important, deploying an NMD system prior to the unambiguous emergence of new missile threats to the United States may serve to deter countries that would otherwise seek to acquire ICBMs. A vulnerable United States merely invites proliferation, blackmail, and even aggression. In addition to dealing with emerging threats to the United States, NMD can help pave the way for a more reliable and less adversarial form of strategic stability. Mutual vulnerability is clearly not a necessary basis for a stable deterrence relationship. In the near-term, NMD deployments would serve to stabilize mutual deterrence by reducing prospective incentives to strike first in a crisis. The committee believes that even modest NMD deployments can reduce the vulnerability of U.S. strategic forces and thereby strengthen stability. Over time, as political circumstances permit, increasingly robust defenses can serve to devalue offensive forces, especially those that are most destabilizing, virtually eliminating first strike incentives and establishing the basis for deeper offensive reductions. Indefinitely extending Cold War notions of nuclear deterrence based on vulnerability and threats of retaliation is likely to perpetuate basic animosities and security concerns, and prohibit the development of the more positive relations necessary for a genuinely stable U.S.-Russian strategic relationship. Arms reductions alone cannot accomplish this goal. By easing concerns about possible non-compliance and third party ballistic missile threats, missile defenses can help provide the confidence necessary to move toward deeper offensive reductions. In sum, the argument that effective national ballistic missile defenses are inconsistent with deterrence and arms control is as outdated as the Cold War itself. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision which would establish an NMD program to deploy a multiple-site, ground- based interceptor system by 2003, with a more limited contingency capability available by the turn of the century. The committee believes that there is an urgent need to establish explicit milestones and performance goals for the NMD program in order to achieve these deployment goals. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to employ streamlined acquisition procedures and other cost saving measures as appropriate to ensure rapid and cost-effective development of an NMD system. The committee notes that the ground-based interceptor (GBI) program, with its exoatmospheric kill vehicle (EKV), has been underway for almost five years, and has achieved significant technical progress. The committee also notes the existence of various options for off-the-shelf boosters for the GBI, but questions whether these can be optimized for the GBI mission. The committee therefore recommends that a detailed analysis be conducted in order to select an optimized booster configuration that balances cost and performance considerations. The committee supports aggressive development and testing of the EKV to support the deployment goals specified above. The committee is troubled by recent schedule delays in the EKV program and the fact that BMDO is considering a down-select to a single design and contractor before conducting flight tests. To ensure that the best design is selected upon demonstrated performance, and to minimize program risk, the Secretary of Defense is directed to maintain competition in the EKV program through successful completion of flight demonstrations. In order to develop and deploy optimized sensor support for an NMD system, the committee supports upgrading existing early warning radars while new X-band fire control radars are readied for deployment. The committee also strongly supports the development of the Space and Missile Tracking System (SMTS), which is being developed by the Air Force as part of the Space- Based Infrared System (SBIRS). The committee believes that SMTS should be developed for a first launch in fiscal year 2001, with an IOC in fiscal year 2003, to support the objective multiple-site NMD system. The committee believes that the proper mix between space-based sensors and ground-based radars must be achieved to maximize coverage and effectiveness while minimizing the ultimate cost of the NMD system. With robust space-based sensor support, the system may not require new radars at each interceptor deployment location. The committee recognizes that there may be opportunities to significantly improve the cost and operational effectiveness of a ground-based NMD system by including space-based and/or sea- based defensive systems in the NMD architecture. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to include an analysis of such options in the NMD implementation plan. Cruise Missile Defense Initiative In a significant departure from the Missile Defense Act of 1991, the Missile Defense Act of 1995 addresses the threat posed by existing and emerging cruise missiles. The committee believes that CMD has not been given the degree of attention warranted by the threat, and notes with concern the intelligence community's estimate that at least twelve countries have land-attack cruise missiles under development. Although there are many programs in the Department of Defense involving CMD, for the most part these have not been sufficiently emphasized, funded, or coordinated. The committee believes that the Secretary of Defense should seek to coordinate and leverage activities involving air defense, CMD and BMD to maximize synergies and cost savings. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to coordinate the department's CMD and BMD efforts and to ensure that existing air defense systems are upgraded to improve capabilities against cruise missiles. The committee also directs the Secretary to undertake a high priority development program to support the future deployment of systems that are highly effective against advanced cruise missiles, including cruise missiles with low observable features. Finally, the committee directs the Secretary to prepare a plan for implementing a cruise missile defense initiative, including an assessment of organizational and managerial changes that could strengthen and further coordinate the cruise missile defense activities of the Department of Defense. The committee recommends a substantial increase in funding for cruise missile defense activities, which is described in a separate funding section below. Policy Regarding the ABM Treaty The committee acknowledges that many of the policies and recommendations contained in the Missile Defense Act of 1995, if implemented, would require relief in one form or another from the ABM Treaty. Rather than recommend a specific course of action at this time, however, the committee believes that Congress should undertake a comprehensive review of the continuing value and validity of the ABM Treaty with the intent of making a well informed and carefully considered recommendation on how to proceed by the end of the 104th Congress. The Missile Defense Act of 1995 would establish a policy to seek a cooperative transition to a regime which does not feature mutual assured destruction as the basis for deterrence and stability, yet it is not presently clear how best to achieve this goal. Incremental amendments to the treaty must be considered, but there is a risk that such incrementalism may undermine the ultimate goal of replacing the treaty with a more appropriate and up-to-date regime. Congress also will want to evaluate the Secretary of Defense's NMD implementation plan and a variety of technical and policy issues before recommending a specific course of action. Furthermore, given that there are no ABM Treaty limitations on research, development, or testing of ground-based NMD systems or components, it is prudent to dedicate a year to studying all ABM Treaty-related issues and alternatives. The committee, therefore, recommends a provision that calls for the Senate to undertake a careful one-year review of the continuing value and validity of the ABM Treaty, during which time all efforts by the administration to modify, clarify, or otherwise alter U.S. obligations under the ABM Treaty should cease. To conduct this comprehensive review and to issue specific guidance, the committee recommends that the Senate consider establishment of a select committee on the future of the ABM Treaty, which would convene for a one-year period of time. The select committee would conduct hearings and interviews, review all relevant documents, and carefully consider the full range of policy issues. At the end of the 104th Congress, the select committee would issue a report and be disbanded. To facilitate the Senate's review and to foster full and open debate, the committee recommends requiring the declassification of the ABM Treaty negotiating record. This action would be consistent with the classification policy in Executive Order 12958, announced by the administration on April 17, 1995. The Reagan Administration, which declassified a significant portion of the ABM Treaty record, established the precedent for this action. The committee understands that in connection with the 1987 study of the ABM Treaty by the State Department Legal Advisor, most of the negotiating record along with a complete index was compiled. The committee suggests that this would be a good starting point for the administration in providing Congress with the information requested. Development, Testing and Deployment of Non-ABM Systems The committee observes that the ABM Treaty does not limit the development or deployment of TMD or air defense systems; yet, as a result of ambiguities in the treaty, the United States has for years unilaterally limited the development of non-ABM systems. These self-imposed restraints exceed not only the requirements of the Treaty, but common sense. Article VI(a) of the ABM Treaty states that non-ABM systems may not be ``tested in an ABM mode'' and may not be ``given capabilities to counter strategic ballistic missiles.'' Unfortunately, these terms and concepts remain essentially undefined. In this void, the Department of Defense developed an arbitrary methodology, based on computer simulations of one-on-one engagements, to determine whether defensive systems have ``capabilities to counter strategic ballistic missiles.'' This approach, unfortunately, conforms neither to operational reality nor to the requirements of the ABM Treaty. Since the treaty is verified and monitored solely by ``national technical means,'' compliance standards based on computer simulations clearly exceed the terms and requirements of the Treaty. There is no evidence that Russia, or the Soviet Union before it, has ever employed anything as onerous and self-limiting as this. The results of this excessive self-regulation have recently become very apparent. Recent compliance reviews have imposed a variety of constraints on our ability to proceed efficiently and aggressively with TMD programs such as THAAD and Navy Upper Tier. Both systems are now being forced down a very precarious path between artificial ABM Treaty constraints and the pressing need to maximize their operational capability. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would codify in precise terms that a demonstrated standard shall be used for evaluating the compliance of TMD and air defense systems. The provision would establish that TMD and air defense systems are not subject to the terms of the ABM Treaty unless flight tested against a ballistic missile with a range greater than 3,500 kilometers or a velocity in excess of 5 kilometers per second. The committee did not select these parameters arbitrarily; in fact, they formed the basis for the official United States position tabled at the Standing Consultative Commission in November 1993. The committee finds that specific performance or deployment limitations on TMD systems would be inconsistent with our current treaty obligations and United States national security interests in general. Unlike the demonstrated standard recommended by the committee, such limitations would establish new legal obligations for the United States under the ABM Treaty, essentially transforming it into a TMD treaty. Ballistic Missile Defense Program Elements The committee recommends a provision that would realign the program element (PE) structure of BMDO's budget, reducing the number from thirteen to seven. The committee believes that all core TMD programs should be covered in individual PEs, and that all other TMD programs, projects and activities should be covered in the Other TMD Activities PE. The committee believes that battle management, command, control and communications (BM/C3) programs should be covered in the Other TMD or the NMD PEs, and that funding for program support activities should be included in the relevant PEs. Ballistic missile defense funding The fiscal year 1996 budget request for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) was $2.9 billion, including research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E), procurement, and military construction. The committee recommends a total BMDO authorization of $3.4 billion, an increase of $490.0 million over the request. The committee notes that this funding level is approximately $136.0 million lower than the amount recommended for fiscal year 1996 by the Clinton Administration's own Bottom-Up Review, and approximately $4.0 billion lower than the amount recommended for fiscal year 1996 in the last budget submitted by the Bush Administration. The committee recommends the following budget allocation: [Millions of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Program Request Change Recommendation ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Patriot System*............... 666.9 ........... 666.9 Navy Lower Tier*.............. 254.4 + 45.0 299.4 THAAD**....................... 589.9 ........... 589.9 Navy Upper Tier............... 30.4 +170.0 200.4 Hawk Upgrade*................. 28.3 ........... 28.3 TMD BM/C3*.................... 70.8 ........... 70.8 Corps SAM..................... 30.4 -30.4 .............. BPI........................... 49.1 -49.1 .............. Other TMD**................... 463.0 +15.0 478.0 NMD**......................... 371.5 +300.0 671.5 Support Technology............ 172.7 + 70.0 242.7 Management.................... 185.5 -30.0 155.5 ----------------------------------------- Total BMDO.............. 2,912.9 +490.5 3,403.4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * Includes RDT&E and Procurement ** Includes RDT&E and Military Construction Core Theater Missile Defense Programs The committee recommends the establishment of a core TMD program consisting of the Patriot PAC-3 system, the Navy Lower Tier system, the THAAD system, and the Navy Upper Tier system. The committee notes that this prioritization is consistent with the Department of Defense's Bottom-Up Review, which recommended that these four programs be funded as major acquisitions in the fiscal year 1995-99 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). The committee recommends a total core TMD funding level of $1.8 billion in fiscal year 1996. This includes an increase of $45.0 million for Navy Lower Tier, an increase of $170.0 million for Navy Upper Tier, and full funding of the requests for THAAD and Patriot. The committee understands that this funding profile, if sustained, would lead to the following operational capabilities: --For Patriot PAC-3, a First Unit Equipped (FUE) in fiscal year 1998. --For THAAD, a user operational evaluation system (UOES) capability in fiscal year 1997 and an IOC in fiscal year 2002, which may be accelerated by as many as three years. --For Navy Lower Tier, a UOES capability in fiscal year 1997 and an IOC in fiscal year 1999. --For Navy Upper Tier, a UOES capability in fiscal year 1999 and an IOC in fiscal year 2001. The committee endorses this schedule and directs the Secretary of Defense to provide sufficient funding in the outyears to sustain it. The committee also directs the Secretary to ensure that funds authorized for core TMD programs not be utilized for other purposes without the express consent of the congressional defense committees. The committee also directs that no funds authorized for the Navy Upper Tier program be used for additional Terrier-LEAP flight tests. Other Theater Missile Defense Activities The committee believes that BMDO's TMD activities lack sufficient focus. Establishment of a well funded, high priority, core TMD program will help but will not solve this problem. The committee believes that other theater missile defense (OTMD) activities must also be focused and made more efficient. In addition to providing core support activities such as targets, the committee believes that OTMD funds must be pooled and focused so as to satisfy outstanding TMD requirements. Some difficult choices will have to be made and greater efficiencies will have to be realized. Therefore, the committee recommends the termination of the Corps SAM and Boost-Phase Interceptor (BPI) programs. As explained elsewhere in this report, there are more efficient ways to satisfy the requirements that these programs are attempting to fulfill. The committee believes that the Atmospheric Interceptor Technology (AIT) program, which has been funded as part of the BPI program, should be transferred to the OTMD PE, and be restructured as a follow-on kill vehicle technology program. The committee does recommend an increase of $15.0 million in the OTMD PE to initiate a joint U.S.-Israel boost-phase intercept program based on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The committee looks forward to evaluating a restructured Corps SAM program, which leverages to a much greater degree existing systems, technologies and programs. National Missile Defense The Missile Defense Act of 1995 (Subtitle C of Title II) would establish a highly focused effort to defend the United States against limited ballistic missile attacks. The NMD program as it now exists is structured to spend approximately $400 million a year for the foreseeable future without deploying a single element of defensive capability. The committee views this as a wasteful expenditure and a program that fundamentally neglects a serious emerging threat to the national security of the United States. The committee, therefore, recommends an increase of $300.0 million for the NMD program, for a total of $671.5 million, to accelerate key technologies and systems pending the outcome of a detailed NMD deployment plan. The committee recognizes that deploying a multiple-site NMD system by 2003 will require significant investments in the out years, and directs the Secretary of Defense to budget accordingly. Given the consequences of not being prepared for the emerging threat, the committee believes that this investment should be one of the Secretary's highest priorities. The committee believes that the ultimate cost of deploying an NMD system can be significantly reduced by employing streamlined acquisition procedures and a sense of urgency. The Missile Defense Act of 1995 would establish a requirement for the Secretary to prescribe and employ such procedures as well as other cost saving measures. The committee believes that, for purposes of acquisition, the Secretary should consider NMD deployment a national priority, requiring highly streamlined treatment. The committee notes the case of the Pershing II intermediate-range ballistic missile development and deployment effort during the late 1970s and early 1980s, in which streamlined acquisition procedures and a sense of urgency produced rapid, cost-effective and technically very satisfactory results. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to emulate this model for NMD as much as possible. Support Technologies The committee notes that of the BMDO budget request, only approximately 6 percent is for advanced follow-on technology development. While the committee is pleased that BMDO is now pursuing a variety of major acquisition efforts, it is concerned that the pendulum may have swung too far away from technology development. If the present funding allocation continues, the United States will soon have ``consumed its seed corn'' and built structural obsolescence into its deployed BMD systems. Moreover, the United States will have abandoned promising missile defense technologies, which offer the possibility of vastly improving BMD cost and operational effectiveness. The committee is particularly troubled by the administration's plans to terminate our last remaining space- based missile defense program, the space-based laser, at the end of fiscal year 1997. The committee believes that it is critical for the United States to continue developing space- based defenses to preserve the option of deploying highly effective global defenses in the future. The committee notes that a space-based laser would be the most effective system for intercepting ballistic missiles of all ranges in the boost phase. The committee therefore recommends an increase of $70.0 million to the Support Technologies PE for the space-based laser program. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to reinvigorate this program and to ensure that sufficient funds are provided in the outyears to continue a robust effort. Cruise missile defense funding The committee has become increasingly concerned by the growing threat of cruise missiles. The committee is particularly alarmed by the emerging threat posed by land- attack cruise missiles, especially those that employ low observable technologies. Although the Department of Defense has a number of programs designed in part or whole to deal with this threat, the committee believes that more can and must be done to enhance and coordinate these efforts. The committee therefore recommends a provision, as part of the Missile Defense Act of 1995, that would establish a Cruise Missile Defense Initiative. To support this effort, the committee recommends a funding increase of $145.0 million for various cruise missile defense programs and activities. The allocation of this proposed increase is presented below. The committee endorses the Defense Science Board's recommendation to enhance existing air defenses through improved connectivity among existing shooter and sensor assets. To help foster this improved connectivity, the committee recommends an additional $15.0 million to accelerate joint programs between the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) and the military services. Specifically, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in each of the following three service program elements for ARPA/Service seeker development: (1) 0603009A TRACTOR HIKE; (2) 0207163F AMRAAM; (3) 0603746N RETRACT MAPLE. The most serious aspect of the emerging cruise missile threat is the severe reduction it will cause in available battlespace to detect and intercept low-flying, low-observable missiles. Existing and planned improvements in theater air defenses will not restore that battlespace. Fortunately, advanced sensors and sensor platforms being developed by ARPA and the services are maturing and offer vastly improved capabilities to detect and track low-observable targets at ranges of several hundred kilometers. Fixed-wing platforms offer flexibility for a centralized airborne surveillance and fire control system. By contrast, lighter-than-air platforms, including aerostats and airships, would significantly reduce cost, technical risks, and acquisition time, at some marginal degradation in operational flexibility. Life-cycle costs also favor lighter-than-air options over fixed-wing alternatives. To explore this potential, the committee recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE 0603009A for aerostat risk reduction evaluations jointly conducted by ARPA and the Army. The committee believes that airships may offer the most cost- effective alternative to the airborne sensor problem. Airships would provide sufficient payload volume, weight, and power to carry the sensors capable of providing three dimensional target resolution sufficient to acquire a target at considerable standoff ranges, and provide target illumination and data link services for a beyond the horizon intercept. Hence, the committee recommends an increase of $60.0 million in PE 0603238N to begin the development of an airship and mission system that is militarily significant in scope, of full size and operationally capable of demonstrating a counter-cruise missile capability for ground and naval forces. The committee also recommends an additional $10.0 in PE 0603226E to support ARPA's classified cruise missile defense activities. The committee is particularly supportive of the Navy's Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) program, which will dramatically enhance air and missile defense effectiveness. The committee encourages the Navy's efforts to include the Army and the Air Force in the CEC program. CEC integration into systems such as Patriot, Hawk, THAAD and AWACS appears to be quite promising. The committee, therefore, recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE 0603755N to accelerate joint Army-Navy and Air Force-Navy exploitation of CEC for cruise missile defense and theater missile defense. The committee is aware of a proposal to refurbish and upgrade existing Patriot missiles within the Army's current inventory to provide an improved anti-cruise missile capability. This effort would provide a new seeker for older Patriot missiles to optimize their performance against cruise missiles. The committee strongly supports this upgrade. The committee, therefore, recommends an increase of $35.0 million in PE 0203801A for the first year of a three-year research and development effort for the proposed upgrade. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> High modulus polycrylonitrile (PAN) carbon fiber Polyacrylonitrile (PAN) carbon fiber is a critical composite material used in the Theater High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) missile component. Currently, the only company supplying this material is located in Japan. In order to develop at least two domestic sources for this material, the committee recommends an additional authorization of $4.0 million in PE 602105A to fund this effort. The committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be used in the award of any contracts or other agreements under this program, and that cost-sharing requirements for non-federal participants be utilized where appropriate. Army technology base programs The committee notes and applauds the degree to which the Army is attempting to evaluate and embrace new concepts of warfare in its Force XXI vision for shaping the Army for the year 2010. Unfortunately, these intentions are jeopardized by the investment strategy the Army is pursuing in the technology base budget request for fiscal year 1996. The fiscal year 1996 request for programs in the basic research, exploratory development, and advanced development categories are 10 percent, 30 percent and 40 percent respectively below the amounts appropriated for programs in those categories in fiscal year 1995. The Force XXI vision draws its essence from the current efforts in the Joint Chiefs of Staff and elsewhere to determine the elements of the next revolution in military affairs. The Subcommittee on Acquisition and Technologies reviewed these efforts in a hearing on May 5. The testimony of Admiral Owens, Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, indicated the degree to which the aggressive development of a broad spectrum of technologies will be necessary to put the new forms of warfare within reach over the next 10 to 15 years. The current Army technology base program is inadequate to the emerging challenge. The committee urges the Army leadership and the Office of the Secretary of Defense to break the cycle of the recent past, in which the Army and the Department of Defense chronically underfunded the Army technology base, and provide more balanced funding for the Army technology base program in relation to the other Army accounts in the fiscal year 1997 request. To partially address the underfunding issue in fiscal year 1996, the committee has recommended an increased authorization of $24.0 million to be distributed as follows: Million PE 602211A Aviation Technology.................................... $3.0 PE 602303A Missile Technologies................................... 5.0 PE 602624A Weapons and Munitions Tech............................. 3.0 PE 602709A Night Vision Technology................................ 2.0 PE 602782A C3 Technologies........................................ 2.0 PE 603006A C3 Advanced Technologies............................... 3.0 PE 603734A Military Engineering Adv. Technology................... 6.0 Environmental Policy Simulation Laboratory (EPSL) The committee notes that the department faces increasing environmental challenges with decreasing environmental budgetary resources. It also faces a subsequent mandate to avoid any costly false starts and to optimize first-time field deployments while encouraging maximum innovation and technology transfer. In this regard, the committee encourages the Department of Defense to simulate new environmental technology processes and products whenever possible. The committee also recommends the establishment of the Environmental Policy Simulation Laboratory (EPSL) under the direction of the Army Environmental Policy Institute (AEPI). The EPSL will develop policy simulation models for air, water, soil, noise, and visual pollution characteristics of military operations in order to increase pollution prevention and risk compliance, and to reduce costs of integrating innovative environmental technology solutions to military missions. The committee recommends that $3.0 million be added to PE 602720A to provide for the competitive establishment of EPSL operations. No part of these funds may be used for construction of facilities. During its second operating year, the committee directs the EPSL to report all ongoing and potential environmental technology deployment cost savings resulting from its operation. Funding for medical total access programs (telemedicine) The committee commends the Army for its innovative and timely use of medical total access programs, especially pertaining to teledentistry program development, outpatient referral service for telemedicine, and its planned program for both active duty soldiers and their dependents. The committee also wishes to commend the Navy for its outstanding field tests of telemedicine on the aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower. The committee believes that further total access program development by the military offers each of the services the possibility of increasing available medical care of its patient population while possibly decreasing associated costs for health care. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increased authorization of $3.0 million in PE 603002A for total access programs in the fiscal year 1996 authorization bill, and directs the Army to coordinate with and include the Air Force and the Navy in its total access program format. Further, the committee requests that the Army report to the committee not later than March 1, 1996 on the implementation of its total access programs. Wave net technology The committee supports the Army's efforts to enhance command, control, and communications for the digital battlefield by applying emerging technologies. The committee understands that, in connection with evaluating various technologies to enhance its battlefield digitization efforts, the Army is interested in examining wave net technology which has the potential to reduce costs, increase bandwidth utilization, and provide increased command and control capability. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million to program element 603006A for development and testing of wave net technology for possible application to the Army's digitization initiatives. Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) The committee recommends authorizing PE 603105A at the requested level of $2.9 million and directs that $1.0 million of that amount be used to continue domestic clinical HIV programs. Multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) enhancements The committee strongly supports the MLRS/Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) and is aware of developmental efforts which have potential to greatly enhance the effectiveness of these systems. The committee recommends the following increases: --$3.7 million to program element 603778A for MLRS improved launch mechanical system; --$7.0 million to program element 603313A for MLRS low cost guidance; --$7.0 million to program element 604768A for ATACMS/ Brilliant Anti-armor submunition risk reduction; and --$5.0 million to program element 603313A for development of Low Cost Autonomous Attack Submunition (LOCAAS). The committee believes there is potential to employ the MLRS/ATACMS as a sea-based indirect fire suppression weapon for amphibious assaults and has directed the Secretary of the Navy to conduct a test/demonstration firing of an Extended Range MLRS rocket with low cost guidance from a launcher with improved launch mechanism and GPS location device. The committee expects the Army to cooperate fully to ensure items suitable for Navy/Marine Corps test/demonstration are available in fiscal year 1997. Objective individual combat weapon (OICW) The committee supports the effort to improve the effectiveness of individual infantrymen and is aware of the effort to develop an Objective Individual Combat Weapon. The committee is advised of a shortage of funds within the Joint Service Small Arms Program, and recommends an increase of $3.0 million in program element 0603607A to permit continued competitive development of OICW through Phase 3 of the development process. Advanced artillery propellant development The budget request included $10.9 million to continue development of advanced solid propellant (unicharge) and a 52 caliber solid propellant armament system as a backup to the advanced field artillery system-liquid propellant (AFAS-LP). While the committee continues to support the AFAS program, it recognizes that even if AFAS-LP is fully successful, there will still remain in the Army--certainly in the National Guard--a large number of conventional 155mm cannon. With a bolt-in/bolt- out gun mount, it is anticipated that a significant number of 155mm cannon could be candidates for conversion to the 52 caliber solid propellant system. The committee recommends an increase of $10.7 million to program element 603640A for continued development of the 52 caliber solid propellant system and the advanced solid propellant as a hedge against risk in the AFAS-LP program and for possible integration in the M109A6 Palladin and other field artillery systems. Armored systems modernization (ASM) The committee recommends the following increases to the Army's budget request: $5.3 million, Armored Gun System, program element 604645A/D413 $4.5 million, CMS/Grizzly, program element 603649A/ DG24 $9.9 million, CMS/Grizzly, program element 604649A/ DG25 $4.2 million, CMS/Wolverine, program element 604649A/ DC26 $1.3 million, Abrams tank, program element 203735A/ D330 The Abrams tank modification line is reduced $25.3 million to offset these increases. Small arms common module fire control system (SACMFS) The committee is aware of new fire control system technology which has the potential to significantly increase the lethality and probability-of-hit of the Mark-19 grenade machine gun. In addition to enhanced performance of the Mark- 19, the new fire control system technology could provide substantial savings in ammuition and logistical support. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to program element 603802A to initiate a program to upgrade the Small Arms Common Module Fire Control System (SACMFS), and directs the Secretary of the Army to report to the defense committees by March 1, 1996 on the progress of this effort. Command and control centers The committee supports continuing efforts in the Army to improve operations through enhanced command and operations centers and recommends the following increases: --$11.0 million to program element 604201A for prototype airborne command and control system for Task Force XXI; --$10.0 million to program element 604741A for Air Defense Artillery Brigade Operations Centers for Patriot and Forward Area Air Defense command and control. Comanche helicopter The budget request included $199.1 million for continued research and development of the RAH-66 Comanche helicopter. The committee continues to be supportive of the Comanche, but is concerned that the development program continues to be extended while the procurement is pushed further into the future. If the Comanche is truly the ``quarterback'' of the Army's Force XXI, then the program must be viewed as viable--with a realistically credible fielding date. Repeated reductions in the research and development program by the Office of the Secretary of Defense delay the program unnecessarily and discourage the Army from putting more funds at risk. The committee recommends an increase of $174.0 million for the Comanche program. The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army are directed to submit a jointly developed plan with the fiscal year 1997 budget request, indicating restoration of funding in the outyears to provide for procurement of Comanche commencing by fiscal year 2001 with initial operating capability by 2003. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to structure the engineering development program to ensure that the upgraded T800 (T801) engine is appropriately flight certified and included in the second Comanche prototype. Medium tactical truck extended service program (ESP) The committee is aware of deficiencies in the Army's truck programs, especially its medium trucks. The committee is advised that only 6,000 new medium tactical vehicles (MTV) are scheduled to be procured through the year 2002. Nearly 27,000 vehicles will be over age by that time. Further, approximately 35 percent of the five-ton fleet will be beyond 20 years old, which will impact unit readiness and operations and support costs. The committee strongly supports current Army efforts to remanufacture two and one-half ton trucks and believes the Army should immediatiely initiate a similar program for five-ton trucks. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to program element 604604A for initiation of a five-ton truck extended service program to: --remanufacture M809 and M939 series vehicles to augment the MTV buy and replace over age vehicles; --insert technologies to improve reliability, correct operational deficiencies, and comply with EPA and safety requirements; --co-manage Marine Corps Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR) program with the Army five-ton ESP; and --include Air force and Navy requirements to known Army and Marine Corps quantities for five-ton truck ESP. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a report on the five-ton truck ESP to the defense committees with the fiscal year 1997 budget submission addressing all the points above and laying out a schedule leading to five-ton truck remanufacture commencing in fiscal year 1997. The committee expects the Army to harmonize requirements for the other military services to take maximum advantage of medium truck ESP currently underway, to minimize additional procurements to avoid industrial overcapacity, and to give consideration to reliable manufacturers who have demonstrated capabilities to produce military trucks. Heavy tactical vehicles The committee recommends an increase of $1.9 million in program element 0604622A for development of a water heater/ chiller for the Army's water tank semitrailer. High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) The committee recognizes that many of the HMMWV's in both the Army and Marine Corps are reaching age and mileage levels leading to increased maintenance and operating costs and lower reliability. This indicates the need for an extended service program (ESP). Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to program element 604642A to initiate prototype development leading to an ESP for HMMWV. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the defense committees with the fiscal year 1997 budget request describing a program to develop and test prototypes and to initiate a program to remanufacture HMMWV's for both the Army and the Marine Corps. The committee directs the Army and the Marine Corps to conduct a joint program, harmonizing their requirements for ESP. Laser warning component-suite of survivability enhancements The committee is aware of the growing threat to ground combat vehicles in the form of laser-based range finders and anti-tank guided missiles, and recognizes that many nations throughout the world already have programs underway to field laser warning systems on their ground combat vehicles. The committee is concerned that efforts within the U.S. Army have not been adequately funded, and recommends an increase of $3.0 million in program element 604740A to be used for development of the laser warning component of the suite of survivability systems. Mark-19 universal bracket The committee recommends an increase of $0.5 million in program element 604802A for type classification of a non- developmental universal mounting bracket for the Mark-19 grenade machine gun. High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility The committee continues to support the operation of the High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility (HELSTF) as the central test facility to support the nation's high energy laser development. The committee is disappointed with the $3.0 million request for HELSTF, which would be insufficient to carry out the current Army plan to terminate the Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser (MIRACL), but continue the operation of the rest of the facility. That plan would require $19.6 million in fiscal year 1996 according to Army documents. The committee does not agree with the plan to terminate MIRACL, particularly when constraints on testing the laser against objects in space will not be imposed in fiscal year 1996, and the full potential of the facility can be realized for the first time. The committee therefore has added $21.8 million to the request for this facility. Nautilus/Tactical High Energy Laser Program The committee continues to support the joint Army-Israel Ministry of Defense Nautilus program to assess the potential of high energy lasers to meet tactical threats. The committee has added $5.0 million to PE603308A to fund the U.S. share of phase II of the Nautilus program. The committee also understands that the tactical high energy laser (THEL) concept is drawing increasing support within the Army, ranking as the highest science and technology priority of the Depth and Simultaneous Attack Battle Lab, and second of 140 concepts in Mobile Strike Force 2010 planning. The Marine Corps has also established a mission need statement for THEL. The committee therefore provides $5.0 million in PE603308A to initiate program planning for a THEL technology demonstration in fiscal year 1996. Army Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS) The committee has been advised that upgrades and digital links are required to adapt AFATDS for digitization exercises in conjunction with Task Force XXI. The committee recommends an increase of $6.2 million to program element 203726A for this purpose. Stinger missile modifications The committee recommends an increase of $9.8 million to program element 203801A to continue and accelerate the Stinger missile modification block II program. Communications enhancements The committee is aware of communications developmental efforts where relatively small investments now could lead to significantly enhanced communications as well as savings. The committee recommends the following increases: --$2.3 million in program element 303142A to accelerate development and fielding of the Single Channel Anti-jam Man Portable (SCAMP) Block II., and --$7.2 million in program element 208010A to accelerate development and fielding of the Integrated System Control (ISYSCON). <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Defense research sciences (Navy) The committee recommends a reduction of $3.0 million in PE 601153N to fund other priority programs. Power electronics building block The committee recommends an additional $6.0 million in PE 602121N for the development of the power electronics building block technology for the rapid switching and control of high power electrical systems. The committee recommends academic participation to ensure that supporting technologies, such as a computational testbed for system simulation, are developed to expedite the widespread application of this technology. The committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be used in the award of any contracts or other agreements under this program, and that cost sharing requirements for non- federal participants be utilized where appropriate. Parametric airborne dipping sonar Parametric sonar projectors transmit two relatively high frequency acoustic beams that interact to form a narrow, low frequency beam for detection and classification of underwater objects. This technology could provide reduced reverberation and superior range and bearing resolution relative to lower frequency sonars. Parametric sonar technology has potential for improved weapons system performance in applications such as dipping sonars installed in helicopters. The Navy has been conducting a technology demonstration to evaluate a parametric system. The demonstration will culminate with planned delivery of a prototype parametric projector during fiscal year 1995. Although laboratory tests and model runs have indicated a parametric sonar may offer significant benefits over other developmental systems, funding constraints have prevented the Navy from pursuing further development of this technology in the fiscal year 1996 budget request. The committee believes that parametric sonar technology has shown considerable promise for anti-submarine warfare (ASW), particularly in littoral areas where the high power and low frequency of existing and developmental systems optimized for open ocean ASW tend to limit their effectiveness in shallower water. The committee supports continued development and evaluation of a parametric sonar system for possible airborne dipping sonar application. Consequently the committee recommends an increase of $4.8 million in PE 0602314N for the following purposes: 1. expand the scope of the current effort to provide three dimensional stabilized steerable beams around 360 degrees at full source level for an over-the-side demonstration; 2. further characterize the technology for mine avoidance applications; 3. evaluate whether parametric technology merits further pursuit; and 4. report the conclusions of this analysis to the committee as promptly as possible after testing and data analysis are complete. Air Systems and Weapons Advanced Technology The committee views with great interest the initiatives taken by the Chief of Naval Research in support of the Chief of Naval Operations to make emerging technologies more readily available to the fleet. The Technologies for Rapid Response Initiative which is designed to give operational forces access to mature technologies is particularly noteworthy. To further Commander in Chief (CINC) access to these technologies, the committee recommends a transfer of $9.0 million from PE 601153N to PE 603217N, Air Systems and Weapons Advanced Technology. This increase is to be used by the Chief of Naval Operations to support fleet CINC use of the Technologies for Rapid Response Program with the view that these technologies will provide enhanced operational capability as well as allow the development of new tactics and concepts of operations. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide the committee with a report by March 1, 1997 of lessons learned from this technology insertion initiative. Intercooled recuperated gas turbine In its review of the budget request, the committee noted that the Department of Defense had transferred the project for development of the intercooled recuperated gas turbine from the Advanced Surface Machinery (ASM) demonstration/validation program to PE 0603508N in the technology base. The committee is concerned that the transfer may have been done as an expedient bookkeeping action without taking into account the interrelationship between the program for development of the new ICR engine and other elements of the ASM program. To restore ASM program integrity, the committee directs the transfer of $25.6 million, the amount requested in PE 0603508N, to PE 0603573N to restore the integrity of the ASM program and authorizes this amount for continued development of the ICR engine. Remote minehunting vehicle During its consideration of the budget request, the committee was briefed by the Navy on a developmental program that integrates commercial and Navy hardware to provide a contingency organic mine reconnaissance capability that can be remotely operated by surface ships. During an amphibious exercise conducted in March and April 1995, this remotely operated vehicle located exercise mines very effectively in support of an amphibious assault. The Navy believes that this remote minehunting operational prototype (RMOP) has shown real promise in filling a gap in its mine countermeasures operational capabilities, a deficiency that was highlighted by the impact of mines on operational planning during Desert Storm. The committee concurs, and recommends an increase of $7.5 million in PE 0603502N to accelerate development of this remote minehunting system. Advanced armored amphibious vehicle (AAAV) The committee strongly supports the Marine Corps AAAV program, and understands that the current funding profile is inadequate. In that regard, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million for turbo charger development efforts for the AAAV 2600 horsepower main propulsion engine and upgrading of modeling and simulation efforts. The committee directs that any funding changes or undistributed reductions to program element 603611M may not be made without prior approval of the defense committees. Lightweight 155mm howitzer The committee supports the joint Marine Corps/Army effort to develop and field a lightweight 155mm howitzer, and recommends an increase of $4.2 million to accelerate development. The committee understands that additional funding will be used for technical testing of cannon assemblies and studies regarding various fire control measures. Cooperative engagement capability The Navy is developing a cooperative engagement capability (CEC) that will enable greatly enhanced engagement coordination as well as remote cuing of sensors and fire control systems by coordinating all battle force anti-air warfare sensors into a single, real-time composite track picture having fire-control quality data. When fielded, CEC will distribute sensor data from each ship and aircraft or cooperating unit to all other cooperating units in the battle force through a real-time, line-of-sight, high-data rate sensor and engagement data distribution network. Because the CEC link will be line-of- sight, its integration into an airborne platform is particularly important. An airborne platform will be able to transmit to, and relay from, cooperating units that are over the horizon and beyond direct line-of-sight of units on the surface. To continue accelerated development of the airborne component of CEC, the committee recommends an increase of $22.5 million to the budget request. Naval surface fire support During its review of the budget request for fiscal year 1996 the committee was briefed on a revised naval surface fire support (NSFS) program that focuses on near term improvements to naval NSFS systems. These included demonstration and development of a long range rocket-assisted guided projectile that would incorporate an advanced, low-cost global positioning/inertial navigation (GPS/INS) guidance technology and improvements in the existing MK-45 5-inch naval gun. While other weapons systems, such as a naval variant of the Army's tactical missile system (ATACMS), are also included in this new program, the Navy has given top priority to improvements to the 5-inch gun that is installed on the majority of its surface combatants, and its associated projectile. The Navy and Marine Corps assert that this new NSFS program was conceived after the services had evaluated a recently completed cost and operational effectiveness analysis (COEA) and determined that its recommended solution was not achievable in a realistic time frame due to affordability constraints. Consequently, with close involvement by the Marine Corps in evaluating mission requirements, the Navy has conceived a program that in its judgment makes the best use of existing assets, is affordable and achievable in a much shorter time period, yet will still cover the majority of potential targets for an opposed amphibious assault. The Navy has also informed the committee, however, that, because this new NSFS program emerged in the interval between preparation of the budget request and its review by the committee; it is underfunded by over $160.0 million across the future years defense program. Further, far term requirements have not yet been adequately addressed. The committee has stressed the issue of NSFS repeatedly over the past several years but has found the Navy's response to be lackluster and highly variable as a new program or approach emerged each year. The committee's concern about this apparent lack of commitment by the Navy was once more raised this year. With no advance coordination with the committee, the Secretary of the Navy decided to strike the Navy's four remaining Iowa class battleships, its only remaining potential source of around-the-clock, accurate, high volume, heavy fire support, in apparent disregard of the loss of NSFS capability that would result. In the committee's judgment, its queries to the Navy on this subject have not produced any substantive response. The committee remains unclear on any existing or near term NSFS capability that could adequately replace the capability lost by this decision. Because the need is so strong and because the Navy finally appears committed to pursuing a program to completion, the committee is willing to provide initial support this year to the Navy's program to upgrade the capability of its 5-inch guns, based on the assurances of the Navy's leadership that the Navy will follow through with consistent, stable, and adequate future years funding. Consequently, the committee recommends an increase in funding of $19.2 million in PE 0603795N and notes the need for the Navy to put increased emphasis on pursuing a long-term program to satisfy the NSFS mission requirements that can not be met by improvements to the 5-inch naval gun. Further, the committee recommends a provision that would direct the Secretary of the Navy to restore at least two Iowa class battleships to the naval register and to retain them in its strategic reserve until the Secretary of the Navy is prepared to certify that the Navy has replaced the potential NSFS capability that they can provide. A recommendation for testing of an extended range multiple launch rocket system for the shore fire support mission is also included elsewhere in this report. S-3B Project Gray Wolf The Navy has been testing the concept of equipping an S-3 aircraft with a multi-mode synthetic aperture radar, designated AN/APG-76. The Navy has called this demonstration ``Project Gray Wolf.'' With such a system, S-3B aircraft could support fleet operations in littoral warfare missions by providing real time, stand-off surveillance, targeting, and strike support. The committee is aware of the success the Navy has achieved in limited demonstrations of the system's capability in fleet exercises and in the ``Roving Sands'' experiment at White Sands Missile Range. The committee recommends an increase of $13.2 million in program element 0604217N to: 1. buy an AN/APG-76 radar system, a ground station, and a data link capability; 2. modify the radar system to include a commercial, off-the-shelf (COTS) processor; and 3. provide contractor logistics support for further testing. The committee believes that the Department should consider identifying Project Gray Wolf as an advanced concept technology demonstration if testing and evaluation continues to show such promising results. V-22 Osprey The committee notes that the proposed low production rate for the V-22 results in a 27 year production run to field the required 523 aircraft for the Marines, Special Operations Forces and the Navy. The committee understands this is primarily due to a cap placed by the Department of the Navy on V-22 procurement by the Department of Defense of $1.0 billion in fiscal year 1994 dollars. The committee questions this approach as unnecessarily lengthy and inefficient. The committee is aware of Defense Science Board recommendations to reduce costs by treating the three Low Rate Initial Production lots as a package in order to permit more efficient purchasing of parts and materials. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide an analysis of the Defense Science Board proposal including more efficient production profiles of up to 36 aircraft per year for the Department of the Navy. The report is to be submitted no later than 15 April 1996 to the defense committees. The committee is also interested in the success of the development of the Special Operations Forces version, or CV-22, and consequently requests the Department to provide a detailed program overview, including funding and schedule details concerning the current CV-22 program, with any possible alternatives to accelerate initial operational capability of the Special Operations Forces aircraft. Airborne electronic warfare Last year, the statement of managers accompanying the conference report on S. 2182 (H. Rept. 103-701) directed the Secretary of the Navy to provide for a robust upgrade of EA-6B electronic jammers by taking advantage of technologies developed in the previously canceled advanced capabilities (ADVCAP) program. The report also directed the Secretary to submit the long overdue joint tactical airborne electronic warfare study (JTAEWS) by December 31, 1994. Although it had successfully passed all development and testing milestones, the Navy canceled the ADVCAP program. The ADVCAP program would also have provided funding for safety, reliability, maintainability, configuration commonality, and depot level maintenance for the Navy's EA-6B airborne jammer. The Navy's decision to cancel ADVCAP failed to account for continuing these other needed efforts that were unrelated to the capability upgrade portion of the ADVCAP program. The committee also believes that decision incorrectly ignored the EA-6B's dwindling capability against a widening array of threats. Since last year, the Department has also decided to cancel the EF-111 system improvement program (SIP) and retire the aircraft on a phased basis by fiscal year 2000. The Department intends to use an additional 20 EA-6B aircraft to support the Air Force stand-off jamming mission. The report recently released by the Roles and Missions Commission noted the importance of supporting specific interoperability initiatives, such as upgrading the Navy/Marine Corps EA-6B force to meet all DOD airborne electronic standoff jamming needs. Unfortunately, the budget does not include the funding needed to support this decision. The committee has concluded that airborne electronic warfare (EW) has drifted backward. The committee sees no coherent DOD plan for a joint future capability to conduct integrated strike air warfare. The JTAEWS analysis was supposed to define the future shape of airborne EW by examining the dominant elements of EW: jamming, self protection, suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD), and stealth. However, the budget does not even implement the results of that analysis. The Department has ignored congressional intent time and again in this matter. With no coherent plan, and with disregard for Congressional direction, the Department appears to hope the problem will solve itself. The committee believes that this is an unacceptable situation. The combatant commanders will not launch strikes without EW support, yet airborne electronic warfare is not important enough to receive upgrade funds. Unfortunately, because of previous and planned cancellations, the combatant commanders now have less EW capability available now than they had during Desert Storm. For these reasons, the committee recommends a provision directing the Navy to include a warfighting capability improvement component in its planned series of upgrades to the EA-6B. The committee recommends additional funding as follows: 1. $25.0 million in program element 0604270N for warfighting capability improvements. These upgrades should, at a minimum, address gaps in the aircraft's ability to counter emerging threats by improving the low band receiver system to enhance our ability to conduct smart communications and radar jamming. 2. $40.0 million dollars to begin a robust band 9/10 capability upgrade for the EA-6B fleet. Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to work with the Secretary of the Air Force to ensure that technologies developed in the EF-111 SIP program for band 9/10 jammers are used in the EA-6B program. 3. $140.0 million to upgrade 20 EA-6B aircraft to the Block 89 configuration to support the additional Air Force stand-off jamming mission. The committee notes that these items and initiatives are consistent with the Operational Advisory Group's (OAG) top war fighting priorities and represent a prudent step to ensure that the Department maintains needed airborne EW capability. NULKA decoy development NULKA is a joint U.S.-Australian project to develop an anti-ship missile decoy system. Increased funding in fiscal year 1996 would allow for the integration of NULKA with the Ship Self-Defense System for installation on amphibious ships and other self-defense ships, to conduct testing of the integrated system, and commence development of improvements to the payload needed to counter improvements in anti-ship missile technology. The committee strongly supports these objectives and recommends an increase of $9.0 million in program element 0604755N for three purposes: 1. $4.4 million would be used to integrate NULKA into the Shipboard Self-Defense System and the Electronic Warfare Decoy Device Integration, making it a fully coordinated component of a ship's self-defense architecture; 2. $3.6 million would be used for the Enhanced Payload Improvement Program upgrade to allow NULKA to counter advanced threats; and 3. $1.0 million would be used for Navy support of the program. Infrared search and track The budget request reduced funding and restructured the infrared search and track (IRST) program for affordability reasons. The committee believes that the IRST system has the potential to play a very important role in defending naval ships against sea skimming antiship missiles. A recently completed cost and operational effectiveness analysis (COEA) supports this conclusion. The committee strongly believes the Navy should emphasize early integration of the IRST system with both Aegis and non-Aegis ships and place priority on early completion of its development. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $9.5 million in PE 0604755N to accelerate plans for combat system integration and design of the IRST system. BARAK 1--ship self defense The committee has been very concerned about protecting U.S. Navy ships from the proliferation of maneuvering, sea-skimming, low observable, anti-ship cruise missiles. The committee recognizes that budget realities make it necessary to examine existing available solutions. Consequently, the committee is pleased that the existing BARAK 1 is currently under consideration as a candidate defense system for LPD-17. The committee wishes to be kept informed on the LPD-17 cost and operational effectiveness analysis progress and results. Furthermore, the committee directs the Navy to present by December 1995 a plan that could lead to testing of the BARAK system in the U.S. during fiscal year 1996. Because of the advantage to the fleet of an early deployment of a robust ship self defense system, the committee directs that the Navy also examine and report on BARAK applicability to other ship classes. The results of this study should be provided to the committee by January 1996. Medium tactical vehicle remanufacture (MTVR) The committee supports the Marine Corps plan to remanufacture its medium truck fleet and recommends an increase of $9.4 million to program element 206624M for additional truck variants and development of simulation models and testing. The committee directs the Marine Corps and the Army to harmonize requirements for their respective medium truck extended service programs (ESP), to take maximum advantage of medium truck ESP currently underway, to minimize additional procurements to avoid industrial overcapacity, and to give consideration to reliable manufacturers who have demonstrated capabilities to produce military trucks. Crash attenuating seats for helicopters The committee has learned of an initiative to accelerate the inclusion of crash attenuating seats for passengers in military helicopters. While there is a program to include such seats, it is not scheduled for execution until fiscal year 1999 and beyond. In order to accelerate the effort and take advantage of non-developmental options, the committee recommends the release of the $2.7 million appropriated in fiscal year 1995 to be used in defining specifications and qualification of non-developmental seats, and to report to the committee no later than 15 May 1996 on the non-developmental options available to provide crash attenuating seats for military transport helicopters. Plasma Electric Waste Converter Program The committee noted in fiscal year 1995 that a new technology--Plasma Electric Waste Converter technology--was available which could help the Navy solve its solid waste disposal problem on board its deployed ships. Congress authorized the Navy to spend $1.8 million in fiscal year 1995 to explore plasma electric waste converter technology as a solution to this problem. Recognizing the growing problem of base cleanup efforts as the base closure process progresses, Congress believes that this technology might also have application in such cleanup efforts. Thus, the Navy is urged to consider ways to test the application of this technology to cleaning up bases which are being closed or realigned and at which there is environmental or waste disposal problems. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Adaptive optics The committee recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE 601102F for adaptive optics research. Defense research sciences (Air Force) The committee recommends a reduction of $9.0 million in the Defense Research Sciences program of the Air Force to allow the funding of higher priority projects. Human systems technology The committee recommends a reduction of $15.0 million in PE 602202F to fund other priority programs. The committee notes that this reduction would still allow for a substantial increase in funding for this program in fiscal year 1996. Thermally stable jet fuels The committee recommends an additional authorization of $3.0 million in PE 602203F for the acceleration of a program to develop thermally stable jet fuels using chemicals derived from coal. Range tracking and safety The committee recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE 0603311F for suborbital flight testing at White Sands Missile Range of ballistic missile guidance, range tracking and safety equipment that is based on existing Global Positioning System equipment. Micro-satellite development program The Air Force Phillips Laboratory, in conjunction with the Air Force Space Command's Space Warfare Center, has initiated a small satellite program to develop and demonstrate a variety of miniaturized space technologies. The micro-satellite program builds upon the highly successful Clementine satellite program. The committee recommends an authorization of $20.0 million in fiscal year 1996 to continue this effort, under the control of the Space Warfare Center and executed by the Clementine Team (Phillips Laboratory, Naval Research Laboratory, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory). The committee recommends the $20.0 million authorization be included in PE 0603401F, ``Advanced Spacecraft Technology.'' Polar satellite communications The Department of Defense has an urgent requirement to provide secure communications for operations in the polar region. The most critical of these requirements can be satisfied in the near-term through an Air Force program to place extremely high frequency (EHF) communications packages, similar to the ones used on the Ultra-High Frequency Follow-On program (UFO), on host satellites. Having already approved this program as a new start in fiscal year 1995, the committee recommends the authorization of $58.0 million in fiscal year 1996 in PE 603432F to acquire the communications payload and perform integration and test activities in support of a 1997 launch of this capability aboard a host satellite. To offset this increase, the committee recommends the realignment of funds from the MILSTAR program (PE 604479F) that are no longer required for termination liability fees. National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System The budget request included $23.9 million for the national polar-orbiting operational environmental satellite system (NPOESS), a converged Department of Defense, Department of Commerce, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) national weather satellite program. The committee has long supported such a convergence. The committee understands that a slower than expected start-up of the Integrated Program Office and delay in the demonstration/validation phase of the program have reduced required funding. The committee, therefore, recommends a reduction of $10.0 million. Reentry vehicle applications The Nuclear Posture Review, conducted by the Department of Defense during the fall of 1994, recommended sustaining the industrial base for strategic ballistic missile reentry vehicles (RVs). The United States Strategic Command has reported that the RV industrial base, especially the expertise and capability to manufacture specialized material, is rapidly eroding. In response to this critical requirement, the Department of Defense has directed the Air Force and the Navy to sustain key elements of the RV industrial base through an RV applications program. The budget request includes $5.7 million for the Air Force and $10.0 million for the Navy to pursue this effort. However, the Air Force funding level is inadequate. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.3 million in PE 603851F to balance the Air Force and Navy efforts. To help bolster this effort, the committee also recommends an increase of $750,000 in PE 0602102F to the Thermal Protection Materials Reentry Vehicle Project for the purchase, testing, and evaluation of three nosetip billets and related technologies; and an increase of $2.2 million in the Strategic Submarine and Weapons System Support program (PE 0101221N) for the fabrication and testing of carbon-carbon composite shape stable nosetip billets for submarine launched ballistic missile RV system applications. Interim precision guided munitions (PGM) Last year, the committee directed the Department of Defense to conduct a Heavy Bomber Study to define the future needs for long range bombers. The Heavy Bomber Study strongly endorsed the need for PGM's. Accordingly, while awaiting the analysis and recommendations required by the Bill's related provision on PGM's, the committee recommends an increase of $353.0 million as a cost-effective method of procuring capability instead of acquiring further B-2 aircraft. The committee is persuaded by that argument, and recommends an increase in the budget request as detailed below. Precision Guided Munitions Procurement Procure 100 AGM-130 missiles, an increase of $40.0 million. Convert 200 AGM-86 ALCM's to conventional configuration an increase of $27.2 million. Procure 50 Have Nap PGM's for use on B-52 H aircraft, an increase of $38.0 million. Procure additional conventional bomb modules for B-1 bombers through an addition of $85.0 million. Make necessary modifications to the B-1 weapons carriage system to support an interim Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) through an addition of $11.6 million. Procure up to 25 interim JSOW's, an addition of $10.4 million. Precision Guided Munitions RDT&E $20.0 million in PE 0604226F to acquire an interim precision munition for the B-1B, known as the B-1B Virtual Umbilical Device (BVUD), provided the Secretary of the Air Force certifies to the congressional defense committees that the BVUD is a valid requirement by May 15, 1996. Failing such certification, the funds provided are to be used for further acceleration of upgrades to the B-1B through the Conventional Munitions Upgrade Program (CMUP). An increase $20.0 million to integrate the AGM-130 with the B-52H bomber and begin qualification and testing of the extended-range version of the AGM-130, in PE 0101113F. $40.0 million in PE 0604226F to provide a portion of the B-1 fleet with an interim capability for employing the Joint Standoff Weapon. An increase of $7.0 million for Interferometric Terrain Aided Guidance (ITAG) technology demonstration to improve JDAM accuracy, PE 0604618F. Conventional Bomber Enhancements Accelerate the Conventional Munitions Upgrade Program (CMUP) for the B-1 bomber, an increase of $47.2 million in PE 0604226F. Increase by $6.6 million PE 0604226F to allow for an acceleration of the ECM upgrade by funding the Systems Requirements Review in fiscal year 1996, rather than the budget's planned start in fiscal year 1997. These additions and program accelerations are made with the intent of satisfying the requirements for capable, conventional bombers as soon as practicable. F-22 program The committee held hearings on tactical aviation forces modernization this year and reviewed the F-22 engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) program. The committee notes that issues have been raised on the level of concurrency, projected weight, and projected engine performance with specific fuel consumption (SFC). There are conflicting viewpoints. A report of the Defense Science Board concluded that, ``There is no reason based on risk/concurrency to introduce a schedule stretch at this time.'' But the General Accounting Office (GAO) believes that the F-22 program ``exhibits a high degree of concurrency.'' Based on hearing testimony the committee believes that the Department should address promptly a number of questions. The committee is making no finding as to the level or risk of concurrency on the F-22 program at this time. However, the committee would have serious concerns about any program that involves an inappropriately high level of concurrency that possesses high risk. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees before September 1, 1995. That report shall address the concerns on concurrency, weight and SFC, and shall, at a minimum, answer the following questions. A. Concurrency: 1. What metrics for measuring the level of program concurrency are important for predicting the potential for a program to deliver the promised product, on schedule, at or below cost, with the required performance? 2. What is the level of concurrency risk in the F-22 program, given that the present program calls for 80 production planes before completion of research, development, and testing? a. What is the risk of the current F-22 EMD program to cost, schedule, and performance of the overall F-22 program? b. What change could or should be made to reduce whatever level of concurrency exists in the F-22 EMD program? 3. What is the department's view of what constitutes low, medium, and high levels of concurrency in general, and specifically as to the present F-22 program? 4. What are the benchmarks that the Congress should use to gauge when any program should be pursued with moderate or high levels of concurrency? 5. How should concurrency relate to risk, either in terms of cost, schedule, or performance? 6. How should the Congress compare the F-22 EMD program's projected level of concurrency to that experienced in the A-12 program? 7. What are the similarities and differences between the F-22 and the A-12 programs that prevent a re- occurrence of the A-12 problems in the F-22 EMD program? B. Weight: 1. What is the current condition of projected weight of production aircraft? 2. Since no EMD or production aircraft has been built, on what basis is the Department projecting an overweight condition? 3. What was the outcome of the JROC review regarding weight? If the JROC approved the Air Force's change request, what was the basis for making that decision? 4. What would be the effect on military capability of F-22 aircraft if they are delivered at the currently projected weight? 5. What is the risk that weight will grow above the current projection? 6. How large a weight increase above the current projection should the Congress be willing to accept without restructuring the program? 7. What has been the experience of other aircraft development programs in incurring additional weight after the critical design review milestone? 8. Absent fiscal concerns, could the weight goal be attained? What is the estimated cost of achieving the original weight goal? C. Specific fuel consumption: 1. What is the current condition of projected SFC of engine operating in production aircraft? 2. Since no EMD or production aircraft has been built, on what basis is the Department projecting an SFC deficiency? 3. What was the outcome of the JROC review regarding SFC? If the JROC approved the Air Force's change request, what was the basis for making that decision? 4. What would be the effect on military capability of F-22 aircraft if they are delivered with engines operating at the currently projected SFC? 5. What is the risk that SFC performance will fall below the current projection? 6. How much of a performance decline should the Congress be willing to accept without restructuring the program? 7. What has been the experience of other aircraft development programs in incurring poorer SFC performance after the critical design review milestone? 8. Absent fiscal concerns, could the SFC performance goal be attained? What is the estimated cost of achieving the original SFC performance goal? The committee recommends $2.1 billion for the F-22 program. However, the committee directs that, of these funds, $600.0 million shall not be made available for obligation until 60 days after the Department of Defense submits the requested report. Sensor Fuzed Weapon Improvement Program The committee understands that the Air Force has the opportunity to substantially increase the effectiveness of the sensor fuzed weapon (SFW) through a pre-planned product improvement program (P3I). The committee further understands that if an increase in Air Force funding were available for fiscal year 1996, the program's Engineering and Manufacturing Development could begin at once. Realizing the opportunity to increase the weapon's performance by 300 percent for a 15 percent increase in production cost, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for the start of the EMD for the Sensor Fuzed Weapon (P3I). The committee further understands that the Air Force will budget for the program in the FYDP by the Air Force prior to obligating these funds. Ultra-high frequency satellite communications The budget request for Ultra-High Frequency (UHF) satellite communications was $15.6 million. The Air Force has recently changed its acquisition strategy to down-select to a single Network Control Station contract earlier than planned. As a result, the committee recommends a reduction of $6.5 million. RC-135 Re-engining The committee continues to appreciate the critical role of the RC-135 ``Rivet Joint'' Signal Intelligence aircraft. The committee is aware of a plan by the Department to re-fit two retired EC-135 aircraft to add to the RC-135 fleet, and that these aircraft are currently awaiting sensor integration. To facilitate an affordable program for the RC-135 upgrade program, the committee recommends an increase in the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office (DARO) authorization of $79.5 million, to include $31.5 million of non recurring integration activity and $48.0 million for two CFM56 engine kits. This upgrade has the support of the GAO, and is a prudent investment in future capability. Joint air-to-surface standoff missile (JASSM) The committee expects the Department to establish a joint program for the Air Force and the Navy for development of a replacement for the canceled Tri-Service Standoff Attack Missile (TSSAM). The committee is aware that the Air Force and the Navy have jointly developed JASSM requirements, are working on an aggressive development schedule/strategy, and have established a program office. The committee also understands JASSM will have an affordability focus, leveraging off existing technologies and lessons learned from the TSSAM program. The committee agrees with the focus on affordability, but expects the Air Force to emphasize weapons performance as well. The committee understands the TSSAM cancellation occurred too late in the budget cycle for either service to address the requirement for JASSM in the fiscal year 1996 budget request. Now the program is being considered in the Air Force fiscal year 1997 request as a new program. The Air Force has a more urgent need for JASSM missiles, and is therefore funding the early development of the joint requirement. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million in Air Force RDT&E for this purpose. Standoff Land Attack Missile Extended Response The committee recognizes the Navy's need for an upgrade program to the standoff land attack missile (SLAM) to make it operationally suitable and effective. Accordingly, the committee supports the budget request of $40.5 million in PE 64603N for continued development of the Standoff Land Attack Missile Extended Response (SLAM ER) to upgrade the 700 SLAM in the current inventory. Rivet Joint technology transfer program The committee recommends an increase of $28.0 million to the theater missile defense (TMD) program element (PE 208060F) to initiate the migration of the Cobra Ball medium wave infrared acquisition technology to the Rivet Joint RC-135 tactical reconnaissance fleet. With the transfer of this technology, the Rivet Joint fleet would be provided with a cost-effective means to significantly improve theater missile defense long-range surveillance, warning, and rapid cueing for attack operations as well as impact point prediction for both active and passive defensive measures. The committee understands that the Department of the Air Force has programmed the balance of the funds in the outyears to complete the TMD migration program. Information systems security The committee strongly supports efforts to develop multi- level security systems for the Department of Defense's information systems. Therefore, the committee recommends an authorization of $1.5 million in PE 0303140F to complete research and development of the Trusted RUBIX database management system. Defense Support Program The budget request for Defense Support Program (DSP) RDT&E was $43.7 million. $5.0 million in fiscal year 1995 funds have been identified as excess and are expected to be reprogrammed as part of the fiscal year 1995 Omnibus reprogramming. The committee directs the Air Force to use these funds for fiscal year 1996 requirements and therefore reduces the fiscal year 1996 request by $5.0 million. Fighter data links The committee finds the Air Force's decision to equip its air superiority fighters (F-15Cs) with the data link called ``Link 16'' encouraging. Nevertheless, the committee does not understand why the Air Force is planning to equip only this subset of its forces with data links. Getting tactical data links for Air Force attack aircraft has been a difficult challenge over the years. The committee believes the added situational awareness resulting from sharing data among various platforms has real potential for making our forces more effective warfighters. The committee believes that the Air Force should place a higher priority on increasing situational awareness of our attack aircraft. The other Services are taking a more determined approach: 1. The Army is installing the improved data modem and data links among helicopters, and between helicopter forces and other Army and Air Force units. 2. The Navy is installing multifunction information distribution system (MIDS) terminals in its fighter and attack aircraft. The MIDS program is an international effort to provide this capability for a variety of weapons platforms for the U.S. and our allies. The Air Force says that it cannot afford to outfit all of its aircraft with the full MIDS terminal. The committee understands that the budget process and tight fiscal constraints force the Services to make tough choices. However, the committee remains puzzled by the relative priority that the Air Force has accorded data link capability. In response to inquiries, the Air Force provided the congressional defense committees a prioritized list of how it would choose to spend extra funds if they were available. That list totals more than $1.8 billion in fiscal year 1996 alone. The list shows that the Air Force would choose to spend none of any additional funds on spreading this data link capability. The committee believes that investing in additional data links could yield a several fold increase in combat capability in the near-term and provide much greater leverage than many items on the Air Force's list. The Air Force has also said that its forces do not need all the capability that the Navy requires from its MIDS terminals. The committee understands that the Air Force has been considering a proposal for a lower-cost joint tactical information distribution system, called ``JTIDS 2R.'' Department of Defense officials have told the committee that a variant of the current MIDS terminal could achieve the reduced costs the Air Force seeks, while avoiding the overhead associated with launching another program. In view of this information, the committee will not support initiation of a new, redundant program to meet similar requirements. The common approach should reduce the department's costs of ownership and increase interoperability with our allies, and will help promote cooperative development efforts. The committee recommends that the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology) continue to pursue a MIDS production strategy that maximizes competition for U.S. industry, while maintaining the benefits of the MIDS architecture and commonality. The Air Force should share the results of the Mountain Home Air Force Base technology demonstrations with the MIDS program office to assist in fulfilling the Air Force's fighter data link requirement. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Combat readiness research The committee is aware of the potential to accelerate certain research activities affecting combat readiness within the university community. The committee recommends an addition of $10.0 million to the University Research Initiative account (601103D) to allow the Secretary of Defense to enter an agreement with a qualified institution of higher learning with strong capabilities in areas of combat research, including chemical and biological warfare, target acquisition and identification, anti-submarine warfare, combat medicine, biodeterioration, and command, control and communications. The committee directs the Secretary to follow all applicable competitive procedures in awarding this agreement, to require the institution awarded the agreement to contribute at least twice the amount provided by the federal government to execute the program, and to stipulate in the agreement specific savings in research or other federal expenditures that will accrue from accelerating research covered under the agreement. DODDS Director's fund for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering The committee is again pleased with the progress made in this important program. The Department of Defense Dependent School System (DODDS) is one of the nations only two federal school systems. It enrolls children from every state in the union and from sponsors who range in rank from the lowest enlisted grades to the highest flag ranks. Many of the DODDS schools also enroll students from other federal agencies and from allied nations. The director's fund is intended to allow the Director to focus modern technology on the most pressing educational needs of students in the system in the disciplines of science, mathematics, and engineering. Its success to date is demonstrated by the increasing progress DODDS has made toward meeting the Goals 2000 educational standards. The committee is aware of the many stresses that an overseas assignment places on the families of the men and women in uniform. Not the least of these is the challenge that children of service members face as they attend relatively small schools remote from American life, often in locations that are widely dispersed. This program is designed to insure that these children have the benefit of the best technology possible as they acquire the technical disciplines that so often lead to higher education, and the technical and medical skills needed by our nation. The committee remains concerned that these funds be at the disposal of the Director of the DODDS system. The committee recognizes the need for program management and for the integration of this program with other educational programs of the department. Nevertheless, the ultimate authority on the allocation of these resources should be the Director of the DODDS system who has the overall responsibility to educate the children of our military personnel serving overseas. The committee directs that $10.0 million of the funds in PE 601103D be provided for this program. University Research Initiatives The committee recommends a reduction of $15.0 million in the University Research Initiatives program to fund other priority programs. Medical Free Electron Laser program The committee notes the continued progress of the Medical Free Electron Laser (MFEL) Program, which was initiated to develop medical applications of free electron laser technology at university medical centers. This technology has proven itself in a number of military and civilian clinical applications, such as the treatment of skin lesions, skin burns, cancers, and kidney and gallstones. The geographically- distributed, merit-selected medical centers have been successful in transferring significant amounts of technology to the private sector. Given the success of the MFEL program to date, the committee is concerned about the impact of the reduction in the funding request for fiscal year 1996 of $13.0 million below the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1995. The committee notes that the Department of Defense intends to restore the funding level in the request for fiscal year 1997 to $24.8 million. In order to ensure an orderly continuation of the MFEL program, the committee has recommended an addition of $8.0 million to PE 602227D in fiscal year 1996. Additionally, the committee continues to support the DOD practice requiring that no less than four-fifths of the funds authorized be applied through the university-based centers to adapt tunable, short-pulsed, high- peak power free electron laser applications in medicine, photobiology, surgery, and associated material sciences. Software reuse The committee recommends an additional authorization of $3.0 million in PE 602301E to continue software reuse activities in the Department of Defense. Tactical landing system The committee recommends an additional authorization of $6.5 million in PE 62702E for the completion of the tactical landing system program. Diamond substrates The Advanced Research Projects Agency has had an ongoing program to address issues in the manufacture of industrial diamond materials for use in thermal management in integrated circuits. With the growth of on-chip integration of transistors, developers and producers are facing serious limitations because of the need to dissipate ever increasing thermal energy. Diamond has the highest thermal conductivity of any known material combined with high electrical resistance, making it a leading material for addressing this problem. Successful reduction in the cost of producing diamond substrates using the chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process could result in significant increases in power and decreases in size and weight of military electronics. Therefore, the committee recommends an additional authorization of $8.0 million to PE 602712E to accelerate the program. The committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be used in the award of any contracts or other agreements under this program and that cost sharing requirements for non-federal participants be utilized where appropriate. High temperature superconductivity High temperature superconductivity (HTS) offers the opportunity to realize the processing speed benefits of superconductivity while cooling electronic devices to a temperature no lower than that of liquid nitrogen. There are significant potential military benefits from this technology including reduction in the size of electronic components, increases in the sensitivity of radars and other sensors, and increases in useful bandwidth. There are a number of manufacturing issues that must be addressed to make this technology operational, including reducing processing costs and increasing the yields within those processes. To enable ARPA to address these issues in a coherent framework, the committee recommends an additional authorization of $8.0 million in PE 602712E. The committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be used in the award of any contracts or other agreements under this program and that cost sharing requirements for non-federal participants be utilized where appropriate. Pulsed fast neutron analysis (PFNA) technology Congress initiated funding for the Department of Defense in 1991 to develop non-intrusive cargo detection which has resulted in the Pulsed Fast Neutron Analysis (PFNA) technology. PFNA is an automated, non-intrusive detection technology that recognizes the presence of hidden explosive material and other contraband. It can be particularly useful in detecting the contents of sealed cargo containers through the use of a scanning beam which measures the elemental composition of the cargo. The committee recommends an authorization of $2.0 million in PE 603122D for continued development of PFNA cargo inspection technology under the direction of the Technical Support Working Group of the Department of Defense. Thermophotovoltaics The thermophotovoltaics program (TPV) is a collaborative program between ARPA and NASA to demonstrate and develop a passive power generator powered by liquid and gaseous fuels. TPV has potential for a number of military applications including power generation in unmanned underwater vehicles. The committee recommends an additional authorization of $5.0 million in the Experimental Evaluation of Major Innovative Technologies to continue the program in fiscal year 1996. The committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be used in the award of any contracts or other agreements under this program and that cost sharing requirements for non-federal participants be utilized where appropriate. Large Millimeter Wave Telescope The Large Millimeter Wave Telescope (LMT) design project has significant potential for advancing the state of the art for radio telescopes through the use of intelligent structures. The design could greatly improve capability for acquisition and recognition of targets in space, as well as demonstrate the feasibility of long range directed energy devices. The committee recommends an additional authorization of $3.0 million for the continuation of the LMT program in the Advanced Space Technology Project within the Advanced Research Project Agency's Experimental Evaluation of Major Technologies program (PE 603226E). The committee directs that cost sharing requirements for non-federal participants be utilized under the program where appropriate. Rapid acquisition of manufactured parts The committee continues to support efforts to develop and deploy technologies under the rapid acquisition of manufactured parts (RAMP) program. The committee recommends an additional authorization of $12.0 million to the CALS Initiative program (PE 603736D) to complete the research and development portion of the RAMP program in fiscal year 1996. Advanced electronics technologies The committee recommends a reduction of $50.0 million from PE 603739E for lower priority activities and activities not directly related to electronics research and development. The committee directs that the reduction be distributed among the projects in the program as follows: Millions MT-07 Centers of Excellence............................... -$23.6 MT-08 Manufacturing Technology............................ -20.0 MT-11 CALS/Electronic Commerce............................ -6.4 The committee notes that the U.S.-Japan Management program requested in project MT-07 is now managed in the Office of Scientific Research in the Air Force. The committee notes that the Air Force may, at its discretion, apply funds authorized in PE 601102F to continue the program at its present level. Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology (SEMATECH) The committee notes the request for $89.6 million in the request to provide direct funding for the SEMATECH consortium to continue research in semiconductor manufacturing technology. SEMATECH has made a major contribution to reestablishing the competitiveness of the U.S. semiconductor industry. However, with the funding requested for fiscal year 1996, the direct federal participation in the program will have exceeded by three years the five year period of such participation foreseen during the establishment of the consortium in fiscal year 1988. The committee agrees with the managers of SEMATECH that the time has come for the industry members to take responsibility for directly funding the operation of the consortium. Therefore, the committee recommends approval of the requested amount for fiscal year 1996, but expects that there will be no further direct federal funding requested for SEMATECH for fiscal year 1997 and beyond. ATD-111 non-acoustic sensor technology The Department of Defense has sponsored several programs to develop non-acoustic sensor technology for anti-submarine warfare and mine detection applications. Congress has consistently supported such initiatives in order to fully explore the potential of various types of non-acoustic sensors, including a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system known as ATD-111. The statement of managers accompanying the conference report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (H. Rept. 103-357) directed the Secretary of the Navy to prepare a report that (1) searched for any competitive research and development projects; (2) evaluated the relative maturity, capability, and life cycle costs of ATD-111 and any other programs identified in the search; (3) outlined an appropriate acquisition strategy that could carry them forward from the development phase; (4) identified additional possible missions these technologies might satisfy; and (5) reported the results to the congressional defense committees. The department's report was prepared by Johns Hopkins University's Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU/APL). It was submitted to Congress in June of 1995. It found no technology or program more mature, more promising, or more capable, relative to stated Navy mission requirements, than ATD-111. However, the report did not identify an acquisition plan as directed in the statement of managers. Further, the fiscal year 1996 budget request contained no funding for continued development of ATD-111 or any proposal for acquisition under the future years defense program. The committee is concerned that the Navy has not chosen to continue development of the ATD-111 system nor to fully address the potential contribution of the ATD-111 system for anti- submarine warfare (ASW) or countermine applications. In the committee's opinion, the system has strong potential as a non- acoustic alternative for ASW at a time when the Navy has repeatedly testified before and briefed the committee on the shrinking acoustic advantage of United States ASW systems relative to those of other countries. For example, much of the debate associated with submarine procurement discussed elsewhere in this report has centered on the need to regain an acoustic advantage over other nations at a time when each incremental improvement is achieved at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase in funding in PE 603714D of $10.0 million: (1) to test ATD-111 system upgrades; (2) to provide for system corrections identified during field tests; (3) to bring the test systems to a common configuration; and (4) to evaluate carriage on alternate airborne platforms. The committee further directs the Secretary of the Navy to prepare a plan for the acquisition and deployment of the ATD-111 system and to provide this plan to the congressional defense committees is with the fiscal year 1997 budget request. NATO research and development program The committee recommends a reduction of $5.0 million in the NATO Research and Development program to fund other priority areas. The committee makes this reduction without prejudice and notes that this recommended reduction would still provide for an increase above the amount appropriated for this account for fiscal year 1995. Fuel cells For several years the Congress has provided funding for a cooperative fuel cell development program between the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. The committee supports these ongoing programs but has concerns that the programs have expanded and lengthened beyond their original scope. The committee is also concerned that these programs do not have substantial cost sharing provisions despite their obvious dual-use nature. The committee is willing to continue its support for this research but only on the condition that the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy report to the committee no later than February 15, 1996 regarding the duration and long-term goals of the programs. The committee also directs the two departments to obtain cost sharing agreements with the developers of these fuel cells before additional funds are released. The committee recommends $9.4 million in PE 63226E for carbonate-based fuel cells, and $12.0 million in PE 63851D for fuel cells for DOD installations. Special Operations Forces counterproliferation support The committee recognizes that Special Operations Forces are relied upon for multiple counterproliferation objectives and contingency operations. The committee recommends that of the funds provided in the Counterproliferation Support program, $6.3 million shall be allocated to the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) for preparation and support of counterproliferation activities. Technical studies, support and analysis The committee recommends a reduction of $5.0 million in PE 605104D without prejudice to fund other priority programs. Technical assistance and SBIR administration The committee recommends a denial of the authorization of $4.92 million in PE 605129D and $1.57 million in PE 605790D. The committee believes that the Procurement Technical Assistance Center program for which the committee elsewhere has recommended an additional $12.0 million would provide an adequate infrastructure for offering technical assistance and other services to potential government contractors. U-2 Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) sensor upgrades While the committee supports the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office's (DARO) initiative to define a Joint Airborne SIGINT Architecture (JASA), the committee is also concerned with DARO's apparent decision not to continue upgrading current platforms while focusing funding exclusively on a new development program. Therefore, the committee recommends an authorization of $20.0 million for the DARO to initiate the Remote Airborne SIGINT (RAS-1B) upgrade program for the U-2 fleet. The committee expects DARO to budget for the remaining funds to complete the upgrade, and directs that this upgrade be fully compliant with JASA standards. U-2 defensive system upgrade The committee appreciates the need for updating the defensive system of the U-2 aircraft, especially as it could be called on to fly over hostile territory. The committee further understands that the warfighting commanders-in-chief unanimously endorse the need for an improved self-defense capability for the U-2. Accordingly, the committee recommends an authorization of $13.0 million for the purpose. The committee expects that the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office (DARO) will budget for the remaining funds for the upgrade. Maritime unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) The committee is advised that a variant of the fixed wing, short-range Joint Tactical UAV currently under development is intended to fill the role of the Navy's short-range maritime UAV system. This system will require the Navy to take off from and land the system on the flight deck of a ship--either an amphibious ship or an aircraft carrier. The committee is concerned about the suitability of a tactical fixed wing UAV for Naval forces. Vertical take-off/landing (VTOL) UAV's address both Naval and land forces' requirements for UAV's with minimal launch and recovery space constraints. A VTOL variant Joint Tactical UAV may provide an effective and complementary air vehicle solution for the multi-service need for real time data in support of reconnaissance, surveillance, targeting, battle damage assessment, and off-board electronic countermeasure anti-ship missile defense (ASMD) against radar-guided missiles. Congressionally mandated VTOL UAV variants which have demonstrated potential to meet these operational needs should be matured and evaluated further. The committee continues to insist on maximum commonality among various UAV's--especially on such items as sensors, avionics, control systems, data links and automatic landing and recovery systems. However, the committee also believes that UAV air frames and their operating characteristics must fit the needs of the user. Therefore, the committee directs the DOD to reexamine the requirements for Joint Tactical UAV for Naval forces and to allocate $12.5 million of the funds provided for the Joint Tactical UAV for fiscal year 1996 to support continued development and evaluation of VTOL Joint Tactical UAV variants. The Secretary of Defense will provide a report to the congressional defense committees on the requirements for Joint Tactical UAV for Naval forces and how those requirements are being addressed by February 15, 1996. Advanced SEAL delivery system (ASDS) The committee has supported the development of a long-range submersible capability to deliver special operations forces for clandestine missions and is pleased with the joint efforts of the Special Operations Command (SOC) and the Navy to develop ASDS. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in program element 116404BB to facilitate testing and fielding of the ASDS. Rigid hull inflatable boat (RHIB) The committee is aware that the Special Operations Command (SOC) has found the 10 meter RHIB design, on which initial developmental efforts were focused, unsatisfactory and has adopted a new strategy for development of a RHIB to meet Special Operations Forces requirements. The committee recommends an increase of $4.3 million in program element 116404BB to support this developmental effort. The committee makes a corresponding reduction of $4.3 million in the procurement account for SOF maritime equipment to offset this increase. Expertise on defense trade and international technology U.S. government policy on the export and trade of U.S. and foreign technologies and products continues to evolve. These policy changes have put new emphasis on the requirement for DOD to evaluate and monitor the availability of technologies in the world marketplace. The committee commends the efforts of Office of the Secretary of Defense in establishing a special internal trade and technology capability in the C3I FFRDC community to provide broad-based technical and engineering support to policy makers in the evaluation of complex international trade and technology areas. The committee believes it is important to enhance support to the Department of Defense in international technology monitoring, technology transfer risk management, industrial base analyses, and the development of opportunities for trade cooperation. RDT&E infrastructure The committee continues to be concerned about the inability of the Department of Defense to manage the size of the infrastructure supporting research, development, test and evaluation efforts. Especially in the test and evaluation area, the size of the infrastructure is not decreasing in proportion to the reductions made in the research and procurement programs that such infrastructure supports. The committee notes that at a time when the budget request for the technology base programs has decreased by over 10 percent, funding for the RDT&E support programs has declined less than 4 percent. The result is that an increasing proportion of our annual RDT&E investments pays for infrastructure maintenance rather than research and development supporting defense missions. Absent a clear approach to infrastructure consolidation from the Secretary of Defense, the committee has recommended reductions in the following RDT&E support accounts: Millions PE 604759A................................................ -$10.0 PE 605103A................................................ -5.0 PE 605896A................................................ -20.0 PE 605864N................................................ -5.0 PE 605807F................................................ -20.0 PE 604940D................................................ -10.0 PE 605804D................................................ -10.0 In the past two years, the committee has supported a number of initiatives to help offset the growing burden of infrastructure support costs. The committee urges the managers of the test and evaluation infrastructure to use existing legislative authority granted under section 846 of the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 to sell use of the test ranges to paying customers other than the DOD in appropriate cases. While the authority was enacted at the specific request of the Department of Defense, the managers of the test ranges have been slow to use it. In particular, our allies are showing a much greater interest in using U.S. test ranges and facilities because of encroachment problems overseas, and the Department should be more aggressive in encouraging and facilitating such requests. On the other hand, the committee is concerned about reports that laboratory and test facilities are using section 846 authorities to compete with private enterprise for test services. It was not the intent of the committee that those authorities be used to foster government competition with the private sector. Continued committee support for these authorities will be contingent on the implementation of effective barriers to such competition. Individual lift vehicle development The committee understands that there is a proposal for developing technology that could lead to an individual flying vehicle (``X-Jet'') that could have a wide variety of military applications. The committee believes that such a system could be particularly useful to the special operations community. The committee is interested in an evaluation by the Special Operations Command to determine the merits and demerits of developing such a system, and whether there is a requirement for such a system in the U.S. Special Operations Command or elsewhere within the Department. The committee directs SOCOM and the Joint Requirements Oversight Council to provide this analysis to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 1996. Defense Developmental Test and Evaluation Environmental technology The Department of Defense strategy for environmental technology is based on two key elements: (1) systematic identification of technology needs and (2) development, demonstration, and validation of technologies. The Defense Environmental Quality Program Annual Report to Congress for fiscal year 1994 briefly addressed the elements of environmental technology, but the report raised more questions than it resolved. It is essential that defense environmental technology have a focus that ensures comprehensive and effective management of the existing projects and resources. Such management should include the following: centralized review and categorization of identified needs; oversight and accountability for all aspects of environmental technology; and consolidation of activities related to demonstration and validation of technologies. Centralization and consolidation of the elements of defense environmental technology will facilitate matching technology sources with identified needs, and will minimize duplication of effort. The committee desires that the Secretary of Defense conduct a complete review of all aspects of Defense environmental technology and submit a detailed recommendation for restructuring environmental technology activities and relating those activities to funding for the next budget cycle. That recommendation should be an integral part of the Defense budget proposal for fiscal year 1997. In addition, the committee has become aware that the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program, and the National Defense Center of Environmental Excellence have all engaged in the development of three distinct computerized databases designed to facilitate the exchange of information relevant to the development and demonstration/validation of environmental technology. The Department of Defense should ensure that these databases are not duplicative. TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE The President's budget request included $91,634.4 million for operation and maintenance of the Armed Forces and component agencies of the Department of Defense in fiscal year 1996. The committee recommends authorization of $91,426.7 million for the operation and maintenance (O&M) accounts for fiscal year 1996, a decrease of $207.7 million. The recommended amount authorized for the O&M accounts includes, to the extent provided in appropriations acts, transfer of $150.0 million from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund. The committee recommends authorization of $878.7 million for the revolving and management funds. The O&M accounts include approximately 36 percent of the total Department of Defense budget. Expenditures from these accounts pay the costs for: --day-to-day operations of our military forces in the United States and around the world; --all individual and unit training for military members, including joint exercises; --maintenance and support of the weapons, vehicles, and equipment in the military services; --purchase and distribution of spare parts and supplies to support military operations; --support, maintenance, and repair of buildings and bases throughout the Department of Defense. The funding in these accounts has a direct impact on the combat readiness of U.S. military forces. While insufficient O&M funds would lead to problems with short-term or current readiness, excessive or unnecessary O&M expenditures for low priority or non-defense programs would also serve to restrict the availability of funds for modernization programs. Modernization is nearly synonymous with long-term or future readiness. The quality of overall readiness essentially depends on adequate funding for both current and future readiness. Although this funding mix is often portrayed as a balance, the committee suggests it is a fundamental obligation of the federal government to provide adequate resources for both current and future readiness. This year the committee received testimony on readiness issues from the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the service Secretaries, the Chiefs of Staff, and the unified combatant commanders. The committee also received testimony from four commissioned officers of various ranks from each service, who illustrated the condition of the armed forces. The Subcommittee on Readiness conducted three hearings this year, receiving testimony from retired senior commissioned officers, the service Chiefs of Staff, the Comptroller of the Department of Defense, and the Comptroller General of the United States on financial management. Concerns about readiness were heightened this year as a result of an announcement by the Secretary of Defense in November 1994 that three Army divisions had reported themselves at readiness level C-3 due to deficiencies in training. Some have noted that three divisions had not been C-3 for training deficiencies since the ``Hollow Force'' years, when the Army had 18 divisions, and the announcement seemed to confirm the existence of a problem. Although the administration subsequently determined that these divisions would not deploy in the first increment in response to a regional contingency crisis, the significance of this development is open to debate. The committee is nonetheless concerned that the senior Department of Defense leadership did not appear to be aware of the readiness situation. The committee received information this year about DOD efforts to improve readiness reporting, including an effort to measure ``Joint Readiness.'' While the committee recognizes the need for DOD to improve its understanding of readiness, it would suggest that readiness reporting is not a science. Readiness comprises a variety of nonquantifiable factors. It is broadly subjective, and readiness reports become less statistically relevant as data are aggregated at higher levels. The probability that meaningful or predictive information may be derived from a joint readiness report is low. However, attempts to understand the relationship between inputs and outputs could be helpful. While current readiness is not robust, future readiness is a larger and more serious problem. The committee believes future readiness deficiencies must be addressed now. If not, more serious indicators will emerge within the next two years and the solution will become far more difficult. Current readiness must be protected at the same time to ensure military forces have the best possible chance to accomplish their missions with minimum casualties and without exposure to unnecessary risk. The committee recommends a reduction in O&M funding for low priority and non-defense programs. Funds made available from these reductions should be authorized for current and future readiness programs so that the Armed Forces can begin the next century with less obsolete and worn-out equipment. This planning consideration required the committee to make some difficult decisions. However, declining defense budgets and serious problems with force modernization have made such decisions necessary. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> SUBTITLE A--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS Section - 303. Armed Forces Retirement Home. The committee recommends $59.1 million for the operation of the AFRH in fiscal year 1996, and $45.0 million to be added to the balance of the AFRH Trust Fund to provide for the continued solvency of the Fund. The impending depletion of the Fund is the consequence of reductions in the size of the active duty force, which has reduced the funding stream envisioned by the Congress in establishing the AFRH. Section - 304. Transfer from National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of Defense, to the extent provided in appropriations acts, to transfer $150.0 million from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund to the O&M accounts. SUBTITLE B--DEPOT-LEVEL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR Section - 311. Policy regarding performance of depot-level maintenance and repair for the Department of Defense. The committee recommends a provision which would provide DOD with the direction, flexibility, and legislative relief necessary to develop and execute a comprehensive depot maintenance policy during fiscal year 1996. The single most important consideration of this policy must be to ensure a reliable maintenance and repair capability. The quality of depot work affects the safety and effectiveness of our men and women in uniform, and the responsiveness of the depot system affects the ability of the armed forces to achieve vital national security objectives. These considerations, rather than simple business practices, are most important. Congress previously enacted various measures to preserve the capacity to perform depot-level work, absent a viable policy within DOD. These measures have tended over time to limit flexibility to the point where restructuring in order to respond to new requirements and conditions is very difficult. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to recommend a policy for the performance of depot-level work by March 31, 1996, for approval by the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the House. The recommendation should articulate core requirements to be performed by public depots, and delineate what competencies, skills, volumes, and plant capacities are needed for the services to perform their missions. The Secretary should then describe how these requirements might best be met. Both public and private sector capabilities should be considered in developing this policy. Broad latitude to interservice work should be assumed in order to take maximum advantage of all capabilities. The ability to capture accurate total cost data has been a consistent shortcoming among public sector entities, which the policy recommendation should address. When competitions are conducted, they should be based on auditable, verifiable data. The committee cautions DOD that the most effective public- private mix may not be the most cost effective solution. Although cost is obviously a prime factor in this matter, national security considerations must take precedence over simple cost avoidance. The committee recognizes that DOD needs the ability to select among various options for performing depot-level work. The recommended provision would enhance flexibility by repealing two current provisions of law (10 U.S.C. 2466 and 2469) which amount to artificial constraints. The repeal would become effective only upon the enactment of legislation which accepts or modifies the DOD policy recommendation. This affords Congress the latitude to retain the limitations in the event DOD is not able to develop a satisfactory policy. Section - 312. Extension of authority for aviation depots and naval shipyards to engage in defense-related production and services. The committee recommends a provision that would extend through fiscal year 1996 the authority provided by section 1425 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, as amended, for naval shipyards and aviation depots of all the services to bid on defense-related production and services. SUBTITLE C--ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISIONS Section - 321. Revision of requirements for agreements for services under environmental restoration program. Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2701(d), the Secretary of Defense has entered into agreements to reimburse states and territories for regulatory oversight services provided at Department of Defense installations within their boundaries. Forty-four states and four territories have signed DSMOAs and are eligible to receive reimbursement. The Defense fiscal year 1996 budget request for DSMOAs is $20,897 million. At a time when the Congress is struggling with the need to produce a balanced budget and reduce the deficit it is necessary for state and federal government agencies to conduct business in a manner that ensures financial accountability. To the extent that a state or territory is undertaking a regulatory activity under generally applicable federal or state environmental laws, the committee believes that the activities should be funded from appropriate federal and state sources, not the Department of Defense. The committee recommends an amendment to 10 U.S.C. 2701(d) that would limit the basis for state reimbursement. Under the amendment, states or territories participating in the DSMOA program could only receive reimbursement for providing technical and scientific services. The committee also recommends a provision that would limit the total amount of funds available for state reimbursement. Section - 322. Discharges from vessels of the Armed Forces. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251, and implementing regulation currently exempt incidental vessel discharges from permitting requirements. Incidental discharges remain subject to varying state regulation. The lack of uniformity has presented operational problems for the Navy. The administration has proposed legislation to address incidental discharges from vessels of the Armed Forces in a comprehensive and rational manner through the development of the Uniform National Discharge Standards. The committee recommends this provision in order to establish the process necessary to develop those standards. The Uniform National Discharge Standards provision will substantially advance shipboard environmental protection in a manner that respects and enhances the operational capabilities of the Navy. The provision is modeled after section 312 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1322. Section 312 establishes uniform national discharge standards for sewage discharges from all vessels. The Uniform National Discharge Standards provision extends this model to regulate non-sewage incidental discharges from vessels of the armed forces. Section - 323. Revision of authorities relating to restoration advisory boards. The Department of Defense is developing a funding program for installation Restoration Advisory Boards, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2705. Section 2705 provided that RABs would be established to assist the Department with environmental restoration activities at military installations and to provide funding for local community members of RABs and existing technical review committees. About 200 Restoration Advisory Boards have been established at operational and closing installations and Formerly Used Defense Sites. The RAB funding sources for local community member participation and for technical assistance are the Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA) and the Base Realignment and Closure Account (BRAC). Section 2705(e)(3)(B) provided for $7.5 million limit on available DERA and BRAC funds for RABs technical assistance in fiscal year 1995. Under section 2705(d)(3) routine administrative expenses for RABs may be paid out of funds available for the operation and maintenance of an installation, without any limit on the amount of funds that may be expended for that purpose. Section 2705 of title 10 has been amended to limit funding sources to BRAC and DERA, not to exceed $4 million. Technical assistance shall be provided through federal, state, and local agencies responsible for overseeing environmental restoration at the installation, the contractors carrying out environmental restoration at the installation, or available Department of Defense personnel, unless those existing sources of technical expertise cannot serve the objective for which technical assistance is requested. SUBTITLE D--CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES Section - 331. Minimum number of military reserve technicians. The committee recommends a provision that would establish a floor for military technicians in the Army and Air Force Reserve and National Guard for fiscal years 1996 and 1997. The recommended military technician authorizations are: Army National Guard--25,750 Army Reserve--7,000 Air National Guard--23,250 Air Force Reserve--10,000 The committee notes that the severe reductions directed in the military technician program by the Department of Defense were not based on changes in force structure or missions. Rather, it appears that the directed reductions were arbitrary, full-time-equivalent targets assigned to meet National Performance Review goals. Testimony before the committee confirmed that the directed reductions would have an adverse effect on reserve readiness and the ability of the reserve component to accept missions which would relieve active component personnel tempo requirements. Section - 332. Exemption of Department of Defense from personnel ceilings for civilian personnel. The committee recommends a provision that would preclude the management of civilian personnel in the Department of Defense by artificial limits on manyears, end strength, full- time equivalents (FTEs), or other such personnel ceilings. The committee is concerned about certain aspects of the ongoing reductions in the Department of Defense civilian work force. It is apparent that, regarding the reductions in the military component, the Department has made a serious effort to associate reductions with force structure and programmatic changes. Efforts to do the same regarding the civilian work force, however, are far less apparent. The committee is concerned by the use of FTEs and the department's willingness to apply uniform, ``salami slice'' reductions to the military departments and defense agencies. The Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994 provided an aggregate ceiling for all federal civilian personnel measured in FTEs. Subsequently, the Department of Defense chose to provide annual FTE ceilings for each military department and each defense agency covering fiscal years 1994 through 2001. These ceilings apportion the overall reduction uniformly across the Department of Defense without regard to differences among the departments and agencies, force structure changes, workload fluctuations, the potential results of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission process, or readiness. The administration's report: ``Cutting Red Tape--Creating a Government That Works Better and Costs Less'' in referring to ``Full Time Equivalents'' (FTEs) provides that ``The President should direct OMB and agency heads to stop setting FTE ceilings in fiscal year 1995.'' The practical effects on readiness of management by FTEs are exceptionally troublesome. Management by FTE assumes a level of workload predictability that is inapplicable to numerous activities. It severely restricts the flexibility of depots and shipyards to adjust their workforce in response to funded customer requirements. Despite the availability of funds, FTE ceilings preclude these activities from adjusting the size of their workforce in response to operational commitments, contingencies, and other surges in workload. Additionally, certain defense agencies frequently produce goods and services for other defense agencies and are appropriately reimbursed. The imposition of FTEs precludes agency heads from retaining or hiring necessary personnel for which funds are available through this reimbursement mechanism. In addition, management by FTEs could actually require a military department or defense agency to take more than the mandated reduction if the reductions are postponed until late in the fiscal year to make up manyears executed early in the fiscal year. Section - 333. Wearing of uniform by National Guard technicians. The committee recommends a provision that would require military technicians to wear military uniforms in their jobs. The provision would also place technician officers on the same footing as Active Guard and Reserve officers for purposes of qualifying for a uniform allowance. Section - 334. Extension of temporary authority to pay civilian employees with respect to the evacuation from Guantanamo, Cuba. The committee recommends a provision that would extend the authorization for the Navy to continue to pay evacuation allowances until January 31, 1996 to civilian employees whose dependents were evacuated from Guantanamo, Cuba, in August and September 1994. The provision would require a monthly report regarding the number of employees with dependents in an evacuation status, their positions of employment, the number and location of their dependents, and the actions that the Secretary of the Navy is taking to eliminate the conditions making the payments necessary. The committee is disappointed that it is necessary to extend this authority. The evacuation allowances authority limits the period for evacuation payments to 180 days. In April 1995, the Congress extended the authority through the end of the fiscal year to permit the Navy more time to take the necessary actions to replace the civilian workers under an accompanied tour contract with military personnel, or with civilian personnel in an unaccompanied status. To date, the Navy has not taken any action to eliminate the conditions making these payments necessary. The lack of action by the Navy has resulted in the families of the civilian employees living in temporary arrangements separated from their spouses and unsure of what the future holds for almost a full year. This lack of action reflects an insensitivity to the professional development and quality of life of the affected civilian employees. The situation is particularly aggravated since the Navy changed the tours for military personnel assigned to Naval Station Guantanamo to alleviate a similar situation affecting the military personnel and their families. While the Secretary of the Navy has limited influence on the diplomatic and political dynamics of the situation in Cuba, that lack of influence is not an excuse for permitting families to remain in an evacuee status for such an extended period. The committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to take the necessary steps to eliminate the conditions which require extending this authority before this final extension expires. Section - 335. Sharing of personnel of Department of Defense domestic dependent schools and Defense Dependents' Education System. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of Defense to direct the sharing of personnel resources between the Department of Defense Overseas School System and the Defense Dependents' Education System to provide administrative, logistical, personnel, or other support services to either system for a period to be prescribed by the Secretary. Section - 336. Revision of authority for appointments of involuntarily separated military reserve technicians. The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3329 of title 5 United States Code to eliminate the requirement that separated technicians receive a job offer giving them placement rights over other separated DOD civilian employees. The provision would also eliminate the requirement to artificially create a vacancy to accommodate a separated technician. Section - 337. Cost of continuing health insurance coverage for employees voluntarily separated from positions to be eliminated in a reduction in force. The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 8905a(d)(4) of title 5 United States Code, to extend continued health insurance coverage and payment of the employer portion of the premium and administrative fee for surplus employees who voluntarily resign in response to base closures, realignments, or formal force reduction procedures. Section - 338. Elimination of 120-day limitation on details of certain employees. The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3341 of title 5 United States Code, to eliminate the requirement that the administration of details for civilian employees be managed in 120-day increments. Section - 339. Repeal of requirement for part-time career opportunity employment reports. The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate the requirement in section 3407 of title 5 United States Code, that agencies provide progress reports on the part-time career employment program. Section - 340. Authority of civilian employees of Department of Defense to participate voluntarily in reductions in force. The committee recommends a provision that would allow employees who are not affected by a reduction-in-force (RIF) to volunteer to be RIF separated in place of other employees who are scheduled for RIF separation. Section - 341. Authority to pay severance payments in lump sums. The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 5595 of title 5 United States Code, to permit the lump- sum payment of severance pay. Section - 342. Holidays for employees whose basic workweek is other than Monday through Friday. The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 6103(b)(2) of title 5 United States Code, to authorize agencies some discretion in designating holidays for employees whose basic work week is other than Monday through Friday. Section - 343. Coverage of nonappropriated fund employees under authority for flexible and compressed work schedules. The committee recommends a provision that would permit nonexempt nonappropriated fund employees to work on a compressed schedule without entitlement to overtime. SUBTITLE E--DEFENSE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT Section - 351. Financial management training. The budget request included $88.9 million to establish a financial management training center in Southbridge, Massachusetts. The committee strongly supports the DOD effort to conduct appropriate training for civilians who perform financial management work. As financial management increasingly becomes an OSD responsibility, the program direction for education and training will shift to OSD. The need for OSD involvement in curricula, standards, and processes is readily apparent. The committee strongly supports this shift and recognizes the need for OSD involvement and control. The committee recommends a provision which would prohibit the obligation of funds to establish a DOD financial management training center pending certification by the Secretary of Defense of the need for such an organization. The committee provision requires DOD to justify the need for such a center and the decision to locate it in Southbridge. The Secretary would be directed to analyze the requirement for a center and consider alternatives in developing a plan to achieve clearly stated financial management training objectives. The committee further directs the Secretary to submit a plan and an accompanying report to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives, to implement the results of this analysis. The report would also detail the long-term and short-term costs, and state what means were considered to conduct this training. In the event the Secretary determines there is a need to establish a new training center, the Secretary should recommend a site and describe the process by which the site was selected. No funds would be authorized for obligation for a capital lease for any such facility until 90 days following submission of the Secretary's certification of need, report, and plan to the defense committees. Section - 352. Limitation on opening of new centers for Defense Finance and Accounting Service. The committee recommends a provision that would require the Department of Defense to conduct a review of the need for further expansion of Defense Finance and Accounting System (DFAS) centers, and to report to the appropriate committees of the Congress prior to establishing any new DFAS centers. The committee is concerned that the current expansion plans have not been examined against actual requirements, given continued consolidation and downsizing of the services. SUBTITLE F--MISCELLANEOUS ASSISTANCE Section - 361. Department of Defense funding for National Guard participation in joint disaster and emergency assistance exercises. The committee recommends a provision that would provide funding authority for National Guard units to participate in joint exercises preparing them to respond to civil emergencies or disasters. Section - 362. Office of Civil-Military Programs. The committee approved a prohibition on the use of funds for the Office of Civil-Military Programs. The committee believes civil-military cooperation efforts should be limited and at the discretion of local commanders, who are in the best position to determine the positive or negative effects of such operations on the readiness of the units under their command. The committee notes that the military has engaged in these activities in the past on an ad hoc basis without central direction from the Department of Defense. The committee is not aware of any change in circumstances that requires the central direction of these activities. Section - 363. Revision of authority for Civil-Military Cooperative Action Program. The committee recommends a provision that would revise section 410 of title 10 United States Code, to restrict civil- military activities under this section to reserve component forces and make other technical changes. Section - 364. Office of Humanitarian and Refugee Affairs. The committee approved a prohibition on the use of funds for the Office of Humanitarian and Refugee Affairs. The committee believes that this office is more appropriately funded and operated within the Department of State. SUBTITLE G--OPERATION OF MORALE, WELFARE, AND RECREATION FUNDS Section - 371. Disposition of excess morale, welfare, and recreation funds. The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 373 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 to permit the Marine Corps to retain the MWR funds transferred from USMC installations. An unintended consequence of the current provision might require the Marine Corps to transfer MWR funds from USMC installations to the Navy MWR fund. Section - 372. Elimination of certain restrictions on purchases and sales of items by exchange stores and other morale, welfare, and recreation facilities. The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate the cost, price, size, and country of origin limitations on purchases and sales of items sold in the military exchanges and MWR facilities. Currently, the exchanges are limited by a collection of limitations based on cost, price, size, value and country of origin. The committee believes these restrictions prohibit the exchanges from selling items service members and their families want to purchase. The recommended provision should improve the quality of life for service members and their families. Section - 373. Repeal of requirement to convert ships' stores to nonappropriated fund instrumentalities. The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 371 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994. The provision would repeal the requirement to convert ships' stores operations to a Navy Exchange System agency. SUBTITLE H--OTHER MATTERS Section - 381. National Defense Sealift Fund: availability for Ready Reserve component of the Ready Reserve Fleet. The committee recommends a provision that would permit the use of National Defense Sealift Fund funds for support of the national defense reserve fleet (NDRF). Beginning with the fiscal year 1996 request, funds for the operation and maintenance of the NDRF will be included in the budget request and be subject to committee recommendation for their authorization. Section - 382. Limitation on contracting with same contractor for construction of additional new sealift ships. The committee has become aware of a proposal to direct procurement of strategic sealift ships to specific shipbuilders. By separate action the committee has affirmed its commitment to competition in shipbuilding and recommended a provision that would provide for competitive procurement of the new attack submarine. The committee is also aware of potential cost growth in existing contracts for procurement of strategic sealift ships. While the committee remains strongly committed to meeting the requirements for strategic sealift established in the Mobility Requirements Study and subsequent updates, the committee does not believe that directing procurement to a shipbuilder, particularly one experiencing cost growth in his contract with the Navy, is a proper course of action to follow. The committee recommends a provision that would limit the ability of the Secretary of the Navy to enter into a new contract for additional sealift ships in the event of (1) cost growth in an existing contract that would exceed the maximum price originally established in the contract; or (2) there are outstanding claims against the government that, if approved, would increase the maximum price of the existing contract. Section - 383. Availability of recovered losses resulting from contractor fraud. The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 134 of title 10, United States Code to authorize the DOD to retain three percent of single damage funds, or $500,000, whichever is less, recovered in contract fraud matters at military installations. This percentage would be distributed to the military departments, to be credited to the O&M accounts of the installations responsible for the recoveries. This amendment would enable a more business-like approach to DOD operations, provide an incentive to pursue cases of suspected fraud, and reward success. It would also provide a means to fund other investigations and return 97 percent of recoveries to the Treasury. Military installations do not have budgeted funds available to pursue such cases. They incur costs in the conduct of investigations and litigation which this provision would reimburse in part. The Department of Justice has similar authority under section 527 of title 28, United States Code. Section - 384. Permanent authority for use of proceeds from the sale of certain lost, abandoned, or unclaimed property. The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2575 of title 10, United States Code to enable installation commanders to use proceeds from the sale of lost, abandoned, or unclaimed personal property to offset costs incurred against installation O&M accounts to collect, transport, store, protect, or sell such property. Any net proceeds may be used to support morale, welfare, and recreation at the installation. Installation commanders are currently required to expend O&M funds budgeted for other purposes to dispose of such property. The costs of these disposals are currently not reimbursed; the recommended authority would enable reimbursement. Disposals would be conducted on a business-like basis and the recommended authority would provide an incentive to obtain the best value. This approach to disposal of such property has been validated by demonstration projects, authority for which was granted in section 343 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993. Section - 385. Sale of military clothing and subsistence and other supplies of the Navy and Marine Corps. The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 651 of title 10, United States Code, to provide the Navy and Marine Corps the authority currently granted to the Army and Air Force to conduct in-kind replacement sales of individual equipment items which have been lost, damaged, or destroyed. Section - 386. Conversion of Civilian Marksmanship Program to nonappropriated fund instrumentality and activities under program. The committee recommends a provision to provide for the conversion of the Civilian Marksmanship Program to a nonappropriated fund instrumentality. Section - 387. Report on contracting out certain functions of Department of Defense. The committee is interested in exploring possibilities to achieve efficiencies through privatization of commercial functions. Therefore, the committee has included a provision requiring the Department to submit a report describing the advantages and disadvantages of using contractor personnel, rather than civilian employees of the Department of Defense, to perform functions of the Department that are not essential to the warfighting mission of the Armed Forces. Section - 390. Impact aid. The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the Secretary of Education from considering payments to a local educational agency from defense funds when determining the amount of impact aid to be paid from Department of Education funds. Additionally, the recommended provision would make technical changes to previous year authorization of impact aid. OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST Army Army reimbursable positions The Army's civilian personnel budget request for Budget Activity 4 was based on 32,969 direct-hire work years including 4,996 reimbursable work years. The correct number of work years is 27,973. Based on an average annual salary of $46,604, the Army's civilian personnel request is overstated by $233.0 million. Therefore, the committee has reduced the Army O&M budget request by this amount. Historically black colleges and universities fellowships The budget request includes $300,000 to provide fellowships for professors from historically black colleges and universities. Because the Department of Defense has not provided a national security requirement for these fellowships, the committee has reduced the Army's operation and maintenance budget by the amount that is requested for this purpose. National Science Center The committee notes that the National Science Center has plans to begin to move from Army facilities at Fort Gordon into new facilities that are being provided by state and local funds. This new facility will significantly increase the revenues generated by user and entrance fees. The committee applauds this move and notes that this move into a facility provided by non-federal funding will allow the Army to realize significant savings. The committee further notes that the Army portion of the cost of operation of the new center should decline as new revenues are generated. The committee has provided direction in another section of this report for the Army to renegotiate its Memorandum of Understanding with the center. The committee recognizes that the Army has worked closely with the center to prepare a plan which will insure that the Army's cost of participation in the center will be reimbursed by revenues generated by the center. This plan is based on the assumption that the Army costs should be at current levels of funding or lower for the next two years and then gradually reduced until they are fully covered by reimbursements from center revenues by the fifth year of the center's operation. The committee directs the Army to work with the center to develop a modification to the current plan which would allow the Army to be fully reimbursed by the fourth year of operation. These plans should be submitted to the committee no later than the submission of the President's budget request for fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends an authorization of $3.5 million for Fiscal Year 1996. Navy Nimitz Center The budget request included $3.1 million for the Chester W. Nimitz Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies. The committee does not authorize funds for this program because of requirements in higher-priority programs. Active and Reserve P-3 squadrons The services of P-3 squadrons are historically in very high demand by the unified commanders. In recent years, that demand has increased dramatically as the ability of the P-3 aircraft to carry out littoral warfare missions has become more apparent. Simultaneously, however, budget pressures have forced the Navy to cut P-3 force structure in its budget request. The current maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) force structure consists of 22 squadrons, 13 active and nine reserve squadrons (13/9). The budget request would support Navy plans to reduce MPA force structure to 20 squadrons, 12 active and eight reserve (12/8). The committee believes MPA aircraft make an invaluable contribution to antisubmarine warfare missions. The committee also recognizes that MPA aircraft are ideally suited to meet a variety of mission requirements for littoral operations very effectively and efficiently. Accordingly, the committee recommends an additional $35.0 million to sustain the MPA force structure at 13/9 in fiscal year 1996. Yard Tugboat Service The committee is encouraged by the Navy's effort to improve yard tugboat services by contracting out to private industry. Long-term tractor tug charters at Kings Bay, Georgia; Mayport, Florida; and San Diego, California have proven successful in furnishing the Navy with quality products and services at lower costs than Navy-owned and operated tug boats. The Navy is currently examining several additional ports for conversion to long-term tug charters, as well. The committee directs the Navy to evaluate the potential for expanding the use of private sector tug boat services, and report to the congressional defense committees by January 1, 1996. The report should identify locations where long-term charters for yard tug boat service would be cost effective, increase safety, and ensure compliance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. If contracting out would make these benefits achievable, the committee encourages the Navy to seek long-term contracts for yard tug boat services with private firms. Marine Corps Marine Corps Extended Cold Weather Clothing System (ECWCS) The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million in the O&M account for the Marine Corps to field needed protective garments to the Fleet Marine Force. The second generation ECWCS garments are vapor permeable, waterproof, and windproof. They significantly enhance insulation. Garments can be laundered aboard ship and are resistant to petroleum contamination. Current equipment issued to Fleet Marines does not have these properties. These are important considerations for deployed Marines, who often receive orders to conduct operations not anticipated before deployment. Air Force Civil Air Patrol The budget request includes $27.5 million for the Civil Air Patrol (CAP). While the committee recognizes the value of the Civil Air Patrol in providing for civilian search and rescue missions and disaster relief operations, these operations are more appropriately funded by another agency or by state governments. In addition, the committee is concerned that such a substantial portion of the CAP's budget goes to personnel and overhead costs while only 10 percent is used to reimburse the volunteer pilots who dedicate their time and efforts to provide the search and rescue operations of the CAP. The committee notes that the ongoing reorganization of the CAP to reduce the number of active duty military and Air Force civilian employees was expected to reduce required funding by $3.0 million a year. However, according to the General Accounting Office, this reorganization resulted in an increased requirement of $4.0 million rather than the expected $3.0 million savings. The committee therefore recommends a reduction in the level of funding for this program by $5.0 million from the fiscal year 1996 budget request. The committee intends to explore other funding sources for this program in the future to further reduce its reliance on the DOD. Civilian Personnel Policy Modernization and regionalization of civilian personnel management functions The committee commends the Department of Defense for the progress made in attempting to streamline and improve human resource management policy, practices, and service delivery. Of particular importance are those initiatives involving the modernization and regionalization of civilian personnel management functions. Under certain conditions, the modernization and regionalization of civilian personnel management functions could provide a tremendous opportunity for enhanced customer service and substantial savings in overhead and staff resources. The committee is concerned, however, by the consolidation of personnel servicing before a modern, standard personnel data system and its supporting communications network are in place. Without a modern, standard personnel data system in place and without the communications network in place to support such a data system, the consolidation of personnel servicing into large service centers may not produce substantial cost savings without an unacceptable degradation in customer service. The very significant--and perhaps premature--reductions in civilian personnel specialists which unfortunately coincide with the regionalization initiative render the degradation in customer service even more probable. The continued downsizing of the civilian workforce over the next several years will place extraordinary demands on the civilian personnel management community. The committee notes that 1) planned reductions in personnel specialists and 2) regionalization prior to modernization can only further complicate the personnel management challenge at a time when the department's civilian employees deserve only the highest levels of customer service. The committee intends to review these issues in the coming months with officials from the military services. Defense-Wide Multi-Technology Automated Reader Card (MARC) MARC is a multi-functional, cross-service utility card with a magnetic stripe, integrated computer chip (ICC), a bar code and static information. It combines non-updatable information (name, social security number, blood type, photograph, etc.) and updatable information (medical, pay, qualifications) in the same card. The ICC can be used to record a wide variety of transactions and records. MARC has been shown to be particularly useful in reducing administrative requirements and errors. The committee has noted with interest the success of the DOD MARC project. Field tests of this ``Smart Card'' technology have demonstrated important gains in efficiency and effectiveness in a variety of applications. The committee recommends an additional $8.0 million to expand the project. SR-71 The committee is pleased with the timely and cost-effective reconstitution of a contingency force of manned, high speed, penetrating reconnaissance aircraft as a hedge until penetrating unmanned aerial vehicles are widely fielded. This contingency capability of two SR-71 aircraft was accomplished by the Air Force under the direction of the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office for substantially less than the $100.0 million appropriated for this purpose last year. The committee therefore encourages the Air Force and the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office to retain this capability in fiscal year 1996 from such funds as are made available. Museums The committee is concerned with the growing number of museums scattered throughout the nation's military facilities. The operation and maintenance of these museums absorbs an increasing portion of a limited defense budget. The committee believes that the military services should assess the necessity of maintaining these museums when there are limited funds available for training and other essential military needs. The committee directs the Department of Defense to submit a report by January 1, 1996 that lists each of the military museums and the costs required for their operation and maintenance. Spending for non-military missions During the course of the year, the committee has become increasingly concerned that while the defense budget continues to decline and a lack of funds has caused training exercises, needed munitions purchases, and modernization programs to be canceled, the Department of Defense continues to spend increasing portions of its limited budget on non-defense or low-priority military programs. These programs include: civilian rescue missions, support to homeless shelters, assistance to local communities and civilian agencies, civilian educational programs, youth outreach programs, foreign disaster assistance, and international humanitarian efforts. Such programs are often performed with DOD funds, but support another agency's mission. The recent report by the Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces recommended that ``the President should limit the use of military forces in both peace operations and operations other than war to tasks that cannot be more appropriately assigned to others.'' The committee approves of this recommendation and encourages the President to assign non-military tasks to more appropriate agencies. The committee recognizes the importance of many of these programs to the nation as a whole, and understands that the DOD possesses both the equipment and knowledge to perform them. However, the committee believes that the Department of Defense should be reimbursed for its costs if it supports the missions of other agencies. Therefore, the committee has not provided funding for many of these programs. The committee believes that the Secretary of Defense needs to reassess DOD involvement in low-priority defense activities. Over the past several years, the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Research Service have reported that these and other programs not directly related to warfighting consume billions of dollars of the defense budget each year. While such programs may be well intentioned, the declining defense budget makes it difficult to sustain their continued funding with DOD resources. Therefore, the committee directs the Department of Defense to provide a report on those activities currently being performed by the DOD which support another agency's mission. The Secretary of Defense should provide the results of this report to the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House National Security Committee no later than April 1, 1996. International peacekeeping The budget request included $65.0 million for international peacekeeping assessments for those operations which the Department of Defense would have lead funding and management responsibility under proposed new legislation. The committee has determined that U.N. assessments for these activities would more appropriately be funded through the Department of State as has been the practice in the past. Therefore, the committee does not support the proposed legislation and denies authorization for these funds. Humanitarian assistance and foreign disaster assistance The fiscal year 1996 budget requested $79.8 million for humanitarian assistance, including $20.0 million for the humanitarian demining program, and an additional $45.3 million for foreign disaster relief. The committee is concerned that these programs are outside of the department's core mission and are not affordable at a time when reductions in the defense budget are having a negative impact on essential national security functions of the Department of Defense. The committee is further concerned about the negative impact on the quality of life of military personnel resulting from increased deployments to support operations of this nature. The committee understands the unique capability of the Department of Defense to respond to humanitarian crises, including man-made and natural disasters. Nevertheless, the committee believes that these activities would more appropriately be funded by the Department of State on a reimbursable basis. The committee authorizes the $20.0 million for the landmine clearance program, but denies the remaining portion of the request. Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps The budget request included $131.9 million for the Junior Reserve Officer Training Program. The committee recognizes the value of this program but authorizes only $119.6 million (the fiscal year 1995 level of funding). This results in a $12.9 million reduction from the budget request for fiscal year 1996. Civilian personnel levels The committee notes that the Department of Defense civilian personnel drawdown continues faster than expected. During fiscal year 1995, civilian personnel levels in the Department of Defense, have been reduced faster than anticipated when the fiscal year 1996 budget was drafted. This drawdown means lower- than-budgeted civilian personnel levels throughout fiscal year 1996 resulting in savings of $250.0 million. The committee has made the appropriate adjustments in the fiscal year 1996 budget to reflect these savings. Federal Energy Management Program The budget request included $234.7 million for the Federal Energy Management Program. The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense could not provide a list of projects to support this funding request. Such information is necessary for determining the validity of a request this size. While the committee believes in the importance of conserving energy at the nation's military facilities, it believes that base commanders can initiate such projects if provided sufficient funding for base operations and real property maintenance. The committee notes that these commanders are in a position to identify the most important needs of each facility, including those which would result in the greatest decrease in energy consumption. Therefore, the committee has authorized only $50.0 million for the Federal Energy Management Program, but it has increased the amount of funds for base operations and real property maintenance so that base commanders will have sufficient funds available for energy conservation and other important functions. Homeless support initiative The budget request includes $3.0 million for the Homeless Support Initiative. The committee notes that 10 U.S.C. 2546 allows service Secretaries to provide assistance to homeless shelters so long as the assistance does not interfere with military preparedness or military requirements. The committee further notes that training exercises and modernization programs have been canceled because of a lack of funds. Therefore, the committee believes that providing $3.0 million annually to this program qualifies as interference with military preparedness and military requirements. While the committee is concerned with the health and welfare of the nation's homeless, the committee believes that supporting homeless shelters is outside the primary mission of the Department of Defense and would more appropriately be funded through those agencies with primary funding and policy responsibility for this issue. Civil-military/youth outreach programs The budget request includes $69.5 million for civil- military programs including Civil-Military Cooperation, CHALLENGE, and STARBASE. The committee is concerned with the cost of these programs at a time when the defense budget continues to decline. The committee understands that the armed forces can provide useful assistance to local communities while at the same time perform mission training activities. However, the committee believes that civil-military efforts should be limited and at the discretion of local commanders who are in the best position to determine the positive or negative effects of such operations on the readiness of the units under their command. In the past, military commanders and personnel have been allowed to assist local communities in efforts to improve the infrastructure on an ad hoc basis without central bureaucratic direction. The committee sees no reason to expand these activities by authorizing limited DOD funds for their execution. In addition, the committee is concerned with the increase in resources being dedicated to youth outreach programs while needed training exercises go unfunded. The committee believes DOD funding for civil-military youth programs should be limited to a single program that has the greatest military relevance-- Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps. The committee continues to authorize the National Guard to carry out both CHALLENGE and STARBASE, however, funding for these programs will have to be provided by another federal agency, state governments, or private organizations. United Services Organization The United Services Organization, chartered by Congress, is one of the premier voluntary civilian organizations which contributes to the quality of life of members of the Armed Forces and their families. The USO does not receive any direct federal funding, but relies on contributions from individuals and corporations. The USO does receive some in-kind assistance from the Department of Defense in the form of housing for USO personnel overseas, use of military postal services and the defense telecommunications system, and access to the DOD dependents school system. The committee commends the Secretary of Defense for his efforts to assist the USO and encourages him to seek opportunities to enhance the in-kind assistance provided to the USO. Revolving Funds National defense features The committee report on S. 1298 (S. Rept. 103-112) and the statement of managers accompanying the conference report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (H. Rept. 103-160) expressed continuing support for a national defense features (NDF) program. An NDF program would provide funds to install important defense features in privately-owned merchant vessels during their construction. Such features would make these vessels more capable of carrying military cargo during a contingency. The commercial ship owner would bear the ship construction costs. The owner would contract directly with a U.S. shipyard for construction of the ship. The nation's shipbuilding industry would benefit from such a proposal to the extent that it would provide an incentive for commercial ship construction. Costs to the government per ship would be much lower than buying a whole ship. Through a binding agreement with the ship's owners, it would be available for immediate recall in case of a contingency. To better evaluate the merits of an NDF program, the committee requested that the Secretary of Defense provide a study by January 1, 1994 of the costs and benefits of this program. Unfortunately, the Secretary did not submit his report until March 1995--fourteen months later. The report supports the concept of an NDF program, but considers buying foreign-built roll-on/roll-off (RO/RO) ships for the Ready Reserve Force (RRF) a higher priority. Consequently, the fiscal year 1996 budget request contained $70.0 million to purchase and modify more foreign-built RO/RO ships for the RRF. The committee has reviewed the report and agrees that incorporation of additional RO/RO ships into the RRF is consistent with the Joint Staff's Mobility Requirements Study and its subsequent updates. The committee believes, however, that an NDF program has the potential to: 1. provide the strategic sealift that the country needs while building substantially superior ships; 2. support the U.S. Merchant Marine; 3. save or create a significant number of jobs in the shipbuilding industry and the suppliers of that industry; and 4. assist U.S. shipyards to reenter the commercial shipbuilding market. The committee believes that these are worthy objectives that adding RO/RO ships to the RRF would not satisfy. Consequently, of the funds approved in the National Defense Sealift Fund, the committee recommends $70.0 million to be used as follows: 1. $20.0 million to modify RO/RO vessels purchased in fiscal year 1995; and 2. $50.0 million to procure and install defense features on commercial RO/RO ships, to be built in U.S. shipyards. Maritime prepositioning ship leases The committee report on S. 2182 (S. Rept. 103-282) required that the Secretary of Defense provide an analysis of a Navy proposal to buy-out some of the maritime prepositioning ship (MPS) leases before taking any steps to terminate the lease contracts. The Department of the Navy submitted justification material with the amended budget request indicating that the Navy might begin using unobligated balances in the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF) to purchase these vessels. If this course of action is pursued, the Navy intends to divert funds presently on deposit in the NDSF for acquisition of prepositioning/surge ships that are already under contract to buy out the MPS leases. The budget request cautions that such a buyout would in turn create a need for additional funding for these ships. Section 2218 of title 10, United States Code requires that NDSF budget requests be made by programs, projects, and activities. The committee notes that the budget justification material does not request any specific amounts to begin buy-out of MPS leases. The committee also notes that the Secretary of Defense has not submitted the required analysis. Therefore, the committee directs that none of the funds in the NDSF or other funds available to the Secretary of Defense be used to terminate these lease contracts or buy the MPS vessels. Maritime prepositioning ship enhancement In fiscal year 1995 the committee developed a new initiative, maritime prepositioning ship (MPS) enhancement, to expand the capabilities of the three Marine Corps MPS squadrons. The committee recommended authorization of $220.0 million for the purchase and conversion of up to three additional ships to permit the Marine Corps to add additional tanks, an expeditionary airfield, additional Navy construction battalion equipment, a fleet hospital, and other supplies to each squadron to better sustain the Marine Corps as an expeditionary force. While MPS enhancement had not been included in the fiscal year 1995 budget request, the committee took action based on its determination that the requirement was valid and information that indicated ships were available for purchase and conversion under cost effective circumstances. The Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1995 provided $110.0 million to purchase and convert the first MPS enhancement ship. An approved requirement for MPS enhancement now exists. However, additional funding for the program was not included in the budget request. The committee's inquiries determined that the ships targeted for procurement and conversion last year are no longer available. Consequently, the Department of Defense had embarked on an apparently lengthy process to develop a design, then seek out alternate candidates that, when converted, will satisfy the requirements of the MPS squadrons. It does not appear that the department is aggressively exploring options, such as commercial ships or dual use of existing ready reserve force (RRF) ships for both prepositioning and surge missions, that could make an MPS enhancement ship available more quickly. The committee continues to strongly support MPS enhancement. The committee is troubled that, despite an approved requirement, the budget request failed to include funding for a second ship. Additionally, the committee is concerned over the limited progress made in acquiring and converting the fiscal year 1995 MPS enhancement ship. As a measure of its strong support for the MPS enhancement program, the committee authorizes $110.0 million to purchase and convert an additional ship. The committee expects the Department to aggressively pursue all possible options, including the use of RRF RO/ROs or commercial procurement, in order to accelerate the purchase, conversion, and delivery of the ships authorized in fiscal years 1995 and 1996. Further, the Secretary of Defense is directed to report on progress toward meeting this goal when he submits the fiscal year 1997 budget request. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to prepare this report because, while an option such as dual designation of RRF RO/ROs presently allocated for Marine Corps assault follow-on echelon equipment appears a sensible proposal, experience indicates that it may generate bureaucratic disputes that can only be resolved at his level. Defense Environment Defense environmental compliance There are three basic categories of non-recurring requirements in the Defense Environmental Compliance Program: Class I--necessary to bring an activity into compliance with existing mandates; Class II--necessary to meet future compliance milestones, some of which must be completed to avoid a future violation within the current budget cycle; and Class III--a positive contribution to the environment, but not needed to comply with legal requirements. The Department of Defense budget cycle requests for compliance funding are based on costs related to recurring requirements, Class I current violations, and Class II violations projected to occur within the programmed year. The recurring requirements portion of the budget amounts to about one half of the compliance budget. Under 10 U.S.C. 2706(b) the Secretary of Defense is required to submit to Congress an annual report on the status of environmental compliance activities at military installations. The report for fiscal year 1994 addresses the entire environmental quality program, including compliance. The report does not distinguish between the funding levels and personnel requirements associated with each of the environmental quality pillars of pollution prevention, conservation, and compliance. As a result, it is difficult to track the basis for the compliance funding request in a given budget cycle. The committee directs that the department's future annual reports on the environmental quality program provide a breakout of the funding levels for each of the environmental quality pillars addressed in the report. The committee directs that the report shall include a projection of the funding levels and the number of full-time personnel that will be required for the Department of Defense to comply with applicable environmental laws during the fiscal year for which the budget is submitted and for the following five fiscal years. The report shall separately set forth projections for the Department of Defense as a whole and for each military installation, broken out by environmental quality pillar and by appropriation for recurring costs. For non-recurring costs, breakouts shall be provided by pillar, appropriation, and media category. Funding projections for the budget fiscal year shall include a project listing for non-recurring requirements that separately identifies Class I and II requirements for each military installation. Legacy resource management program In the Department of Defense 1991 Appropriation Act, the Secretary of Defense was directed to establish a Legacy Resource Management Program and establish a separate appropriations line item for the program. Prior to the inception of the Legacy Program, requirements related to the preservation of natural and cultural resources under the jurisdiction of the Department Defense were planned, programmed, and budgeted within the Defense Environmental Compliance Program. The Legacy Program was designed specifically to address those conservation and preservation projects that would be valuable and beneficial, but which were not required to be performed under applicable environmental laws. The absence of funding for those kinds of projects was perceived as a gap in the Department of Defense environmental programs. The department has since developed a definitive annual planning, programming, and budgeting strategy for environmental conservation and preservation, so there is no longer a need for a separate line item for the Legacy Management Resource Program. The committee expects the Department of Defense to fulfill its obligation to responsibly manage its 25 million acres of valuable natural and cultural resources through the Defense Environmental Conservation Program. Environmental management The Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA) appropriation was created by Congress in fiscal year 1984 to consolidate and expand separate Department of Defense environmental cleanup programs. DERA was later codified in permanent law as section 211 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, enacted in 1986. As codified, sums appropriated to DERA may only be obligated or expended to carry out the Secretary of Defense functions related to environmental restoration. The committee is concerned about the use of DERA funds for management and overhead costs of the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Environmental Security. The committee has determined that a $1 million decrement to the fiscal year 1996 DERA budget request is appropriate, and that no more than $2.9 million shall be available for management and overhead costs of the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Environmental Security. The committee directs the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Environmental Security to initiate a broad review of the department's management structure and funding requirements for its environmental restoration program. The results of that review should be incorporated in the fiscal year 1997 DERA budget request, and in the Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress. Cleanup of National Presto Industries Plant, Eau Claire, Wisconsin The committee is concerned that there are unresolved issues of hazardous waste contamination related to the National Presto Industries Plant, Eau Claire, Wisconsin. The plant was originally constructed in 1942 by the War Department as the Eau Clair Ordnance Works. In 1948, National Presto Industries, Inc. purchased the site and used it to produce commercial products and to fulfill contracts with the Army for the design, development and maintenance of manufacturing lines for artillery shells. In 1978, the company entered into a production standby agreement with the Army and remained in standby readiness until 1992. The committee strongly recommends that the Army and National Presto Industries, Inc. endeavor to resolve in good faith any disputes over liability and funding for remediation activities to the mutual satisfaction of the parties. TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS The Congress, exercising its military manpower oversight responsibilities, authorizes the end strength of the active and reserve forces annually. This year the Subcommittee on Personnel held hearings to examine the force structure plans of the Department of Defense and the military services. Based on those hearings, the administration's budget request and other information, the committee recommends end strength ceilings for the active and reserve forces, including active component support for the reserves. Additionally, the committee recommends temporary relief from the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA) grade tables since the Department of Defense has not responded to the committee's guidance concerning development of comprehensive recommendations to address the DOPMA grade tables in light of changing requirements and officer retention behavior. SUBTITLE A--ACTIVE FORCES Section - 401. End strengths for active forces. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize active duty end strength levels for fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 as shown below: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal Year -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1995 1996 1996 1997 1997 authorization request recommendation request recommendation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Army: Total.................................. 510,000 495,000 495,000 495,000 495,000 Officer................................ ............. 81,300 81,300 80,312 80,312 Navy: Total.................................. 441,641 428,000 428,340 409,400 409,740 Officer................................ ............. 58,805 58,870 56,550 56,615 Marine Corps: Total.................................. 174,000 174,000 174,000 174,000 174,000 Officer................................ ............. 17,978 17,978 17,978 17,978 Air Force: Total.................................. 400,051 388,200 388,200 385,400 385,400 Officer................................ ............. 75,928 75,928 76,494 76,494 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The active component authorization for the Navy is recommended to be increased by 340, of which 65 would be officers, to permit the Navy to retain an active P-3 squadron. The committee recommends the Military Personnel, Navy appropriation be increased by $14 million above the request in fiscal year 1996 to accommodate this increase. Section - 402. Temporary variation in DOPMA authorized end strength limitations for active duty Air Force and Navy officers in certain grades. The committee recommends a provision that would provide the Navy and Air Force temporary grade relief from the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA) grade tables. The Army and Marine Corps currently have temporary grade relief in effect. Section 502 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 required the Department of Defense to task an outside agency to conduct a review of officer management plans and to report by February 1, 1994, the results of that review, including recommendations for appropriate changes to the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA) to the Committee on Armed Services in the Senate and the Committee on National Security in the House of Representatives. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 provided temporary grade table relief for the Marine Corps. In doing so, the conferees noted that they expected the Department of Defense to address the adequacy of the existing grade tables as part of the then overdue report on officer management plans required by section 502 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993. Additionally, the conferees indicated that they would consider permanent changes to the grade tables after the report was received. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 provided temporary grade table relief for the Army and extended the previously provided relief for the Marine Corps. In doing so, the conferees indicated they were still reluctant to address permanent changes to the grade tables in a piecemeal fashion and that they did not understand the department's reluctance to address this matter in a comprehensive manner. The conferees again indicated that they would consider permanent changes to the grade tables after receiving the report required by section 502 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993. Given the conferees' consistent position on the issue of grade table relief, the committee notes with concern and disappointment that, again this year, the department has requested temporary grade-table relief for the military services. While the 1994 Rand Report, ``Future Career Management Systems for U.S. Military Officers,'' discusses officer planning systems, it does not address the adequacy of the existing grade tables nor does it contain recommendations upon which the Congress could base permanent changes to the grade tables. Should the Department of Defense continue to ignore congressional guidance and expectations on this matter, neither the department nor the military services should expect additional grade-table relief or any extension of the temporary relief provided in this or previous acts. Additionally, the committee expects that the military services, and specifically the Navy, will ensure that the temporary grade-table relief provided is allocated in a way that provides the services' Nurse Corps treatment in assignments and promotion timing that is equivalent with that of the Line of the Navy or a comparable category in the Army and Air Force. Section - 403. Certain general and flag officers awaiting retirement not to be counted. The committee recommends a provision that would exempt a retiring Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Chief of Staff of the Army, Chief of Naval Operations, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, or Commandant of the Marine Corps from counting in the number of general and flag officers on active duty authorized to be serving in the grade of general and admiral during the period when they are completing those activities necessary to transition to the retired list after they have been relieved from their former position. The committee intends that this authority would not be used for more than 60 calendar days. This provision does not affect the numbers of general and flag officers authorized on active duty under 10 U.S.C. 526. SUBTITLE B--RESERVE FORCES Section - 411. End strengths for Selected Reserve. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize selective reserve end strength levels for fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 as shown below: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1995 1996 1997 authorization 1996 request recommendation 1997 request recommendation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Army National Guard of the United States.................. 400,000 373,000 373,000 367,000 367,000 The Army Reserve................ 242,000 230,000 230,000 215,000 215,000 The Naval Reserve............... 102,960 98,602 98,894 96,402 96,694 The Marine Corps Reserve........ 42,000 42,000 42,274 42,000 42,682 The Air National Guard of the United States.................. 115,581 109,458 112,707 107,151 107,151 The Air Force Reserve........... 78,706 73,969 73,969 73,160 73,160 The Coast Guard Reserve......... 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The committee is pleased that the Naval Reserve completed the assessment of its future roles and missions. By turning from the traditional role of providing personnel to fill ships upon mobilization to an aggressive program of contributory support, the Naval Reserve has begun to use the many assets and resources available to enhance the readiness and effectiveness of the Navy. The recommended increase in the Naval Reserve end strength reflects the committee's recommendation that one reserve component P-3 squadron be retained in the force. The increase of 292 in the selected reserve, combined with a recommended increase of 97 in full-time support, would permit the Navy to retain one reserve P-3 squadron. The committee recommends increasing the Reserve Personnel, Navy appropriation by $6.2 million to accommodate this increase. The recommended increase in the Marine Corps Reserve end strength is based on the committee's concerns about inadequate active duty and full-time support for the Marine Corps Reserve. Given the anticipated early deployment role of the Marine Corps Reserve in contingency and other operations, the committee has increased the authorization for the Marine Corps Reserve to accommodate an increase in the number of reserves on active duty in support of reserves. The committee recommends increasing the Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps appropriation by $12.8 million to accommodate this increase. In light of the difficulties caused by recent decreases in active duty support for the reserve component, the committee expects that increases in the Marine Corps full-time support program (now called the Active Reserve (AR) Program) not be made at the expense of other important reserve programs; nor should these increases occasion a further erosion of active duty support. Similarly, in future years the committee expects that the increase in full-time support be fully budgeted without inappropriate cuts in essential reserve programs. The committee recommends an increase in the Air National Guard end strength of 3,249. This increase, combined with an increase of 249 in Air National Guard full-time support will permit the Air National Guard to maintain the number of general purpose fighter aircraft at 15 in each unit. The committee is concerned about the planned reduction of Air National Guard general purpose fighter aircraft from 15 per unit to 12 per unit. These planned reductions resulted from budget pressures within the Air Force. The Air Force decided to maintain the number of general purpose fighter units at 27 and reduce the number of aircraft within each unit by three to 12. The committee is concerned about evidence which indicates that these reductions will reduce the effectiveness of the units. The committee recommends increasing the Reserve Personnel, Air National Guard appropriation by $12 million to accommodate this increase. Further, the committee directs the Air Force to conduct a comprehensive study of the impact and advisability of reducing the number of Air National Guard general purpose fighter units or the number of aircraft within the units and submit a report with the recommendation on how to properly size the Air National Guard general purpose units in conjunction with the budget request for fiscal year 1997. Section - 412. End strengths for reserves on active duty in support of the reserves. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize reserve full-time support end strength levels for fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 as shown below: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1995 1996 1997 authorization 1996 request recommendation 1997 request recommendation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Army National Guard of the United States.................. 23,650 23,390 23,390 23,040 23,040 The Army Reserve................ 11,940 11,575 11,575 11,550 11,550 The Naval Reserve............... 17,510 17,490 17,587 17,074 17,171 The Marine Corps Reserve........ 2,285 2,285 2,559 2,285 2,967 The Air National Guard of the United States.................. 9,389 9,817 10,066 9,824 9,824 The Air Force Reserve........... 648 628 628 625 625 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The committee is concerned about the full-time support to reserve units in each of the military departments. The downsizing of the uniformed services and continued instability in the international environment has necessitated an increased reliance on reserve components to meet contingency requirements as well as continuing existing responsibilities. Together with active duty support for reserve programs, the military technician programs in the Army and Air Force and the various full-time support programs in all of the services are essential elements of the long-term readiness of reserve component forces. In light of the reductions in the military technician program planned by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the committee has recommended specific floors for the Army and Air Force military technician programs elsewhere in this report. The committee also is concerned, however, about reductions in active duty support for the reserve components. For example, since fiscal year 1993, the active duty Marine Corps has been reduced approximately 2.5 percent; the Marine Corps Reserve has been reduced less than 0.5 percent; and the Marine Corps' active duty support for the Marine Corps Reserve has been reduced 11.8 percent. Therefore, the committee has recommended full-time support levels for the Air Force and for the Marine Corps that are above the fiscal year 1995 authorizations. The committee also notes that full-time support personnel are intended to complement--not substitute for--active duty support. Therefore, the committee does not intend for these increases in full-time support to cause further erosion of active duty support. This is especially important as the reserve components in each of the services are called with increasing frequency to relieve the personnel tempo pressures being experienced in the active components and to participate directly in contingency operations. The increase of 97 in the authorization for full-time manning for the Naval Reserve reflects the requisite increase in full-time manning to support the committee's recommendation to retain one reserve P-3 squadron. The increase of 249 in the authorization for full-time manning for the Air National Guard reflects the requisite increase in full-time manning to support the committee's recommendation to retain the Air National Guard general purpose fighter units at 15 aircraft per unit in fiscal year 1996. Section - 414. Reserves on active duty in support of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs not to be counted. The committee recommends a provision that would exempt members of a reserve component participating in Cooperative Threat Reduction Act programs from counting against the authorized active duty end strength. Another section of the bill would permit funds appropriated for programs under the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act to be used to reimburse the military personnel accounts for pay and allowances paid to reserve component personnel engaged in Cooperative Threat Reduction Act programs. Section - 415. Reserves on active duty for military-to-military contacts and comparable activities not to be counted. The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 168 of title 10 U.S.C., by adding a new subsection to exempt members of a reserve component participating in activities or programs specified in section 168 who serve over 180 days from counting against the end strengths authorized for members of the Armed Services on active duty under section 115(a)(1)of title 10 United States Code. SUBTITLE C--MILITARY TRAINING STUDENT LOADS Section - 421. Authorization of training student loads. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize active and reserve average military training loads for fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 as shown below: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1995 1996 1997 authorization 1996 request recommendation 1997 request recommendation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Army............................ 69,420 75,013 75,013 79,275 79,275 Navy............................ 43,064 44,238 44,238 44,121 44,121 Marine Corps.................... 25,377 26,095 26,095 27,255 27,255 Air Force....................... 36,840 33,232 33,232 35,522 35,522 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY The committee addressed a number of military personnel policy issues as a result of information received during hearings conducted by the full committee and the Subcommittee on Personnel. The committee began a review of officer promotion policy which will continue next year. The committee identified several anomalies within the officer promotion system which are addressed in the recommended provisions. These anomalies involved legitimate activities which had not been reviewed in light of the changing requirements and reduced size of the officer corps. In other policy initiatives, the committee addressed issues pertaining to the reserve components, Service Academies, travel and transportation, and the pay and allowances for military personnel sentenced to extended confinement by courts martial. SUBTITLE A--OFFICER PERSONNEL POLICY Section - 501. Joint officer management. The committee recommends a provision that would amend joint officer management policies. The provision would: (1) reduce the requirement for the Secretary of Defense to designate at least 1,000 critical joint duty assignment positions to 500. The Joint Duty Assignment study determined that approximately 500 billets should be critical joint duty assignments; (2) allow the Secretary of Defense to award joint duty assignment credit to certain officers who serve in qualifying joint task force positions. The Department requested authority to designate in-service billets as qualifying for joint duty assignment. The committee notes that initially the number of in-service billets was estimated to be 250 and that language accompanying the legislative proposal indicates that 421 positions may be designated as joint duty assignments. The committee believes this indicates an inability to discipline the process within the Department. In addition, the committee believes that authorizing the Secretary of Defense to award joint duty credit for certain officers serving in joint task force positions will permit virtually all the deserving in- service assignments to receive joint duty assignment credit; (3) allow the Secretary of Defense to waive the education and sequencing requirements and award the joint specialty designation without a 10 percent restriction by grade for each fiscal year for general and flag officers; (4) allow the Secretary of Defense to exempt selected officers from certain requirements for the management of joint duty tour requirements to permit early release of officers on a second joint tour. The Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 included several amendments to the statutory provisions governing joint officer management. Although these amendments were not agreed to in conference, a DOD report to Congress on joint duty assignments was mandated. The committee believes that the modifications to the Joint Officer Management provisions included in the Fiscal Year 1996 recommendation are a direct result of the committee's earlier initiatives. These modifications give the Department of Defense and the military services sufficient flexibility to manage and enhance the quality of joint specialty officers. The committee expects the Secretary of Defense to closely manage the award of joint duty credit for duty in joint task forces. The committee is disappointed that the joint duty assignment study, which was required to be submitted not later than April 15, 1993, still has not been received. Additionally, the committee was disappointed to learn that, despite the time the Department has taken to do this study and our urging, the study will not include a billet-by-billet review. Section - 502. Revision of service obligation for graduates of the service academies. The committee recommends a provision that would reduce the service obligation for graduates of the service academies from six years to five years. The recommended provision would ensure that no service academy graduate would be obligated to serve more than five years on active duty by reducing the obligation for those cadets/midshipmen currently enrolled as well as future cadets/midshipmen. It would also require a report on the effects that various periods of active duty service obligations would have on the number and quantity of applicants to the service academies. Section - 503. Qualifications for appointment as Surgeon General of an armed force. The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 3036, 5137 and 8036 of title 10, United States Code to permit educationally and professionally qualified officers such as dentists, nurses, and clinical psychologists as well as doctors to be appointed as Surgeon General of an Armed Force. Currently, only physicians may be appointed as Surgeon General of an Armed Force. Section - 504. Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Air Force. The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 8037 of title 10, United States Code, to adjust the tenure of the Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Air Force from two years to four years and authorize the grade of the deputy to be major general. Section - 505. Retiring general and flag officers: applicability of uniform criteria and procedures for retiring in highest grade in which served. The committee recommends a provision that would permit the retirement of three- and four-star general and flag officers to be considered under the same standards and procedures as other general and flag officer retirements at the one- and two-star level. It will also ensure that three- and four-star officers facing retirement are not subjected to confirmation procedures that do not apply to their civilian superiors or other civilian government officials. Promotions to three- and four-star positions are treated as temporary rather than permanent promotions. The individual holds the three- or four-star grade only ``while serving'' in the three- or four-star position. The member also may hold the grade for brief transitional periods to cover transfers between assignments, hospitalization, and before retirement. Because these grades are ``temporary,'' an individual who is in a three- or four-star grade retains his ``permanent grade,'' which is typically a two-star grade. If the individual is not nominated, confirmed, and appointed to another three- or four-star position, the individual will revert to his permanent (e.g., two-star) grade. Under current law, these considerations apply to retirements as well as promotions. As a result, if a three- or four-star officer who retires is not nominated, confirmed, and appointed to retire in a permanent three- or four-star grade, the individual will revert to his permanent (e.g., two-star) grade upon retirement--with the attendant loss of retired pay and status. This situation applies uniquely to three- and four-star officers. Other flag and general officers, as well as other commissioned officers, retire in the highest grade held, subject to minimum time-in-grade requirements, without a requirement for nomination, Senate confirmation, and appointment to a retired grade. Similarly, both tenured and non-tenured civilian officials who retire from the civil service are not required to face Senate confirmation, no matter how high their grade. Thus, a cabinet or sub-cabinet official, as well as career civil service officials who qualify for civil service retirement will receive their full retired pay without action by the President or the Senate. The recommended provision would not change the current requirement for nomination and Senate confirmation of all three- and four-star active duty promotions, assignments, and reassignments. Section - 506. Extension of certain reserve officer management authorities. The committee recommends a provision that would extend several reserve officer management authorities currently extended by section 514 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994. When the Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act becomes effective on October 1, 1996, no further extension will be required. Section - 507. Restrictions on wearing insignia for higher grade before promotion. The committee recommends a provision that would define ``frocking'' and limit the numbers of officers that could be frocked to grades O-4 through O-7. Frocking is the practice of allowing an officer to wear the insignia of a higher grade prior to that officer's being appointed to that higher grade. While the Department of Defense has attempted to control the extent of frocking through regulation, the practice remains a means by which the services circumvent the statutory limits on the number of officers authorized to serve in certain grades. While frocking can be defended as a cost-free way to boost the morale of those officers awaiting promotion, it masks erroneous expectations and dissatisfaction about promotion timing on the part of the individual and encourages the services to select individuals for promotion unreasonably far in advance of the anticipated date of promotion. For example, the committee is aware of a November 1993 Navy flag list from which, as of June 1995, fewer than half the selectees have been promoted. Yet, all have been frocked. The practical result of overselecting in order to frock is that an individual can be selected for promotion to O-7, frocked to O-7 for over a year in a highly visible position in which he exercises supervisory authority over other O-6s, and subsequently retire without ever having been promoted to O-7. Frocking has also evolved, unfortunately, to be a significant factor in the officer assignment process. The Joint Staff and the Combatant Commanders expect individuals assigned to their organizations to be in the correct grade. The services routinely assign newly-selected individuals to joint positions requiring the grade to which they have been selected with little or no thought to when the individual will actually be promoted. As a direct result the committee is routinely pressured by the services to confirm promotion lists abnormally in advance of the earliest effective date just so the individuals can be frocked. These developments represent an unacceptable distortion of the officer assignment and selection systems. The committee recognizes the existence of certain situations, primarily in the international arena, in which it may be in the best interests of the United States to frock certain officers. The committee believes, however, that such situations should be viewed as the exception and not the rule. Section - 508. Director of Admissions, United States Military Academy: retirement for years of service. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of the Army to involuntarily retire the Director of Admissions, United States Military Academy, after 30 years of service as a commissioned officer. Currently, the Secretary of the Army can retire permanent professors at the Academy after 30 years of service. This provision would provide the Secretary of the Army the same authority for the Director of Admissions. SUBTITLE B--MATTERS RELATING TO RESERVE COMPONENTS Section - 511. Mobilization income insurance program for members of Ready Reserve. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish an income protection insurance plan for members of the ready reserve. Participation under the recommended provision would be voluntary, would be financed by premiums paid by participants, and would pay income protection benefits to reservists involuntarily called to active duty by the President. Section - 512. Eligibility of dentists to receive assistance under the financial assistance program for health care professionals in reserve components. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize financial assistance for qualified dentists in certain specialties engaged in training for a dental specialty which is critically needed in wartime. Physicians and nurses are currently eligible for similar assistance. This provision authorizes equal treatment for certain dentists in return for a commitment to serve in the ready reserve. Section - 513. Leave for members of reserve components performing public safety duty. The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 6323(b) of title 5, United States Code, that would permit employees who elect, when performing public safety duty, to use either military leave, annual leave, or compensatory time to which they are otherwise entitled. SUBTITLE C--UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE Section - 522. Definitions. The committee recommends a provision that would amend article 1 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 801) to define the terms ``classified information'' and ``national security''. The definitions would be similar to those used in the Classified Information Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App. 1). Section - 523. Article 32 investigations. Under present law, charges must be investigated by an officer appointed under Article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice before being referred to a general court- martial. If the Article 32 officer uncovers evidence of additional misconduct in the course of the investigation, the information must be provided to the convening authority, and then referred back to the Article 32 officer before it can be investigated by the Article 32 officer. This is a burdensome and unnecessary procedure. The committee recommends a provision that would permit the Article 32 officer to investigate additional misconduct uncovered during the investigation so long as the accused receives all the rights provided under Article 32 with respect to the additional charges, including full notice of the charges and the rights of legal representation, presentation of evidence, and cross-examination. Section - 524. Refusal to testify before court-martial. Article 47(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice currently limits the punishment which may be imposed by a Federal District Court for a civilian witness's refusal, after being subpoenaed, to appear or testify before a court-martial. If a civilian witness who has been subpoenaed to appear or testify before a court-martial refuses to do so, a Federal District Court under current law may impose ``a fine of not more than $500.00, or imprisonment of not more than six months, or both''. The punishment for the same offense in a civilian trial, however, is a matter within the discretion of the court under 18 U.S.C. 401-402. The committee recommends a provision that would amend Article 47 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to provide district courts with the same power in military cases as they have in civilian cases. Section - 525. Commitment of accused to treatment facility by reason of lack of mental capacity or mental responsibility. The Uniform Code of Military Justice does not currently provide for the commitment of an accused to a treatment facility if that accused is incompetent to stand trial or is found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility. In such cases, the accused potentially is subject to a medical separation. Any subsequent restraint or treatment is dependent on action by state civil authorities. Reliance on determinations by officials of different states to treat or restrain a mentally incompetent military accused introduces an element of inconsistency into the military justice process. The Armed Forces clearly have an interest in preserving the integrity of the military justice system through consistent action on the issue of restraint or treatment of a mentally incompetent military accused. Those interests can best be preserved by making use of the existing federal criminal law procedures under 18 U.S.C. 4247(j). The committee recommends a provision that would permit the convening authority, in the case of any soldier, airman, sailor, or Marine found incompetent to stand trial, or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility, to commit the individual to the custody of the Attorney General for action in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 4243(e). Section - 527. Deferment of confinement. The committee recommends an amendment to the Uniform Code of Military Justice that would combine the current authority for deferment of confinement (Article 57(d)) with two new provisions. The first would permit the Service Secretary concerned to defer confinement when a Judge Advocate General submits a case for review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces under Article 67(a)(2). The second would allow the convening authority to defer the running of a sentence to military confinement so that the accused would not receive credit for time served during a period of civilian confinement following a court-martial in circumstances in which the military is obligated by an agreement, such as the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, 18 U.S.C. App. 2(2) or a treaty, to return the accused to state or foreign custody after a court-martial is completed. Section - 528. Submission of matters to the convening authority for consideration. The committee recommends a provision that would amend Article 60(b)(1) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to require post-trial submissions by an accused for consideration by a convening authority to be in writing. Section - 529. Proceedings in revision. The committee recommends a provision that would amend Article 60 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to authorize a proceeding in revision, prior to authentication of the record of trial by the military judge, to correct an erroneously announced sentence. The sentence may be corrected even if the severity of the sentence is increased, but only to the extent that federal civilian courts are authorized to do so under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. The amendment would apply only to correction of an erroneously announced sentence and would not authorize reconsideration. Section - 530. Appeal by the United States. The committee recommends a provision that would amend Article 62 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to allow the government to file an interlocutory appeal of rulings or orders issued by the military judge which direct the government to disclose classified information, impose sanctions for nondisclosure of classified information, or refuse a protective order sought to prevent the disclosure of classified information. The provision would apply to courts-martial the same protections with regard to classified information as apply to orders or rulings issued in Federal District Courts under the Classified Information Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App. 7). Section - 531. Flight from apprehension. The committee recommends a provision that would clarify Article 95 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to make it clear that Article 95 proscribes fleeing from apprehension without regard to whether the accused otherwise resisted apprehension. The clarification is needed because the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces in United States v. Harris, 29 M.J. 169 (C.M.A. 1989), and United States v. Burgess, 32 M.J. 446 (C.M.A. 1991), held that resisting apprehension does not include fleeing from apprehension, despite the longstanding provisions to the contrary in the Manual for Courts-Martial. Section - 532. Carnal knowledge. The committee recommends a provision that would amend Article 120(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice by making the crime of carnal knowledge gender neutral, bringing Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice into conformity with the spirit of the Sexual Abuse Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. 2241-2245). The provision also would amend Article 120 by adding a new subsection (d) to conform military law to federal civilian law (18 U.S.C. 2243) in terms of the affirmative defense of mistake of fact for alleged carnal knowledge, and regarding the age of the person with whom the accused committed the act of sexual intercourse. Section - 533. Time after accession for initial instruction in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The committee recommends a provision that would amend Article 137(a)(1) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice by increasing the period of time in which training in certain provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice must be provided to new enlistees from six to fourteen days after entry onto active duty. Section - 535. Permanent authority concerning temporary vacancies on the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. Section 1301 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 authorized the Chief Justice of the United States, upon request of the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, to appoint Article III judges to fill vacancies on the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. This provision will expire in 1995. Based on the success of this provision in permitting the Court to address the problem of temporary vacancies in a timely manner, the committee recommends that the authority be made permanent. Section - 536. Advisory panel on UCMJ jurisdiction over civilians accompanying the Armed Forces in time of armed conflict. Article 2(10) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice establishes court-martial jurisdiction ``[i]n time of war'' over ``persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field''. In United States v. Averette, 41 C.M.R. 363 (C.M.A. 1970), the Court of Military Appeals ruled that an Army civilian employee in Vietnam who was convicted of theft from the Army could not be tried by court-martial because the Court interpreted Article 2(10) as requiring a war formally declared by Congress. Since that time, the Armed Forces have made increasing use of contractor personnel to provide important technical and administrative services to deployed military forces, including forces deployed in armed conflicts not involving a declared war. Since World War II, none of the significant armed conflicts involving the United States--including Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, and the Persian Gulf--have involved a formal declaration of war. The committee is concerned that current law does not provide adequate jurisdiction to try civilians accompanying the Armed Forces in such circumstances. The committee also recognizes that court-martial jurisdiction exists primarily for the disciplinary needs of the Armed Forces, and that any use of that jurisdiction over civilians would require the most careful consideration. The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General jointly to establish an advisory panel to review this issue and make appropriate recommendations to the Congress concerning jurisdiction over the Armed Forces in time of conflict not involving a formal declaration of war. The review would specifically consider the options of: (1) establishing court- martial jurisdiction over civilians; (2) establishing sufficient jurisdiction in the Article III courts over such civilians; and (3) establishing separate Article I courts with jurisdiction over civilians accompanying the Armed Forces in the field in time of armed conflict. SUBTITLE D--DECORATIONS AND AWARDS Section - 541. Award of Purple Heart to certain former prisoners of war. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize award of the Purple Heart to prisoners of war captured before April 1962 who were injured or wounded in conjunction with their capture or imprisonment. Section - 542. Meritorious and valorous service during Vietnam era: review and awards. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of Defense or the Secretaries of the military departments to award a decoration for an act, achievement or service performed during the Vietnam era but which was not awarded. The provision would establish a one-year period in which award recommendations could be submitted for consideration using existing award review procedures. At the end of one year, the Secretary would be required to report to the Congress on the results of this review. Section - 543. Military intelligence personnel prevented by secrecy from being considered for decorations and awards. The committee recommends a provision expressing the Sense of the Senate that the secretaries of the military departments should review the records of personnel who performed military intelligence duties during the Cold War period. The committee is aware that there are cases in which the secrecy of the mission prevented recognition through the military awards system. It is the view of the committee that these oversights should now be corrected. SUBTITLE E--OTHER MATTERS Section - 551. Determination of whereabouts and status of missing persons. The committee recommends a provision that would add a new chapter to title 10, United States Code requiring the Secretary of Defense to centralize the oversight and policy responsibility for accounting for missing persons at the Department of Defense level. The recommended provision establishes procedures for review of cases of those who are missing. The recommended provision would protect the missing service member from being declared dead solely because of the passage of time. The committee believes that the recommended provision will assist the Department of Defense and the next- of-kin of missing service members as both struggle with the emotion and frustration of a system which has, to date, proved insensitive and unresponsive. Section - 552. Service not creditable for periods of unavailability or incapacity due to misconduct. The committee recommends a provision that would equalize the accrual of service credit between officers and enlisted personnel. Section - 553. Separation in cases involving extended confinement. Section - 526. Forfeiture of pay and allowances and reduction in grade. The committee recommends a provision that would require forfeiture of pay or allowances or reduction in grade included in a sentence of a court-martial to be effective 20 days after the date the sentence is adjudged or upon approval of the convening authority, whichever is earlier. The recommended provision would also require that a sentence which includes confinement for one year or more or a punitive discharge would result in a forfeiture of all pay and allowances. The committee recommends an additional provision that would authorize the administrative separation of a service member who is sentenced by court-martial to a period of confinement for one year or more. The committee notes that, in general, individuals sentenced to extended confinement are discharged from military service and lose their entitlement to military pay. There are some circumstances under current law, however, in which an individual can remain on active duty and continue to receive pay and allowances. The provisions recommended by the committee would make it clear that persons serving extended confinement should not receive pay or allowances and should not remain on active duty. Section - 554. Duration of field training or practice cruise required under the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps program. The committee recommends a provision that would permit the Secretary of a military department to prescribe the length of the field training portion or practice cruise that persons who have not participated in the first two years of Reserve Officers' Training Corps must complete to be enrolled in the Reserve Officers' Training Corps Advance Course. Currently, the training must be at least six weeks long. Section - 555. Correction of military records. The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretaries of the military departments to review the composition of the Boards for the Correction of Military Records and the procedures used by those boards. The provision would require a report to the appropriate committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives by April 1, 1996. The committee is concerned about the perception among service members that the boards have become lethargic and unresponsive, and have abdicated their independence to the uniformed service staffs. These boards are to be the honest broker, the forum for adjudication of claims from service members who allege errors in military records. If these boards become extensions of the military staffs, they will have lost their sole reason for existence. This provision would require a comprehensive review of the make-up, current board procedures, and recommendations for improving the process. The reports from the military departments would be submitted through the Department of Defense. The committee expects that the Office of the Secretary of Defense will carefully review the reports and, where applicable, standardize processes and procedures to ensure efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness to the services and service members. Section - 556. Limitation on reductions in medical personnel. The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 711 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, section 718 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993, and section 518 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 to modify the limitations on reductions in medical personnel. The provision would permit active or reserve medical personnel to be reduced by not more than 5 percent per year or a total of 10 percent over 3 years without the requirement to certify that CHAMPUS costs will not increase and that the reductions are excess to the current and projected needs of the military department. The committee understands that the military departments need to have a degree of flexibility to reduce the medical force in conjunction with the overall force reductions. However, the committee is aware that it is possible to reduce medical personnel in a manner and to an extent that might be characterized as less than prudent. The committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, in conjunction with the Surgeons General of the military departments, to develop a comprehensive plan for ``right sizing'' medical personnel over the next five years. This plan will be submitted to the appropriate committees of the Senate and House of Representatives not later than March 1, 1996. Section - 557. Repeal of requirement for athletic director and nonappropriated fund account for the athletics programs at the service academies. The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 4357 of title 10, United States Code, and subsections (b), (d) and (e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995. The committee acknowledges the report from the Secretary of the Navy which described plans to implement corrective actions with respect to the Naval Academy Athletic Association. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report to the appropriate committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives when the actions recommended in the report are implemented. Section - 558. Prohibition on use of funds for service academy preparatory school test program. The committee recommends a provision that would terminate any test program for determining the cost effectiveness of transferring, in whole or in part, the mission of the military academy preparatory schools to the private sector. Section - 559. Centralized judicial review of Department of Defense personnel actions. Judicial review of Department of Defense personnel actions occurs under a disparate variety of jurisdictional statutes. The committee has received various proposals for centralized judicial review, but believes that the views of experts should be obtained prior to further consideration. The committee recommends a provision that would establish an advisory panel on the issue of centralized judicial review. The report of the advisory panel should specifically consider the utility of a statutory exhaustion requirement, discuss the need for centralized judicial review, and examine the potential effects of conducting such reviews through the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST Capstone course for new general and flag officers In fulfillment of its oversight responsibilities, over the last three years the committee has encouraged the National Defense University to revise the Capstone course curriculum for new general and flag officers to include instructional segments on the roles and functions of the Congress with regard to national security matters. The Capstone course was mandated by the Congress as part of the landmark Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. Despite this urging, however, the Capstone course curriculum has only added a few hours of instruction on the legislative liaison function of the Department of Defense and the Services, and on presenting Congressional testimony. While these additions may be useful, they fail to provide new general and flag officers with an appreciation of the essential role of Congress, a co-equal branch of government that plays a major role in the organization, funding, and uses of the Armed Forces of the United States. The committee has been heartened by the recent decision of the administration of the National Defense University to add two new instructional segments to the curriculum of the Capstone course. The first addition would add a one hour segment on the constitutional separation of powers and its implications for the military. The second would add a segment of two back-to-back seminars to be conducted on Capitol Hill to address congressional procedures and substantive defense issues being considered by the Congress. The committee intends to continue its oversight in this area and pledges its assistance to the National Defense University to ensure that the added courses, particularly the seminars on Capitol Hill, are successfully carried out. The committee already conducts such seminars for a number of the Service colleges. These additions to the course should serve to ensure that our new general and flag officers have a greater appreciation for the roles and functions of the Congress in national security matters. Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act (ROPMA) The Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act (ROPMA) was enacted as Title XVI of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995. Section 1691 of this Act established the effective date for the new policies in ROPMA as October 1, 1996. The accompanying report language states that the conferees agree that the Senate would consider perfecting legislation, including accelerating the effective date of ROPMA. Based on discussions with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs and the Reserve Chiefs, the committee did not recommend any perfecting legislation or an acceleration of the effective date. The committee is committed to the provisions of ROPMA; however, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the military services and the reserve components are not prepared to accelerate implementation of ROPMA. The committee believes that by maintaining the current effective date of October 1, 1996, the Department of Defense and the military services will have sufficient time to promulgate, staff, and implement the necessary directives which will result in a more efficient transition to ROPMA. Reserve officers not on the active duty list Section 666 of title 10 U.S.C., as added by the Goldwater- Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, requires the Secretary of Defense to establish personnel policies emphasizing education and experience in joint matters for reserve officers not on the active duty list. The policies are, to the extent practicable for the reserve components, to be similar to those provided by law for active duty officers. The committee has learned that the Department of Defense does not yet have a directive or other authoritative joint officer policy document relating to reserve officers. A study to determine a strategy to meet the joint professional military education and joint officer management policy needs for reserve officers, which was started in fiscal year 1993 and placed on hold in fiscal year 1994, is once again under way, albeit reduced in scope. A decision was recently made to allocate one quota per Capstone class for new general and flag reserve officers, with a view toward allocation of additional quotas. Finally, a reserve general officer has very recently reported to the Joint Staff to serve as the first Reserve Mobilization Assistant to the Director of the Joint Staff. His primary role is to provide the Joint Staff with senior level perspective on the capabilities, roles, and missions of reserve component forces. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to expedite authoritative policy guidance relating to the joint professional military education and joint officer management for reserve officers not on the active duty list, and to increase and allocate additional Capstone seats for new general and flag reserve officers. Service academy directives The committee is concerned about Department of Defense Directive 1322.22, dated August 24, 1994, entitled ``Service Academies'' and Department of Defense Directive 1025.4, dated October 18, 1994, entitled ``Service Academy Resources Report.'' The committee understands that these directives were prepared in response to the requirement in the Conference Report accompanying The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, which required the Secretary of Defense to review oversight procedures and to promulgate a regulation which provides for the uniform oversight and management of the military service academies. While the committee recognizes the importance of enhanced oversight, the directives in question may have taken that direction too far, unnecessarily restricting the authority of the Service Secretaries and Academy Superintendents. Examples of possible micromangement include: (1) directing detailed organizational structure of the academies and preparatory schools; (2) regulating the details of the cadet/midshipmen daily routine; (3) levying unnecessary or redundant report requirements on the service academies and preparatory schools; and (4) specifying the composition of attendees at the annual Superintendent's conference. The committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to review the directives in question with a view toward rescinding or revising those sections that impose unnecessary restrictions on the authority of the service secretaries or academy superintendents. Additionally, the Secretary of Defense should submit a copy of the revised directives to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives not later than March 1, 1996. Tuition assistance program The committee strongly supports the tuition assistance program. Through this program military personnel may receive financial assistance while enrolled in higher education programs. The result is more qualified service members, increased readiness, better retention, and improved morale. Since tuition assistance is not specifically funded in a budget line, the funds are fungible within the local Operation and Maintenance accounts. The committee has found that installation commanders, responding to budgetary pressures, are reducing the funds available for tuition assistance in favor of base operations, training, or maintenance. The committee respects the necessity for the local installation commander to have the flexibility to transfer funds to meet critical requirements. However, the committee urges the military departments and local commanders to use the funds intended for tuition assistance for tuition assistance. Quality of life while on independent duty The committee has recommended a number of legislative provisions that reflect the committee's concern about the quality of life of all service members, their families, and the retiree community. Additionally, the committee has special concerns about the quality of life of those who serve on independent duty, i.e., those who are stationed away from major military installations. Each service assigns personnel to positions which, by their very nature, are located in areas which do not enjoy a significant military presence. This type of duty includes recruiters and recruiting support personnel, ROTC instructors and support personnel, and active duty personnel supporting reserve component activities. These individuals and their families are ordered to various locations ranging from high- cost, major, urban areas to remote and isolated rural locations. In these instances, commissaries, exchanges, family and bachelor housing, military medical treatment facilities and other aspects of normal military life are not available to the service members and their families. The committee encourages the civilian and military leaders of the Department of Defense to be particularly mindful of the challenges these individuals and their families face on and off the job on a daily basis, and to develop initiatives intended to address those challenges. Areas in which increased attention and initiative could prove beneficial include: the availability of affordable health care and adequate housing; the availability of reasonable office or working conditions, including modern, automated systems; appropriate transportation and supply support; and an enhanced responsiveness of administrative chains in recognition of the unique pressures and requirements of these duties. Recoupment The report of the Senate Armed Services Committee (Senate Report 103-282) on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 directed the Secretary of Defense to review the recoupment of pay or benefits received by members who fail to complete military service obligations related to the receipt of such pay or benefits. The report was due on February 1, 1995. On February 24, 1995 the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee was informed that the report would be submitted by March 15, 1995, but the report has not been submitted to date. It is essential for the committee's consideration of this issue that such a report be prepared. Recoupment of pay or benefits is complex and could represent a substantial loss of revenue for the Department of Defense. In order for this issue to be fully examined, the committee directs that the report must be submitted to the committee by February 1, 1996. TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS The committee addressed a number of pay, allowances and other compensation issues during its oversight hearings. One of the committee's priorities this year was to improve the quality of life for military personnel, their families, and retired service members and their families. The committee recommends a number of provisions which will significantly improve the quality of life and living conditions, and provide equitable compensation for military personnel to protect against inflation. The committee also recommends several initiatives which address the Servicemen's Group Life Insurance program and establish procedures under which the Secretary of Defense will determine the status of personnel who are missing. In general, the committee's recommendations reflect a commitment to enhancing quality of life and concern for the welfare of military personnel and their families. SUBTITLE A--PAY AND ALLOWANCES Section - 601. Military pay raise for fiscal year 1996. The committee recommends a provision that would waive Section 1009 of title 37, United States Code, and increase the rates of basic pay and basic allowance for subsistence for members of the uniformed services by 2.4 percent. Additionally, the provision would increase the rates of the basic allowance for quarters for members of the uniformed services by 5.2 percent. These increases are effective January 1, 1996. Section - 602. Election of basic allowance for quarters instead of assignment to inadequate quarters. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize payment of the basic allowance for quarters (BAQ) and variable housing allowance (VHA) (and overseas housing allowance (OHA) if assigned overseas) to single E-6 and above personnel assigned to quarters which do not meet minimum adequacy standards established by the Department of Defense. The committee believes that personnel in the career force should have the option of electing not to live in inadequate bachelor quarters. Section - 603. Payment of basic allowance for quarters to members of the uniformed services in pay grade E-6 who are assigned to sea duty. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize payment of the basic allowance for quarters (BAQ) and variable housing allowance (VHA) (and overseas housing allowance (OHA) if assigned to a ship homeported overseas) to single E-6 Navy personnel assigned to shipboard sea duty. Current law only permits single E-7 Navy personnel to receive BAQ, VHA and OHA (if applicable) while assigned to shipboard sea duty. The other military services already have similar BAQ/VHA/OHA authority. Section - 604. Limitation on reduction of variable housing allowance for certain members. The committee recommends a provision that would prevent the amount of variable housing allowance (VHA) paid to an individual from being reduced as long as the service member retains uninterrupted eligibility to receive VHA in the housing area and the service member's housing costs are not reduced. Section - 605. Clarification of limitation on eligibility for family separation allowance. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize family separation allowance (FSA II) for a member embarked on board a ship away from homeport or on temporary duty for 30 consecutive days whose dependents were authorized to accompany the member to the homeport or permanent duty station, but voluntarily chose not to do so. SUBTITLE B--BONUSES AND SPECIAL AND INCENTIVE PAYS Section - 611. Extension of certain bonuses for reserve forces. Section - 612. Extension of certain bonuses and special pay for nurse officer candidates, registered nurses, and nurse anesthetists. Section - 613. Extension of authority relating to payment of other bonuses and special pays. The committee recommends provisions that would amend sections 308b(f), 308c(e), 308e(e), 308h(g), and 308i(i) of title 37, United States Code, to extend the authority to pay bonuses for (1) enlistment, re-enlistment, or affiliation with the selected reserve; (2) enlistment, re-enlistment, or extension of an enlistment in the ready reserve other than the selected reserve; and (3) enlistment in the selected reserve of individuals with prior service. The recommended provisions would also amend section 2130a(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, to extend the authority to pay a nurse officer candidate accession bonus; amend section 302d(a)(1) of title 37, United States Code, to extend the authority to pay an accession bonus for registered nurses; amend section 302e(a)(1) of title 37, United States Code, to extend the authority to pay an incentive special pay to certified registered nurse anesthetists. The recommended provisions would amend section 301b(a) of title 37, United States Code, to extend the authority to pay the aviation officer retention bonus; amend section 308(g) of title 37, United States Code, to extend the authority to pay a re-enlistment bonus to active duty service members who re- enlist or extend in a regular component of the service concerned for at least three years; amend sections 308a(c) and 308f(c) of title 37, United States Code, to extend the authority to pay an enlistment bonus to a person who enlists in an Armed Force for at least four years in a skill designated as critical or who extends their initial period of active duty to a total of at least four years in a skill designated as critical or who enlists in the Army for at least three years in a skill designated as critical; amend section 308d(c) of title 37, United States Code, to extend the authority to pay additional compensation to enlisted members of the selected reserve assigned to high priority units; amend section 16302(d) of title 10, United States Code, to extend the authority to permit the repayment of educational loans of health professionals who serve in the selected reserve and who possess professional qualifications in a health profession that the Secretary of Defense has determined to be needed critically to meet identified wartime combat medical skill shortages; amend section 613(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1989 to extend the authority to pay a special pay to a health care professional who is qualified in a specialty designated by regulation as a critically short wartime specialty and who agrees to serve in the selected reserve for at least one year; amend sections 312(e), 312b(c) and 312c(d) of title 37, United States Code, to extend the authority to pay certain bonuses to attract and retain highly qualified nuclear career officers. The committee remains concerned that, with the reduction in the number of nuclear submarines and the downsizing of the Navy, the nuclear bonuses may not have been adjusted accordingly. The committee directs the Navy to review alternatives to the current bonuses and report the results of this review to the appropriate committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than March 1, 1996. Section - 614. Hazardous duty incentive pay for warrant officers and enlisted members serving as air weapons controllers. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize special hazardous duty incentive pay for enlisted members serving as air weapons controllers aboard airborne warning and control systems. The Air Force is converting officer air weapons controller positions to enlisted billets. This provision permits the enlisted air weapons controllers to receive hazardous duty incentive pay on the same basis as their officer counterparts. Section - 615. Aviation career incentive pay. The committee recommends a provision that would change the number of years required to serve in an aviation billet to qualify for continued aviation career incentive pay. The provision would also restrict the authority to grant waivers of the number of years to the service Secretary. Section - 616. Clarification of authority to provide special pay for nurses. The committee recommends a provision that would add military nurses to the health care professionals who may receive a special pay for being board certified in their specialty. Section - 617. Continuous entitlement to career sea pay for crew members of ships designated as tenders. The committee recommends a provision that would specify duty aboard submarine and destroyer tenders as qualifying for career sea pay on the same basis as on other ships. Section - 618. Increase in maximum rate of special duty assignment pay for enlisted members serving as recruiters. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize payment of additional special duty assignment pay to recruiters. The committee expects the Secretaries of the military departments to increase the special duty assignment pay proportionally for all recruiters to offset financial hardships endured by these service members. SUBTITLE C--TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCES Section - 621. Calculation on basis of mileage tables of Secretary of Defense: repeal. The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 104(d)(1)(A) of title 37, United States Code, to repeal the requirement that travel mileage tables be prepared under the direction of the Secretary of Defense. This provision would enable the Secretary of Defense to use commercially available mileage tables and eliminate the requirement for the Department of Defense to maintain in-house mileage tables. Section - 622. Departure allowances. The committee recommends a provision that would equalize evacuation allowances to ensure equitable treatment of military dependents, civilians and their dependents when officially authorized or ordered to evacuate an overseas area. Section - 623. Dislocation allowance for moves resulting from a base closure or realignment. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the current dislocation allowance entitlement to service members who must relocate in a base realignment and closure (BRAC) location when their mission has not changed. This provision will permit a service member who must relocate locally from a military installation or housing area as a result of a BRAC activity to receive a dislocation allowance on the same basis as one who relocates to another installation. Section - 624. Transportation of nondependent child from sponsor's station overseas after loss of dependent status while overseas. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the return of certain formerly dependent children to the United States. The provision would permit someone who accompanied a military sponsor to an overseas station in dependent status but who, by virtue of turning age 21, lost dependent status to return to the United States at government expense. SUBTITLE D--COMMISSARIES AND NONAPPROPRIATED FUND INSTRUMENTALITIES Section - 631. Use of commissary stores by members of the Ready Reserve. The committee recommends a provision that would permit members of the ready reserve to use commissaries on the same basis as members on active duty. Section - 632. Use of commissary stores by retired reserves under age 60 and their survivors. The committee recommends a provision that would permit survivors of ``gray area'' retirees, members of the retired reserve who have not attained the age of 60 years, to use commissaries as if the sponsor had attained 60 years of age and was receiving retirement benefits. Section - 633. Use of morale, welfare, and recreation facilities by members of reserve components and dependents: clarification of entitlement. The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1065 of title 10, United States Code, to give members of the retired reserve who would be eligible for retired pay but for the fact that they are under 60 years of age the same priority of use of morale, welfare, and recreation facilities of the military services as members who retired after active- duty careers. SUBTITLE E--OTHER MATTERS Section - 641. Cost-of-living increases for retired pay. The committee recommends a provision that would provide for the military retired pay cost-of-living adjustment payment of 1996 on April 1. In subsequent years the cost-of-living adjustment would be paid on January 1 of each year. Section - 642. Eligibility for retired pay for non-regular service denied for members receiving certain sentences in courts- martial. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to deny retired pay to non-regular service members who are convicted of an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and whose sentence includes death, a dishonorable discharge, a bad conduct discharge, or dismissal. The provision would authorize the military departments to treat both regular and non-regular service members equitably. Section - 643. Recoupment of administrative expenses in garnishment actions. The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 5502 of title 5, United States Code, to shift the burden for paying administrative costs incurred incident to garnishment actions from the employee to the creditor. Section - 644. Automatic maximum coverage under Servicemen's Group Life Insurance. The committee recommends a provision that would automatically enroll service members at the maximum insurance level of $200,000 instead of the $100,000 level currently in law. Section - 645. Termination of Servicemen's Group Life Insurance for members of the Ready Reserve who fail to pay premiums. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of Defense to terminate coverage under the Servicemen's Group Life Insurance for members of the ready reserve who fail to make premium payments for 120 days. The committee recommends this provision in order to provide the Secretary of Defense the authority necessary to preclude paying benefits to certain personnel who did not continue premium payments. However, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense, when implementing directives are developed, to ensure there are adequate safeguards, including a reliable notification process, to prevent inappropriate or premature termination of benefits. Section - 646. Report on extending to junior noncommissioned officers privileges provided for senior noncommissioned officers. The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to study and report to the Congress on methods of improving the working conditions of noncommissioned officers in pay grades E-5 and E-6. This report and the accompanying legislative recommendations should provide the committee a road map to continue quality of life improvements begun in this bill. Section - 647. Payment to survivors of deceased members of the uniformed services for all leave accrued. The committee recommends a provision that would permit survivors of deceased members of the uniformed services to be paid for all leave accrued. Currently, payment is limited to 60 days of accrued leave. This provision will enable survivors to be paid for leave accrued above the 60 day limit. A similar temporary authority was granted during Operation Desert Shield/ Desert Storm. Section - 648. Annuities for certain military surviving spouses. The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to pay an annuity to the surviving spouses of retired service members who died before March 21, 1974. This group of surviving spouses has become known as the ``Forgotten Widows'' since they were widowed before the Survivor Benefit Plan was enacted. Section - 649. Transitional compensation for dependents of members of the Armed Forces separated for dependent abuse: clarification of entitlement. The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1059(d) of title 10, United States Code, to include transitional compensation for dependents whose sponsor forfeited all pay and allowances, but was not separated from the service. This provision would correct an unintended consequence in the current law. OTHER ITEM OF INTEREST The committee is concerned about the method the Air Force uses when determining eligibility for aviation career pay. The committee commends the Navy for targeting aviation career pay eligibility for specific types of aircraft for which there are actual or projected crew shortages. The committee urges the Air Force to seriously consider modifying its procedure for determining eligibility for new awards of aviation career pay. TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE The committee addressed a number of health care issues during its budget review process. One of the committee's priorities this year was to improve the quality of life for military personnel, their families, and retired service members and their families. The committee views health care as an important aspect of quality of life. The committee recommends several provisions concerning Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities and initiatives to improve the department's ability to implement managed care. The committee was not able to include a provision which would provide for Medicare to reimburse the Department of Defense for care provided to Medicare eligible beneficiaries. The committee believes medicare subvention would be fiscally beneficial to Medicare and would enable the Department of Defense to continue to provide health care to DOD beneficiaries within TRICARE. In general, the committee's recommendations reflect a commitment to enhancing quality of life and concern for the welfare of military personnel and their families. TRICARE The committee is concerned about several aspects of the implementation of the Department of Defense managed health care plan, TRICARE. Authoritative sources suggest that the pace of implementation should be slowed, and that the Department is not taking time to benefit from the experience in contracting and implementation gained in those regions that have converted to TRICARE. Other authoritative sources suggest that the pace of implementation is too slow, that eligible beneficiaries in the eastern regions are being disenfranchised as they are forced to wait while the remainder of the nation enjoys the benefits of managed care, lower co-payments, and improved management processes. The committee believes that a primary challenge facing the Department in a managed care environment is the need to control costs while maintaining quality care. Unfortunately, it is possible that cost-containment incentives of managed care could result in underservice and less-than-optimal care. A viable managed care environment is more than simply managing resources. It is important, therefore, that the Department of Defense, measure on a regular basis the adequacy of the care provided through the TRICARE system in terms that include accessibility, comprehensiveness, coordination, continuity, and provider accountability. The committee remains concerned about the ability of the Department of Defense and CHAMPUS to evaluate contracts as complex and as technical as the TRICARE region contracts. TRICARE is the first real attempt to implement a nation-wide managed care system. Although military officers and DOD civilian employees in health affairs are very capable professionals, the optimum expertise and experience necessary to evaluate contracts of this magnitude may not be resident in the Department of Defense. The region contracts must be awarded and implemented according to a planned schedule. Delays caused by repeated protests will disrupt the schedule and implementation. Protests that are upheld may have a significant impact on other contracts. The committee has discussed these issues with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs and offered to provide resources and authority to use private sector resources to assist the Department of Defense and CHAMPUS. Other issues about which the committee has concerns include: (1) the impact of proposed civilian personnel reductions on the Military Health Service System (MHSS); (2) ineffective or inadequate marketing to the beneficiary population of the TRICARE benefit and implementation; (3) the ability of the Department of Defense to provide health care to the retired beneficiaries, especially the Medicare-eligible population; (4) resolution of the continuing debate between the responsibilities of the lead agent, the contractor and the military treatment facility commanders; (5) portability of benefits among TRICARE regions in CONUS and overseas; (6) and public perception about the benefits and availability of care within TRICARE. Each of these concerns are discussed in detail in the following sections: (1) Directed reductions to civilian personnel have been discussed in conjunction with recommended legislative proposals in title III of this bill. When the military services began to drawdown in 1990, the medical departments began to civilianize selected medical positions in order to meet increasing demands for military health care. At the time, these efforts were applauded as good management by prudent military health care leaders. In 1995, the services were directed to reduce civilian personnel by four percent per year for five years. These civilian reductions were applied equally to the medical communities. As a result of these two factors, the medical communities are being forced to accept deeper reductions than previously anticipated. The civilian reductions were assigned to meet specified full-time-equivalent targets without regard for the impact on costs or medical readiness. One consequence of these mandated reductions is that TRICARE contractors will be required to provide more health care, at potentially higher cost, than could be provided in a medical treatment facility. (2) The current marketing plan for TRICARE is inadequate. The committee commends the Office of CHAMPUS for holding their recent TRICARE marketing conference. Initiatives such as this should result in a more proactive, better coordinated and more effective program to inform participants, eligible personnel, civilian providers and chains of command about the TRICARE system. Until there is a common understanding of the benefit, procedures, and costs, TRICARE cannot be successfully implemented. (3) The committee commends the department's efforts to continue to provide health care to Medicare-eligible retirees. These efforts cost the Department of Defense about $1 billion per year. These costs are not reimbursed by the Health Care Financing Agency (HCFA) through the Medicare system. Last year the committee approved a proposal to require HCFA to reimburse DOD on an annual basis for Medicare-eligible beneficiaries who enrolled in TRICARE. The committee believes the Department of Defense would provide health care to these Medicare-eligible beneficiaries for lower cost than could be provided by Medicare providers. Unfortunately, the committee has not been successful in getting Medicare reimbursement legislation enacted. The current situation results in higher liability to HCFA, dissatisfied Medicare-eligible beneficiaries, and lost opportunities for DOD health care professionals to treat diseases and conditions not found in healthy, young service members and their families. (4) The role of the TRICARE lead agent vis-a-vis the TRICARE contractor is unclear to the committee, and, we suspect, the lead agents themselves. Clearly, in the MHSS, the military lead agent should be considered the final authority. However, there are a large number of functions which can be accomplished more efficiently and more effectively by the TRICARE contractor. The committee believes that the issue of how responsibility is shared cannot be ambiguous and must be guided by military medical readiness and stewardship of the available resources. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs and the Surgeons General must clearly define the sharing of responsibilities and ensure that there is no doubt or confusion on the part of the lead agents or the TRICARE contractors. (5) The committee strongly supports the concept of a uniform benefit for beneficiaries of the MHSS. Additionally, the processes, procedures and methods of operating should be seamless between regions. Active duty service members expect the process for attaining health care to be standard wherever they are assigned. A family member or retiree should expect no less. In the infancy of TRICARE, this has not been a problem, but as TRICARE matures there is potential for disparate procedures and processes to evolve from region to region. This is especially true since the lead agents represent different services and the TRICARE contractors will be different. The committee believes that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs and the Surgeons General should assign a task force to ensure the benefit remains uniform and the processes and procedures remain standard so that there is seamless portability for beneficiaries as they move between regions. Consistent with the principles of managed care, standardization should not stifle local initiatives to improve health care delivery and lower costs. However, the processes should be invisible to the user. (6) Inevitably, a great deal of the success of TRICARE will depend in large measure on how it is perceived by the beneficiaries and the public. Health care is one of the most visible and important factors in the enlistment and reenlistment decisions. If TRICARE is perceived to be a failure or ineffective, the impact will be manifested in the services' inability to meet enlistment quotas and in retention statistics. Less visible, but no less critical, is the impact of perceptions about TRICARE within the civilian health care provider community. If TRICARE is seen as an important, positive step toward managed care, civilian providers will willingly join the networks and will work with the Department of Defense to improve the system. On the other hand, if TRICARE is perceived as cumbersome, ineffective, or inefficient, civilian providers will not be willing to join in partnership with the Department of Defense. Should this occur, costs will rise and negative perceptions will increase. The best way to ensure the perceptions of TRICARE are positive is to work to ensure the MHSS continues to be a model of excellence. The committee remains positive in its assessment of TRICARE. However, future evaluations will assess how well today's military and civilian medical leaders have done. TRICARE may well be the Department of Defense's best opportunity to reform the MHSS while maintaining medical readiness and meeting the increasing demands for health care. The committee urges the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, the Surgeons General, and the military and civilian leadership of the Department of Defense and the military services to work together with the Congress to ensure TRICARE succeeds. SUBTITLE A--HEALTH CARE SERVICES Section - 701. Medical care for surviving dependents of retired reserves who die before age 60. The committee recommends a provision that would permit survivors of ``gray area'' retirees, members of the retired reserve who have not attained the age of 60 years, to receive medical care as if the sponsor had attained 60 years of age and was receiving retirement benefits. Section - 702. Dental insurance for members of the Selected Reserve. The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a dental insurance plan for members of the selected reserve. The provision would require a plan similar to the active duty dependent dental insurance plan with voluntary enrollment and premium sharing by the member. The committee believes participation in this program will be significant. Once the dental insurance program is in place, the committee would consider a recommendation to modify provisions in Title IX, Army Guard Combat Reform Initiative, in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 to require members of the selected reserve to maintain certain standards of dental readiness. Section - 703. Modification of requirements regarding routine physical examinations and immunizations under CHAMPUS. The committee recommends a provision that would expand the ``well baby'' care and immunizations available through the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) to authorize the Secretary of Defense to determine the types and schedule of immunizations, routine physicals, and other health screening or ``wellness'' visits. Under this provision school physicals and routine immunizations for dependents above six years of age will be covered under CHAMPUS. Section - 704. Permanent authority to carry out specialized treatment facility program. The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1105 of title 10 United States Code, by repealing subsection (h), the sunset provision. This provision would make the Specialized Treatment Facility Program permanent. Section - 705. Waiver of medicare part B late enrollment penalty and establishment of special enrollment period for certain military retirees and dependents. The committee recommends a provision that would amend the Social Security Act to authorize a waiver of the penalty for late enrollment in Medicare Part B for Medicare-eligible Department of Defense beneficiaries who reside in geographic areas affected by the closure of military hospitals under the Base Realignment and Closure process. The provision would authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish a special 90- day Medicare Part B enrollment period for Medicare-eligible Department of Defense beneficiaries residing in each Base Realignment and Closure area, and would allow waiver of the penalties for late enrollment during the special 90-day enrollment period. SUBTITLE B--TRICARE PROGRAM Section - 712. Provision of TRICARE uniform benefits by uniformed services treatment facilities. The committee recommends a provision that would require the Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities to implement the TRICARE uniform benefit concurrent with the implementation of TRICARE in that region. The recommended provision would exempt a covered beneficiary who has been continuously enrolled on and after January 1, 1995. Section - 713. Sense of Senate on access of medicare eligible beneficiaries of CHAMPUS to health care under TRICARE. The committee recommends a provision that would express the Sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense should develop a program to ensure that covered beneficiaries who are eligible for Medicare and who reside in a region in which TRICARE has been implemented have access to health care services under TRICARE and that the Department of Defense be reimbursed for those services. Section - 714. Pilot program of individualized residential mental health services. The committee recommends a provision that would direct the Secretary of Defense to implement a program of residential treatment for seriously emotionally disturbed and complex-needs adolescents. This treatment would incorporate the concept of ``wraparound services'' in one TRICARE region. The committee notes that there are providers who have been successful in delivering these services. The Secretary would be required to report on the evaluation of this program not later than eighteen months after the program is implemented. SUBTITLE C--UNIFORMED SERVICES TREATMENT FACILITIES Section - 721. Delay of termination of status of certain facilities as uniformed services treatment facilities. The committee recommends a provision that would extend the designation of Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities (USTF) as military treatment facilities (MTF) until September 30, 1997. The committee recognizes that the USTFs are currently operating under at-risk contracts negotiated with the Department of Defense. These contracts expire on September 30, 1997. The committee also recognizes the importance of the eventual integration of the USTFs into the TRICARE system and the existence of several key milestones in that integration. These milestones include the current expiration of the designation as MTFs; the expiration of existing contracts negotiated with the Department of Defense; the implementation by region of the TRICARE program; and the implementation of the Uniform Benefit and related cost shares. The committee believes that, insofar as possible and given certain grandfathering provisions elsewhere in this report, the dates of these milestones should coincide. Section - 722. Applicability of Federal Acquisition Regulation to participation agreements with uniformed services treatment facilities. The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the Uniformed Services Treatment Facility's exemption to the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). The provision would apply to any future modification of existing agreements and to any new participation agreements entered into after the date of enactment. Section - 723. Amount payable by uniformed services treatment facilities for health care services provided outside the catchment areas of the facilities. The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1074 of title 10 United States Code, to include the Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities (USTF) in the authority under which a USTF could be reimbursed for care provided to a DOD eligible enrollee who receives care out of the local area of the USTF in which they are enrolled. SUBTITLE D--OTHER CHANGES TO EXISTING LAWS REGARDING HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT Section - 731. Investment incentive for managed health care in medical treatment facilities. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 3 percent of the total amount of the annual Operation and Maintenance account for the Defense Health Program authorized to be appropriated to remain available until the end of the following fiscal year. This provision would permit savings generated from management practices in one fiscal year to be used during the following fiscal year. Section - 732. Revision and codification of limitations on physician payments under CHAMPUS. The committee recommends a provision that would codify section 8009 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1995, which establishes a process for gradually reducing CHAMPUS maximum payment amounts to the limits for similar services under Medicare. Additionally, the provision would provide special authority to exceed the allowable amounts where managed care plan enrollees obtain emergency care from non-network providers. Section - 733. Personal services contracts for medical treatment facilities of the Coast Guard. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of Transportation to use the same personal services contract authority currently available to the Secretary of Defense to contract for health care providers in support of the Coast Guard. Section - 734. Disclosure of information in medicare and medicaid coverage data bank to improve collection from responsible parties for health care services furnished under CHAMPUS. The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1144 of the Social Security Act to extend access to information in the data bank to the Department of Defense. This information will enhance the effectiveness of the Department of Defense third party collection program since employers are required to submit health care insurance coverage data on individuals electing coverage under employers' health plans to the data bank annually. SUBTITLE E--OTHER MATTERS Section - 741. TriService nursing research. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize establishment of a tri-service research program at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences designed to further research on the furnishing of care and service by nurses in the Armed Forces. Section - 742. Fisher House trust funds. The committee recommends a provision that would establish trust funds on the books of the Treasury for Fisher Houses. The interest earned by these trust funds will be used for the administration, operation, and maintenance of Fisher Houses within the Army and Air Force. Section - 744. Applicability of limitation on prices of pharmaceuticals procured for Coast Guard. The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 8126 of title 38 United States Code, to include the Coast Guard in the authority to enter into master pharmaceutical pricing agreements. OTHER ITEM OF INTEREST Telemedicine The committee continues to support the initiative to enhance the transportable computer-based patient record capability of the Composite Health Care System. The committee eagerly anticipates the day when a patient's record is available via the same telemedicine network on which digitized pictures and/or other diagnostic tools are passed in real time for expert consultation and collaboration. The committee is aware of the initial successes in the Pacific Medical Network (PACMEDNET) telemedicine test and the progress made by the Army's Center for Total Access at Fort Gordon, GA; Eisenhower Army Medical Center; and Fort Jackson, SC. The committee urges the Department of Defense to expand these efforts to maximize technological advances in improving access to quality care and in enhancing medical readiness. The committee directs the Department of Defense to advise the committee not later than March 1, 1996, regarding plans to exploit these initiatives. TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS On April 6, 1995, the Subcommittee on Acquisition and Technology received testimony from the Department of Defense, the General Accounting Office, and the private sector on ways to build on the acquisition reforms enacted in the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994. To begin addressing that issue, the committee has recommended a number of provisions from title XII the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (S. 727) as well as other legislation concerning issues that have come to the attention of the committee. The individual provisions are described in the following pages of this report. SUBTITLE A--ACQUISITION REFORM Section - 801. Waivers from cancellation of funds. The committee recommends a provision that would allow for the availability of funds for satellite incentive fees beyond the five-year limitation set forth in 31 U.S.C. 1552. The funds would be available until the fee is earned under the contract subject to other applicable provisions of law. Section - 802. Procurement notice posting thresholds. The committee recommends a provision that would conform the notice posting thresholds in 41 U.S.C. 416(a)(1)(B) applicable to the Department of Defense to the thresholds applicable to federal civilian agencies. Section - 803. Prompt resolution of audit recommendations. The committee recommends a provision that would conform section 6009 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 to the reporting requirements in the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. Section - 804. Test program for negotiation of comprehensive subcontracting plans. Section 834 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 established a test program for the negotiation of comprehensive small business subcontracting plans. The test was limited to one contracting activity in each military department and defense agency, and was intended to determine whether such comprehensive subcontracting plans would result in increased opportunities for small businesses under DOD contracts. In order to more fully validate the test program, the committee recommends a provision that would amend the test authority to remove the limitation on the activities that may be included in the test. The provision would also reduce the number of contracts and aggregate dollar value of those contracts that are required to establish a condition for a contractor's participation in the test progam. Section - 805. Naval salvage facilities. The committee recommends a provision that would simplify the provisions of chapter 637 of title 10 relating to naval salvage facilities. Section - 806. Authority to delegate contracting authority. The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 10 U.S.C. 2356 which unnecessarily duplicates the inherent authority of the Secretary of Defense to delegate research contracting authorities. Section - 807. Coordination and communication of defense research activities. The committee recommends a provision that would amend 10 U.S.C. 2364 to clarify that papers prepared by a defense research facility on a technological issue relating to a major weapon system must be available for consideration at all decision reviews for the program. Section - 808. Procurement of items for experimental or test purposes. The committee recommends a provision that would amend 10 U.S.C. 2373 to conform the newly-codified section to the scope of the service-specific statutes it replaced. Section - 809. Quality control in procurements of critical aircraft and ship spare parts. The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 10 U.S.C. 2383 regarding quality requirements for critical spare parts for ship or aircraft. This repeal is intended to assist the DOD in shifting from reliance on outdated military specifications and standards to use of modern industrial manufacturing methods to ensure quality in critical spare parts. Section - 810. Use of funds for acquisition of rights to use designs, processes, technical data and computer software. The committee recommends a provision that would clarify 10 U.S.C. 2386 regarding types of information the Secretary of Defense may acquire from DOD contractors. Section - 811. Independent cost estimates for major defense acquisition programs. The committee recommends a provision that would permit military departments and defense agencies, independent of their respective Acquisition Executives, to prepare independent cost estimates for major defense acquisitions that are assigned to individual components for oversight. The proposed provision would align the responsibility for independent cost estimating with the level of the decision authority. Section - 812. Fees for certain testing services. The committee recommends a provision that would provide flexibility for the Secretary of Defense to require reimbursement of indirect as well as direct costs from private sector users of DOD testing facilities. Section - 813. Construction, repair, alteration, furnishing, and equipping of naval vessels. The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 included a provision that inadvertently repealed legislation regarding the application of the Walsh-Healey Act to contracts for the construction, alteration, furnishing or equipping of naval vessels. The committee recommends legislation requested by the Department of Defense that would restore the prior policy. Section - 814. Civil Reserve Air Fleet. The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the conditions under which a contractor under the Civil Reserve Air Fleet program is required to commit aircraft for use by the Department of Defense. SUBTITLE B--OTHER MATTERS Section - 821. Procurement technical assistance programs. The committee recommends an addition of $12.0 million to continue the procurement technical assistance center program in 1996. The committee is pleased that the centers, established on a cost-shared basis throughout the United States, have enabled significant numbers of small and other businesses to compete for contracts with federal agencies since 1986. The committee recognizes the potential of the procurement technical assistance centers to support ongoing acquisition reform efforts, and urges the Secretary of Defense to utilize the infrastructure of the centers to implement acquisition streamlining initiatives, such as electronic commerce, in the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994. Section - 822. Treatment of Department of Defense cable television franchise agreements. In the committee's report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, the committee expressed concerns about the lack of consistency in the Department of Defense's treatment of cable television franchise agreements by the military departments. In order to clarify the status of cable television franchise agreements, the committee recommends a provision that would state that such agreements shall be considered contracts for telecommunications services as such services are defined in Part 49 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations. OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST Ship propellers The statement of managers accompanying the conference report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 directed the Secretary of Defense to provide a report of the U.S. industrial capacity to pour and finish non-ferrous castings for both fixed-pitch and controllable-reversible pitch propellers. The Navy, responding for the Secretary of Defense, submitted the report on August 22, 1994. The report dealt with large diameter propellers (diameters greater than 12 feet) that are used on Navy submarines, combatants and auxiliaries, and some Military Sealift Command Ships. The report found that the manufacturing industrial base for propellers of this type was in a fragile state due to a reduction in Navy orders and the lack of commercial shipbuilding. It concluded that, if shipbuilding programs were reduced from the then current future years defense plan, there might be only enough propeller work to sustain one fully integrated facility. The report further stated that the Department might then be required to take special efforts to preserve a U.S. industrial base for the manufacture of large propellers needed for U.S. Navy ships, including limiting procurement to only U.S. sources. During its review of the budget request, the committee considered recommending a provision that would limit the procurement of Navy ship propellers to domestic sources. To better evaluate the need for such a provision, the committee consulted both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy concerning the need for such a provision. The Secretary of Defense offered the opinion that such a provision was not needed at this time because he already had the authority under 10 U.S.C. 2304 to take protective action. The committee remains very concerned about the condition of the domestic propeller manufacturing base and urges the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy to take the necessary steps to preserve it. Worker's compensation coverage on overseas contracts Chapter 12 of title 42, United States Code mandates that all non-U.S. government personnel employed by federal contractors overseas be covered by uniform worker's compensation insurance. This insurance coverage is provided on a 24-hour basis for sickness and most accidents and injuries. Currently, each DOD contractor secures its own insurance and writes the cost of the insurance into its contract proposals. The premium charge for this coverage on individual contracts can be very expensive. The committee is aware that the State Department and the Agency for International Development have instituted programs to consolidate all overseas workers' compensation coverage under a single large contract to realize significant cost savings through economies of scale. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, within thirty days upon enactment of the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, to review this approach for providing mandated insurance coverage of foreign national employees by defense contractors overseas, and to assess the feasibility and desirability of such an approach based on potential cost savings and such other factors as the Secretary deems appropriate. If the Secretary finds such an approach to be feasible and desirable, the committee directs the Secretary, not later than March 1, 1996, to develop and issue a request for proposals using full and open competitive procedures to establish an agency-wide program for providing worker's compensation coverage mandated under chapter 12 of title 42 United States Code. The committee directs the Secretary to provide to the congressional defense committees no later than March 31, 1996 a report of his findings and his decision with respect to the feasibility and desirability of providing insurance coverage through a consolidated contract, and a summary of the actions he has undertaken to implement that decision. TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT Section - 901. Redesignation of the position of Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Atomic Energy. The committee recommends a provision that would change the name of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Atomic Energy to be the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs. OTHER MATTERS Joint Exercise, Training, and Doctrine Command The committee strongly supports the efforts of the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Atlantic Command (USACOM), in assisting in the development of joint doctrine, establishing the standards for joint readiness, and meeting the requirements of a combatant CINC. The committee urges the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), taking into consideration the functions presently being performed by the Joint Staff and USACOM with respect to joint doctrine, joint readiness, and joint training, to consider forming a Joint Exercise, Training, and Doctrine Command which would concentrate on joint training and readiness. The CJCS might assign this command the responsibility of assisting in ensuring the preparedness and joint readiness of military units stationed in the United States. Such an organization might optimize the efforts of both the Joint Staff and USACOM with a resultant improvement in readiness, training and joint doctrine. The committee notes that the Joint Warfighting Center at Fort Monroe, Virginia, has the mission to assist the CJCS, CINCs and Chiefs of Services in their preparation for joint and multinational operations in conceptualization, development and in the accomplishment of joint and multinational training and exercises. This center is designed to support the efforts of other commands and agencies through simulation, providing controllers, conducting after action reviews, and developing and reviewing doctrine. While the Joint Warfighting Center could be the nucleus from which a Joint Exercise, Training and Doctrine Command could be formed, the responsibilities of such a new organization would be significantly greater than those currently assigned to the Joint Warfighting Center. Reorganization of the Office of the Secretary of Defense The committee believes that careful consideration should be given to reorganizing the management headquarters of the Department of Defense, particularly as the military departments and the defense agencies downsize and streamline their activities. While the committee is not making specific recommendations on how such a reorganization might be accomplished, the Report of the Commission on Roles and Missions provides a base from which to begin. Specifically, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive study of the management headquarters of the Department of Defense, including the military services, with the goal of identifying any reorganization and streamlining necessary to prepare those headquarters for the 21st century. The Secretary shall report the results of the study to the Congress, specifically addressing the need for the reorganization and streamlining of such headquarters and how best to accomplish any necessary reorganization and streamlining, including any proposed legislation to bring such about. The report, separate from the Secretary's comments concerning the Roles and Missions Commissions' report, should be delivered to the appropriate committees of the Congress not later than May 1, 1996. The committee believes that many of the recommendations in the Report of the Commission on Roles and Missions merit careful consideration. For example, the Commission on Roles and Missions made a specific recommendation that the Secretary of Defense create an objective integration element within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Such an integration element could be a Chief of Staff or Director of the Defense Staff with the function of ensuring integration and coordination so as to facilitate unity of effort of OSD. This function could be accomplished, for example, by assigning additional duties to the Deputy Secretary of Defense. The committee notes that the Roles and Missions Commission made several recommendations concerning the organization and roles of the Service secretariats and service staffs. The study directed by the committee should make recommendations concerning the advisability of maintaining the current layering of civilian and uniformed service staffs or propose changes to make these staffs more effective. The committee believes that the primary focus of the Office of the Secretary of Defense should be the formulation and review of policy and that operational issues should be the primary function of the Joint Staff. The Roles and Missions report recommended the Secretary of Defense develop a directive clarifying the scope of responsibilities and relationships for the OSD staff. Such a directive could assist in reducing redundancy and improving responsiveness to new and evolving missions. Finally, the committee notes that the Roles and Missions Commission recommended that the Secretary of Defense direct that additional analytical and technical resources be provided to the Joint Staff to assist the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, particularly with respect to expansion of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council. In a separate but related effort, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review and report on the actual size of the management headquarters within the Department of Defense, including the military services, not later than March 1, 1996. As the operating forces are being reduced, there is a perception that management headquarters are growing. In the past when the Congress has directed reductions in management headquarters, personnel and spaces have been transferred to field operating agencies and activities without any substantive change in their activities or responsibilities. This directed review and report should include the management headquarters and all field operating agencies or activities. The report should include a description of actions planned or implemented as a result of the study and any recommended legislative changes which would assist the Department in achieving improved readiness, effectiveness and efficiency. TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS SUBTITLE A--FINANCIAL MATTERS Section - 1002. Disbursing and certifying officials. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the designation and appointment of disbursing and certifying officials within the Department of Defense (including the military departments, defense agencies and field activities). This provision would strengthen internal controls by providing a separation of duties between personnel who authorize payments (certifying officials) and personnel who make payments (disbursing officials). Liability for payment authorized would be at the source of origination (the certifying official), which is more in line with normal financial procedures. This provision supports the department's financial management consolidation efforts by defining the responsibilities and liabilities of disbursing and certifying officials. Relief from liability is provided for in appropriate cases where accountability for the loss is determined and a diligent effort to collect money owed to the government has been made. Section - 1003. Defense modernization account. The committee recommends a provision that would establish a Defense Modernization Account to encourage savings within DOD, and make those savings available to address the serious shortfall in funding for modernization. Under the proposed legislation, the Secretary of Defense could place in the Defense Modernization Account funds saved from achieving economies and efficiencies in procurement programs and installation management. In order to encourage savings by the military departments and DOD components, funds placed in the account would be reserved for use by the department or component that generated the savings. Funds placed in the account could be used only for modernization of an existing system, modernization of a system that is the subject of an ongoing procurement, or increasing the quantity of a procurement in order to achieve a more cost- efficient production rate. No funds could be made available from the account except through established reprogramming procedures, including applicable congressional approval requirements. Reprogramming procedures could not be used to exceed statutory funding or quantity ceilings applicable to the program. The amount that could be reprogrammed in any one year for DOD as a whole could not exceed $500 million. Amounts more than $500 million could not be made available except through legislation authorizing and appropriating the funds. The committee believes that this provision will provide an important incentive for the military departments and DOD components to achieve savings, and will provide a means for directing such savings to the urgent shortfalls in modernization funding. Section - 1004. Authorization of prior emergency supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1995. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the emergency supplemental appropriations enacted in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-6). This supplemental provided funding for fiscal year 1995 expenses related to military operations in Southwest Asia, Haiti, Cuba, Somalia, Bosnia, and Korea. Section - 1005. Limitation on use of authority to pay for emergency and extraordinary expenses. In January 1995, the Department of Defense notified Congress that $4.7 million had been obligated from operation and maintenance accounts for the purchase and shipment of heavy oil to North Korea, in partial fulfillment of U.S. commitments under the U.S.-North Korea Nuclear Framework Agreement concluded on October 21, 1994. This obligation was incurred under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 127 to pay emergency and extraordinary expenses of the Department of Defense which cannot be anticipated or classified. The administration advised Congress that this defense spending authority was invoked because Department of State funds normally used for foreign aid were not available in this case because of the long-standing statutory prohibition on using foreign assistance funds to aid terrorist nations. North Korea is included on the Department of State's list of nations that support or engage in international terrorism. Although the exercise of the emergency and extraordinary expenses authority cited above does not require prior consultation with Congress, the committee is concerned that the administration apparently chose voluntarily not to discuss this matter with Congress in advance of taking the unusual step of using defense funds for foreign aid. The committee is particularly concerned that such aid was provided to North Korea from Department of Defense funds rather than Department of State foreign assistance funds. Therefore, the committee supports a provision that requires prior notifications to Congress for any use of the emergency and extraordinary expenses authority in excess of $500,000, except in cases where the Secretary of Defense determines that such advance notification would compromise national security. Section - 1006. Transfer authority regarding funds available for foreign currency fluctuations. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a foreign currency fluctuation account for the military personnel appropriation. This authorization is limited to the fiscal year 1993 and subsequent year appropriations. Overseas allowances are subject to currency fluctuations and this authority will give the military departments flexibility to manage the military personnel appropriation. Section - 1007. Report on budget submission regarding reserve components. The committee believes that the National Guard and the other reserve components should be adequately equipped in order to perform effectively the missions required of them both in peace and war. As the active components of our military services have been downsized over the past several years, reliance on our reserve components has grown. The Bottom-Up Review relies on the enhancement of National Guard brigades in order to execute the ``two nearly-simultaneous major regional conflict'' strategy. As a result of shortfalls of modern weapons and equipment in the reserve components and the lack of adequate resources requested for National Guard and Reserve equipment in annual budget submissions, the committee has supported over several years initiatives originating within the Congress to provide more modern weapons and equipment for National Guard and Reserves. While the committee believes this support has done a great deal to enhance the capabilities and effectiveness of reserve components, it is apparent that the Department of Defense has grown to rely on annual congressional increases for National Guard and Reserve equipment and does not include in annual budget requests adequate resources for reserve components. The committee is also concerned that the reserve components do not receive appropriate priority for the allocation of military construction projects and notes that a similar practice of annual increases by the Congress has ensued. The committee intends that the National Guard and Reserves should be adequately resourced by the DOD. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would direct the Secretary of Defense to submit a special report to the congressional defense committees at the same time as the fiscal year 1997 budget submission, describing measures taken within DOD to ensure that the reserve components are appropriately funded, and listing the major weapons and items of equipment as well as the military construction projects provided for the National Guard and Reserves. SUBTITLE B--NAVAL VESSELS Section - 1011. Iowa class battleships. The committee recommends a provision that would direct the Secretary of the Navy to restore at least two Iowa class battleships to the naval register, and to retain them in its strategic reserve, available for reactivation, until he is prepared to certify that the Navy has replaced the potential shore fire support the battleships could provide with an operational surface fire support capability that equals or exceeds it. The discussion of naval surface fire support of this report sets forth in Title II the rationale for this recommendation in more detail. Section - 1012. Transfer of naval vessels to certain foreign countries. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to transfer eight FFG-7 Class guided missile frigates to various countries. The Chief of Naval Operations has certified that these naval vessels are not essential to the defense of the U.S. Any expense incurred by the United States in connection with the transfer will be charged to the recipient. SUBTITLE C--COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES Section - 1021. Revision and clarification of authority for Federal support of drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the National Guard. Section - 1022. National Drug Intelligence Center. Section - 1023. Assistance to Customs Service. The budget request for drug interdiction and counterdrug activities totals $680.4 million, plus $131.5 million for OPTEMPO which is included within the operating budgets of the military services. These numbers compare with $714.2 million for drug interdiction and counterdrug activities, and $199.1 million for OPTEMPO in the military services' budgets in the fiscal year 1995 budget request. The committee is advised that approximately 70 percent of the illegal drugs entering the United States comes mainly by air into Mexico and is then transported across the southwest border, primarily by trucks and automobiles. Since Mexico is not assigned to any of the combatant commands, the committee recommends that the Commander, SOUTHCOM or the Commander, USACOM, be assigned responsibility for Mexico, if only for counterdrug and drug interdiction purposes. The committee continues to believe that the development and employment of effective non-intrusive inspection devices at key border entry points would provide significant deterrence and seizure capabilities. The committee has strongly supported these efforts over the past five years. Results of tests of these devices continues to be encouraging. The advanced X-ray at Otay Mesa, CA successfully completed tests and has been turned over to the U.S. Customs Service. The committee continues to support a strategy of developing mobile detection systems, with different technologies for deployment to test sites, for demonstration and evaluation. If successful, these systems will provide effective coverage of a large number of ports with a limited number of inspection systems. The committee believes that investment in non-intrusive inspection devices will yield much higher payoff than other DOD efforts to assist law enforcement agencies. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision which would provide necessary authority for the procurement of these devices by DOD or transfer of funds from DOD to Customs Service for this purpose. The committee also recommends $25.0 million for the procurement and deployment of non-intrusive detection devices. In turn, the Commissioner of Customs has agreed to provide $12.0 million for the additional procurement of such devices, and has committed to operate and maintain all these devices with Customs resources. The committee expects these devices to be procured and deployed as soon as possible at entry points along the southwest border. The committee is pleased with the progress of the Gulf States Counterdrug Initiative (GSCI), and recommends an increase of $2.0 million to enhance GSCI efforts in Mississippi to bring those operations up to the level of those in Alabama and Louisiana. The committee commends the Department of Defense and the Coordinator for Drug Enforcement Policy and Support for their support of the GSCI program and encourages the DOD to continue to provide necessary funding for this program in the future. The committee is aware of a number of initiatives which would enhance counterdrug and drug interdiction operations in the source countries, and recommends $15.2 million for development and procurement of the following items/systems: refurbishment and relocation of U.S. ground-based radars, high frequency secure communications among allied (Andean Ridge) nations, night vision goggles and global positioning systems, FAA flight plan computers, podded radars, direction-finding capability, and secure tactical field and aircraft radios. The committee cautions DOD to ensure that all applicable laws are observed in the execution of these programs, including, in particular, section 1004 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (10 U.S.C. 374 note). The committee notes that the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) is an activity operated by the Department of Justice but totally financed by the DOD. The committee recommends a provision which would prohibit further DOD funding of NDIC. If the Department of Justice chooses to operate NDIC with DOJ funds, the Secretary of Defense may continue to provide DOD intelligence personnel to support intelligence activities at NDIC as long as the number of personnel provided by DOD does not exceed the number provided to support intelligence activities at NDIC on the date of enactment of this bill. The committee recommends deletion of funding for community outreach programs within the DOD Interdiction and Counterdrug Program. The committee recommends a provision which would revise and clarify authority for federal support of drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the National Guard. Drug Interdiction & Counterdrug Activities, Operations and Maintenance (in thousands of dollars) Thousands Fiscal Year 1996 Drug and Counterdrug Request................. $680,400 Source Nation Support..................................... $127,300 Dismantling Cartels....................................... $64,300 Detection and Monitoring.................................. $111,700 Law Enforcement Agency Support............................ $279,300 Demand Reduction.......................................... $97,800 Reductions Community Outreach Programs............................... $8,236 National Drug Intelligence Center......................... $34,000 Increases Non-Intrusive Inspection Devices, Procurement............. $25,000 Gulf States Counterdrug Initiative........................ $2,000 Source Nation Support Initiatives......................... $15,236 Recommendation................................................ $680,400 SUBTITLE D--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION PROGRAMS Section - 1031. Continuation of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. The committee recommends a provision that would reaffirm the prohibition of the closure of the University, and establish minimum staffing levels. Section - 1032. Additional graduate schools and programs at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize additional graduate schools and programs at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. This provision would permit the Board of Regents to establish a graduate school of nursing at the University. Section - 1033. Funding for basic adult education programs for military personnel and dependents outside the United States. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the military continuing education programs of the armed services and adult members of their families stationed or residing outside the United States. This provision would authorize funding of the same literacy and citizenship programs now available to persons residing in the United States. Section - 1034. Scope of education programs of Community College of the Air Force. The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 9315 of title 10, United States Code to limit the scope of the Community College of the Air Force to Air Force personnel. Section - 1035. Date for annual report on Selected Reserve Educational Assistance Program. The committee recommends a provision that would change the date on which the annual report on selected reserve educational assistance program is due to the Congress from December 15 to March 1 of each year. SUBTITLE E--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION Section - 1041. Cooperative Threat Reduction programs defined. Section - 1042. Funding matters. Section - 1043. Limitation relating to offensive biological warfare program of Russia. In 1991, the Congress established the Nunn-Lugar Program, now called the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program, authorizing the Department of Defense to assist the Soviet Union and its successor countries to destroy their weapons of mass destruction and reduce the threat posed by the proliferation of these weapons. To date, the Congress has approved $1.25 billion to achieve the objectives established for the program. The fiscal year 1996 budget included a request for $371.0 million in the operation and maintenance account of the Department of Defense to continue activities to denuclearize and reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the countries of the former Soviet Union. The committee recommends a reduction of $6.0 million to the budget request for fiscal year 1996. The committee is concerned about reported problems with achieving CTR program objectives, including: progress in full implementation of audit and examination agreements to determine that CTR funds are being used for their intended purposes; Department of Defense funding of housing for Russian military officers; and uncertainties regarding the successful evaluation of the technology which Russia has selected for destruction of its chemical weapons stockpile. At the same time, the committee takes note of the Secretary of Defense's written rebuttal of these criticisms. The committee continues to be concerned about Russia's compliance with the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), and recommends a provision that would require the President to certify Russia's compliance with the BWC. The committee supports Department of Defense efforts to facilitate the dismantlement and destruction of strategic offensive weapons in the states of the former Soviet Union and military and defense exchanges between the U.S. and the countries of the former Soviet Union. The committee also supports joint business partnerships formed between U.S. industry and defense enterprises and partners in the former Soviet Union to engage defense enterprises associated with the research, development and production of strategic offensive arms to private, peaceful commercial activities. The committee recommends an amendment to Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 to allow funds authorized to execute the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program to be used to reimburse the military personnel appropriations accounts for pay and allowances paid to reserve component personnel while they are engaged in military-to-military or defense contacts authorized in the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program. SUBTITLE F--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS Section - 1051. Cooperative research and development agreements with NATO organizations. The committee recommends a provision that would make a technical and conforming amendment to section 2350b of title 10, United States Code, to make it consistent with action taken in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, which amended section 2350a. Section - 1052. National security implications of United States export control policy. The increased use of commercial-off-the shelf technologies by the Department of Defense and the military services, and the relaxation of export controls on dual-use items and sensitive military technologies, has caused the committee great concern. Lowering export controls on dual-use items and technologies may place current U.S. technologies and defense capabilities at risk. In particular, the committee is concerned about the export of satellite, satellite-related technologies, and services. The committee is also troubled by the administration's efforts to support the inclusion of countries as members of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), and consulting with Congress about the administration's efforts, only after it is a fait accompli. Recently, the administration has made overtures of support to a number of countries whose records on the sale of space launch vehicle (SLV) technology is at variance with the goals of the MTCR regime. The committee recommends a provision that would direct the Department of Defense to provide a detailed report on its role in the review of licenses for dual use technologies. The report shall include the following: (1) administration plans to revise its export control policy on dual-use items and militarily critical technologies which could have adverse consequences for national security; (2) The process for resolving disputes between the Department of Defense, Department of State and Department of Commerce, over licensing requirements for particular items, or whether to grant a license to a particular country, so that export policy serves both United States national security interests as well as U.S. economic interests. Review of export licenses for biological pathogens The committee is concerned about exports of biological and medical samples that could be used to support a biological warfare program. Because the Department of Defense must prepare for military operations in areas or against nations with known or suspected biological warfare programs, the committee believes that the Department of Defense should take an active role in reviewing and approving export licenses for class 2, 3, and 4 biological pathogens with a potential for use in biological warfare program. Additionally, the committee believes that copies of all export license requests for class 2, 3, and 4 biological pathogens to countries with known or suspected biological warfare programs, even if denied, should be made available to the appropriate intelligence community elements to facilitate the full and ongoing evaluation of those programs. Section - 1053. Defense export loan guarantees. During a period of reduced funding for purchases of weapon systems and other defense equipment, defense exports make a significant contribution to the preservation of the industrial and technology base supporting national security. Such exports are a major factor in preserving jobs for some of the most skilled American workers. The international defense market, however, is very competitive, and the ability of a defense company to offer better-than-market financing can be decisive for the consummation of an export sale. In fact, to an increasing extent countries are now requiring the provision of export loan guarantees as a precondition for submitting a bid for the sale of defense articles. For that reason, most foreign defense suppliers have access to government-subsidized loan guarantees for the export of defense equipment. In order to provide the same advantage to U.S. defense companies, the committee recommends a provision that would establish a loan guarantee program in the Department of Defense for the export of defense articles, services, or design and construction services. Countries eligible for loan guarantees under this section include the members of NATO, major non-NATO allies, the democratic states of Eastern Europe, and the member nations of Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). The obligations under the program would be paid from a revolving fund financed through exposure fees charged to the recipients of the loan guarantees. Section - 1054. Landmine clearing assistance program. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $20.0 million in operation and maintenance accounts for the Department of Defense to carry out humanitarian landmine clearing activities during fiscal year 1996. The committee also terminates the use of Department of Defense funds to carry out this activity after fiscal year 1996. The committee believes that this activity is more appropriately funded through the international affairs budget function. Additionally, the committee requires that the Secretary of Defense certify 30 days in advance of obligation of funds that the involvement of personnel in this activity fulfills military training requirements. The committee also recommends a provision that would amend the current definition of landmine to clarify that ``remotely operated devices'' are not included for the purposes of the landmine export moratorium. Landmine Convention The United States military services have identified land mines as a significant threat to future force projections and military operations other than war. As a result, the United States, through the services have provided training and education assistance for humanitarian landmine activities, to include the development of technology for mine detection, classification, mapping, and neutralization to regions such as Africa, Asia and Latin America. In March 1995, the Senate provided its advice and consent to ratification of the Convention on Conventional Weapons (Treaty Document 103-25). In providing its support for ratification of this treaty, the committee identified a number of concerns related to future amendments to the Convention at the upcoming September 1995 Review Conference. The committee is concerned about possible administration plans to amend the Convention to establish a verification and compliance commission. The committee believes a large, expensive bureaucracy should not be established and that careful consideration be given to the precedent-setting nature of an enforcement commission. Lastly, the committee also believes that command-detonated claymore-type mines must be excluded from the coverage of any future amendments intended to tighten restrictions on the use of landmines. The committee urges the administration to continue to encourage more nations to ratify the Convention, particularly undeveloped nations where internal conflicts are on the rise, and where the use of landmines and booby-traps are likely. Section - 1055. Strategic cooperation between the United States and Israel. The committee recommends a provision which expresses the sense of Congress supporting continued cooperation between the United States and Israel in military and technical areas; in particular, in missile defense systems. This provision calls for the elimination of unnecessary barriers to collaboration between the two allies in order to maintain Israel's qualitative edge over potential adversaries in conventional weaponry and missile defenses. The committee believes that both the United States and Israel have benefitted from this collaborative effort. The committee recognizes that Israel is engaged in a peace initiative that could pose increased risks to its security. Maintaining Israel's defense qualitative edge is thus more critical now than perhaps at any other time. However, the committee also notes that U.S. national security concerns, such as the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, must limit cooperation in certain technical areas. Section - 1056. Support services for the Navy at the Port of Haifa, Israel. The Navy relies heavily on the Port of Haifa, Israel to support fleet operations in the eastern Mediterranean. Sixth Fleet ships operating in that region conduct most of their port calls in Haifa. The Navy has completed an initial phase of upgrades to enhance the support services available at Haifa. The committee recommends a provision expressing the sense of Congress that the Navy should pursue a follow-on phase of upgrades to improve these services; and ensure that such support remains available in the future as commercial activities continue to expand at Haifa. For example, the port uses a water taxi system to transport personnel from larger ships moored away from the piers. Measures to enhance safety of the water taxi system are of particular interest to the committee. The committee notes that 21 U.S. sailors died in 1990 when their water taxi capsized. The committee believes that a modernized water taxi system could prevent another such accident. The committee directs the Navy to begin discussions promptly with Port of Haifa and other local officials. The committee expects the Navy to use these discussions to develop detailed plans for the next phase of support services upgrades. Plans should include, at a minimum, safety of water taxi service available to the Sixth Fleet at Haifa. The Navy is directed to report periodically to the committee on its progress in developing these plans. Section - 1057. Prohibition on assistance to terrorist countries. As noted in report language accompanying the bill section on ``Limitation on Use of Authority to Pay for Emergency and Extraordinary Expenses,'' the committee is troubled by the use of the department's Emergency and Extraordinary Expenses account to pay for the purchase and shipment of heavy oil to North Korea, a nation listed by the Department of State as supporting international terrorism. Although this obligation was incurred to fulfill a U.S. commitment to North Korea under the Nuclear Framework Agreement, the committee believes, nevertheless, it was a questionable use of defense funds. Consequently, the committee recommends a provision, similar to language in the annual foreign assistance legislation, which would prohibit the use of any funds available to the Department of Defense to assist nations on the terrorism list. Section - 1058. International military education and training. The IMET program is central and cost-effective to the success of U.S. regional security strategies. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Commanders in Chief (CINCs) of the regional combatant commands have testified repeatedly that the IMET program is, dollar-for-dollar, the best tool in establishing security relationships with friendly nations. Because of today's fast-breaking and sometimes unpredictable developments, IMET contributes to more inter-operability and smoother coalition-building with other nations. From fiscal year 1988 through fiscal year 1993, annual IMET appropriations ranged from $47.4 million to $42.5 million. Then, in fiscal year 1994, funding was precipitously cut in half, to $21.3 million, with only a modest recovery to $25.5 million in fiscal year 1995. Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision that would grant discretionary authority to the Secretary of Defense, upon the recommendation of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or a regional combatant CINC, to provide up to $20.0 million for the provision of international training and education to countries allied and friendly to the United States. This amount is authorized to be funded from amounts appropriated for operation and maintenance for defense-wide activities and is subject to the provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. This would help to return IMET closer to traditional funding levels. Section - 1060. Implementation of arms control agreements. The fiscal year 1996 budget request for arms control implementation is based on assumptions regarding the dates on which treaties will likely enter into force and includes funds for the On-Site Inspection Agency (OSIA), the military services, and defense agencies. To date, a number of treaties and agreements have not been ratified by all signatories, thus resulting in a delay in the date of entry into force. Those treaties and agreements not yet entered into force include the Open Skies Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, START II, and the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Destruction Agreement. As a result, the committee recommends a reduction of $12.0 million in the O&M account for OSIA, and reduction of $6.0 million to the Army, $7.0 million to the Navy, and $8.0 million to the Air Force O&M accounts for arms control compliance activities as a result of reduced requirements in fiscal year 1996. The statement of managers accompanying the conference report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (H. Rept. 103-357) directed the Department of Defense to notify the congressional defense committees in writing 30 days prior to U.S. agreement to any recommendations of the various consultative commissions that would result in either a technical change to the treaty or agreement affecting inspection and monitoring provisions, or that would result in increased costs of implementation. The department's notification to the Congress of agreement to recommendations of the consultative commissions made by treaty partners or by the United States has been erratic at best. The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the use of defense funds to reimburse expenses that signatories, other than the United States, are obligated to incur pursuant to treaties or agreements with the United States which have entered into force, where the Congress has not received 30 days notice prior to agreement between the parties in the consultative commission. Furthermore, the committee remains concerned that the arms control consultative commissions are being used to facilitate changes or modifications to arms control treaties and agreements, such as inspection or monitoring provisions, or obligations of the parties, which should be brought to the Senate for its advice and consent. Section - 1061. Sense of Congress on limiting the placing of United States forces under United Nations Command or Control. The committee recommends a provision expressing the sense of Congress on placing U.S. forces under the operational control of the United Nations for the purpose of conducting peace operations. The administration's policy on peace operations, spelled out in Presidential Decision Directive 25 (PDD-25) in May 1994, places considerable emphasis on U.N. peacekeeping and peace enforcement as a major foreign policy tool of the United States. The administration's preference for acting under the U.N. rather than unilaterally (or through other, more limited multi-lateral arrangements) is usually justified on the grounds that it reduces the burden to the U.S. by spreading costs among U.N. member nations. However, this redoubled commitment to the U.N. has led to a marked increase in the number and scope of peace operations undertaken by the U.N. Thus the potential reduction in the burden borne by the U.S. is offset by the proliferation of extended and costly operations. Moreover, the U.N., with the full support of the U.S. government, has in many cases taken on tasks which exceed its capabilities. The results have ranged from disappointing to disastrous. Furthermore, the administration's emphasis on the U.N. as a key component of U.S. foreign and security policy suggests confusion over the legitimacy of the unilateral use of force by the United States. The administration appears to believe that activities under U.N. authority give global legitimacy to mediating disputes, demobilizing armed factions, arranging cease fires, or providing emergency and humanitarian relief. Conversely, the administration's actions suggest a belief that unilateral U.S. actions are less legitimate and less justifiable than actions taken under the auspices of the U.N. This belief in the superiority of U.N. action over unilateral U.S. action has logically and inevitably led to a willingness to place U.S. forces under the operational control of U.N. in peacekeeping missions. However, inherent deficiencies in U.N. command and control arrangements, combined with the lack of mission clarity inherent in peace operations, have undermined the success of some peacekeeping missions, and contributed to the endangerment and loss of life of participating personnel. Consequently, the committee supports the section expressing the sense of Congress that U.S. forces should not be placed under operational control of the U.N. without close and prior consultation with Congress; should only be placed under qualified commanders and clear, effective command and control, and then only when clearly in the national interest; and that U.S. forces should not be placed under the operational control of foreign commanders in peace enforcement missions except in the most extraordinary circumstances. SUBTITLE G--REPEAL OF CERTAIN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Reduction of reporting requirements The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate 67 statutory reports recommended for elimination by the Department of Defense under section 1151 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994. SUBTITLE H--OTHER MATTERS Section - 1081. Global positioning system. The committee has received the reports on the Global Positioning System (GPS) prepared by the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) and the National Research Council (NRC), pursuant to a provision the committee recommended in the Fiscal Year 1994 National Defense Authorization Act. The committee expresses its deep appreciation to the participants from both groups for their comprehensive reports. The committee also acknowledges the recent findings and recommendations of the Defense Science Board (DSB), which will soon issue its own report on GPS. With a few salient exceptions, the DSB and NAPA/NRC reports contain similar recommendations. Both recommend that the Department of Defense begin immediately to prepare for situations in which GPS signals are denied, either as a result of U.S. or foreign jamming. Both recommend that DOD prepare for widespread availability of differential GPS. Both also urge the military to move rapidly to heavy, if not exclusive, reliance on the encrypted P(Y) code. Although the DSB and NAPA/NRC reports differ on the timetable for suspending the use of the Selective Availability (SA) feature (NAPA/NRC calls for immediate suspension), both indicate that DOD must prepare for the day when SA is turned off. The committee generally accepts the findings and recommendations from these reports, with one exception: the committee believes that an immediate suspension of SA, as recommended in the NAPA/NRC reports, would be both premature and risky. The committee agrees that the SA function should be eliminated by a date certain, and before the end of this decade. The committee further agrees that, in the interim prior to termination of the SA function, DOD must undertake a vigorous research and development program focused on two interrelated objectives. First, DOD needs to develop methods to jam or otherwise counter potential enemy use of GPS signals to target U.S. forces and installations within a theater of operations. Second, DOD needs to develop methods to improve the performance of our GPS-equipped weapons platforms, and, even more important, the effectiveness of our GPS-aided weapons, against hostile efforts (or even the effects of our own denial actions) to jam or degrade high-precision GPS signals. Accordingly, the committee increases the requested RDT&E funds for the GPS Block IIF program by $10.0 million in program element 0604480F for the development of a comprehensive plan, and to initiate those R&D activities necessary to insure effective use of high-precision GPS signals by U.S. forces, and effective denial of the use of those signals by potential enemies. To ensure that this matter is taken seriously, the committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to turn off SA by May 1, 1996 unless the Secretary submits to the congressional defense committees a plan for achieving a capability to deny hostile use of GPS without hindering our own ability to exploit GPS, and for substantially improving the jam-resistance of our GPS-aided weapons and platforms. The Secretary's report should address the full range of recommendations issued by the National Research Council and the Defense Science Board in their respective studies, including the recommendations to add another GPS signal to the Block IIR and Block IIF satellites, and to improve the operational control segment. The committee believes that these recommendations, if implemented, would enhance the military, civilian, and commercial utility of the system at modest cost, and help to ensure that GPS will not face meaningful competition in the future. Section - 1082. Limitation on retirement or dismantlement of strategic nuclear delivery systems. The committee has reviewed the findings and recommendations of the administration's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). The NPR recommends reductions to the B-52 bomber force beginning in fiscal year 1996, and the scrapping of four Trident submarines beginning in 2000, if the START II Treaty has been ratified and is on track to enter into force. As part of the entry into force of the Treaty, the U.S. would make an irrevocable declaration that its accountable sea-based forces consist of 14 Trident submarines, each containing 24 launchers, with each launcher containing 5 reentry vehicles (RVs). The committee is concerned that those NPR recommendations appear to be cost- effective only under the assumption that the START II Treaty will be ratified and enter into force and that there will be no further arms reductions treaties. The planned retirements recommended in the NPR of 28 of the 94 B-52 bombers during the next fiscal year, and four of the 18 Trident submarines beginning in the year 2000 (with each remaining Trident missile to carry five RVs), would clearly retain nearly the same total weapons loading as would be permitted under the START II Treaty if there were no retirements of delivery systems, and would reduce the long-term operating cost. However, the required backfitting of Trident II missiles into the four West Coast Trident submarines to be retained would eliminate most of those potential savings in operating costs until well after the turn of the century. Thus, if the START II Treaty were implemented promptly, not abrogated, and not superseded by further arms control agreements, long-term savings would accrue. Other futures are possible, indeed, more probable, given the uncertainties of the post-Cold War world. For example, the NPR argues that its reduced force structure would provide an adequate ``hedge'' capability against the possibility of a failure of democracy in Russia. Yet it is clear that a force structure containing all 94 B-52s and all 18 Trident submarines would provide both higher force survivability and a larger number of available weapons than the NPR force structure. Thus, the larger force structure would be more effective than the NPR force, should international events force us to increase our nuclear deterrent. Another possible future is that the START II Treaty will be ratified and enter into force on (roughly) the timetable contained in the Treaty. In this instance, it may be judged likely that there will be further arms control negotiations. Should such negotiations begin, the U.S. will be entering them from a position in which it has just unilaterally retired four Trident submarines as a part of its implementation of START II, plus the retirement during 1996 of 28 B-52 bombers. It is unlikely that any negotiating partner would give the U.S. side any credit for our prior unilateral reductions. Thus, it is entirely possible that U.S. negotiators could be pressed during ``START III'' negotiations to agree to lower limits on precisely those weapons systems that were unilaterally and unnecessarily retired while the START II Treaty was being implemented. This could even lead to a situation in which the U.S. would face the prospect of retiring one or more of the Trident submarines that had just undergone a costly backfit of Trident II missiles. Thus, the committee concludes that the NPR recommendations appear to be cost-effective only under the narrow assumption that the START II Treaty is rapidly implemented, adhered to faithfully, and not superseded by more restrictive treaty limits. In that case, modest long-term savings would begin to accrue sometime after the turn of the century. Under other, more plausible scenarios, however, the NPR would clearly be less cost-effective than retaining the largest force structure consistent with the terms of the START I and START II Treaties. The committee does not regard the possibility of modest savings in the long-term as an adequate rationale for the selection of an inferior deterrent posture. Given these uncertainties, the committee proposes several actions. First, the committee recommends a provision expressing the sense of Congress that no strategic nuclear delivery system should be retired until START II enters into force. This provision also prohibits the retirement, or preparation for retirement, of such delivery systems during fiscal year 1996. Second, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to fully fund all activities necessary for the backfitting of Trident II missiles into at least four West Coast Trident submarines on the schedule recommended in the NPR. The committee recommends a provision to repeal the existing prohibition on backfit of Trident submarines. Third, the committee directs the Department of the Navy to continue to fund both in its fiscal year 1997 budget and in the Future Years Defense Program adequate operational support for Trident I missiles to insure the option of retaining all 18 Trident submarines on full operational status, assuming backfits of the final four submarines with Trident II missiles would be scheduled following the completion of the first four conversions. The committee is also concerned by the administration's failure to prepare a plan for maintaining the nuclear weapons necessary for a credible upload hedge. The committee notes that this was an integral part of the NPR recommendation and is critical to the maintenance of a credible hedge. Unfortunately, to date the Department of Energy has failed in its responsibility to support such a hedge. The committee believes that maintaining 3,500 active warheads pursuant to the START II limitations is only half of a credible plan. In order to have a serious and credible hedge capability, in addition to the active stockpile, DOE must maintain an inactive stockpile that is ready to be promptly uploaded onto existing delivery systems. This inactive stockpile must be maintained at a level no lower than that which would be required to promptly and fully upload all existing strategic nuclear delivery systems in today's inventory. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would require DOE to maintain, and remanufacture as necessary, sufficient warheads to be able to implement the upload outlined above. Section - 1083. National Guard Civilian Youth Opportunities Pilot Program. The committee recommends a provision that would extend the authorization for the National Guard Youth Opportunities program through 1997. No funding was authorized by this provision. Section - 1084. Report on Department of Defense boards and commissions. The committee is concerned over growth in the number of congressionally mandated boards and commissions that may not merit the department's continued support, either through funding or manpower. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a list to Congress that identifies those boards and commissions that are deemed desirable for retention and compatible with efficient management, and those that are not. In each case, the Secretary shall also describe the level of funding and manpower required, and provide a brief summary of the reasons for the proposed retention or dissolution of such boards. Section - 1085. Revision of authority for providing Army support for the National Science Center for Communications and Electronics. The committee has included a legislative provision that would clarify the Army's relationship with the foundation and the National Science Center Discovery Center, a non-profit organization. The committee is pleased with the progress made to establish the discovery center as a national center dedicated to communication and electronics. The committee urges the center to expedite its transition to self-supporting status through entry fees. The committee also directs the Army to establish revised or new memorandums of agreement with the center and the foundation to implement this new legislation. Section - 1086. Authority to suspend or terminate collection actions against deceased members. The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3711 of title 31 United States Code to rescind the requirement to initiate and pursue collection action against the estates of service members who die on active duty while indebted to the government. The provision would provide the Secretary of Defense discretionary authority to suspend or terminate collection actions when a service member dies while indebted to the government and the Secretary determines that collection action is inappropriate. Section - 1087. Damage or loss to personal property due to emergency evacuation or extraordinary circumstances. The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Transportation when the Coast Guard is not acting as part of the Department of Defense, to waive the settlement and payment limitations in certain instances up to $100,000 per claim. The current maximum is $40,000. This authority would be available when the claims concern damage or loss of personal property, and the Secretary concerned determines that such claims arose from an emergency evacuation or other extraordinary circumstances. The provision would assist service personnel in obtaining appropriate compensation in instances similar to the evacuation of Clark Air Force Base, without the need for special legislation. Section - 1088. Check cashing and exchange transactions for dependents of United States Government personnel. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize United States disbursing personnel to extend check-cashing and currency exchange services to the dependents of military and civilian personnel at government installations that do not have adequate banking facilities. The provision would require that the dependent's sponsor provide written authorization to enable the dependent to present checks. The sponsor would be responsible for any loss incurred by the government as a result of a dishonored check. Section - 1089. Travel of disabled veterans on military aircraft. The committee recommends a provision that would permit veterans eligible for compensation for a service-connected disability the same entitlement to space-available transportation as retired members of the Armed Forces. Section - 1090. Transportation of crippled children in Pacific rim region to Hawaii for medical care. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of Defense to permit space-available transportation of crippled children in the Pacific Rim region to Hawaii for medical care in non-military medical facilities. Section - 1091. Student information for recruiting purposes. The committee recommends a provision that would express the Sense of the Senate that educational institutions, including secondary schools, should not deny military recruiters access to their campuses or schoolyards. Across the nation, military recruiters are facing an increasingly difficult time attracting quality individuals to military service. In view of this challenging environment, the Congress has been very responsive in terms of increased funding for recruiting and advertising. It has long been recognized that high school graduates are the single most important source of enlisted recruits. To permit public high schools and community colleges to deny access to military recruiters while authorizing significant amounts of tax dollars to support military recruiting and advertising is counterproductive, at best. Section - 1092. State recognition of military advance medical directives. The Patient Self-Determination Act (PSDA) (42 U.S.C. 1395cc(f)(1)) requires medical facilities that receive Medicaid and Medicare funds to establish procedures for handling patients' advance medical directives (AMDs), and to inform patients about their rights to make AMDs under state law. The PSDA left the substance of the law to the states, resulting in the adoption of different forms and procedural requirements. Members of the armed forces and their families are subject to frequent travel from state to state because of reassignments and duty requirements. As a result, it is very difficult to ensure that a military member's AMD prepared in one state will be honored in another. In view of diverse state requirements and the inherently mobile military lifestyle, there is a need for uniform treatment of AMDs prepared for military personnel. The committee recommends a provision that would establish in 10 U.S.C. 1044c a requirement that AMDs prepared by members of the armed forces, their spouses, or other persons eligible for legal assistance under section 1044 of title 10, United States Code, be recognized by the state where the member, spouse, or other person is located at the time of incapacitation. Section - 1093. Report on personnel requirements for control of transfer of certain weapons. On four previous occasions, the Congress has enacted legislation requiring the Departments of Defense and Energy to submit a report describing the personnel resources for implementing nonproliferation policy responsibilities relating to weapons of mass destruction. To date, the departments have not complied with any of these statutory requirements. The committee recommends a provision that would require the Departments of Defense and Energy to submit the report within thirty days of enactment of this Act and explain its noncompliance with previous reporting requirements. Section - 1094. Extension of period of Vietnam era. The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 101(29) of title 38, United States Code, to extend the beginning of the ``Vietnam Era'' from August 5, 1964 to July 1, 1958. This provision would align the beginning of the Vietnam Era with the earliest date established by the Army for award of medals for U.S. personnel who engaged in combat action. The provision would only apply to those who served in the theater of operations. No benefits would accrue for periods before the date of enactment. OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) The budget request included $68.0 million for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for fiscal year 1996. The committee denies authorization of appropriations for the civil defense activities of FEMA. Based on an understanding that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) would transfer the civil defense program to domestic budget accounts in fiscal year 1996, the committee included a legislative provision (sec. 3411) in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 to transfer all civil defense activities of FEMA out of the defense function to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.). Department of Defense space management and organization The committee is encouraged by the efforts of the Department of Defense to reorganize space management, which have resulted in the creation of a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Space, and plans for the consolidated management of DOD space systems and architectures. While this appears to be a positive step, the committee believes that DOD still has a long way to go to achieve a truly efficient space management structure. With certain conditions, the committee supports further integration of DOD and Intelligence Community space management structures and procedures. The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) must become increasingly responsive to the needs of the combatant commanders. At the same time, however, the committee is concerned that the NRO not be plagued by the Department of Defense's overly bureaucratic and cumbersome acquisition process. As DOD centralizes oversight of space acquisition and planning, it must ensure that each of the military services is given adequate influence over space architectures and systems. While the Air Force manages the majority of the Department of Defense's space budget, the Army and the Navy are the largest warfighting consumers of space products. The committee is concerned that the needs and equities of the other services could be overwhelmed by the tendency of the large Air Force infrastructure and numerous space personnel to dominate newly created, jointly manned offices, particularly when those offices are located within the Air Force acquisition structure. This large infrastructure also makes the goal of merging DOD and NRO acquisition activities--while preserving the streamlined advantages of the NRO--more difficult. The committee is not convinced that having the new DOD Space Architect reporting through the Air Force Acquisition Executive is the best means of achieving savings or efficiencies. The committee is concerned that strengthening Air Force control of space management will offset centralized oversight in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, dilute the other services' ability to influence space acquisition, and make it more difficult to merge the activities of DOD and the NRO. The committee, therefore, directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees no later than March 31, 1996, addressing the following issues: (1) progress to date in centralizing DOD space management; (2) the organizational structure that will be achieved upon completion of the DOD and intelligence community consolidation, and date consolidation will be completed; (3) how DOD plans to protect service-unique interests and other equities in the new centralized organization; (4) the reductions or savings in infrastructure and personnel that will be realized in transitioning to a new space management structure; and (5) the degree to which effectiveness and efficiency will be enhanced by the new structure and associated procedures. Joint military intelligence program On April 7, 1995, the Deputy Secretary of Defense signed Department of Defense Directive Number 5205.9, which created the Joint Military Intelligence Program (JMIP), a new budget and organizational category for intelligence programs, projects and activities within the Department of Defense (DOD). The Deputy Secretary of Defense is the JMIP Program Executive and Chair of the Defense Intelligence Executive Board (DIEB), which oversees JMIP resources and participates in the management of all DOD intelligence resources. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (ASD-C3I) is the executive secretary of the DIEB and is responsible for ensuring the consolidation of the JMIP budget. The JMIP budget occurs within the normal DOD Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System. The JMIP presently consists of four component programs, each of which was formerly funded in the Tactical Intelligence and Related activities (TIARA) aggregation: (a) Defense Cryptologic Program (DCP). (b) Defense Imagery Program (DIP). (c) Defense Mapping, Charting, and Geodesy Program (DMCGP). (d) Defense General Intelligence and Applications Program (DGIAP), which consists of five sub-programs, each of which was formerly funded in the TIARA aggregation: (1) Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Program (DARP). (2) Defense Intelligence Counterdrug Program (DICP). (3) Defense Intelligence Agency's Tactical Program (DIATP). (4) Defense Space Reconnaissance Program (DSRP). (5) Defense Intelligence Special Technology Program (DISTP). The JMIP was created with the intention of improving the oversight of selected defense-wide intelligence programs and resources. As stated in the JMIP Congressional Justification Books, ``JMIP was established to focus on customers with joint, Defensewide needs.'' The committee notes that the creation of the JMIP has raised a jurisdictional question in the Senate as to committee oversight responsibilities. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) shares authorization and oversight jurisdiction over the National Foreign Intelligence Program (NFIP) with the Senate Armed Services Committee. The committee has sole authorization jurisdiction over TIARA programs, but receives--and welcomes--informal TIARA recommendations by the SSCI each year prior to its markup of the Defense Authorization Act. This year, the SSCI has chosen to treat the JMIP as the functional equivalent of the NFIP by including it in its markup of the Intelligence Authorization Act of 1996 and submitting a formal Schedule of Authorizations for the JMIP as well as for the NFIP. While the committee values and welcomes the well informed views of the SSCI on the JMIP, as it does each year with TIARA programs, the committee regards the SSCI's markup of the JMIP as a serious infringement on the committee's clear and long- standing jurisdiction over the Department of Defense. The committee notes that each and every JMIP program is a former TIARA program and that the purpose of the JMIP is to serve multiple DOD consumers. The JMIP management is also strictly DOD, although some component managers have other responsibilities within the NFIP. The JMIP is also assembled as part of DOD's normal budgeting process. Stated simply, the JMIP is of DOD for DOD, and hence clearly and unquestionably within the sole authorizing jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee within the Senate. Accordingly, the committee intends to pursue such measures as appropriate to ensure that this year, and in the future, the JMIP is handled in the same manner as TIARA programs have always been handled. The committee looks forward to receiving the same superb support on JMIP as it has received from the SSCI on TIARA program for many years. Reusable launch vehicles The committee believes that a reusable single-stage-to- orbit (SSTO) launch vehicle should be a high priority for the United States. Such a launcher offers the potential for radically reduced costs as well as increased safety, reliability, and operability. It would also make a significant contribution to restoring United States launch competitiveness. At present, NASA is pursuing a reusable launch vehicle (RLV) known as the X-33. The X-33 effort at NASA is vitally important to the Department of Defense and to national security since it will provide warfighters highly responsive access to space. In the committee's view, DOD should be a direct participant in the X-33 program. The Department of Defense's own Space Launch Modernization Plan recommended that DOD have an equity participation in NASA RLV programs. The committee, therefore, urges the Secretary of Defense to consider options for participating in the NASA program, to include the provision of funding from the Department of Defense budget. Chinese military developments The People's Republic of China is emerging as an East Asian leader in economic growth and military power. Recent Chinese efforts to significantly enhance their naval and air capabilities have raised questions regarding the future of Chinese military and foreign policy objectives. The growth of Chinese power is the subject of major concern for the other nations of East Asia and for the United States. In light of these developments, continued dialogue on security matters between the United States and the major nations of East Asia, including the People's Republic of China, is critical to promoting stability in the region and protecting American interests and the interests of our Asian allies. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to continue its efforts to engage senior Chinese defense officials in exchanges and other forms of dialogue. Private contracting for military assistance to Newly Independent Democracies of Eastern Europe The committee strongly supports military-to-military contacts with the newly independent states of Eastern Europe to assist their military establishments in making the transition to democracy, civilian oversight and more efficient forces. The committee also notes that military-to-military resources and IMET funds are severely limited. The Department of Defense has the authority to contract with the private sector to provide foreign military assistance to the newly independent democracies of Eastern Europe. In fact, such assistance is currently being provided to the Republic of Albania to help in the reorganization of its military. The committee believes private contracting offers great flexibility and can be a ``force multiplier'' in the military assistance mission. The committee encourages the department to use funds allocated for Partnership for Peace activities to expand its provision of privately contracted military assistance to newly independent democracies in Eastern Europe. In some cases, there are a number of retired servicemen with the skills and experience to be of particular assistance. The committee further encourages the department, in appropriate cases, to work with officials of the recipient nations in identifying retired service members that can be of assistance. DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS The purpose of Division B is to provide military construction authorization and related authority to support the military departments and defense agencies during fiscal year 1996. The administration's budget request is reflected in S. 728, as introduced by request. This division, as recommended by the committee, totals $10,822,995,000 in authorization of appropriations for fiscal year 1996. This authorization provides funding for construction and military family housing operations for the military services, the reserve components, the defense agencies, and the NATO infrastructure program. It also provides authorization for the three base closure accounts. Committee Action The committee recommends an overall authorization for the Department of Defense military construction program that is above the administration's request for fiscal year 1996. For fiscal year 1996 the Department of Defense requested authorization of appropriations of $6,579,073,000 for military construction, and $4,125,221,000 for family housing construction and support. The committee recommends $6,629,748,000 for military construction, and $4,193,247,000 for family housing construction and support for fiscal year 1996. The increase in the funding authorization focused on improving readiness and quality of life related facilities such as housing and working conditions. The committee added in excess of $202.0 million for family housing and barracks construction or rehabilitation. These housing projects as well as other projects added to the administration's request met the stringent criteria established by the committee last year and included in a Sense of the Senate provision, section 2856 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995. The committee supports deferring or realigning specific projects amounting to $275.0 million. The most significant funding deferral is for chemical demilitarization facilities. The committee recommends the use of unobligated funds authorized for construction in fiscal years 1994 and 1995 to proceed with construction at Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas and Umatilla Army Depot Activity, Oregon. The committee recommends reallocating a portion of the requested funds to support additional projects such as new barracks, modernization or replacement of existing barracks, various family housing improvements programs, and critical mission facility requirements. The committee also recommends deferring two land transfer transactions pending a review of the transfers by the General Services Administration. It is the committee's view that in cases other than base closure land transactions the Federal Property Disposal Act of 1946, as amended, should be enforced. The following table identifies the recommended fiscal year 1996 military construction projects: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Base closure and realignment accounts The committee recommends authorization of $3.9 billion in fiscal year 1996 for the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Account 1990 that supports the recommendations of the 1991, 1993, and 1995 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commissions. The committee will continue to carefully monitor the justification for the construction projects funded within these accounts and the other cost elements of these accounts. Although funding is not specifically limited to projects identified in its budget justification, the Department of Defense identified the following construction projects for fiscal year 1996 that it plans to fund from these accounts: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> TITLE XXII--NAVY Section - 2205. Authorization of appropriations The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2204 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 to authorize the $10.0 million appropriated for the Large Anechoic Chamber Facility at the Naval Air Warfare Center, Patuxent River, Maryland in the Military Construction Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1995. This authorization would permit the Navy to proceed with award of a construction contract in the amount of $30.0 million for the first phase of the $61.0 million project. Section - 2206. Authority to carry out land acquisition project, Norfolk Naval Base, Virginia. The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2201(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 to authorize the Secretary of the Navy to acquire 191 acres of land in Hampton Roads, Virginia. This acquisition is in addition to the land acquisition at Damneck, Virginia, authorized in that Act. The committee directs the Secretary of Navy to make every attempt possible to acquire both parcels of land using the previously authorized $4.5 million. If additional funds are required, the committee expects the Secretary to utilize cost variation and reprogramming procedures. Section - 2207. Acquisition of land, Henderson Hall, Arlington, Virginia. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to acquire a 0.75 acre parcel of land located at Henderson Hall, Arlington, Virginia. The parcel, which is currently occupied by an abandoned and vandalized mausoleum, is required to construct a public works complex to support the Headquarters Battalion, United States Marine Corps. The provision would authorize the demolition of the mausoleum and the use of appropriated funds to remove and provide appropriate disposal of the remains abandoned in the mausoleum. The provision would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to obtain architectural, engineering and facility design services for future construction of a public works facility. TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES Chemical munitions disposal facilities The budget request included $108.0 million for construction of chemical agent disposal facilities in Pine Bluff, Arkansas ($40.0 million) and Umatilla, Oregon ($55.0 million) and planning and design activities ($13.0 million) at various locations where chemical agent disposal facilities are to be built. The committee recommends a reduction of $95.0 million to the budget request. The Army, as Executive Agent of the program for the Department of Defense, has informed the committee that $132.5 million remains unobligated from funds authorized for construction in fiscal years 1994 and 1995. The unobligated funds have been set aside for construction of the Anniston chemical munitions disposal facility, pending the outcome of the Base Closure and Realignment Commission recommendation on Fort McClellan, Alabama, and issuance of environmental permits by the State of Alabama. The committee directs the Department of Defense and the Army to use these unobligated funds for the construction of facilities in Pine Bluff and Umatilla. TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing Section - 2801. Special threshold for unspecified minor construction projects to correct life, health, or safety deficiencies. Section - 2802. Clarification of scope of unspecified minor construction authority. The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2805 of title 10, United States Code to include as a minor military construction project any military construction intended solely to correct a life, health, or safety deficiency if the approved cost is equal to or less than $3.0 million. The provision would authorize the expenditure of operation and maintenance funds to carry out projects to correct a life, health, or safety deficiency costing no more than $1.0 million. The provision would also clarify the definition of minor military construction by making it consistent with the definition of minor military construction found in section 2801 of title 10, United States Code. Section - 2803. Temporary waiver of net floor area limitation for family housing acquired in lieu of construction. The committee recommends a provision that would waive for a five year period beginning in fiscal year 1996 the net floor area limitation established in section 2826 of title 10, United States Code, if existing family housing is acquired in lieu of construction. Section - 2804. Reestablishment of authority to waive net floor area limitation on acquisition by purchase of certain military family housing. The committee recommends a provision that would make permanent section 2826(e) of title 10, United States Code, that allows a waiver for a 20 percent increase in the square footage limitation when acquiring, through purchase, military family housing units for members of the Armed Forces in pay grades below 0-6. Section - 2805. Temporary waiver of limitations on space by pay grade for military family housing units. The committee recommends a provision that would waive section 2826 of title 10, United States Code, for housing authorized for construction for five years beginning in fiscal year 1996. The waiver would permit the construction of family housing units without regard to space limitations as long as the total number of housing units is the same as authorized by law. Section - 2806. Increase in number of family housing units subject to foreign country maximum lease amount. The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2828(e) of title 10, United States Code, to increase from 300 to 450 the number of military family housing units allowed to exceed the $20,000 per year lease threshold for military family housing in foreign countries. The provision would also increase from 220 to 350 the number of units the Secretary concerned may waive to exceed the maximum lease threshold of $25,000 per year. Section - 2807. Expansion of authority for limited partnerships for development of military family housing. The committee recommends a provision that would expand to each of the military services the limited partnership authority provided to the Department of the Navy by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995. The provision would also extend the expiration of the authority to September 30, 2000. Section - 2809. Authority to convey damaged or deteriorated military family housing. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to sell, at fair market value, family housing facilities at non-base closure installations which have deteriorated beyond economical repair or are no longer required. The sale may include the parcel of land on which the family housing facilities are located. The provision would direct that the proceeds from the sale of the property be used to replace or revitalize housing at the existing installation or at another installation. The provision would also require the Secretary concerned to notify Congress before proceeding with conveyance of family housing facilities under this authority. Section - 2810. Energy and water conservation savings for the Department of Defense. The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2865 of title 10, United States Code to include water conservation in the Department of Defense's comprehensive energy conservation plan. Section - 2811. Alternative authority for construction and improvement of military housing. The committee recognizes that living conditions for single military service members and military families are in many cases inadequate. Many of these housing units and quarters are over 30 years old and have received minimal funding for maintenance, repair, or modernization. The Department of Defense has found almost 60 percent of these units to be substandard. The committee is concerned that these housing conditions may result in low retention rates for the military services, and believes that adequate housing is an integral part of the overall readiness of the Armed Forces. The committee supports the efforts of the Secretary of Defense in recognizing the military housing problems and realizing that drastic improvements are required. The Secretary found that correcting housing deficiencies will take several decades using current construction practices and budget processes. To address these funding and process problems, the committee recommends a legislative provision, supported by the Secretary of Defense, which would allow the military services to utilize several existing and new authorities to stimulate private sector financing of military housing construction and revitalization projects. The legislative provision would allow the military services to combine several authorities to tailor a funding strategy to a specific location and local economic conditions. The provision would waive the unit size and type limitations, and use local construction standards as a basis for sizing family housing. The Department would be authorized to provide up to 35 percent of the development cost in cash, either as debt or equity. Where land or buildings are part of the government's contribution to the project, the total cash and property may not exceed 45 percent of the development cost. The provision would also establish a Department of Defense Housing Improvement Fund, which would be used as the sole source to finance costs associated with the acquisition of housing and supporting facilities. The authorities provided in this provision would expire on September 30, 2000. In addition to recommending legislative provisions to improve the quality of military housing, the committee supports a funding increase in the military services' family housing improvements accounts and additional barracks and dormitory military construction projects. Section - 2812. Permanent authority to enter into leases of land for special operations activities. The committee recommends a provision that would make permanent the authority provided in section 2680 of title 10, United States Code which grants the Secretary of Defense the authority to lease property required for special operations activities conducted by the Special Operations Command. The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the Congress by March 1 of each year which identifies each leasehold interest acquired using the authority provided in this section during the previous year. Section - 2813. Authority to use funds for certain educational purposes. The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2008 of title 10, United States Code to authorize the Department of Defense to continue to use appropriated funds for repair, maintenance, and construction of Department of Education school facilities located on military installations. Subtitle B--Defense Base Closure and Realignment Section - 2821. In-kind consideration for leases at installations to be closed or realigned. The committee recommends a provision that would permit the Service Secretaries to accept in-kind services (improvements, maintenance, protection, repair, or restoration services) on any portion of the installation from a lessee in lieu of cash rents for leases of property that will be disposed of as a result of a base closure or realignment. Section - 2822. Clarification of authority regarding contracts for community services at installations being closed. The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Service Secretaries to use less formal agreements in addition to formal contracts when obtaining certain caretaker services at military installations being closed. Section - 2823. Clarification of funding for environmental restoration at installations approved for closure or realignment in 1995. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Department of Defense to fund environmental restoration at installations selected for closure by the 1995 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission with funds authorized for the Defense Environmental Restoration Account for fiscal year 1996. After fiscal year 1996, environmental restoration for these installations must be funded using the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Account. Section - 2824. Authority to lease property requiring environmental remediation at installations approved for closure. The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Department of Defense to enter into long-term lease agreements while any phase of environmental restoration is on going at a closing military installation. Subtitle C--Land Conveyances Section - 2831. Land acquisition or exchange, Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to acquire, through exchange or gift, a parcel of property consisting of 1,100 acres located adjacent to the eastern end of Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina and extending to Stamey Livestock Road in Sumter County, South Carolina. In the event of land exchange, the Secretary would be required to determine that it is in the best interest of the Air Force; and, that the fair market value of the parcel to be conveyed would not exceed the fair market value of the parcel to be acquired. Section - 2832. Authority for Port Authority of State of Mississippi to use certain Navy property in Gulfport, Mississippi. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter into an agreement with the Port Authority in the State of Mississippi for joint use of up to 50 acres of property located at the Naval Construction Battalion Center, Gulfport, Mississippi for a period of not more than 15 years. The agreement would require the Port Authority to pay to the Secretary of the Navy fair market rental value for the use of the land. Section - 2833. Conveyance of resource recovery facility, Fort Dix, New Jersey. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of the Army to transfer, without reimbursement, the Resources Recovery Facility at Fort Dix, New Jersey to Burlington County, New Jersey. In return Burlington County would provide refuse and steam service to Fort Dix at a rate negotiated by the Secretary of the Army and approved by the appropriate federal or state regulatory authorities. Section - 2834. Conveyance of water and wastewater treatment plants, Fort Gordon, Georgia. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, without reimbursement, to the City of Augusta, Georgia, water and wastewater treatment plants located at Fort Gordon, Georgia. In exchange the City would provide water and sewer services to Fort Gordon at a rate negotiated by the Secretary of the Army and approved by the appropriate federal and state regulatory authorities. Section - 2835. Conveyance of water treatment plant, Fort Pickett, Virginia. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, without reimbursement, to the Town of Blackstone, Virginia, the water treatment plant located at Fort Pickett, Virginia. In exchange the Town would provide water and sewer services to Fort Pickett at a rate negotiated by the Secretary of the Army and approved by the appropriate federal and state regulatory authorities. Section - 2836. Conveyance of electric power distribution system, Fort Irwin, California. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, without reimbursement, to the Southern California Edison Company, California, the electrical system located at Fort Irwin, California. In exchange the Company would be required to maintain and operate the system and provide electrical services to Fort Irwin at a rate negotiated by the Secretary of the Army and approved by the appropriate federal or state regulatory authorities. Section - 2837. Land exchange, Fort Lewis, Washington. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, at fair market value, two parcels of land located on the Fort Lewis Military Reservation, Pierce County, Washington to the Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Company, Tacoma, Washington. In return Weyerhaeuser would convey to the Army approximately .39 acres, plus improvements, located within the boundaries of Fort Lewis. Weyerhaeuser would also be required to provide infrastructure improvements and other considerations to ensure that the value of its share of property is no less than the value of the property conveyed by the Army. Subtitle D--Transfer of Jurisdiction and Establishment of Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of the Army to transfer to the Department of Agriculture approximately 19,000 acres of land located at the Joliet Army Ammunition Plant to establish the Midewin Tallgrass Prairie. The provision would also authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, without compensation, to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 910 acres of land at Joliet Army Ammunition Plant to establish a national cemetery. The provision would further authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, without consideration, to the County of Will, Illinois 425 acres of land at Joliet Army Ammunition Plant to be used for a landfill. As a part of this conveyance, the County of Will would be required to permit the federal government use of the landfill at no cost. The provision would also authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, at fair market value, 1,900 acres and 1,100 acres of land located at the Joliet Army Ammunition Plant to the Village of Elwood, Illinois and the City of Wilmington, Illinois, respectively, to establish industrial parks. All proceeds from any future sale of these parcels or portions of these parcels shall be remitted to the Secretary of the Army. Subtitle E--Other Matters Section - 2861. Department of Defense laboratory revitalization demonstration program. The committee recommends a provision that would establish a test program to allow the heads of selected defense laboratories greater flexibility to undertake facility modernization initiatives. The purpose of the program is to reduce the amount of time required to upgrade research and development capabilities at Department of Defense laboratories. The committee recognizes that the highly technical nature of facility requirements at the laboratories impose construction costs relative to these facilities consistently higher than other types of construction. For test program laboratories, the provision would raise the minor construction threshold from $1.5 million to $3.0 million for projects that the Secretary of Defense may carry out without specific authorization in law. The provision would also raise the threshold for minor military construction projects requiring prior approval of the Secretary of Defense from $500,000 to $1.5 million. Finally, the provision would raise, for the selected laboratories, the threshold from $300,000 to $1.0 million for the value of any unspecified military construction project for which operation and maintenance funds may be used. The provision would provide for the expiration of the test authority on September 30, 2000. It would also require the Secretary of Defense to designate participating laboratories before the test may begin, establish a review procedure for each project to be funded under this section, and report to Congress on the lessons learned from the test program one year before the program is terminated. Section - 2862. Prohibition on joint civil aviation use of Miramar Naval Air Station, California. The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from entering into any agreement that would provide for the regular use of Naval Air Station Miramar, California by civil aircraft. Section - 2863. Report on agreement relating to conveyance of land, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the Congress on the current status of the negotiations between the Secretary of the Army and Fairfax County, Virginia on the use of the Engineer Proving Grounds, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The committee notes that it has been six years since the conveyance of the property was authorized in section 2821 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991. The committee believes that it is necessary for the Secretary to make a final determination as to whether the current reuse plans are feasible or whether alternative plans are preferable. The provision would require the Secretary of the Army to submit the report to the Congress within 60 days of enactment of this Act. OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST Planning and design The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for planning and design, the military services conduct planning and design activities for the following projects: ($000s) USA: Pohakuloa Training Site, HI, Road Improvement................. 2,000 USAF: Eielson AFB, AK, Boiler Rehabilitation........................ 300 Fallon Air Base, NV, Galley and Child Care Center............. 200 USAR: Manchester, PA, Armed Forces Reserve Center, AMSA, Organizational Maintenance Shop............................. 1,650 ARNG: Fort Harrison, MT, Training Site Support Facility............. 785 Lincoln, NE, Medical Facility................................. 200 ANG: Robins AFB, GA, B-1 Site Improvements, Utility Upgrade........ 270 Nashville, TN, Squadron Operations Facility................... 360 Burlington IAP, VT, Squadron Operations Facility.............. 225 The committee notes that these projects are required to correct facility deficiencies which impact readiness, quality of life, and productivity. The committee urges the Service Secretaries to make every effort to include these projects in the fiscal year 1997 budget request. Joint Armed Forces Reserve Center, Fort Lawton, Washington The committee is concerned that the Secretary of the Army did not request funding for phase II construction of the Joint Armed Forces Reserve Center, Fort Lawton, Washington. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 authorized the funds for phase I construction, with the understanding that funding for the subsequent phases would be included in the budget request. The committee believes that the Center will enhance the training and administration of the reserve units in the area and urges the Secretary of the Army to include funding for phase II in the fiscal year 1997 military construction request. Fire fighting training system, Department of the Army The committee is aware of a need to provide environmentally and individually safe training for uniformed and civilian firefighters. Due to violations on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations several Army Fire Fighting Training sites have been closed, and the remaining few are scheduled to be shut down in the next 18 months. There are computer- controlled, natural gas/propane systems in operation in other services which safely replicate the required training environment and satisfy all EPA requirements. The committee believes that the Department of the Army should develop a program to replace the remaining 12 sites in regions where multiple commands can take advantage of a single site. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to identify the appropriate locations in which sites should be placed, and urges that the necessary military construction funds to support the construction of these sites be included in the Army military construction program over a four-year period. The committee directs that the Secretary submit the list of the recommended locations to the committee by January 1, 1996. Repair of unsafe bridges The committee understands that there are serious structural problems impacting the safety and carrying capacity of bridges on Army installations. The committee strongly recommends that the Secretary of the Army use funds authorized for Real Property Maintenance, Army to correct deficiencies identified in the following structures: Railroad Trestles, Hawthorne Army Ammunition Plant, Nevada; and, Vehicular Bridges, Fort Knox, Kentucky. DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS Title XXXI authorizes appropriations for the atomic energy defense activities of the Department of Energy, including the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment; research and development; nuclear weapons; naval nuclear propulsion; environmental restoration and waste management; operating expenses; and other expenses necessary to carry out the purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95-91). The title would authorize appropriations in four categories: weapons activities; defense environmental restoration and waste management; materials support and other defense programs; and defense nuclear waste disposal. The fiscal year 1996 budget request for the Department of Energy atomic energy defense activities totaled $11.2 billion. Of the total amount requested, $3.5 billion was for weapons activities, $6.0 billion for defense environmental restoration and waste management, $1.4 billion for other defense activities, and $198.4 million for defense nuclear waste management. The committee is concerned with the Department of Energy's apparent unwillingness to invest funds appropriately to maintain confidence in the safety and reliability of the strategic nuclear weapons stockpile and to acquire a viable near-term nuclear weapons refabrication and manufacturing infrastructure. According to the Department of Defense Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) the United States will continue to depend on a deterrent nuclear force, including a rapid upload hedge capacity, for a long period of time. It is the committee's view that in order to maintain a reliable, safe and effective nuclear force, adequate funding is necessary to ensure that the enduring stockpile, including both active and inactive weapons, be maintained in a state of full readiness indefinitely into the future. The committee's actions reflected in this bill are to redirect the Department to focus its resources and emphasis on a stockpile management program geared to the near-term refabrication and certification requirements of the NPR. These include meeting full refabrication and tritium production requirements, tritium recycling, and pit remanufacturing for the entire enduring stockpile. This will ensure the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile and the long-term credibility of U.S. nuclear deterrence in the post-cold war world. The committee recommends authorization of the budget request, totalling $11.2 billion, including $3.6 billion for weapons activities, $6.0 billion for defense environmental restoration and waste management, $1.3 billion for other defense activities, and $198.4 million for defense nuclear waste management. The following table summarizes the request and the committee recommendation: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations Section - 3101. Weapons activities. The committee recommends authorization of $3,641,814,000 for weapons activities, an increase of $101,639,000 above the Department of Energy budget request, for the following activities: $1,384,675,000 for stockpile stewardship activities; $2,250,483,000 for stockpile management activities; and, $118,000,000 for program direction of all Atomic Energy Defense Activities authorized by Title XXXI. The committee recommends approval of the department's request for a reduction of $111,344,000 for use of prior year balances and contractor streamlining. Congressional guidance on stockpile stewardship The Congress expressed serious concern over the stockpile stewardship program in the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1995. The report stated, ``The conferees are troubled that the Department of Energy (DOE) did not request sufficient funds for fiscal year 1995 to support the stockpile stewardship plan developed by the administration. This underfunding cannot continue without seriously undermining the department's ability to fulfill its ongoing stewardship responsibilities. Therefore, the conferees direct the Department to request funds for fiscal year 1996 that are consistent with the stockpile stewardship program plan developed by the Administration . . .''. Despite last year's congressional direction, there was only a small funding increase in the fiscal year 1996 budget request for weapons activities. Furthermore, based on the DOE National Security Five Year Budget Plan, which projects unallocated cuts of more than $1.2 billion per year in fiscal year 1997 and out-years against Atomic Energy Defense Activities, even this increase may not be sustained. These unallocated cuts are in addition to the DOE projected cuts in the Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Program. Therefore, the committee directs the Department to request sufficient funds to meet all of the requirements of the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). The committee also directs DOE not to spread any generalized reductions in its Office of Management and Budget (OMB) passback against Atomic Energy Defense Activities in general, and against weapons activities in particular. Stockpile confidence concerns The committee is concerned that science-based stockpile stewardship (SBSS) is insufficient to maintain confidence in the enduring stockpile. DOE and laboratory witnesses have acknowledged in hearings before the committee and other congressional committees that there are no guarantees that the SBSS methodology will work. The scientific challenges are significant, with the likelihood of success of the stewardship program uncertain, and the timeframe for achieving its ultimate objective long. The committee is concerned about sole dependence on this approach for future stockpile confidence, and the absence of a strategy for maintaining stockpile confidence in the near-term. Stockpile confidence strategy A key unresolved issue is whether SBSS will include testing and/or hydronuclear experiments. The committee understands that this issue is unresolved within the administration. However, the committee is concerned about current trends. For example, readiness to conduct an underground nuclear test program at the Nevada Test Site has fallen to three years, despite the administration's stated policy to be ready to conduct such a program within 6 months. Many in the weapons community believes that hydro-nuclear tests are a cost effective means of maintaining the stockpile. The committee seeks to determine whether treaty-compliant hydronuclear experiments would be a cost effective means of maintaining stockpile confidence. The committee wishes to determine the appropriate yield levels for such testing. The committee believes that combining these experiments now with the predictive capability of the experimental physics facilities and computational advances proposed by the SBSS program is the only practical option for preventing the near term deterioration of stockpile confidence and is, therefore, a prudent measure. This near-term deterioration of confidence in the enduring stockpile is not addressed by the Department of Energy's evolving stockpile stewardship strategy. On this basis, the committee directs DOE to prepare to implement such a program and to prepare a report on the value of hydronuclear tests focused on the near-term as well as long-term requirements of the Nuclear Posture Review. Stockpile confidence: testing strategy The committee also expresses its concern about the safety, reliability, and readiness of our nuclear weapons. The committee strongly endorses a policy that allows for at least sub-kiloton experiments. The committee recognizes that the administration is currently negotiating a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in an effort to preclude or make more difficult the spread of nuclear weapons. However, the committee notes that sub-kiloton hydronuclear experiments are not particularly suitable for bomb development or giving foreign military planners confidence in a nuclear weapon design. They are the type of experiments required to insure that a nuclear weapon, once produced, is safe and reliable. Maintaining integrity of test readiness capability In the meantime, the committee remains concerned about the readiness of the Nevada Test Site (NTS). The committee urges DOE to give full consideration to maintaining the readiness of the NTS before planning or implementing any management restructuring or realignments. Finally, to insure continued test readiness, including for sub-kiloton tests, the committee authorizes an additional $50.0 million above the administration request for Stockpile Stewardship for the laboratories and the Nevada Test Site. Reemphasis on maintaining the stockpile is required The committee is concerned that the Department of Energy's emphasis on SBSS has led to the neglect and underfunding of the Stockpile Management Program. This neglect and underfunding are especially apparent when sized against the clear requirements of the NPR. The committee is concerned that weapons engineering, manufacturing capabilities, and required production capacity are inadequate to meet the requirements of the NPR, in particular the requirement to maintain a hedge against post-Cold War threats. The committee finds that DOE investments and programs are insufficient in these areas and are not compatible with the U.S. nuclear deterrent strategy. The committee directs the Nuclear Weapons Council to provide by April 15, 1996 a plan to meet the stockpile management requirements of the NPR, and to update that report on an annual basis. It also directs DOE to reactivate the defense program status of those portions of the Savannah River Site devoted to tritium recycling, and to establish a pit remanufacturing plant there sized to the requirements of the post-NPR active and inactive stockpile. Conclusions from the Nuclear Posture Review The committee's hearing records indicate that the current DOE strategy does not appear to be compatible with the requirements of the NPR. The NPR's requirements include the ability to: (a) maintain nuclear weapon capability; (b) demonstrate the capability to refabricate and certify weapons in the enduring stockpile; (c) maintain the capability to design, fabricate, and certify new warheads for the enduring stockpile; (d) assure an adequate science and technology base; and (e) assure an upload hedge for tritium production. The committee's recommendations provide a basis for meeting these requirements. Tritium production strategy The committee expresses a particular concern about inadequate production and supplies of tritium. Tritium, a naturally decaying isotope, is an absolutely essential ingredient to the performance of nuclear weapons. The committee believes that we cannot risk depending solely on development of accelerator technology to provide this crucial material. The committee directs DOE to assess nuclear reactors which can perform multiple functions, ranging from tritium production, to plutonium disposition, to electrical power production. Research and development on producing tritium in current domestic, commercial reactors is funded as an emergency back-up option for the future. The committee also requests a study on foreign tritium sources. Human resources for the weapons activity mission Highly skilled nuclear weapons scientists and production engineers are leaving their positions in the weapons complex and are not being replaced. The committee is concerned that personnel programs to alleviate this situation are not working. For this reason, the committee directs the Department of Energy to institute a decentralized defense programs fellowship program within the weapons program of each laboratory and site. Technology partnerships The committee has emphasized on a number of occasions that the funds authorized for national security programs of the Department of Energy are available for technology partnerships to the extent they contribute directly to the national security mission. Specifically, the primary objective of technology partnerships funded by stockpile stewardship or by stockpile management resources should be to meet the requirements of those programs. Industry benefit is secondary. These criteria of the DOE weapons support agreements should be applied to both the laboratories and the production sites. The committee has misgivings about a separate ``technology transfer'' line item managed at the DOE headquarters level, rather than at the laboratory or production site level. The committee therefore recommends the weapons activities ``technology transfer'' line item be eliminated. The committee does not intend the consolidation of these line items to encourage the laboratories to pursue a go-it- alone, duplicative approach to developing dual-use technologies critical to stockpile stewardship and stockpile management. However, the committee does intend to insure that all stockpile stewardship research and development funds are used to meet mission needs and are not diverted to peripheral ``industrial competitiveness'' activities directed from DOE headquarters. In particular, the committee disapproves the DOE request for $14.9 million for new projects within the New Generation Vehicle Initiative. Elements of manufacturing and computation related partnerships which can be reoriented toward concrete weapons program requirements may be considered for retention, based on the overall priorities of the weapons program and its specific requirements. The committee believes that planning and implementing partnerships in laboratory organizations which are separate from the weapons directorates is counterproductive to the weapons mission. Inertial confinement fusion The committee recommendation for inertial confinement fusion (ICF) is $230.7 million, a $10.0 million reduction to the budget request. Inertial fusion seeks to provide a laboratory-scale, controlled thermonuclear capability. The ICF program investigates weapons physics and other high-energy- density phenomena important to the SBSS program. It is one of several essential components to assure the nation's nuclear deterrent in the absence of underground testing of weapons secondaries. The committee commends the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories for progress on the NOVA laser. The committee notes the timely, on-budget completion of the OMEGA upgrade at the University of Rochester. The committee urges DOE to move quickly to a cryogenic target capability on OMEGA as a means of enhancing confidence in the performance of the National Ignition Facility. The committee asks the National Academy of Sciences to form another ICF Panel to provide an update of its 1990 report to the Congress by May 30, 1997. National Ignition Facility The National Ignition Facility has a good probability of achieving controlled thermonuclear fusion in the laboratory based on a thorough, long-term program of scientific breakthroughs and engineering demonstrations. Such developments may prove to be a significant part of the U.S. nuclear weapons program, especially in a no test/few test environment. Stockpile Management The committee recommends a substantial increase to the DOE request for the Stockpile Management Program by $343.6 million, to enable the Department of Energy to immediately prepare the manufacturing capacity to rebuild the aging stockpile. A properly sized manufacturing capacity and infrastructure to rebuild the stockpile to meet the requirements of the NPR must be in place by the year 2002. That capacity must include both active and inactive stockpiles. The committee has concluded that, by focusing almost exclusively on long range science, DOE has overlooked the essential fact that the stockpile is the basis for nuclear deterrence. Therefore, the first priority is to deal directly with the refabrication and certification of the nuclear weapons stockpile as the primary mission of the program. The committee believes that the weapons laboratories are inadequate to deal with the refabrication capacities required by the active and inactive stockpiles. Therefore, the committee directs $100.0 million be provided to enhance the manufacturing infrastructure and modernize the manufacturing technology of the Pantex Plant, the Kansas City Plant, the Savannah River Plant, and the Y-12 Plant to meet the refabrication requirements of the enduring stockpile by the year 2002. In particular, the Pantex Plant is to restore its weapons integration capacity to those levels required by the NPR for each type of weapon which reaches its design life in the period 2002-2013; similarly, the Y-12 plant is to restore its capacity to build weapons secondaries to those levels required by the NPR during this same period. The Savannah River Plant is to begin installing in existing structures the capability to refabricate and modify as needed weapons pits and primaries (functions formerly carried out at the Rocky Flats Plant) and to achieve a capacity which meets the numerical requirements of the entire enduring stockpile. The Kansas City Plant is to develop its non-nuclear components manufacturing capability to supply all the requirements of the nuclear weapons stockpile from 2002 to 2013. The committee also allocates $145.0 million to enhance near term and long-term stockpile production, maintenance, surveillance activities and to develop active surveillance methods by 2002. In this set of activities, the three nuclear weapons laboratories are to establish a strong technical support and liaison relationship with the four production plants to assure that the most modern and reliable equipment is installed at the production plants for both production and surveillance purposes. This includes development on a cooperative basis by the laboratories and the plants, of a family of active microelectronic sensors to provide early detection of physical and chemical changes in a nuclear weapon. An additional $20.0 million is approved to develop the dual revalidation technique recently conceived. This technique uses two independent teams from the DOE, in coordination with the Department of Defense to baseline the detailed design parameters of each weapon type in the enduring stockpile and to measure any changes in that baseline via measurements over time. Finally, the committee authorizes $43.6 million for a cooperative effort between the three weapons laboratories and the four production plants which will lead to the installation of advanced computerized manufacturing processes at the four production sites by the year 2002. This equipment is to provide a detailed quality control record of the manufacturing process for each nuclear weapon and nuclear weapon type. Section - 3102. Environmental restoration and waste management. This section authorizes the administration's request of $6.0 billion for the activities of the Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management (EM) program as follows: corrective activities, $3.4 million; environmental restoration, $1,576.0 million; waste management, $2,401.0 million; technology development, $490.5 million; transportation management, $16.2 million; nuclear materials and facilities stabilization, $1,596.0 million; compliance and coordination, $81.2 million; analysis, education and risk management, $157.0 million. The committee approved the DOE request for a reduction in the amount of $313.9 million for use of prior year balances and for the Savannah River pension refund. Assessment of Environmental Waste Management Program The Department of Energy recently published a baseline report which estimates that the total cost of the EM Program will be between $120 billion and $350 billion over 75 years. The committee reviewed the assumptions behind this range of estimates and assessed the influence of the ``risk aversion factor'' raised in the Galvin Report. The 75-year baseline report assumes no significant use of advanced technology, which partially explains the huge cost estimate. Overall, the committee questions the assumptions and analysis underlying this report. The committee continues to have concerns related to program funding, performance, and priorities. Providing the tools for a solution The committee notes that the United States no longer reprocesses spent nuclear fuel. The administration eliminated the Integral Fast Reactor Program last year. The committee believes that DOE must consider using the available tools to reduce high level nuclear waste to a manageable volume, while minimizing the risk to human health and safety. The committee recommends $100.0 million above the fiscal year 1996 budget request for technology development to fund electrometallurgical processing at Argonne West and to accelerate the processing of nuclear materials at the canyons at Savannah River, including processing for space and nuclear weapons missions. DOE should also use these funds to initiate programs at INEL and the Savannah River Site to assess and demonstrate high leverage technology related to corroding spent fuel rods. Characterization and processing of high level waste at the Hanford site should also be addressed. The committee urges DOE to emphasize staffing headquarters and field operations with experts in nuclear engineering and nuclear waste disposal. Further, the committee notes that all federal staffing in the fiscal year 1996 request for Atomic Energy Defense Activities is aggregated under Weapons Activities. The resources for EM program direction shall be listed separately, beginning with the fiscal year 1997 budget submission. Section - 3103. Other defense activities. Section - 3142. Authority to reprogram funds for disposition of certain spent nuclear fuel. The committee authorizes $1,330,520,000 for other defense activities, a reduction of $101,639,000 from the fiscal year 1996 DOE request. The programs authorized are: Verification and control technology..................... $353,200,000 Nuclear safeguards and security......................... 83,395,000 Security investigations................................. 25,000,000 Security evaluations.................................... 14,707,000 Office of Nuclear Safety................................ 15,050,000 Worker & community transition........................... 100,000,000 Fissile materials control............................... 70,000,000 Naval Reactors.......................................... 682,168,000 Korean reactor reprogramming The committee provides reprogramming authority to the Secretary of Energy to complete efforts to safely store and safeguard spent nuclear fuel in North Korea. Activities for which reprogramming authority is provided include: storage pool treatment and stabilization, canning and storage of spent fuel to meet International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguard standards, and further disposition of spent nuclear fuel. The committee notes that a reprogramming of $10.0 million in fiscal year 1995 funds was approved for this purpose. The committee is supportive of cost share partnerships with U.S. industry, known as the Industrial Partnering Program, to provide long-term engagement for former Soviet weapons scientists, engineers, and technicians in non-weapons science and commercial activities. Arms Control The committee recommends a reduction of $15.0 million to the fiscal year 1996 budget request for material protection, control, and accounting (MPC&A), international security safeguards, and capital equipment activities. The committee supports efforts of the Department of Energy to implement MPC&A systems at selected facilities in the Newly Independent States (NIS). The reduction to the budget request for fiscal year 1996 is not made with prejudice. The committee directs the department to report to the Congress within 30 days of the enactment of this Act on the plans to implement and utilize the funds provided for MPC&A programs in the Former Soviet Union (FSU). Additionally, prior to obligation of funds, the committee directs the Department to notify the Congress 30 days prior to obligation of funds. Concurrent with the 30 day notification of obligation to Congress, the committee requires that the notification include a certification by the Secretary that an audit and examination agreement has been agreed to by the recipient FSU country, and implemented to ensure that the funds used for these activities are accounted for and used for the purposes for which they were authorized. Nonproliferation and verification research and development The committee recommends a decrease of $62.6 million to the fiscal year 1996 DOE budget request. The committee guidance to DOE is to focus the program on more specific near-term needs, rather than on a generalized long-term technology base. The committee also recommends the development of forensic capabilities to detect and track shipments of nuclear weapons material. In addition, the Department of Energy should broaden involvement in this area to encompass the entire laboratory complex by including Savannah River Site, the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, the Argonne National Laboratory and, where appropriate, industry. Section - 3104. Defense nuclear waste disposal. The committee recommends authorization of the budget request of $198.4 million for defense nuclear waste disposal activities of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 1996. The committee directs that the increase requested above the fiscal year 1995 level be shared by the Savannah River Site and the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, which DOE has designated as the interim storage sites for corroding spent fuel rods from a variety of other Department of Energy sites. The designation of these sites by DOE included no provision for the proper technological solution to the problem of near and long-term processing and storage of spent nuclear fuel. As a result, this has been a controversial issue within the states involved. Section - 3105. Payment of penalties assessed against Rocky Flats Site. This provision would authorize the Secretary of Energy to pay civil penalties assessed against the Rocky Flats site in Colorado. The committee does not regard this authorization as establishing a precedent for routine payment of fines and/or civil penalties. The committee recognizes that the Department of Energy, under previous administrations, entered into a number of legally enforceable agreements for cleanup and remediation that are now clearly impossible to fulfill. Those agreements are the basis for the assessed fines and penalties. The committee does not believe that the diversion of scarce DOE funds to pay fines and penalties advances either site cleanup or public health and safety. The committee intends to address this issue next year. Subtitle B--Recurring General Provisions Section - 3121. Reprogramming. This provision would prohibit the reprogramming of funds in amounts that exceed, in a fiscal year, the lesser of 110 percent of the amount authorized for the program, or in excess of $1 million above the amount authorized for the program. The prohibition of such a reprogramming will stand until the Secretary of Energy has notified the congressional defense committees of the intent to perform such a reprogramming, and a period of 30 days has elapsed after the date on which the reprogramming request is received by each defense committee. Should the Department demonstrate that it has improved its procedures for handling reprogramming requests, the committee would consider returning to a more flexible reprogramming statute in the future. Section - 3122. Limits on general plant projects. This provision would limit the initiation of ``general plant projects'' authorized by the bill if the current estimated cost for any project exceeds $2.0 million. Section - 3123. Limits on construction projects. This provision would permit any construction project to be initiated and continued only if the estimated cost for the project does not exceed 125 percent of the higher of the amount authorized for the project or the most recent total estimated cost presented to the Congress as justification for such project. To exceed such limits, the Secretary of Energy must report in detail to the appropriate committees of Congress, and the report must be before the committees for 30 legislative days. This provision also specifies that the 125 percent limitation would not apply to projects estimated to cost under $5 million. Section - 3124. Fund transfer authority. This provision would authorize funds to be transferred to other agencies of the government for performance of work for which the funds were authorized and appropriated. The provision would permit the merger of such funds with the authorizations of the agency to which they are transferred. This provision would limit to no more than five percent the amount of funds that may be transferred between authorizations in the Department of Energy that were authorized pursuant to this act. Section - 3125. Authority for conceptual and construction design. The committee recommends a new provision that would limit the Secretary of Energy's authority to request construction funding until the Secretary has certified a conceptual design. If the estimated cost of completing the conceptual design is greater than $3.0 million, the Secretary must submit a request to the congressional defense committees for the funds needed to do the conceptual design. This request for conceptual design funds must be submitted before the funding request for the proposed construction project is submitted to the Congress. This provision provides an exception in the case of emergency planning, design and construction activities, and does not apply to construction projects with a total estimated cost under $2.0 million. Within the amounts specified by this title, the Department of Energy (DOE) may carry out construction design, including architectural and engineering services, on a project if the cost for such a design does not exceed $600 thousand. Construction design estimates above this amount must be authorized by law. This provision recognizes the need for careful planning and early scrutiny of construction projects. Section - 3126. Authority for emergency planning, design, and construction activities. The committee recommends a provision that would permit the Secretary of Energy to utilize available funds for any national security program construction project, provided the Secretary determines that the design must proceed expeditiously to protect the public health and safety, to meet the needs of national defense or to protect property. Section - 3127. Funds available for all national security programs of the Department of Energy. This provision would authorize, subject to the provisions of appropriation acts and section 3121 of this bill, amounts appropriated pursuant to this bill for management and support activities and for general plant projects to be made available for use, when necessary, in connection with all national security programs of the Department of Energy. Section - 3128. Availability of funds. This provision would authorize, subject to a provision of an appropriation act, amounts appropriated for operating expenses or for plant and capital equipment to remain available until expended. Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations Section - 3131. Tritium production. Section - 3132. Plutonium disposition. The committee has been critical of the Department of Energy's lack of progress in establishing a long-term source for tritium, necessary to maintain the nation's nuclear deterrent capability. The committee is aware that the Department of Energy is reviewing the costs of alternative tritium production technologies, including reactor options and an accelerator option. The committee is concerned that, despite guidance from the Congress, the Department of Energy is not giving rigorous and balanced consideration to the use of multipurpose reactors. That option could provide the required levels of tritium production, for the disposition of surplus weapons plutonium and for the co-production of revenue-producing electric power. Studies by the department and those of various private organizations indicate that multipurpose reactors are technically practical, can be employed in the needed time frame, and would afford significant economic benefits. Furthermore, the committee is concerned that DOE is not performing a proper engineering systems analysis and attendant cost analyses. The committee directs DOE to pursue parallel risk reduction activities for the next three years. DOE should begin three-year parallel risk reduction research and studies for both multipurpose reactor options and for accelerator production of tritium. A total of $50.0 million in fiscal year 1996 is directed for this purpose. Both privatized and government funded alternatives shall be considered. Congressional hearings will be conducted to review this issue. The committee further directs DOE to do an integrated systems analysis and environmental assessment of the combined tritium production mission and plutonium disposition mission, with attendant cost analyses. The result of this effort shall be compared with the results of the environmental assessments of each separate mission. This will enable the Congress to determine the major cost-benefits and technical risk reductions associated with the multipurpose reactor and accelerator methods. DOE is also directed to assemble a group of independent reactor and accelerator experts to assess the objectivity and completeness of the process described in this provision. The committee recognizes that the eventual success of the long-term tritium source program will be dependent upon a skilled work-force and community support for the operation of such a facility. The committee strongly recommends that the logical, cost effective site for the tritium production mission would be an existing, already paid-for, tritium recycling infrastructure. Section - 3133. Tritium recycling. The committee notes that a large capital investment has been made over the years on tritium gas recycling at the Savannah River Site. It also notes that the conference report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for the fiscal year 1995 contained a provision which prohibited DOE from moving the tritium recycling work from the Mound Laboratory to any other location, except the Savannah River Site. The committee directs DOE to refrain from duplicating or establishing parallel tritium recycling capability other than at the Savannah River Site. However, it recognizes that tritium-related inertial fusion target work and tritium related research work may be done at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Section - 3134. Manufacturing infrastructure for refabrication and certification of enduring nuclear weapons stockpile. The committee directs DOE to halt the implementation of its strategy to reduce the weapons complex to the three nuclear weapons laboratories. This strategy is driven by the pressure to reduce federal budgets and was arrived at without sufficient cost analysis and consideration of the impact on national security. The committee believes that the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) recommendations on the DOE infrastructure require that the U.S. maintain the actual manufacturing capacity to refabricate and recertify old weapons, and maintain the ability to design and manufacture new weapons. Weapons Refabrication Strategy The committee directs DOE to increase investments in the Y- 12 plant, the Pantex Plant, the Kansas City Plant, and the Savannah River Site's tritium and plutonium handling capabilities. These are the remaining locations with the capacity to begin remanufacturing the enduring nuclear weapons stockpile. Projected annual needs for weapons refabrication will far exceed the mini-production capabilities of the weapons laboratories. Defense Programs Planning Council The committee further urges the Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs to form a balanced planning council which will include the directors of the nuclear weapons production facilities named above, along with the three national nuclear weapon laboratory directors. Federal field offices should not serve as buffers between DOE headquarters and these nuclear weapons production facilities. Integrated weapons refabrication plan The committee directs DOE to develop an integrated program plan geared to the requirements of the NPR and the refabrication milestones, from the year 2002 to 2013. The plan should be made available to the committee no later than March 30, 1996. This plan shall be updated annually. Section - 3135. Hydronuclear experiments. As defense budgets decline, the emphasis of U.S. weaponry programs has turned to testing. Testing both existing and new weapons is essential to insure both safety and reliability. The committee finds that the one defense component that is not currently being tested is the nuclear warhead. The committee believes that the ability to do experiments involving high explosives and plutonium are absolutely critical to providing the kind of stockpile stewardship necessary to guarantee the safety and reliability of the enduring nuclear stockpile. The committee has directed the Department of Energy to produce a report presenting the costs and benefits of various levels of experimentation and testing in section 3165 of this title. In the meantime, the committee has concluded that new activities at the weapons laboratories and at the Nevada Test Site aimed at preparing for actual experiments need to be funded at the $50.0 million per year level. Actual experimental activities will be needed to prevent the near term decline in stockpile confidence. Section - 3136. Fellowship program for development of skills critical to the Department of Energy nuclear weapons complex. The committee perceives the need for additional aggressive efforts by the nuclear weapons laboratories and the production sites, including the Savannah River Site, to work with academic scientists and engineers engaged in research which is closely related or directly relevant to ongoing research and program needs in the nuclear weapons program. The committee believes that the current and potential graduate students and postdoctoral fellows of these academicians are an important source of future personnel for the nuclear weapons program. For this reason, the committee designated $20.0 million for this purpose in fiscal year 1996, and for each fiscal year thereafter. These resources would support the salaries of these graduate students and postdoctoral candidates, in whole or in part, while participating in weapons relevant research and engineering science activities at their academic institution or at the laboratory or site administering the fellowship. Because the committee believes that a decentralized program is in order, responsibility for recruiting the best students from America's science and engineering graduate schools should be left largely to the key scientists within the weapons program. The weapons director within each laboratory or site should allocate research fellowships to be awarded by scientists within his directorate based on a balanced judgement between the requirements of the program for specific personnel in the near and long-terms, and the opportunity to recruit world class candidates as future employees of the nuclear weapons program. The director of each laboratory and production site, and the head of each corresponding Department of Energy field office shall exercise appropriate oversight of this fellowship program to ensure the effectiveness of the program. This oversight function shall also examine the selectees and the selection process to assure that selections are based on merit and program need, and that no abuses, such as nepotism, occur. The Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs shall allocate the resources for these fellowships in a balanced manner among the three nuclear weapons laboratories and the four production sites ( Kansas City, Pantex, Savannah River, Y-12). The data base for this allocation shall be the projected requirements for specific types of critical personnel which each laboratory and each production site shall present to the Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs. The goal of this program is staffing the long-term U.S. nuclear weapons program. This goal is to be stated explicitly to potential candidates and given to them in written form. Candidates are also to be limited to U.S. citizens. Emphasis should be on acquiring the best recruits for the U.S. weapons program, not the most. Acceptance of a fellowship shall be accompanied by a written commitment to work in the nuclear weapons program. The commitment should hold a recipient liable for payment of the cost of the fellowship, if the individual declines employment for a reasonable, specified period within the nuclear weapons program. Section - 3137. Effect of issuance of environmental impact statements on use of funds for certain Department of Energy facilities. The committee finds that all of the facilities funded by this authorization (1) can be independently justified on national security grounds or on grounds of meeting environmental requirements; (2) that each such facility will have completed or will have to complete its own environmental impact statement; and (3) that going forward with the constuction and/or operation of each such facility will not bias the outcome of any planned or ongoing programmatic or site specific environmental impact statement. On this basis, the committee does not wish the Department of Energy to make internal administrative decisions to halt or delay the construction or operation of projects which have completed all of their individual National Environmental Policy Act requirements through and including the record of decision. In particular, such projects should not be halted or delayed by internal DOE administrative decisions because such facilities may come under the umbrella of site-wide or programmatic environmental impact statements aimed at assessing an aggregation of facilities or a major federal strategy. Section - 3138. Dual-axis Radiographic Hydrotest Facility. The Department of Energy is scheduled to complete all National Environmental Policy Act documentation for the DARHT facility before October 30, 1995. The committee has determined that DARHT is of significant importance to national security and can be independently justified under any future nuclear weapons strategy, including any potential stockpile stewardship and management strategy. The committee requires the Secretary of Energy to proceed with this schedule by producing the environmental impact statement and the record of decision for the DARHT project by October 30, 1995. The committee has also determined that the construction and operation of DARHT will not prejudice the outcome of the site-wide Los Alamos environmental impact statement nor will it prejudice the outcome of any stockpile stewardship and stockpile management environmental impact statement (EIS) because it does not preclude reasonable alternatives for that programmatic EIS. Section - 3139. Limitation on use of funds for certain research and education purposes. The committee prohibits the Department of Energy and its contractors from diverting any Atomic Energy Defense Activities funds to the Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program. The committee believes that the scientific challenges embodied in the stockpile stewardship program represent a sufficiently wide variety of major scientific unknowns that it is more than sufficient to maintain the laboratories' cutting edge, while keeping a sufficiently tight focus on the weapons programs' pressing needs. Section - 3140. Processing of high level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel rods. The committee provides a $100.0 million increase to the budget request for technology development in the Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Program and directs the Department of Energy to assess the best technological solutions for problems associated with the disposition of spent nuclear fuel. The options to be assessed include nuclear waste reprocessing, conventional chemical processing of nuclear waste, direct disposal of spent nuclear fuel in a geologic repository, and vitrification processes with and without separation of materials. This should include the beginning of conceptual engineering evaluations and life-cycle cost analyses. Specifically, $2.5 million shall be used for electrometallurical processing activities at Idaho National Engineering Laboratory and/or Argonne West; $15.0 million for research and development at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory on processing, storage and disposition of non- aluminum clad spent nuclear fuel rods; $15.0 million for research and development at the Savannah River Site on processing, storage, and disposition of aluminum-clad spent nuclear fuel rods. The balance of the $100.0 million increase in technology development should be used for reactivation and development of high level nuclear waste processing technology at the Hanford Reservation, the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory and/or Argonne West, and at the Savannah River Site. Section - 3141. Department of Energy Declassification Productivity Initiative. The committee recommends a provision that would provide authority for the Department of Energy to use up to $3.0 million of funds authorized for other defense activities in fiscal year 1996 for the Declassification Productivity Initiative (DPI). Section - 3143. Protection of Workers at Nuclear Weapons Facilities The committee recommends authorization of $10.0 million from the operations and maintenance resources of the Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Program to carry out activities related to worker protection at nuclear weapons facilities. This provision allows the Secretary of Energy to establish a grant program to develop criteria and to train workers engaged in hazardous substances response or emergency response actions. Subtitle D--Transfer of Jurisdiction Over Department of Energy National Security Functions Section - 3151. Plans for transfer of jurisdiction over Department of Energy national security functions. This section requires the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Defense to jointly produce two alternative national plans. One plan is to describe in detail the transfer of the responsibility and functions of the 053 account (Atomic Energy Defense Activities) from the U.S. Department of Energy to the U.S. Department of Defense. The other plan is to describe the same aspects of such a transfer to a new independent establishment. The transfer would include all federal and contractor personnel and institutions which receive significant amounts of Atomic Energy Defense Funds to carry out the missions of this Title. The primary reason for the committee taking this action is to preserve the focus of these institutions on their primary national security functions of nuclear weapons research, development, testing, production and surveillance. Subtitle E--Other Matters Section - 3161. Responsibility for Defense Programs Emergency Response Program. The committee is concerned about efforts to consolidate all DOE emergency response functions under the responsibility of a DOE official outside of the purview of the Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs. The committee believes that this emergency response function is an essential part of the Defense Programs stockpile maintenance responsibility. The committee has determined that the Defense Programs emergency response function, including federal personnel, and contractor capabilities should remain under the authority of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Stockpile Management and Support. Section - 3162. Requirements for Department of Energy weapons activities budgets for fiscal years after fiscal year 1996. The conference report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 expressed concerns regarding the Department of Energy's budget submission for fiscal year 1995. The committee observes that the fiscal year 1996 submission has not effectively resolved those concerns. In particular, discrete weapons programs need to be costed out and explained from year to year on the same line. The committee directs that each DOE laboratory and site develop a fiscal year 1996 weapons activities program plan. This plan should be provided to the Congressional defense committees no later than December 31, 1995, and annually every year thereafter. This plan should serve as the basis for the fiscal year 1997 congressional budget submission. Section - 3163. Enduring nuclear weapons stockpile. The committee points out that a ready inactive stockpile is essential if the ``upload hedge'' called for in the Nuclear Posture Review is to have any real meaning in the context of the ``lead'' and ``hedge'' strategy embodied in the Nuclear Posture Review. The committee believes that maintaining sufficient warheads on presently deployed platforms is only one element of a credible plan. In order to have a serious and credible hedge capability, DOE must maintain an inactive stockpile that is ready to be uploaded onto existing delivery systems. The committee directs the Department of Energy to put in place a production infrastructure of sufficient capacity to deal with at least all end of design life rebuilds, gas fills, and limited life component replacements, test and quality control units for both the active and inactive stockpiles. Section - 3164. Report on proposed purchases of tritium from foreign suppliers. The committee urges the Department of Energy to explore the possibility of purchasing foreign-produced tritium to insure an adequate supply of tritium should the presently proposed production methods fail. The committee recommends a provision that would require the President to prepare and submit a report not later than May 30, 1997 on the feasibility of foreign tritium purchases. The report shall be in unclassified form, with a classified annex. Section - 3165. Report on hydronuclear testing. The committee continues to be concerned about the safety and reliability of the nation's stockpile of nuclear weapons over the long-term. The committee directs the Secretary of Energy to make available $9.0 million from funds authorized for the preparation of a comprehensive report by the directors of the two nuclear weapons design laboratories on the relative costs and benefits of alternative limits on the permitted levels of hydronuclear testing, to include: 4 pounds, 400 pounds, 4,000 pounds, and 40,000 pounds of yield (TNT equivalent). The committee requests the preparation of a single report, with additional and/or dissenting views by each director as they deem appropriate. The report shall be delivered to the congressional defense committees, the Secretaries of Defense and Energy, and the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Strategic Command for their comments thereon, not later than February 1, 1996. Arms control considerations need not be included in the report by the laboratory directors. Section - 3166. Master plan on warheads in the enduring nuclear weapons stockpile. The Department of Energy has failed to develop a requirements-based plan for stockpile stewardship and for stockpile management. For this reason, the Department of Energy is not in a position to develop a detailed plan for assuring the safety, reliability and effectiveness of the enduring stockpile. The committee recommends a provision that would require the President to prepare and submit a master plan that describes the proposed refabrication and certification of warheads for an enduring stockpile, and the capability to design, fabricate, and certify new warheads. The plan shall include details of the full manufacturing capacity needed to deal with refabricating and certifying the entire active and inactive stockpiles between the years 2002 and 2013. This plan shall be submitted to the Congress not later than March 15, 1996. Section - 3167. Prohibition on international inspections of Department of Energy facilities pending certification of protection of restricted data. The committee is concerned that the Department of Energy intends to permit inspections of U.S. nuclear weapons facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency without adequately safeguarding sensitive nuclear weapons design information. The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit such inspections, unless protection of such sensitive data is certified by the Secretary of Energy. OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST Merger of operating and capital resources into one category The committee recommends merging the distinct categories of operating funds and capital funds into one category called ``operation and maintenance'' for the purposes of dealing with future Department of Energy budget submissions. The committee directs the Department of Energy to continue to reflect capital equipment separately in financial and accounting reports. Nuclear stockpile dismantlement The committee is aware of no concrete evidence that the Russian Federation is dismantling a specific number of nuclear warheads at a specific rate. On the other hand, the U.S. is attempting to dismantle up to 2,000 per year. The committee wishes to continue a program of corresponding nuclear dismantlement with the Russian Federation, but in a manner that insures that both stockpiles are reduced at the same level, the same rate, over the same period of time. The committee directs the Intelligence Community to provide a report on this subject in both classified and unclassified forms to the Congress, no later than May 30, 1996. This report shall be updated annually. Nuclear reactor safety in Ukraine Two of the fourteen ``reaktory bolshoi moshchnosti kanalnye'' (RBMK) graphite moderated reactors, known in the United States as light water graphite reactors (LWGR) currently in operation in Ukraine are similar in design to the reactor which caused great disaster in Chernobyl. The operation of these fourteen reactors is critical to the economic well-being of Ukraine. However, they all fail in major ways to meet international safety standards. The committee recommends that the Department of Energy, in coordination with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), report to the Congress on the safety issues which need to be addressed, and possible recommendations. The report should include the following: the feasibility of obtaining alternative energy sources; the loss of trained nuclear reactor operators; and the likelihood of operator error or accidents. The report should also assess the need for computerized monitoring and more reliable communications networks. Accountability for civilian nuclear materials Concerns regarding the proliferation of nuclear weapons continue to increase. It is imperative that nuclear materials necessary to produce nuclear weapons are kept from countries with proliferation risk. To achieve this objective, it is necessary to insure adequate physical protection of plutonium and highly enriched uranium, in this country and abroad. The committee supports the efforts of the Department of Energy to collect and analyze data on the production, transportation, storage, and disposition of nuclear materials in peaceful activities worldwide. The committee supports the efforts of the Department of Energy's Office of Nonproliferation and National Security international nuclear analysis program, which tracks and accounts for nuclear materials worldwide. TITLE XXXIII--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES Section - 3301. Sale of Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 1 (Elk Hills). The committee recommends a provision to offer National Petroleum Reserve Numbered 1 (NPR-1) for sale by competitive bid in fiscal year 1996. The reserves were established in the early 1900's to assure availability of oil fuels for the Navy, which was converting its vessels from coal to oil prior to World War I. In 1976, Congress enacted the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act (P.L. 94-258) which ordered production from the fields at the maximum efficient rate. The committee believes that the rationale for the NPR has faded in light of developments subsequent to the Arab oil embargo. The likelihood of a sustained interruption in supply has fallen, and the market has shown itself to be responsive in pricing and allocating oil during periods of uncertain supply. The committee is concerned about the long-term implications of government participation in the commercial oil business. Furthermore, the committee is required under the reconciliation instructions in the FY 1996 Budget Resolution to achieve $1.5 billion in savings in direct spending within the committee's jurisdiction, which this provision would satisfy. The provision would require the Secretary of Energy to obtain credible appraisals of the value of the field before setting a minimum acceptable price. In addition to standard industry considerations, the valuation must include infrastructure included in the sale, the estimated quantity of petroleum and natural gas in the reserve, and the anticipated revenue stream that the Treasury would receive if it were not sold. The Secretary could not accept bids lower than the minimum acceptable price and could not enter into a contract for sale until the end of a 31 day period following notification to Congress. In the event only one credible offer is made, the Congress must approve the sale by a joint resolution. The Secretary would be required to finalize equity interests between the federal government and Chevron U.S.A. Production Company within three months of enactment of this Act. In response to a potential legal claim by the California State Teachers Retirement Fund, the provision would set aside seven percent of the net proceeds in a contingent fund. Any such claim must be resolved by a court of competent jurisdiction in order to be considered valid. The Secretary would be required to maintain full production of NPR-1 until the sale is consummated. In the event the Secretary is not able to comply with the deadlines included in this provision, the Secretary and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget would be required to notify the congressional defense committees and submit a plan of subsequent action. Section - 3302. Study regarding future of Naval Petroleum Reserves (other than Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 1). The committee recommends a provision which would require the Secretary of Energy to study options for the management of the NPR. TITLE XXXIV--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE Section - 3401. Authorized uses of stockpile funds. This provision would authorize the Stockpile Manager to obligate $77.1 million from the National Defense Stockpile Transfer Fund during fiscal year 1996 for the authorized uses of funds under section 9(b)(2) of the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act. Section - 3402. Disposal of obsolete and excess materials contained in the National Defense Stockpile. This provision would authorize disposal of excess materials from the National Defense Stockpile. Under current law, the Stockpile Manager cannot dispose of excess materials unless the proposed disposal has been reviewed by the Market Impact Committee and included in the Annual Materials Plan or a revision of the Plan. The committee expects that many of these disposals will require long sale programs in order not to disrupt markets and producers. Section - 3403. Disposal of chromite and manganese ores and chromium ferro and manganese metal electrolytic. This provision would require the granting of right of first refusal, for certain disposals, to domestic ferroalloy upgraders. Section - 3404. Restrictions on disposal of manganese ferro. This provision would require that certain grade manganese ferro may not be disposed of until the disposal of lower grade inventory material has been completed. Section - 3405. Excess defense-related materials: transfer to Stockpile and disposal. This provision would direct the transfer of suitable, uncontaminated DOE inventory items to the National Defense Stockpile for disposal. The DOE has determined that numerous commodities purchased for defense purposes are now excess. Congress established controls for disposal of such commodities in order to obtain best value for the government and prevent undue market disruption. DOE has no such system for disposals and would expend considerable funds to duplicate the Stockpile operation. Prior to transfer of any non-radioactive materials that are listed in the National Defense Stockpile inventory, the DOE must obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense on the advice of the National Defense Stockpile Manager. Materials will then be disposed of in accordance with the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act. The committee anticipates this transfer would avoid duplication of effort, yield savings for not having to store these items, and dispose of the excess inventory efficiently without undue market disruption. TITLE XXXV--PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION Title XXXV would authorize expenditures from the Panama Canal Revolving Fund for the operation and maintenance of the Panama Canal and would also authorize the Panama Canal Commission to expend funds for the purchase of replacement vehicles. In no case can a replacement vehicle cost more than $19,500. LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS By letter dated April 20, 1995, the General Counsel of the Department of Defense forwarded to the President of the Senate proposed legislation ``To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1996 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 1996, and for other purposes.'' The transmittal letter and proposed legislation were officially referred as Executive Communication 743 to the Committee on Armed Services on April 27, 1995. Executive Communication 743 is available for review at the committee. Senators Thurmond and Nunn introduced this legislative proposal as S. 727, by request, on April 27, 1995. The statement made by Senator Thurmond upon introduction of S. 727, together with the text of the legislation, appear in the Congressional Record of April 27, 1995 on pages S5805-5832. By letter dated April 24, 1995, the General Counsel of the Department of Defense forwarded to the President of the Senate proposed legislation ``To authorize certain construction at military installations for fiscal year 1996, and for other purposes.'' The transmittal letter and proposed legislation were officially referred as Executive Communication 862 to the Committee on Armed Services on May 4, 1995. Executive Communication 862 is available for review at the committee. Senators Thurmond and Nunn introduced this legislative proposal as S. 728, by request, on April 27, 1995. The statement made by Senator Thurmond upon introduction of S. 728 appears in the Congressional Record of April 27, 1995 on pages S5832-5834. COMMITTEE ACTION In accordance with the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, there is set forth below the committee vote to report the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996. In favor: Senators Thurmond, Warner, Cohen, McCain, Lott, Coats, Smith, Kempthorne, Hutchison, Inhofe, Santorum, Nunn, Exon, Kennedy, Glenn, Robb, Lieberman, and Bryan. Opposed: Senators Levin, Bingaman, and Byrd. Vote: 18-3. The other roll call votes on amendments to the bill which were considered during the course of the mark-up have been made public and are available at the committee. FISCAL DATA Section 252 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-510) requires that the report accompanying each bill reported by a Senate committee contain certain information on five-year cost projections. The letter received in compliance with this statutory requirement is shown below. The bill is an annual authorization and does not, within its own terms, generate costs beyond fiscal year 1996 even though the funds authorized to be obligated by this act may not be expended for several years in the future. The fiscal year authorizations herein provided are reviewed annually by the committee and the Congress. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE It was not possible to include the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate on this legislation because it was not available at the time the report was filed. It will be included in material presented during floor debate on the legislation. REGULATORY IMPACT Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires that a report on the regulatory impact of the bill be included in the report on the bill. The committee finds that there is no regulatory impact in the case of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the changes in existing law made by certain portions of the bill have not been shown in this section of the report because, in the opinion of the committee, it is necessary to dispense with showing such changes in order to expedite the business of the Senate and reduce the expenditure of funds. ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. McCAIN I strongly commend Senator Thurmond for his expertise and leadership in crafting the Fiscal Year 1996 Defense Authorization bill. His considerable legislative experience was apparent in his successful efforts to resolve the great number of difficult issues which came before the Committee during our deliberations on this bill. On most issues, I support the Committee's recommendations. Enhanced quality of life for our military personnel and their families, near-term military readiness, and additional funding for ballistic and cruise missile defense programs were given high-priority in the Committee's recommendations. In particular, I believe the Committee correctly chose to allocate to force modernization programs the majority of the additional $7 billion in defense budget authority provided in the FY 1996 Budget Resolution. There are, however, a number of particular matters of concern with respect to the Committee's recommendations. Reductions in Non-Defense and Low-Priority Military Programs The Committee endorsed many of the recommendations of the Readiness Subcommittee to eliminate over $1 billion in funding for non-defense and low-priority military programs from the defense budget, in order to make funds available for higher priority military requirements. In addition to increasing funding for near-term readiness requirements, savings generated by these cuts were used to fund the F-117X development program, M1 Abrams tank upgrades, and the Cruise Missile Defense Initiative. However, several of the subcommittee's recommendations were overturned by the full Committee, which restored $234 million of the cuts in non-defense programs. For example, among these reversals of the subcommittee's recommendations was the restoration of $15 million to fund DOD support of the Atlanta Olympics. The subcommittee recommendation would have allowed assistance by DOD, provided that the organizing committee reimbursed the Department for its costs if the Olympics realized a profit at the end of the games. Still, the Committee voted to earmark $15 million for the Olympic games and rejected the subcommittee proposal to require reimbursement from profits. Obviously, we still have a long way to go in stripping non- defense funding from the defense budget. The credibility of those who support a strong national defense is badly damaged when the taxpayers are asked to pay for programs with defense dollars which do little or nothing to enhance our national security. I intend to propose amendments on the Senate floor to reverse some of these decisions and restore the subcommittee's recommendations. Military Construction I am pleased that the Committee adhered to the stringent criteria adopted in last year's Defense Authorization bill for evaluating Members' requests for additional military construction projects. Because the Readiness Subcommittee was able to find savings within the military construction budget, we added over $200 million in high-priority projects which were not included in the President's budget request. Each of these projects met the established criteria. I am concerned, however, that the full Committee chose to authorize an additional $125 million for military construction above the total amount requested in these accounts. While all of these additional projects met the established criteria, I believe that these additional funds should have been used for higher priority requirements in other accounts. Funding for Contingency Operations Unfortunately, the Committee chose not to respond to Secretary Perry's urgent request for $1.2 billion to pay for ongoing contingency operations in Iraq, Cuba, and Bosnia during the coming fiscal year. Funding for these operations was not included in the FY 1996 budget request, as had been directed by Congress. While many may not support the continuation of these operations, neither are they prepared to take action in Congress to terminate them. Therefore, the costs of conducting the operations must be paid. The Committee authorized only $125 million of the additional $7 billion allocated to defense in the budget resolution to pay for these ongoing operations. Lacking adequate funding but operating under an agreed U.N. mandate, the Department of Defense must submit a supplemental funding request to Congress. While the supplemental request is being prepared and until its approval by Congress, the Department will continue to use training and maintenance funds to pay for the operations. The Committee is fully aware of the deleterious effect on military readiness of diverting operation and maintenance funding for contingency operations. I deeply regret the Committee's decision to put off action on these must-pay bills. F-22 In my view, excessive concurrency and weight problems in this program argue strongly for slowing down its development. I supported the initial staff recommendation to reduce funding for the F-22 program by $600 million, which the Committee voted to restore in its final recommendations. B-2 In a strong vote, the Committee defeated efforts to add funding for additional B-2 bombers. The Department of Defense has repeatedly insisted that the current fleet of 20 aircraft is sufficient to fulfill operational requirements in the two Major Regional Contingencies upon which force planning of the future is predicated. Buying additional bombers, at a cost of $36 billion over the next ten years, would be a waste of scarce defense resources for aircraft without a clear mission requirement in the post-Cold War world. Attack Submarine Programs Unfortunately, the reasoning which led the Committee to reject additional funding for the B-2 bomber program did not extend into the Committee's action on attack submarine programs. The Committee chose to authorize funding for the third Seawolf submarine--another costly relic of the Cold War-- and to delay cost-saving competition for the follow-on New Attack Submarine until sometime in the next century. I disagree strongly with both of these recommendations. I have long opposed the Seawolf program both because of its exorbitant cost and its lack of a necessary military mission. Overall, the Seawolf program has already cost nearly $11 billion, or more than $5 billion per submarine. Since the contracts for the first two Seawolf submarines were originally signed, their procurement cost has increased by $1.4 billion. The third Seawolf submarine is estimated to cost more than $2.4 billion, slightly more than last year's estimate. Because of these increasing costs, the Congress included in last year's defense authorization legislation a cost cap on procurement of the first two Seawolf submarines. As a result of the legislative cost cap, the Navy instituted a new program management team, which has been successful so far in containing the costs of these two submarines, and hopefully, no further taxpayer dollars will be required to finish these two submarines. However, the cost cap would not apply to a third submarine, if one is authorized, which could therefore cost much more than the $2.4 billion currently estimated by the Navy. The Committee report flatly states that the Navy's argument of an operational requirement for the SSN-23 was not compelling as a reason to build another Seawolf submarine. At a hearing before the Committee, the General Accounting Office witness testified that the intelligence analysis upon which the Navy based its claims of a growing Russian submarine threat was incomplete and, in some cases, disputed within the intelligence community. At the same hearing, the Congressional Research Service witness testified that a third Seawolf submarine is not necessary to fulfill the Joint Chiefs of Staff requirement for 10 to 12 stealthy attack submarines by the year 2012. Thus, military requirements do not support authorization of an additional submarine. Essentially, I believe the Committee's authorization of $1.5 billion to complete the third Seawolf submarine amounts to a capitulation to the administration's submarine industrial base arguments. It is clear from the Committee's explanation of its recommendation to authorize the third Seawolf submarine that cost considerations took second place to industrial base arguments. No other reasoning could explain the Committee's action. The Navy's stated policy is to maintain the two nuclear- capable shipyards currently in operation in the U.S.--Newport News in Virginia and Electric Boat in Connecticut. Under this policy, Newport News would build only carriers (although it is capable of building submarines) and Electric Boat would build only submarines (and is not capable of building carriers). However, separate analyses by the Navy and by Newport News Shipbuilding Company demonstrate that maintaining one nuclear- capable shipyard is cheaper than maintaining two yards. For the period FY 1996 to 2012, the Navy estimates savings of $1.9 billion, while Newport News estimates $5.8 billion. Yet, the Committee chose to endorse, at least through the end of this century, that part of the administration's industrial base policy which requires maintaining two nuclear- capable shipyards. The Committee explicitly directed that the first New Attack Submarine be built at Electric Boat, but in a departure from the administration's policy, then directed that the second would be built at Newport News. The Committee appeared to support the concept of competition for submarine procurement, but then chose to delay implementing cost-saving competition between the two shipyards until sometime in the next century. Under the Committee's recommendation, however, future competition for the third and later submarines will not necessarily result in a ``winner- take-all'' contract award, which could mean that both shipyards would stay in business indefinitely. Essentially, the Committee kicked the can down the road, granting one submarine contract to each shipyard without addressing future competition. The bottom line is that the taxpayers will see no savings from competition until the next century, if at all. Because of this arbitrary delay in imposing competition for submarine procurement, the Committee found it necessary to accept the Navy's contention that building the third Seawolf submarine at Electric Boat was required to maintain Electric Boat shipyard as a viable competitor in the future. Thus, the Committee authorized $1.5 billion for the SSN-23--an overly expensive submarine for which the threat will not materialize in the foreseeable future. A more than adequate alternative to procuring a third Seawolf submarine and beginning the New Attack Submarine program in FY 1998 as planned is extending the service life of the existing attack submarine force. Currently, as of May 1, 1995, the U.S. attack submarine force consists of 83 SSNs. The Bottom Up Review stated a long- term requirement for a force of only 45 to 55 attack submarines. In order to reduce the current force to the required levels, the Navy plans to retire, rather than refuel, a substantial portion of the SSN-688 class submarines. The Navy plan would mean scrapping submarines with an average of 18 years of service life remaining. The cost of buying a replacement submarine far exceeds the cost of refueling existing submarines, as well as the estimated savings from decommissioning existing submarines. For example, $1.5 to $2 billion is the estimated cost of a New Attack Submarine, while the estimated savings from early decommissioning of an SSN-688 is only $600 to $700 million. Clearly, if the newest of the Navy's SSN-688 class submarines were retained in inventory throughout their remaining service life, the Bottom Up Review requirement for 45 to 55 attack submarines could be met well into the next century--at a cost much less than the cost of buying the SSN-23 and buying New Attack Submarines on a non-competitive basis. Terminating the Seawolf program and deferring a decision on a follow-on attack submarine program would provide needed time to reassess the need for and the design of a follow-on program. Such a decision, however, requires that we clearly face the stark reality of declining defense budgets in the future-- budgets which require tough decisions about sustaining duplicative infrastructure at the cost of billions of dollars. The real question is, how much is enough? How much of our scarce defense dollars are we willing to spend to maintain two shipyards capable of producing nuclear-powered submarines? I cannot support spending another $1.5 billion on a third Seawolf submarine, nor can I support procurement of a non-competitive follow-on submarine when our existing submarine force remains capable and can be maintained into the next century. Spending $1.5 billion, as requested in the FY 1996 budget, to complete the third Seawolf submarine is a waste of money on a militarily unnecessary jobs program. I intend to propose amendments during Senate consideration of this legislation to strike funding for the third Seawolf program and to allocate these funds to higher priority military requirements. Missing Service Personnel provisions Section 1023 of the FY 1995 National Defense Authorization Act directed the Secretary of Defense to review current law related to missing service personnel and report to Congress on recommended changes. In addition to offering the required recommendations, the Department of Defense accommodated the Committee's concerns by agreeing to several changes that went considerably beyond the scope of the initial Section 1032 recommendations. In their legislative recommendations, the Committee has gone as far as the Congress should on this issue. I believe the Committee and the Department of Defense have agreed on a course of action that will improve current procedures without imposing a new and cumbersome bureaucracy on the Department, the Services, and commanders in the field. However, the report language accompanying the bill does not accurately reflect the intention of the bill language in one key aspect. The recommended provision would not prohibit the Department of Defense from declaring a serviceman dead when there are obvious indications that he is indeed dead, including the passage of time. Contrary to the report language, the bill language does not confer immortality on MIAs. Further, I do not share the editorial characterization of the accounting system as ``insensitive and unresponsive.'' Whereas this may have been true many years ago, the Department of Defense and the Services have since taken extensive measures to make the system ``sensitive,'' ``responsive,'' and most important, workable. I urge my colleagues to steadfastly oppose ill-advised amendments to the language recommended by the Committee, and I expect to work together to oppose the provisions in the House bill which, in my view, are unwise and unworkable. Service Academy Directives Finally, the report includes a discussion about recent DOD directives concerning the Service Academies. I strongly support the Committee's reservations and direction stated in that language. Briefly, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the DOD directives relating to the Service Academies with a view toward rescinding or revising those sections that impose unnecessary restrictions on the appropriate authority of the Service Secretaries or Academy Superintendents. The Committee properly states that the DOD directives in question have gone too far and have infringed upon the statutory authority of the Service Secretaries to provide for the training and education of cadets and midshipmen. The Board of Visitors of the three Service Academies are predominantly made up of Members of Congress and provide the appropriate oversight of the Service Academies as their mission. Historically, the responsibility for and the authority over the Service Academies is vested in the hands of the Service Secretaries, and it is a well-recognized view that the Service Secretaries should retain that oversight. DOD directives which attempt to somehow constrain or restrict Service Secretaries or to promote uniform oversight and management of all the Service Academies would have a serious negative effect on the timeless notions of the Service Academies' mission--honor, integrity, loyalty, and courage. Conclusion Because I believe the major provisions of this bill will enhance the security of our nation in the future, I voted to report the Committee's recommendations to the Senate. I will work with the Committee to ensure that the bill is not amended on the floor to weaken or reverse any of its very positive provisions. I believe, however, that there are some areas in which the bill could be improved, particularly those discussed above, and I intend to offer or support amendments that would strengthen the bill. Because of the need to balance the federal budget and reduce our nation's massive federal debt, the debate in the future will focus ever more narrowly on ``guns versus butter''. We cannot continue to fund every new program with a unique or interesting capability. Instead, we must thoroughly assess our national security interests and then carefully select only those programs which are directly relevant to protecting those interests and which are affordable in the shrinking defense budgets of the future. If we don't make the hard choices in entering into commitments with our allies and friends, and if we then fail to prioritize among weapons systems to enable us to support those commitments, we will fail in our most basic responsibility--protecting the security of the American people. John McCain. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. EXON The Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense Authorization Act reported out by the Senate Armed Services Committee represents a regrettable and potentially harmful U-turn that will, unless corrected, return the United States to the confrontational Cold War policies of the 1980s before the fall of the Soviet empire. While much in the committee bill is laudable and will greatly enhance the readiness and capabilities of our armed services, I am fearful that these constructive elements of the authorization bill will be offset by misguided efforts to defend against threats that do not exist and hostile attempts to scuttle international agreements intended to enhance our security through peaceful means. As originally drafted, this bill attempted to abolish the Department of Energy, gut the Cooperative Threat Reduction program responsible for the removal of over 2500 Russian nuclear warheads, prevent the administration from carrying out a number of important nuclear non-proliferation agreements relative to North Korea and the former Soviet Union, and purchase unwanted B-2 bombers at a potential cost totalling tens of billions of dollars. While the majority of the committee was successful in overturning these and other astonishing hardline recommendations, many provisions remain in the reported bill that would return us to the Cold War mentality of yesteryear. Among the most objectionable of these reversals are bill provisions that advocate violation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, add over $500 million in ``Star Wars'' missile defense funding, endanger ratification of the START II Treaty, resurrect at least two battleships at a cost of a half-million dollars a year, and mandate the resumption of nuclear weapons testing. The $50 million provided for subkilton nuclear weapons testing is a particularly mischievous add-on to the President's budget. The mandate is in violation of existing law (i.e. the FY 1993 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill) which states that all proposed nuclear tests be included in the annual administration report on our nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and the need, if any, to conduct tests. Specifically, the bill violates the provision of law that states ``only the numbers and types of tests specified in the report . . . may be tested.'' In short, the bill totally negates the process already in existence for proposing and approving, with congressional concurrence, new nuclear tests. More central to the point is whether these subkilton tests are needed. No safety or reliability problem is known to exist with any of our nation's nuclear weapons to justify new tests. On this point, there is no disagreement. Administration officials from the laboratories all the way up to the President are unanimous in this opinion. There is no explanation in the committee bill as to which warheads are to be tested, why they are to be tested, or how many tests are to be conducted. Absent a known safety and reliability problem, the primary purpose for the resumption of testing, according to majority committee staff, is to maintain worker expertise at the Nevada Test Site, though there is no testimony to suggest flight of workers is occurring or, if it was, that the authorized funds would stem their departure. The true reason for the committee's actions is a basic belief that we should test for the sake of testing even if it means (or in the hopes of ?) undermining the U.S. efforts in Geneva to negotiate a Comprehensive Test Ban (CTB) Treaty. As part of the administration's nuclear non-proliferation policy, the U.S. has spent two years laying the groundwork for a permanent extension of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and an agreement on a CTB. The NPT extension was approved this spring with the nuclear powers, including the U.S., recommitting themselves to a prompt agreement on a test ban. The committee bill looks to bust the U.S. testing moratorium, renege on these commitments made during the NPT conference, and undermine our efforts to halt the spread of nuclear weapons around the world. The cumulative effect will be to weaken, not enhance, our national security. For this reason, I will move to strike the $50 million add-on for the resumption of nuclear testing when the bill reaches the floor of the Senate. In summary, I am concerned with the tone and substance of the bill. The level of micromanagement placed on the Pentagon and the Department of Energy is unprecedented and harmful to our nation's standing in the international community. Many of the committee initiatives are driven by a desire to defend against a superpower threat to U.S. security that simply does not exist. At a time when our one-time enemies are now allies and the world community is committed more than ever before to the peaceful resolution of conflicts, the committee bill is at odds with reality and in strong need of amendment before it can properly serve our nation's security interests. J. James Exon. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY The FY 1996 Defense Authorization Bill reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee has serious weaknesses that should be corrected by the full Senate. Our goal is to develop a post-Cold War military that gives us the capability to defend our nation at home and our vital interests abroad, with a sufficient margin to deal with unforeseen dangers and contingencies, but without resorting to wasteful and unnecessary programs in this era of heavy pressures on all aspects of the federal budget. I commend the committee for its decisive vote to reject further funding for procurement of B-2 bombers, and to allocate funds proposed earlier for B-2 procurement to other pressing defense needs. Further expenditures on this capable yet exceedingly costly system would burden a defense budget already stretched thin by current modernization needs. As Secretary Perry made clear to the committee, procurement of additional B- 2s is not needed or wanted by the Department, and the committee deserves credit for accepting this recommendation. In addition, the committee voted, but by only an 11-10 majority, to protect the right of women serving overseas in the armed forces to choose abortion by guaranteeing continued access to safe abortions in U.S. military hospitals if they pay for the procedure themselves. The committee was right to reject a blanket prohibition on abortions at U.S. military hospitals overseas. The committee's action avoids an unacceptable situation in which military women seeking to exercise their constitutional right to choose to terminate their pregnancy would be required to use potentially unsatisfactory foreign medical facilities, or else return to the United States at substantial expense. I urge the full Senate to preserve the committee's action. Unfortunately, the committee bill also contains several provisions that would seriously undermine our efforts to achieve nuclear arms control and prevent nuclear war. That goal has been a fundamental part of our national security since World War II. It is also the cornerstone of the international non-proliferation regime we are attempting to develop now to protect our security in the post-Cold War era and prevent nuclear conflict in the years ahead. One of the most objectionable aspects of the committee bill is its threat to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. Since the U.S. and the Soviet Union signed this landmark treaty, it has been a major part of U.S. nuclear arms control policy. By insuring that nuclear arsenals remain effective deterrents, the ABM Treaty has brought stability to the nuclear relationship for the past quarter century. Some believe that the end of the Cold War and the relaxation in military tensions between the U.S. and the nations of the former Soviet Union have made the ABM Treaty obsolete. But the nature of nuclear weapons and their massive destructive power has not changed. To discard the ABM Treaty would harm the U.S.-Russian strategic relationship, and jeopardize the opportunity for further arms control progress between the two strongest nuclear powers. In spite of this plain rationale, the committee has produced a bill that takes initial steps to deploy a multi-site national missile defense, even though it would be a clear violation of the ABM Treaty, and even though the Secretary of Defense has testified that the United States faces no missile threats that would make this costly system a worthwhile investment in our national security. In unilaterally undermining the ABM Treaty, we would start spending billions of dollars to deploy a defense against potential enemies whose missiles cannot reach our shores. Clearly, there are more responsible ways to spend scarce defense dollars, and to deal with threats of nuclear attack and nuclear terrorism. The committee bill ignores an important characteristic of the ABM Treaty--its built-in adaptability to changing military realities. The treaty allows the signatories to deploy theater missile defenses, and U.S. development of such defenses is yielding systems that may have significant capability to defeat strategic offensive missiles. As a result, the Clinton Administration has entered into negotiations with Russia to determine which systems will be permitted under the ABM Treaty. In addition, the treaty provides for updates to maintain its relevance by discussions and clarifications through the Standing Consultative Commission, through amendments negotiated at treaty-mandated 5-year review conferences, or through special negotiating sessions. The bill, however, contains an unjustifiable provision that prevents the effective negotiation of any boundary between theater and strategic defensive systems. This provision would deny the President the power to negotiate this clarification of the treaty in a way that will best serve our national security. By attempting to achieve by legislative mandate what the President should negotiate, the committee is undercutting the basic constitutional allocation of treaty-making powers between the President and Congress. Rather than giving the President the flexibility to negotiate this kind of all-important issue, Congress would be legislating a negotiating position while negotiations are underway. This step sets a dangerous general precedent for the future, and could result in the collapse of the ABM Treaty. The committee bill also fails to give adequate support to one of the President's most important aspects of our foreign policy--his commitment to achieve a comprehensive ban on nuclear tests. His recent success in obtaining international agreement for a permanent extension of the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty is one of the administration's most important achievements. In securing this extension, the administration made a commitment to seek a comprehensive ban on nuclear tests as soon as possible, hopefully by the end of 1996. Many of the nations that initially opposed permanent extension of the NPT eventually agreed to the extension, provided that the nuclear powers move expeditiously to negotiate and sign a nuclear test ban. By adding funds to support U.S. nuclear tests, and by asserting that these tests are necessary to ensure the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, the committee undermines that commitment and ignores the views of many experts that our present technology is clearly sufficient to guarantee a safe and reliable nuclear arsenal without further U.S. nuclear tests of any size. A Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is an essential part of international nuclear non-proliferation efforts, and therefore an essential part of the all-important goal of preventing nuclear war. Congress should support the President's effort to achieve this goal, not undermine it. Edward M. Kennedy. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. GLENN As the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Readiness, I supported the majority of the recommendations adopted in this bill but I must express my concern over some of the funding decisions made in the Subcommittee and adopted by the Full Committee. I supported the bill, particularly the increases made in the areas of Depot Maintenance, Real Property Maintenance and Base Operations. I agree that these actions are necessary to maintain the so-called ``near term'' readiness of armed forces. My concerns relate to the proposals to eliminate or reduce funding for a number of programs requested in the President's budget. For example, the Subcommittee proposed to eliminate or reduce funding for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, Arms Control Implementation, Civil Military Cooperative Action programs, Junior ROTC, the Defense Acquisition University Scholarship program, Humanitarian Assistance, Overseas Disaster Relief, Weather Reconnaissance, the Civil Air Patrol and Security for the 1996 Olympics. While funding for all of these programs was requested in the President's budget, elimination of funding or reductions in funding to these programs was proposed at the Subcommittee either because they were considered to be lower priority programs or because the programs were considered ``non- defense'' defense spending that did not contribute sufficiently to our war fighting capabilities. In many cases, the Subcommittee's rationale for proposing reductions was that the function performed by DOD would more properly be performed by another agency of government. My concern is that when the budget resolution cuts domestic discretionary spending by $10 billion and increases defense spending by $7 billion, the likely consequence of eliminating DOD funding without making provision for the programs elsewhere in the budget is tantamount to outright elimination of those programs. I was pleased that funding for the majority of these programs, particularly those programs that fell within the jurisdiction of more than one subcommittee, was restored by the Full Committee. I note, however, that funding for DOD participation in two important programs, Humanitarian Assistance and Overseas Disaster Relief, was eliminated. Certainly every effort must be made to insure that taxpayer dollars are well spent. The programs outlined above were requested by the President and have received bipartisan support in Congress in the past. They are not ``added'' programs or ``earmarked'' funding. In my judgement, before we eliminate an ongoing program that is in the budget and which has received bipartisan support, we need to ask the following questions: (1) is this an important federal government function? (2) if so, would immediate termination of DOD funding disrupt an important government function? (3) does the program contribute to or degrade DOD capabilities? (4) does it make operational and budgetary sense for civilian agencies to develop a duplicative capability? (5) if the capability is to remain with DOD, but the function is within the responsibility of another agency, should we ensure that the other agency has sufficient funding to pay DOD for its costs? (6) if either the operational or funding responsibility is to be transferred to a civilian agency, what transitional provisions are needed in terms of time and funding? In many cases, DOD may have unique capabilities to perform functions that would be very costly to duplicate in the civilian sector. The Committee implicitly recognized DOD's unique capabilities in one area by funding aerial and sea surveillance operations for the drug interdiction program. This program has little direct relevance to DOD's war fighting capability, yet the Committee provided over $800 million for DOD's role in the counterdrug effort. To exclude DOD from participating in other legitimate federal functions when DOD may be the best suited to perform the function simply because the activity does not directly involve war fighting, would be wasteful in my view. I am hopeful that the question of funding for DOD's participation in the Humanitarian Assistance and Overseas Disaster Relief programs can be revisited before passage of the final version of the bill. I also regret that the Committee chose not to use some of the additional $7 billion it received from the budget resolution to fund our Fiscal Year 1996 current and ongoing ``Southern Watch,'' ``Provide Comfort,'' ``Deny Flight,'' ``Sharp Guard'' and ``Provide Promise'' operations in Iraq and Bosnia. Secretary Perry wrote to the Committee to request that these operations, with an estimated FY 1996 cost of $1.2 billion, be funded with the additional funds the Committee received. Even though these kinds of requests are normally considered through a supplemental funding request, I believe the Committee missed an opportunity to avoid future funding problems. Ignoring these costs now under the assumption that they will be funded through a supplemental 6 months from now will degrade our near term readiness because these operations will be financed out of the Operations & Maintenance accounts until a supplemental is approved. Moreover, if offsets are required, there is a good chance it will adversely affect the increases proposed in the modernization accounts because those increases will likely be used to pay for the costs of the supplemental. I question the Committee's recommendation to change active duty obligation for our military service academy graduates from six to five years. Since 1991, when the obligation requirement was raised from five to six years, all three academies have met their recruiting goals without lowering their acceptance standards. To change a policy that would lower our ``return on investment''--we currently budget over $1 billion each year for military service academies--seems ill-advised. I also have serious concerns over other actions taken by the Committee that I will address in further detail when the bill comes to the floor. First, the bill requires the United States to deploy a multiple-site national ballistic missile defense network by the year 2003, an action that would violate the ABM Treaty. Second, the bill requires ``preparations to commence'' explosive hydronuclear testing, an action that will serve only to frustrate the achievement of a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and to erode international support for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Third, the Committee majority has slashed the Department of Energy's budget request for arms control and nonproliferation verification activities. And fourth, the bill provides new funds for plutonium reprocessing activities. John Glenn. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. LIEBERMAN This bill represents the concerted efforts of a Senate committee to do what is best for our nation and our national security. I am proud to have been part of this work and appreciate the leadership that the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee as well as the Subcommittee Chairmen and Ranking Members demonstrated throughout the process of writing the bill. I support this bill and believe, in particular, that the provisions pertaining to the maintenance of a strong and viable submarine industrial base serve the national interest. I am concerned, however, that report language could lead one to believe that military requirements were not adequately considered in the decision to authorize the third Seawolf, SSN- 23. It is undeniable that the Cold War is over and that the US military must adjust--and is already adjusting--to a changing security environment. The Navy's submarine forces have been at the forefront of this adjustment; attack submarine levels are being cut by 50 percent and submarine construction by 90 percent. I fear that we have cut too much and too fast, since in the realm of submarine capabilities there are major certainties at work. Today, Russia has in the water about six submarines with fourth-generation quieting technology. Approximately the same number are under construction. These are facts that are generally agreed upon by the entire US intelligence community. I will focus later on differences that the General Accounting Office asserted exist among US intelligence agencies. There is no disagreement that these very quiet submarines are at sea today and more are under construction. Building the SSN-23 represents the most critical and timely contribution the US can make to address both the Russian challenge and the expanded threat of highly capable diesel submarines armed with ``smart'' standoff weapons. Much focus has been placed on the force level requirement for quiet submarines set for 2012 by the Joint Staff. This requirement is for 10 to 12 advanced generation submarines that possess Seawolf-level quieting. There are equally valid military requirements for new generation submarines in the time period prior to 2012. In a June 19, 1995 letter to the Congress, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff described the critical near-term military need for the SSN-23, saying: ``Cancellation [of the SSN-23] would deprive our armed forces of a needed military capability to counter the growing number of deployed improved AKULA class submarines which are quieter than our improved 688 attack submarines.'' This concern reflects the fact that Russian submarine building did not taper off as anticipated in 1993. The fact is that the threat is evolving in such a manner that submarines like the Seawolf will become even more important to national defense in the future than they were during the Cold War. Our submarine construction program must introduce our newest generation submarines at a rate that counters this military challenge. By endorsing the Navy's submarine building plan, Secretary Perry and General Shalikashvili acknowledge the pivotal role the SSN- 23 plays as a warfighting, as well as an industrial, bridge to the New Attack Submarine class. Completing SSN-23 leverages over $920 million already invested in specialized Seawolf components, delivers to the US Navy the best submarine in the world and does so at the lowest cost of any submarine we could buy before the end of the century. SSN-23 is also the critical link in executing the two nuclear-capable shipyard policy--a policy that supports cost control. But beyond the preservation of the industrial base, sound business practices and preserving long-term competition, completing the third Seawolf satisfies compelling military requirements in preserving our maritime superiority. A second issue to which I have already referred is the question of disagreement among intelligence community estimates on the nature of the submarine threat facing the United States. The General Accounting Office has indicated that there is a significant disagreement. This is a distortion of the consensus on the nature of what confronts the submarine force of the future. There is no disagreement that the Russian Navy has a number of Improved AKULA-class submarines in the water today that are quieter at tactical operating speeds than the best submarine currently in the US inventory. There is also no disagreement that the Russian navy is returning to submarine operating patterns last seen in the mid- 1980s. While Russian surface operations have been radically curtailed, we are observing deployments of a submarine force capable of world-wide operations once again. This includes operations in the Western Atlantic. Finally, there is no disagreement that the Russian Navy has laid down and will launch in the next year or so the lead ship of a new class of submarines which will be even quieter than the AKULA, better armed and with improved sensors. The lead ship has been named the Severodvinsk, the first true multi- mission submarine in the Russian inventory. All our intelligence agencies agree on the design and capabilities of this very sophisticated class of submarines. The underlying reality is that the Russian political and military leadership seems to have decided that they want to keep Russia a global military power. In order to do so, they can scale down many military capabilities and programs, but there are several key components critical to military power that must be maintained and expanded. Leading this list is submarines. The disagreement which exists among intelligence agencies is at the margin. It is about the capability of the Russians to continue to build these advanced submarines at the present rate. Some analysts say that they will continue to build at demonstrated production rates--thus giving them sixteen or more high-quality submarines in the first decade of the next century. Other analysts, taking a more optimistic view, believe economic difficulties will force the Russians to curtail their production rates--perhaps producing only a dozen. The disagreement is, thus, by what ratio will US submarine forces be outnumbered over the next fifteen years? I feel compelled to make a final comment on the compromise language which has been developed for competing the next class of submarines to be produced in this country--the New Attack Submarine. I agree with the report language accompanying this bill that ``competition in shipbuilding is an effective means to minimize cost to the government.'' Such competition must be rigorous and real--based on the whole range of factors which would normally be considered by any buyer about to make a major purchase. The price offered must be a reasonable and realistic price which provides taxpayers the best value for their dollar and delivers the product with the quality which has been contracted for according to the agreed upon schedule. The bill language which directs the Secretary of the Navy to ensure such a competition for the New Attack Submarine, in my view, recognizes the importance of these principles. It is with this understanding that this language has my full support. Joseph I. Lieberman. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. BRYAN While I supported reporting the Fiscal Year 1996 Defense Authorization bill to the Senate, I feel it is important to express my deep concerns related to certain provisions contained in the legislation. The Department of Energy is currently undergoing an extensive review of the best way to fill our tritium production needs into the next century. There is broad agreement that this issue must be urgently addressed to maintain the United States' nuclear deterrence capability. There are differing views regarding the best and most cost- effective technology for tritium production. Scientists at the Department of Energy are in the process of identifying the best technology, whether it be accelerator or reactor, as well as determining the best site for tritium production. I am concerned that this legislation attempts to prejudge the appropriate technology, while also delaying the date when a final technology decision can be made. By requiring further studies beyond the extensive studies currently being undertaken by the Department of Energy, and by directing tritium production funding to two separate technologies, this bill could put at risk our readiness to produce tritium when it is needed. We should not be tying the hands of the Department of Energy on an issue of this importance. I also do not support report language in this legislation stating that the best site for tritium production would be the site with tritium recycling infrastructure. The Department of Energy has identified five potential sites for tritium production, and this legislation is certainly not the best place to determine which site is most appropriate, given the wide variety of issues that must be taken into account. I personally feel the Nevada Test Site would be the best site for a tritium production accelerator. The Nevada Test Site has a long history of supporting the nation's nuclear deterrent, and producing tritium for the enduring stockpile is consistent with the history and appropriate for the ongoing mission of the NTS. Richard H. Bryan. MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN The FY 1996 Defense Authorization bill reported by the Armed Services Committee is out of step with the priorities of the Joint Chiefs, the Secretary of Defense and the President. The bill funds numerous programs in excess of national security requirements, leaves ongoing military operations without dedicated funding, and adopts policy actions that could endanger our security by provoking proliferation and undermining arms reduction agreements. pentagon waste There is no sudden, increased threat to justify the hefty boost of over $7 billion dollars in defense spending above the President's request. While other agencies are taking sharp cuts in high-priority programs, the Committee has failed to act to cut wasteful spending at the Pentagon despite substantial evidence to support significant reductions in overhead. The Committee heard testimony that DOD cannot properly match its disbursements with its obligations, and the GAO found ``substantial risk that (1) fraudulent or erroneous payments may be made without being detected.'' The DOD itself has determined that it has about $30 billion in ``problem disbursements''. The DOD Inspector General estimates that every year DOD pays private contractors approximately $500 million that it does not owe them; GAO estimates that figure to be closer to $750 million. The DOD Inspector General estimates that in the last eight years, DOD has ordered some $7 billion worth of goods and services beyond the amount appropriated. And DOD is still spending approximately $20 billion each year on new supplies, a figure that has remained relatively constant for the last several years, even as force structure has declined substantially. Moreover, $1.7 billion of the $19.8 billion FY 1996 request is for items that DOD admits are excess to its needs. The Governmental Affairs Oversight Subcommittee heard testimony that DOD could save $700 million each year processing travel vouchers if it adopted the average industry practices, and $800 million to $1 billion if it met private industry's best practices for processing travel vouchers. The Committee did not take action to fix these inefficiencies. As long as Congress keeps funding the department's inefficiencies, there is no incentive for DOD to make the necessary fixes. Ongoing Operations While the bill provides billions of dollars for procurement programs not requested by the Pentagon or the President, it leaves unfunded over $1.1 billion in known expenses for ongoing military operations like the no-fly zones in Iraq and Bosnia and Cuban Refugee security activities. If this gap is not addressed in the final bill, the very readiness and training accounts that members of the Armed Services Committee have raised alarms about will be placed directly at risk. The Committee also refused to establish and fund a DOD requested fund for Contributions to International Peacekeeping, even though the Senate approved the exact same provision last year. Such a dedicated fund would further protect O&M readiness accounts from being temporarily utilized for near-term expenses of multinational peace operations in which U.S. combat forces participate. Missile Defenses On no set of programs are the Committee's actions more objectionable than in the area of missile defenses and nuclear warhead activities. The Congress should reject the return to the Cold War and to ``Star Wars.'' The bill makes it the policy of the United States to violate the ABM treaty, a cornerstone of our strategic security for 25 years, by moving ``to deploy * * * a multi-site national missile defense.'' This is not a question of interpretation; a multi-site national missile defense is explicitly prohibited by the treaty. This is a provocative move that could wreck the landmark arms reduction treaties achieved by President Bush, and spark a buildup of offensive weapons--the opposite of what we have been trying to achieve. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Shalikashvili wrote on June 28, in opposition to the bill's provisions: ``we must assume such unilateral U.S. States legislation could harm prospects for START II ratification by the Duma and probably impact our broader security relationship with Russia as well.'' This program is in direct opposition to the current Congressional consensus for continuing research on NMD that is consistent with the ABM Treaty, while preserving the option to deploy if the threat increases, and seeking ABM Treaty understandings or changes that are mutually agreeable between the U.S. and Russia. There is no new danger of missile attack on the continental U.S. to justify the crash program for National Missile Defense contained in this bill. DIA Director General Clapper testified this year that ``we see no interest in or capability of any new country reaching the continental United States with a long range missile for at least the next decade.'' The bill nearly doubles funding for National Missile Defense (NMD), creating a highly-concurrent, rush deployment program. Deploying a multi- site NMD system by 2003 will require tens of billions of dollars in the next five years, but the bill does not identify any source of these funds. The assault on the ABM Treaty is continued in the bill's provisions regarding Theater Missile Defenses. The Bill declares a unilateral interpretation of the ABM Treaty by asserting a demarcation between theater missile defense (TMD) systems (non-strategic) and ABM systems (strategic), and then declares that the ABM Treaty does not apply to ABM systems, ``unless and until'' they are tested against strategic ballistic missile targets. Such tests are, of course, strictly prohibited by the ABM Treaty. The bill even goes so far as to say that the demarcation ceases to apply ``when'' a TMD system is tested against a strategic target. On a party line vote the committee rejected an amendment that would have prohibited the use of FY 96 funds to conduct such a Treaty-violating test. One can only conclude that the committee's majority members want to violate the ABM Treaty as early as possible. The bill prohibits the executive branch from adopting any other interpretation, even though this demarcation issue is the subject of ongoing discussions between the U.S. and Russia. In a further affront to the foreign policy-making powers of the Presidency, the legislation would effectively bar the administration from even discussing any alternative, let alone attempting to negotiate clarifications in that treaty with the Russians. The Senate once defeated an effort by the Reagan Administration to unilaterally reinterpret the ABM Treaty. This bill seeks the same result the Senate previously prevented. Nuclear Weapons Production Complex In a return to Cold War policies, the bill also funds major initiatives to resume and expand nuclear weapons materials production and warhead manufacturing activities as if the Cold War had never ended, earmarking funds for facilities and projects that have not been requested by the administration. The bill also makes cuts in vital funding for arms control verification and non-proliferation research, and for safeguarding warheads that Russia is retiring. The Committee wants the U.S. to keep its entire stockpile of inactive reserve warheads--the same ones we have removed to comply with START I--ready to be redeployed on our missiles and bombers as a ``hedge'' against uncertainty in Russian arms control compliance or reductions. But Russia is ahead of the U.S. in its compliance with START I and shows every sign of continuing its good record. The Committee's action could instead jeopardize reductions in START I and START II that are a real source of security to the U.S. Today there are fewer missiles and warheads in the former Soviet Union capable of being launched at the U.S. than during the past 15 years. That number will decline dramatically with the entry into force and implementation of START II. But the Committee would reverse all these security gains and return us to the dangers of the Cold War for no reason. The bill also includes funding for hydronuclear tests that the administration did not request, a provocative move at this sensitive moment in Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty negotiations, when the U.S. is trying to dissuade tests by other countries and conclude a final treaty to halt testing. The basic premise of these funding increases and policy changes is flawed. The safety and reliability of our nuclear deterrent is being maintained, and can be maintained in the future without nuclear weapons tests. If safety problems arise with a warhead that remains in the stockpile, current law allows the President to certify that tests are required to install safety devices in it. But no such problem has been discovered. In 1992 we had Congressional testimony that the Air Force, Navy, DOD and DOE had all concluded ``that there is not now sufficient evidence to warrant our changing either warheads or propellants'' in a warhead because of safety concerns. There has been no testimony to the contrary. Some of our best scientists have concluded that we do not need to conduct small ``hydronuclear'' tests. In August 1994, DOE and DOD's scientific advisory group, JASON, concluded that: Since hydronuclear tests would be potentially more valuable to proliferants * * * it would be in our national interests to forego them. The very limited added value of hydronuclear tests * * * have to be weighed against costs, and against the impact of continuing an underground testing program at the Nevada Test Site on U.S. non-proliferation goals. On balance we oppose hydronuclear testing. Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary testified to the Armed Services Committee earlier this year that she agrees with those conclusions. By pushing such tests, the Committee threatens to undercut President Clinton's strong policy against nuclear testing and for effective curbs on nuclear proliferation. Other Provisions The Committee also earmarked funding for equipment that the National Guard did not request, instead of following the current Senate practice of providing funding in broad, generic categories to meet the priorities of the Guard and Reserve. This reversal of a ``good government'' practice will result in equipment purchases driven by individual state or district interests of particular Members of Congress. It is an example of bad government and does not serve the national interest. I am concerned about the efficacy and wisdom of a new Defense Modernization Account established by this bill. Although I agree with the motive behind this effort, creating an additional incentive for the services to generate savings from efficient program management, this method is unfair and could be abused. No other department of government is allowed to keep unobligated balances that would otherwise expire, and then use those funds to procure items or services that Congress has not expressly authorized. And although this new account is crafted to try to avoid a repeat of the abuses of the DOD ``M'' accounts, I believe the protections are inadequate. The laws Congress has passed establishing new buying practices and requiring more efficient procurement should provide all the incentive needed. If programs can be completed for less money, Congress should authorize less money, or rescind unobligated balances and return funds to the treasury. The Committee did take some important actions to improve the bill, removing over $670 million in funding for additional B-2 bombers and F-16 aircraft not requested by the Pentagon. The Committee also voted against a provision that would have prohibited women in the military stationed overseas from getting abortions in military hospitals with their own money. But these improvements do not outweigh my disappointment in the Committee's action on the overall measure. Carl Levin. MINORITY VIEWS OF MR. BINGAMAN It was not lightly that I cast my first vote in thirteen years against a defense authorization bill prepared by the Armed Services Committee. But this bill is by far the worst in those thirteen years both in its substance and in the process by which it was put together. If one looks for unifying themes in the committee's actions, three are clear: first, bringing back the Cold War if at all possible, second, pork, and third, stealing from the future. In some cases, such as the Department of Energy's defense programs budget, all three themes come together in a particularly stark fashion. revival of cold war Recently President Yeltsin submitted the START II Treaty to the Duma for its consent to ratification. How will this bill ``help'' in the process of winning Russian approval of START II? Let us count a few of the ways: the bill commits the United States to deploying a multi-site anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defense by 2003 (with an interim capability by 1999) in violation of the ABM Treaty and adds hundreds of millions of dollars in pursuit of that goal; the bill revives the space- based chemical laser program in the mistaken hope that this will allow the United States to dominate space in the long run while providing a second layer of missile defense; the bill unilaterally resolves the theater missile defense (TMD) demarcation line currently under negotiation with the Russians by defining TMDs as those defenses tested against targets traveling less than five kilometers/second or against targets with a range of less than 3500 kilometers; the bill limits the President's ability to retire strategic weapons systems before START II is ratified; the bill proposes a nuclear weapons manufacturing complex sized to meet the needs of a hedge stockpile far above the active START II stockpile of 3500 weapons; and the bill proposes to resume hydronuclear testing (with yields up to hundreds of tons of TNT). The actions by our ``conservatives'' will undoubtedly play into the hands of Russian ``conservatives'' bent on unraveling START II and other arms control efforts. The only thing attempting to be conserved by this transnational alliance of convenience is the Cold War, the end of which has been problemmatic for what President Eisenhower termed the military-industrial complexes of both nations. The provisions in the bill entitled ``the Missile Defense Act of 1995'' would alone justify a Presidential veto of this bill. readiness a priority? The committee had $7 billion to spend above the President's request thanks to the budget resolution conference report passed as the committee was marking up the defense bill. This is the first time in my thirteen years on the committee that the committee was marking above a Presidential request. One might have expected the additional funds to be used to address the long litany of ``readiness'' problems which Republicans have employed as a justification for adding funds to the defense budget while drastically cutting back the rest of government in pursuit of a balanced budget. Yet the Readiness Subcommittee received no net additional funding. All of the additions in real property maintenance, base operations, and other readiness accounts made by the subcommittee were offset by reductions in spending for activities not deemed defense enough, such as humanitarian assistance, foreign disaster relief, and the Civil Air Patrol. Secretary Perry told the committee that his highest priority for additional funding was $1.2 billion to cover the expected costs of four ongoing military operations: Enhanced Southern Watch in southern Iraq, Provide Comfort in northern Iraq, Cuban refugee support at Guantanamo, and Bosnia (Operations Sharp Guard, Deny Flight and Provide Promise). These are bills which we know we will have to pay, if not now, then in a supplemental appropriation later. No one in Congress is attempting to end these operations with the possible exception of Bosnia. But even in the case of Bosnia we face far higher costs under all of the alternative options being put forward. So Secretary Perry's request for Bosnia operations ($363 million of the $1.2 billion total) is a floor on the likely costs in fiscal year 1996. If readiness were indeed a central goal of the committee, one might have expected that paying these bills would be the first thing the committee would address. By doing so we would be preventing the inevitable raiding of the operations and maintenance accounts until a supplemental is passed next year. Instead, the committee allocated only $125 million to the Secretary's highest priority for additional funding, enough to cover about one tenth of the FY96 costs. Even this small amount would have been lost had Senator McCain not blocked half of a list of $250 million in military construction add-ons which had been put together outside his oversight as subcommittee chairman. Unfortunately, the other half was approved. Pork Where did the $7 billion go if not to readiness? Aside from ballistic missile defense, it went largely to hardware of interest to members of the committee: for example, a $1.3 billion amphibious assault ship, two Aegis cruisers bought on the installment plan, three different families of trucks, F/A- 18 fighters, a Navy variant of the F-117 stealth attack plane, Apache, Kiowa, CH-53 and Comanche helicopters, a National Guard package of specific weapons system earmarks totaling more than $750 million, and last, but not least, an attack submarine deal which Senator McCain has called ``submarines for everybody.'' Taxpayers are demanding that Congress reduce the federal deficit. That has been the first priority in Washington since this Congress convened. Needless to say, there will be many options available during floor debate on this bill to contribute to deficit reduction rather than ``weapons for everybody'' to extrapolate my Arizona colleague's phraseology to cover the whole bill. Train Wreck in Future Years The current bonanza of weapons system add-ons cannot be sustained in future year budgets. The military draw-down called for in the Bottom Up Review is almost over. Adequately paying, housing and training 1.45 million active duty service members in future years will require ever greater expenditures for personnel, military construction and operations and maintenance and further squeeze the procurement and research budgets. Defense experts of both parties have pointed to a train wreck in the defense budget before the end of the decade. Either the Bottom Up Review force structure, driven by the need to fight and win two nearly simultaneous major regional contingencies, will have to be sharply reduced (and its planning assumptions modified) or modernization funds will dry up. The committee is silent on this fundamental tradeoff we will soon be facing. If the committee's priority really is ``weapons systems for everybody,'' then the committee should be honest about the necessity for another drawdown to the 1.0 million active duty level Daniel Goure of the Center for Strategic and International Studies testified would be needed or the 1.2 million level Andrew Krepinevich of the Defense Budget Project estimated would be needed to restore balance between force structure and modernization. Research not a Priority One area that clearly is not a priority for the committee is long-term research. This is another example of not planning for the future. Research was not mentioned in the list of priorities handed out by the chairman of the committee before the mark-up. Accordingly, the Acquisition and Technology Subcommittee was the only subcommittee to be assigned a reduction from the President's budget. The reduction was over $300 million. It is as if the committee is taking our lead in technology for granted at precisely the time when we can least afford such hubris. Critical military and dual-use technologies are inevitably spreading around the globe, driven increasingly by the commercial marketplace. Many nations, most notably Japan, Germany and other western European countries, approach us in scientific and technological competence. Russia has long been a scientific leader held back by its industrial infrastructure. Within a decade or two, many other nations, such as China and India, could join us at the leading edge of science and technology. The Revolution in Military Affairs is being driven by technology, but we have no monopoly on the critical technologies underlying that revolution as we did for much of the Cold War period. Cutting funding for the Pentagon's science and technology base from a request that was itself a significant cut from the previous year is the wrong thing to be doing. It is unfortunately consistent with the low priority being afforded research and development by the Congressional budget resolution in the civilian agencies as well. We will not long remain a superpower in the twenty-first century if we cripple federal research investments. The Technology Reinvestment Project took much of the cut allocated to the Acquisition and Technology Subcommittee. The cut in this competitive, cost-shared effort to leverage the private sector's much larger investments in technologies critical to the Pentagon makes no sense, particularly in light of the lavish spending elsewhere in the bill for pork. Department of Energy Budget a Disaster It is hard to know where to begin in listing the problems with the committee's mark for the Department of Energy's defense activities. The proposal put before the Strategic Subcommittee in mark-up was alarming to say the least. In the course of full committee deliberations the absolutely worst elements of the package--for example, an annual cap of 1000 on dismantling obsolete nuclear weapons at Pantex and a ban on paying political appointees out of DOE defense program funds-- were removed. But much that was dismaying remained in the bill as reported. There is nothing in the committee's hearing record to support the changes made by the committee in the DOE budget request. Typically the record strongly supports the administration's proposals. Yet the committee in case after case substituted its judgement for that of technical experts and weapons laboratory directors and short-circuited ongoing decision-making processes in the executive branch designed to reach informed decisions. The bill includes provisions on tritium production and plutonium disposition which mandate a multi-purpose reactor solution to these problems. The tritium production provision would allow research on accelerator production of tritium only if a $25 million reactor program, carried through engineering design, were first initiated. The plutonium disposition provision earmarks an additional $25 million for the reactor program for a total of $50 million. It is clear that these provisions are intended to preempt executive branch decisions in the ongoing programmatic environmental impact statements on these subjects. The bill thus attempts to block any decisions favoring an accelerator approach to tritium production and an alternative approach to plutonium disposition, perhaps along the lines of the National Academy of Sciences (Panofsky panel) recommendations. The bill includes a provision mandating tritium recycling be carried out at Savannah River and limiting Los Alamos to research activities. The bill adds $12.2 million to initiate a tritium recycling at Savannah River to implement the committee's decision. Again these actions are designed to preempt executive branch decision-making on this matter through the stockpile stewardship programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) currently underway. The bill includes a series of provisions on nuclear weapons manufacturing capabilities that are fundamentally flawed. These provisions are premised on the unfounded notions that the science-based stockpile stewardship program, carefully developed over the past two years by the DOE Defense Programs Office and currently being further developed in the PEIS, will provide insufficient manufacturing capability and that the program's focus on maintaining competence and capabilities at the laboratories is wrong. The bill's weapons manufacturing provisions specifically exclude the laboratories from the manufacturing infrastructure, specifically assume that the present design lifetimes for nuclear weapons cannot be extended, and specifically earmark funds for a series of projects whose full costs are unknown, but will certainly run well over a billion dollars. Notable among these is a weapon primary pit refabrication/manufacturing and reuse facility at Savannah River. Overall, about $350 million was added for this stockpile management initiative laden with pork and built on a foundation unsupported by any testimony or thoughtful analysis. The committee did not stop there in its assault on the laboratories and the stockpile stewardship program. It proceeded to eliminate the laboratory-directed research and development (LDRD) program and the technology partnership program. The LDRD program, under which the laboratory directors use up to six percent of their budgets to fund basic research, produces 60 percent of the published research papers of lab scientists. It is the essential tool by which the laboratories renew themselves and attract and retain the world-class people needed to ensure the safety and reliability of the enduring nuclear weapons stockpile. The technology partnership program is critical to achieving the goals of the stockpile stewardship program in areas ranging from advanced computation to electronics to materials and manufacturing. With few exceptions, it differs from the core weapons R&D program only in its leveraging of private sector R&D investments. The elimination of these programs will cripple the laboratories' ability to carry out their central roles in ensuring the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile. The bill talks of the need for ``absolute assurance'' of the safety and reliability of the stockpile. One wonders how weakening the laboratories and driving out their best people will contribute to achieving this goal. The committee also cut funding for arms control verification and nonproliferation research by $63 million and funding for putting Russian nuclear weapons material under better safeguards and security by $15 million. These cuts are striking in light of the seriousness of the problems we face in these areas. It is clear that they were made to pay for the stockpile management initiative. Reducing the nuclear danger through these programs lost out to building up excess nuclear weapons manufacturing capacity. The committee increased funding for hydronuclear testing (and contemplates testing of devices with yields up to hundreds of tons of TNT) while simultaneously admitting that it does not understand the costs and benefits of such testing and requiring a report on that matter. Obviously, this is not the ideal way to make decisions on an issue with such profound consequences. Unfortunately, this make-decisions-now, get-the-facts-later approach is consistent with the decision-making throughout the DOE title of the bill. Conclusion The test for whether I can support a defense authorization bill is whether on balance it advances our nation's security. This bill, as reported by the committee, does not meet that test. The nation would be better off if it did not become law. Reviving the Cold War and ``weapons for everybody'' are not the appropriate foundation for a twenty-first century security policy for this country. Because this bill is flawed in so many dimensions, it will undoubtedly require extensive debate and numerous amendments when it comes before the full Senate. I look forward to participating in that debate and offering some of those amendments. Jeff Bingaman. <greek-d> <greek-d>

NEWSLETTER

Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list