105th Congress 1st SENATE Report
Session 105-29
_______________________________________________________________________
Calendar No. 84
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
REPORT
[to accompany s. 924]
on
AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 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 VIEWS
----------
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
June 17, 1997.--Ordered to be printed
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
105th Congress SENATE Report
1st Session 105-29
_______________________________________________________________________
Calendar No. 84
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
REPORT
[to accompany s. 924]
on
AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 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 VIEWS
__________
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
June 17, 1997.--Ordered to be printed
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
(105th Congress, 1st Session)
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia CARL LEVIN, Michigan
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
DAN COATS, Indiana JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire JOHN GLENN, Ohio
DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma CHARLES S. ROBB, Virginia
RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine MAX CLELAND, Georgia
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
Les Brownlee, Staff Director
David S. Lyles, Staff Director for the Minority
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Purpose of the Bill.............................................. 1
Committee overview and recommendations........................... 2
Explanation of funding summary................................... 4
Division A--Department of Defense Authorization
Title I--Procurement............................................. 11
Explanation of tables............................................ 11
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 12
Section 107. Chemical Demilitarization Program........... 12
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).................... 12
Russian Ratification of the Chemical Weapons
Convention......................................... 13
Subtitle B--Army Programs.................................... 15
Section 111. Army helicopter modernization plan.......... 31
Section 112. Multiyear procurement authority for AH-64D
Longbow Apache fire control radar...................... 31
Other Army Programs.......................................... 31
Army Aircraft............................................ 31
C-XX(UC-35).......................................... 31
UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters.......................... 32
CH-47 cargo helicopter............................... 32
UH-1 modifications................................... 32
OH-58D Kiowa Warrior................................. 32
Aircraft survivability equipment..................... 33
Training devices..................................... 33
Common ground equipment.............................. 33
Army Missile............................................. 33
Avenger modifications................................ 33
Hellfire missile..................................... 34
Extended range Multiple Launch Rocket System rockets. 34
Multiple Launch Rocket System launchers.............. 34
Army Tactical Missile System......................... 34
Stinger modifications................................ 35
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles...................... 35
Bradley base sustainment............................. 35
Carrier modifications-M113A3......................... 35
M1 Abrams tank modifications......................... 35
Small arms programs.................................. 35
Army Ammunition.......................................... 36
Army ammunition...................................... 36
Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support......... 37
Other Army Procurement................................... 37
High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle.......... 37
Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles................... 37
Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles.................... 37
Army data distribution systems....................... 38
Echelon Above Corps Communications-Warfighter
Information Network................................ 38
Information system security program.................. 38
Sentinel............................................. 38
Night vision devices................................. 39
Standard Army management information system tactical
computer platform.................................. 39
Reserve component automation system.................. 39
Dump truck........................................... 39
Generators and associated equipment.................. 40
Simulation Network/Close Combat Tactical Trainer..... 40
Special equipment for user testing................... 40
Subtitle C-Navy Programs..................................... 41
Section 121. New attack submarine program................ 62
Section 122. Nuclear aircraft carrier program............ 64
Section 123. Exception to cost limitation for Seawolf
submarine program...................................... 67
Section 124. Airborne self-protection jammer program..... 68
Other Navy Programs.......................................... 68
Navy Aircraft............................................ 68
AV-8B Harrier remanufacture.......................... 68
Aircrew trainer/simulators........................... 69
V-22 Osprey.......................................... 69
EC Hawkeye early warning aircraft.................... 69
T-45 trainer......................................... 69
EA-6B support jamming upgrade........................ 70
Helicopter crash attenuating seats................... 70
P-3C anti-surface warfare improvement program........ 70
Navy Weapons............................................. 72
Tomahawk land attack missile......................... 72
Penguin missile program.............................. 73
Standard missile modification........................ 74
Navy and Marine Corps Ammunition......................... 74
Marine Corps ammunition.............................. 74
Shoulder Launched Multi-Purpose Assault Weapon....... 74
Navy Shipbuilding and Conversion......................... 75
Advanced submarine technology insertion.............. 75
Arleigh Burke class destroyer program................ 75
Oceanographic survey ship............................ 76
Other Navy Procurement................................... 76
Submarine propulsor.................................. 76
AN/WSN-7 inertial navigation system.................. 77
Integrated combat weapons system..................... 77
AN/BPS-15H submarine navigation radar................ 78
Cooperative engagement capability.................... 78
Information Technology-21............................ 79
Integration and test facility command and control
initiative......................................... 80
Sonobuoy procurement................................. 81
NATO Sea Sparrow missile system low light level
television......................................... 81
NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system................. 82
Oceanographic equipment.............................. 83
Marine Corps Procurement................................. 83
Javelin.............................................. 83
Night vision equipment............................... 83
Base telecommunications infrastructure............... 84
Improved direct air support center................... 84
Light Tactical Vehicle Replacement program........... 84
International standards organization truck beds...... 84
Power equipment assorted............................. 84
Shop equipment contact maintenance system............ 85
Combat rubber reconnaissance craft................... 85
Chemical/biological incident response force equipment 85
Combat vehicle appended trainer...................... 85
Items less than $2 million........................... 85
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs............................... 86
Section 131. B-2 bomber aircraft program................. 99
Other Air Force Programs..................................... 99
Air Force Aircraft....................................... 99
F-15E attrition aircraft............................. 99
F-22 requirements................................ 99
F-22 event-based decision making..................... 99
C-130J............................................... 102
Spares and support............................... 102
C-130 remanufacture report....................... 102
WC-130J.......................................... 103
EC-130J.......................................... 103
C-130J........................................... 103
Joint Primary Aircraft Training System............... 103
F-15 PW-220E modifications........................... 103
F-16 targeting/navigation pods....................... 104
Rivet Joint technology transfer...................... 104
SR-71................................................ 104
U-2 Sensor Upgrades.................................. 105
Air Force Missile........................................ 105
Titan IV space boosters.............................. 105
Air Force Ammunition..................................... 105
Air Force ammunition................................. 105
Other Air Force Procurement.............................. 105
Theater deployable communications.................... 105
Defense-Wide Programs.................................... 106
Common automatic recovery system..................... 112
MH-47E helicopter replacement........................ 112
Night firing scopes.................................. 112
Counter proliferation/weapons of mass destruction.... 112
National Guard and Reserve Equipment..................... 112
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 114
Section 141. Prohibition on use of funds for acquisition
or alteration of private drydocks...................... 114
Section 142. Replacement of engines on aircraft derived
from Boeing 707 aircraft............................... 114
Section 143. Exception to requirement for a particular
determination for sales of manufactured articles or
services of Army industrial facilities outside the
United States.......................................... 115
Other Items of Interest...................................... 115
Alternative fuel vehicles................................ 115
Automated data processing equipment.................. 116
Coast Guard port security units.......................... 116
Global Air Traffic Management............................ 117
Tactical aviation........................................ 117
Tactical trailers/dolly sets............................. 118
Title II--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation............ 119
Explanation of tables........................................ 119
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 119
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 119
Section 211. Joint Strike Fighter program................ 119
Alternative engine program........................... 120
Section 212. F-22 aircraft program....................... 120
Cost analyses........................................ 121
Section 213. High Altitude Endurance Unmanned Vehicle
program................................................ 121
Tier II plus......................................... 122
Section 214. Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile
program................................................ 123
Section 215. Federally funded research and development
centers................................................ 123
Section 216. Goal for dual-use science and technology
projects............................................... 123
Section 217. Transfers of authorizations for
counterproliferation support program................... 125
Chemical and Biological Detection.................... 125
Mission Planning and Analysis........................ 126
Transfer Authority................................... 126
Underground and Deep Underground Structures.......... 126
Section 218. Kinetic Energy Tactical Anti-Satellite
Technology Program..................................... 126
Section 219. Clementine 2 Micro-Satellite development
program................................................ 127
Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense Programs............... 127
Section 221. National Missile Defense program............ 127
Section 222. Reversal of decision to transfer procurement
funds from the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.. 128
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 128
Section 231. Manufacturing Technology program............ 128
Section 232. Use of major range and test facility
installations by commercial entities................... 128
Section 233. Eligibility for the Defense Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research.............. 129
Section 234. Restructuring of National Oceanographic
Partnership Program organizations...................... 129
Army..................................................... 130
Army research institute.............................. 136
University and industry research centers............. 136
Materials technology................................. 136
National Automotive Center........................... 136
Liquid propellant technology program................. 136
Environmental technology............................. 136
Innovative methods of energy conservation and the
economic efficiency of energy sources.............. 137
Military engineering technology...................... 138
Medical advanced technology.......................... 138
Nutrition research................................... 138
Combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology.... 138
Wave net technology.................................. 138
Vehicular mounted mine detector...................... 139
Missile defense Battle Integration Center............ 139
All source analysis system........................... 139
Force XXI tactical operation centers................. 139
Force XXI architecture............................... 139
Firefinder........................................... 140
Tactical high energy laser program................... 140
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) research
and development.................................... 140
Combat vehicle improvement program................... 141
Aircraft modifications/product improvement program... 141
Force XXI digitization............................... 141
Force XXI battle command............................. 143
Missile/air defense product improvement program...... 143
RDT&E infrastructure support......................... 143
Navy..................................................... 144
Power electronic building blocks..................... 151
Materials technology................................. 151
Second source for carbon fibers...................... 151
Titanium processing technology....................... 151
National oceanographic partnership program........... 151
Undersea weapons technology.......................... 152
Composite helicopter hangar.......................... 153
Commandant's warfighting laboratory.................. 153
Freeze-dried blood research project.................. 153
High frequency surface wave radar.................... 153
Remote minehunting system............................ 154
Advanced submarine technology........................ 154
Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle.................. 155
Navy tactical missile system......................... 155
Land attack Standard missile......................... 156
Naval surface fire support........................... 156
Nonlethal weapons and technologies of mass protection
program............................................ 157
Advanced communications and information technologies. 158
Parametric airborne dipping sonar.................... 158
Helicopter upgrade program........................... 158
Integrated defensive electronic countermeasures...... 159
High power discriminator............................. 159
Maritime fire support demonstrator................... 159
Multi-purpose processor.............................. 161
Seawolf shock test................................... 161
Future surface combatants............................ 162
Infrared search and track system..................... 164
Ship self-defense system............................. 165
Advanced deployable system........................... 165
Classified program reduction......................... 166
Communications interoperability and reliability...... 166
Marine common hardware suite......................... 166
Manufacturing technology program..................... 166
Air Force................................................ 168
Phillips laboratory exploratory development.......... 175
High frequency active auroral research program....... 175
ALR-69 radar warning receiver........................ 175
Missile technology demonstration..................... 175
Military space plane................................. 175
Solar thermionic orbital transfer vehicle............ 176
Geo space object imaging............................. 176
Asynchronous transfer mode program................... 176
Variable stability in-flight simulator test aircraft. 176
F-22 engineering and manufacturing development
program............................................ 177
Cost overruns and restructuring.................. 177
Placeholder status............................... 178
B-2 Multi Stage Improvement Plan (MSIP).............. 178
Situational awareness............................ 178
Maintainability.................................. 178
Minuteman safety enhanced reentry vehicle............ 178
Aging landing gear life extension.................... 179
Conventional Air-Launched Cruise Missile Block II
upgrade............................................ 179
Theater battle management system..................... 179
Cruise missile defense............................... 179
C-5 Modernization.................................... 180
Measurement and signature intelligence software
development and training facility.................. 180
Defense-Wide............................................. 181
Defense experimental program to stimulate competitive
research........................................... 187
Chemical and biological defense program.............. 187
Medical Defenses against Biological Agents....... 187
Domestic Emergency Response Program.............. 188
Chemical-Biological Response Teams............... 189
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization funding....... 190
Support technology............................... 190
Theater High Altitude Area Defense system........ 191
Navy Upper Tier (Theater Wide)................... 192
Boost phase interceptor.......................... 192
National Missile Defense......................... 192
Joint theater missile defense.................... 193
Reuse technology adoption program.................... 194
Tactical technology.................................. 194
High definition display systems...................... 194
Hard carbon-based coatings........................... 195
Seamless high off-chip connectivity.................. 195
Defense Special Weapons Agency....................... 195
Structural Response and Blast Mitigation......... 195
Vulnerability of electronic technologies and
space systems to radiation and electromagnetic
pulse.......................................... 196
Counterterror technical support...................... 196
Research and Development for Combating Terrorism. 197
Advanced lithography................................. 197
Advanced concept technology demonstrations........... 198
Electronic commerce resource centers................. 199
High performance computing modernization program..... 199
Reductions in new starts............................. 199
Large millimeter-wave telescope program.............. 199
Land warfare technology.............................. 199
Vehicle teleoperation capability development program. 200
Non-acoustic antisubmarine warfare................... 200
Integrated data environment program.................. 200
Technical, studies, support and analysis............. 200
Command Intelligence Architecture/Planning Program... 201
Communications helmet................................ 201
Heavy sniper rifle................................... 201
Improved limpet assembly modular..................... 201
Remote activation munition systems................... 201
USSOCOM joint threat warning system training system.. 202
Operational test and evaluation...................... 202
Other Items of Interest...................................... 203
600 gallon fuel tanks for F-16........................... 203
Flat panel display technology............................ 203
Improved shipbuilding competitiveness.................... 204
Intercooled recuperated gas turbine engine............... 204
Joint experimentation plan............................... 205
Materials for micro system components.................... 205
Minimally invasive surgery............................... 205
National crash survival data............................. 206
National solar observatory............................... 206
Software acquisition management practices................ 206
Terminal guidance systems for small munitions............ 207
Totally integrated munitions enterprise.................. 207
United States-Japan management training.................. 207
Wireless communications for the digital battlefield...... 207
Title III--Operation and Maintenance............................. 208
``The Storm Clouds are on the Horizon''...................... 208
Readiness Crisis?........................................ 208
Causes and Solutions..................................... 209
Overview..................................................... 210
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 236
Section 303. Armed Forces Retirement Home................ 236
Section 304. Transfer from National Defense Stockpile
Transaction Fund....................................... 236
Section 305. Fisher House Trust Funds.................... 236
Subtitle B--Depot-Level Activities........................... 236
Subtitle C--Environmental Provisions......................... 238
Section 331. Clarification of authority relating to
storage and disposal of nondefense toxic and hazardous
materials on Department of Defense property............ 238
Section 332. Annual report on payments and activities in
response to fines and penalties assessed under
environmental laws..................................... 239
Section 333. Annual report on environmental activities of
the Department of Defense overseas..................... 239
Section 334. Membership terms for Strategic Environmental
Research and Development Program Scientific Advisory
Board.................................................. 239
Section 335. Additional information on agreements for
agency services in support of environmental technology
certification.......................................... 240
Section 336. Risk assessments under the Defense
Environmental Restoration Program...................... 240
Section 337. Recovery and sharing of costs of
environmental restoration at Department of Defense
sites.................................................. 241
Section 338. Pilot program for the sale of air pollution
emission reduction incentives.......................... 242
Section 339. Tagging system for identification of
hydrocarbon fuels used by the Department of Defense.... 243
Subtitle D--Commissaries and Nonappropriated Fund
Instrumentalities.......................................... 243
Section 351. Funding sources for construction and
improvement of commissary store facilities............. 243
Section 352. Integration of military exchange services... 243
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 244
Section 361. Advance billings for working capital funds.. 244
Section 362. Center for Excellence in Disaster Management
and Humanitarian Assistance............................ 244
Section 363. Administrative actions adversely affecting
military training or other readiness activities........ 245
Section 364. Financial assistance to support additional
duties assigned to Army National Guard................. 247
Section 365. Sale of excess, obsolete, or unserviceable
ammunition and ammunition components................... 247
Section 366. Inventory management........................ 247
Section 367. Warranty claims recovery pilot program...... 248
Section 368. Adjustment and diversification assistance to
enhance increased performance of military family
support services by private sector sources............. 248
Additional Matters of Interest............................... 248
Army..................................................... 248
Organizational clothing and individual equipment..... 248
Aviation training.................................... 249
Logistics automation................................. 249
Information systems security......................... 249
Real property maintenance............................ 250
Support of other nations............................. 250
Army enterprise architecture......................... 250
Navy..................................................... 251
Flying hour program.................................. 251
Naval oceanographic program.......................... 251
Marine Corps............................................. 251
Marine Corps initial issue........................... 251
Personnel support equipment.......................... 251
Air Force................................................ 252
KC-135 depot maintenance............................. 252
Office of Special Investigation and Information
Protection......................................... 252
Force protection..................................... 252
Guard and Reserve Components............................. 252
Reserve component training........................... 252
Defense-Wide............................................. 253
Joint exercises...................................... 253
Special Operations Command operations tempo
sustainment........................................ 253
Civilian personnel levels............................ 253
Miscellaneous Programs................................... 254
Full funding of the defense health program........... 254
Cooperative Threat Reduction program................. 254
Chemical Weapons Convention...................... 255
Overseas humanitarian demining and Commander in
Chief initiative activities.................... 255
National Defense Sealift Fund............................ 256
LMSR procurement..................................... 256
National defense sealift fund........................ 256
Maritime prepositioning force recapitalization....... 256
Other Items of Interest...................................... 257
Authorization for the Department of Defense to deposit
funds in the Foreign Military Sales Trust Fund Account
for Canada's purchase of military equipment............ 257
Continued operations at Fort Pickett, Virginia........... 257
Contracted Flight Training Service....................... 258
Defense environmental compliance......................... 258
Defense Commissary Agency produce purchasing............. 259
Department of Defense use of Ada computer language....... 259
Department of Defense use of frequency spectrum.......... 260
Elimination of unnecessary training restrictions imposed
under the Endangered Species Act....................... 260
Environmental cleanup of formerly used defense sites..... 261
Environmental cleanup of lands conveyed by the Department
of Defense............................................. 261
Environmental liabilities at Rocky Mountain Arsenal,
Colorado............................................... 261
Environmental requirements at Department of Defense
demolition, construction, and renovation sites......... 262
Indoor marksmanship training............................. 263
Pollution prevention..................................... 263
Potential depot maintenance savings...................... 264
Proposed revision of the standards for ozone and
particulate matter..................................... 264
Removal of polychlorinated biphenyls from Navy vessels
prior to disposal...................................... 265
Title IV--Military Personnel Authorizations...................... 267
Subtitle A--Active Forces.................................... 267
Section 401. End strengths for active forces............. 267
Section 402. Permanent end strength levels to support two
major regional contingencies........................... 268
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces................................... 268
Section 411. End strengths for Selected Reserve.......... 268
Section 412. End strengths for Reserves on active duty in
support of the reserves................................ 269
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 269
Section 421. Authorization of appropriations for military
personnel.............................................. 269
Title V--Military Personnel Policy............................... 271
Subtitle A--Personnel Management............................. 271
Section 501. Officers excluded from consideration by
promotion board........................................ 271
Section 502. Increase in the maximum number of officers
allowed to be frocked to the grade of O-6.............. 271
Section 503. Availability of Navy chaplains on retired
list or of retirement age to serve as Chief or Deputy
Chief of Chaplains of the Navy......................... 272
Section 504. Period of recall service of certain retirees 272
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Reserve Components........... 272
Section 511. Termination of ready reserve mobilization
income insurance program............................... 272
Section 512. Discharge or retirement of reserve officers
in an inactive status.................................. 273
Section 513. Retention of military technicians in grade
of Brigadier General after mandatory separation date... 273
Section 514. Federal status of service by National Guard
members as honor guards at funerals of veterans........ 273
Subtitle C--Education and Training Programs.................. 273
Section 521. Service academies foreign exchange study
program................................................ 273
Section 522. Programs of higher education of the
Community College of the Air Force..................... 273
Section 523. Preservation of entitlement to educational
assistance of members of the Selected Reserve serving
on active duty in support of a contingency operation... 274
Section 524. Repeal of certain staffing and safety
requirements for the Army Ranger Training Brigade...... 274
Subtitle D--Decorations and Awards........................... 274
Section 531. Clarification of eligibility of members of
Ready Reserve for award of service Medal for Heroism... 274
Section 532. Waiver of time limitations for award of
certain decorations to specified persons............... 275
Section 533. One-year extension of period for receipt of
recommendations for decorations and awards for certain
military intelligence personnel........................ 275
Section 534. Eligibility of certain World War II military
organizations for award of unit decorations............ 275
Subtitle E--Military Personnel Voting Rights................. 275
Subtitle F--Other matters.................................... 276
Section 551. Sense of Congress regarding study of matters
relating to gender equity in the Armed Forces.......... 276
Section 552. Commission on Gender Integration in the
Military............................................... 276
Section 553. Sexual harassment investigations and reports 276
Section 554. Requirement for exemplary conduct by
commanding officers and other authorities.............. 277
Section 555. Participation of Department of Defense
personnel in management of non-federal entities........ 277
Section 556. Technical correction to cross reference in
ROPMA provision relating to position vacancy promotion. 277
Other Items of Interest...................................... 278
Findings related to the investigations of deaths of
members of the armed forces from self-inflicted causes. 278
Inspector General investigations of general and flag
officers............................................... 279
Military leave for Federal employees who are members of a
reserve component unit................................. 280
Revisions to missing persons authorities................. 280
Sexual harassment........................................ 281
Virtual education approach to learning for employment.... 281
Title VI--Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits.............. 283
Subtitle A--Pay.............................................. 283
Section 601. Military pay raise for fiscal year 1998..... 283
Subtitle B--Subsistence, Housing, and Other Allowances....... 283
Part I--Reform of Basic Allowance for Subsistence........ 284
Part II--Reform of Housing and Related Allowances........ 284
Park III--Other Amendments Relating to Allowances........ 284
Section 626. Revision of authority to adjust compensation
necessitated by reform of subsistence and housing
allowances............................................. 284
Section 627. Deadline for payment of Ready Reserve muster
duty allowance......................................... 284
Subtitle C--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays........... 285
Section 631. One-year extension of certain bonuses and
special pay authorities for reserve forces............. 285
Section 632. One-year extension of certain bonuses and
special pay authorities for nurse officer candidates,
registered nurses, and nurse anesthetists.............. 285
Section 633. One-year extension of authorities relating
to payment of other bonuses and special pays........... 285
Section 634. Increased amounts for aviation career
incentive pay.......................................... 285
Section 635. Aviation continuation pay................... 285
Section 636. Eligibility of dental officers for the
multiyear retention bonus provided for medical officers 286
Section 637. Increased special pay for dental officers... 286
Section 638. Modification of Selected Reserve
reenlistment bonus authority........................... 286
Section 639. Modification of authority to pay bonuses for
enlistments by prior service personnel in critical
skills in the Selected Reserve......................... 287
Section 640. Increased special pay and bonuses for
nuclear qualified officers............................. 287
Section 641. Authority to pay bonuses in lieu of special
pay for enlisted members extending duty at designated
locations overseas..................................... 287
Subtitle D--Retired Pay, Survivor Benefits, and Related
Matters.................................................... 288
Section 651. One-year opportunity to discontinue
participation in Survivor Benefit Plan................. 288
Section 652. Time for changing survivor benefit coverage
from former spouse to spouse........................... 288
Section 653. Paid-up coverage under Survivor Benefit Plan 288
Section 654. Annuities for certain military surviving
spouses................................................ 288
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 288
Section 661. Eligibility of reserves for benefits for
illness, injury, or death incurred or aggravated in
line of duty........................................... 288
Section 662. Travel and transportation allowances for
dependents before approval of a member's court-martial
sentence............................................... 289
Section 663. Eligibility of members of the uniformed
services for reimbursement of adoption expenses........ 289
Other Items of Interest...................................... 289
Health Professions Scholarship Program.................. 289
Review of the Quadrennial Review of Military
Compensation........................................... 290
Title VII--Health Care Provisions................................ 291
Section 701. Waiver of deductibles, copayments, and
annual fees for members assigned to certain duty
locations far from sources of care..................... 291
Section 702. Payment for emergency health care overseas
for military and civilian personnel of the On-Site
Inspection Agency...................................... 292
Section 703. Disclosures of cautionary information on
prescription medications............................... 292
Section 704. Health care services for certain Reserves
who served in Southwest Asia during the Persian Gulf
War.................................................... 292
Section 705. Collection of dental insurance premiums..... 293
Section 706. Dental insurance plan coverage for retirees
of uniformed service in the Public Health Service and
NOAA................................................... 293
Section 707. Prosthetic devices for dependents........... 293
Other Items of Interest...................................... 293
Continued operation of the Uniformed Services University
of the Health Sciences................................. 293
Dental research and development.......................... 294
Graduate School of Nursing building at the Uniformed
Services University of the Health Sciences............. 294
Health care provisions................................... 294
Maintenance medication dispensing policy................. 296
Programs related to breast and prostate cancer........... 297
Telemedicine in TRICARE Region 7......................... 297
Title VIII--Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and
Related Matters................................................ 299
Subtitle A--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities,
Procedures, and Limitations................................ 300
Section 801. Streamlined approval requirements for
contracts under international agreements............... 300
Section 802. Restriction on undefinitized contract
actions................................................ 300
Section 803. Expansion of authority to cross fiscal years
to all severable service contracts not exceeding a year 300
Section 804. Limitation on allowability of compensation
for certain contractor personnel....................... 301
Section 805. Increased price limitation on purchases of
right-hand drive vehicles.............................. 301
Section 806. Conversion of defense capability
preservation authority to Navy shipbuilding capability
preservation authority................................. 302
Section 807. Elimination of certification requirement for
grants................................................. 302
Section 808. Repeal of limitation on adjustment of
shipbuilding contracts................................. 302
Subtitle B--Contract Provisions.............................. 302
Section 811. Contractor guarantees of major systems...... 302
Section 812. Vesting of title in the United States under
contracts paid under progress payment arrangements or
similar arrangements................................... 303
Subtitle C--Acquisition Assistance Programs.................. 303
Section 821. Procurement technical assistance programs... 303
Section 822. One-year extension of Pilot Mentor-Protege
Program................................................ 303
Section 823. Test program for negotiation of
comprehensive subcontracting plans..................... 304
Section 824. Price preference for small and disadvantaged
businesses............................................. 304
Subtitle D--Administrative Provisions........................ 304
Section 831. Retention of expired funds during the
pendency of contract litigation........................ 304
Section 832. Protection of certain information from
disclosure............................................. 305
Section 833. Content of limited selected acquisition
reports................................................ 305
Section 834. Unit cost reports........................... 305
Section 835. Central Department of Defense point of
contact for contracting information.................... 305
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 305
Section 841. Defense business combinations............... 305
Section 842. Lease of nonexcess property of Defense
Agencies............................................... 306
Section 843. Promotion rate for officers in an
Acquisition Corps...................................... 306
Other Items of Interest...................................... 307
Multiple award task order and delivery order contracts... 307
Title IX--Department of Defense Organization and Management...... 309
Section 901. Principal duty of Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity
Conflict............................................... 309
Section 902. Professional military education schools..... 309
Section 903. Use of CINC Initiative Fund for force
protection............................................. 309
Section 904. Transfer of TIARA programs.................. 310
Other Items of Interest...................................... 310
Department of Defense Inspector General staffing levels.. 310
Title X--General Provisions...................................... 311
Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................ 311
Section 1003. Authorization of prior emergency
supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1997....... 311
Section 1004. Increased transfer authority for fiscal
year 1996 authorizations............................... 311
Section 1005. Biennial financial management strategic
plan................................................... 311
Section 1006. Revision of authority for Fisher House
Trust Funds............................................ 311
Section 1007. Availability of certain fiscal year 1991
funds for payment of contract claim.................... 312
Section 1008. Estimates and requests for procurement and
military construction for the reserve components....... 312
Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards...................... 312
Section 1011. Long-term charter of vessel for
surveillance towed array sensor program................ 312
Section 1012. Procedures for sale of vessels stricken
from the Naval Vessel Register......................... 313
Section 1013. Transfers of naval vessels to certain
foreign countries...................................... 313
Subtitle C--Counter-Drug Activities.......................... 313
Ongoing Initiatives...................................... 314
Riverine Interdiction Initiative......................... 315
Subtitle D--Reports and Studies.............................. 316
Section 1031. Repeal of reporting requirements........... 316
Section 1032. Common measurement of operations and
personnel tempo........................................ 316
Section 1033. Report on overseas deployment.............. 316
Section 1034. Report on military readiness requirements
of the Armed Forces.................................... 317
Section 1035. Assessment of cyclical readiness posture of
the Armed Forces....................................... 318
Section 1036. Overseas infrastructure requirements....... 318
Section 1037. Report on aircraft inventory............... 318
Section 1038. Disposal of excess materials............... 319
Section 1039. Review of former spouse protections........ 319
Section 1040. Completion of GAO reports for Congress..... 319
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 319
Section 1051. Psychotherapist-patient privilege in the
Military Rules of Evidence............................. 319
Section 1052. National Guard Civilian Youth Opportunities
Pilot Program.......................................... 320
Section 1053. Protection of Armed Forces personnel during
peace operations....................................... 320
Section 1054. Limitation on retirement or dismantlement
of strategic nuclear delivery systems.................. 320
Section 1055. Acceptance and use of landing fees for use
of overseas military airfields by civil aircraft....... 320
Section 1056. One-year extension of international
nonproliferation initiative............................ 321
Section 1057. Assistance for facilities subject to
inspection under the Chemical Weapons Convention....... 321
Chemical Weapons Convention.............................. 321
Emergency Health Care for OSIA Inspectors................ 322
Section 1058. Sense of Senate regarding the relationship
between environmental laws and United States'
obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention. (See
report language in Section 107)........................ 322
Section 1059. Sense of Congress regarding funding for
reserve component modernization not requested in the
annual budget request.................................. 322
Section 1060. Authority of Secretary of Defense to settle
claims relating to pay, allowances, and other benefits. 323
Section 1061. Coordination of access of commanders and
deployed units to intelligence collected and analyzed
by the intelligence community.......................... 323
Section 1062. Protection of imagery, imagery
intelligence, and geospatial information and data...... 324
Section 1063. Protection of air safety information
voluntarily provided by a charter air carrier.......... 324
Section 1064. Sustainment and operation of Global
Positioning System..................................... 324
Section 1065. Law enforcement authority for special
agents of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service... 325
Section 1066. Repeal of requirement for continued
operation of the Naval Academy dairy farm.............. 326
Section 1067. POW/MIA intelligence analysis cell......... 326
Section 1068. Protection of employees from retaliation
for certain disclosures of classified information...... 327
Section 1069. Applicability of certain pay authorities to
members of the Commission on Service Members and
Veterans Transition Assistance......................... 327
Section 1070. Transfer of B-17 aircraft to museum........ 328
Section 1071. Five-year extension of aviation insurance
program................................................ 328
Section 1072. Treatment of military flight operations.... 328
Section 1073. Naturalization of foreign nationals who
served honorably in the Armed Forces of the United
States................................................. 329
Section 1074. Designation of Bob Hope as honorary veteran 329
Other Items of Interest...................................... 329
Airborne strategic command and control................... 329
Commercial satellite communications...................... 330
Department of Defense Education Technology Initiative
(DoDETI)............................................... 331
Department of Defense space management................... 331
Department of Defense strategy for curtailing spousal
abuse involving members of the armed forces............ 332
Global Positioning System alternate master control
station................................................ 332
International border security............................ 332
Orbital debris and the environmental restoration of space 333
Safety of strategic nuclear forces....................... 333
Title XI--Department of Defense Civilian Personnel............... 335
Section 1101. Use of prohibited constraints to manage
Department of Defense personnel........................ 335
Section 1102. Employment of civilian faculty at the
Marine Corps University................................ 335
Section 1103. Extension and revision of voluntary
separation incentive pay authority..................... 336
Section 1104. Repeal of deadline for placement
consideration of involuntarily separated military
reserve technicians.................................... 336
Section 1105. Rate of pay of Department of Defense
overseas teacher upon transfer to General Schedule
position............................................... 336
Section 1106. Naturalization of employees of the George
C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies....... 336
Other Items of Interest...................................... 336
Health plan for nonappropriated fund employees........... 336
Leadership............................................... 336
Modernization and regionalization of civilian personnel
management functions................................... 337
Division B--Military Construction Authorities
Committee Action................................................. 339
Base closure and realignment accounts............................ 353
Title XXI--Army.................................................. 361
Summary.......................................................... 361
Section 2101. Authorized Army construction and land
acquisition projects................................... 361
Section 2102. Family housing............................. 361
Section 2103. Improvements to military family housing
units.................................................. 361
Section 2104. Authorization of appropriations, Army...... 361
Section 2105. Authority to use certain prior year funds
to construct a heliport at Fort Irwin, California...... 361
Other Items of Interest...................................... 361
Funding for restoration of Forest Glen Annex, Walter Reed
Army Medical Center.................................... 361
Planning and design, Army................................ 362
Title XXII--Navy................................................. 363
Summary...................................................... 363
Section 2201. Authorized Navy construction and land
acquisition projects................................... 363
Section 2202. Family housing............................. 363
Section 2203. Improvements to military family housing
units.................................................. 363
Section 2204. Authorization of appropriations, Navy...... 363
Section 2205. Authorization of military construction
project at Pascagoula Naval Station, Mississippi, for
which funds have been appropriated..................... 363
Other Items of Interest...................................... 363
Planning and design, Navy................................ 363
Title XXIII--Air Force........................................... 365
Summary...................................................... 365
Section 2301. Authorized Air Force construction and land
acquisition projects................................... 365
Section 2302. Family housing............................. 365
Section 2303. Improvements to military family housing
units.................................................. 365
Section 2304. Authorization of appropriations, Air Force. 365
Section 2305. Authorization of military construction
project at McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas, for which
funds have been appropriated........................... 365
Title XXIV--Defense Agencies..................................... 367
Summary...................................................... 367
Section 2401. Authorized Defense Agencies construction
and land acquisition projects.......................... 367
Section 2402. Military housing planning and design....... 367
Section 2403. Improvements to military family housing
units.................................................. 367
Section 2404. Energy conservation projects............... 367
Section 2405. Authorization of appropriations, Defense
Agencies............................................... 367
Section 2406. Clarification of authority relating to
fiscal year 1997 project at Naval Station, Pearl
Harbor, Hawaii......................................... 367
Section 2407. Authority to use prior year funds to carry
out certain Defense Agency military construction
projects............................................... 368
Section 2408. Modification of authority to carry out
fiscal year 1995 projects.............................. 368
Section 2409. Availability of funds for fiscal year 1995
project relating to relocatable over-the-horizon radar,
Naval Station Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico............. 368
Title XXV-North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
Program........................................................ 369
Summary...................................................... 369
Section 2501. Authorized NATO construction and land
acquisition projects................................... 369
Section 2502. Authorization of appropriations, NATO...... 369
Title XXVI-Guard and Reserve Forces Facilities................... 371
Summary...................................................... 371
Section 2601. Authorized Guard and Reserve construction
and land acquisition projects.......................... 371
Section 2602. Authorization of Army National Guard
construction project, aviation support facility, Hilo,
Hawaii, for which funds have been appropriated......... 371
Other Items of Interest...................................... 371
Army aviation operating facility, Bethel, Alaska......... 371
Planning and design, Guard and Reserve Forces facilities. 372
Air National Guard....................................... 372
Army Reserve............................................. 372
Title XXVII--Expiration and Extention of Authorizations.......... 373
Section 2701. Expiration of authorizations and amounts
required to be specified by law............................ 373
Section 2702. Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal
year 1995 projects......................................... 373
Section 2703. Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal
year 1994 projects......................................... 373
Section 2704. Extension of authorization of fiscal year 1993
projects................................................... 373
Section 2705. Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal
year 1992 projects......................................... 373
Section 2706. Effective date................................. 373
Title XXVIII--General Provisions................................. 375
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family
Housing Changes............................................ 375
Section 2801. Increase in ceiling for minor land
acquisition projects................................... 375
Section 2802. Sale of utility systems of the military
departments............................................ 375
Section 2803. Administrative expenses for certain real
property transactions.................................. 375
Section 2804. Use of financial incentives for energy
savings and water cost savings......................... 376
Subtitle B--Land Conveyances................................. 376
Section 2811. Modification of authority for disposal of
certain real property, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.......... 376
Section 2812. Correction of land conveyance authority,
Army Reserve Center, Anderson, South Carolina.......... 376
Section 2813. Land conveyance, Hawthorne Army Ammunition
Depot, Mineral County, Nevada.......................... 376
Section 2814. Long-term lease of property, Naples, Italy. 377
Section 2815. Land conveyance, Topsham Annex, Naval Air
Station, Brunswick, Maine.............................. 377
Section 2816. Land conveyance, Naval Weapons Industrial
Reserve Plant No. 464, Oyster Bay, New York............ 377
Section 2817. Land conveyance, Charleston Family Housing
Complex, Bangor, Maine................................. 377
Section 2818. Land conveyance, Ellsworth Air Force Base,
South Dakota........................................... 378
Subtitle C--Other matters.................................... 378
Section 2831. Disposition of proceeds of sale of Air
Force Plant No. 78, Brigham City, Utah................. 378
Other Items of Interest...................................... 378
Report on land use, Navy Air Station, Brunswick, Maine... 378
Division C--Department of Energy National Security Authorizations and
Other Authorizations
Title XXXI--Department of Energy National Security Programs...... 381
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations........ 404
Section 3101. Weapons activities..................... 404
Stockpile stewardship programs....................... 404
Stockpile management programs........................ 405
Program Direction.................................... 405
Section 3102. Environmental restoration and waste
management......................................... 406
Environmental Restoration............................ 406
Waste Management..................................... 406
Nuclear Material and Facility Stabilization.......... 406
Technology Development............................... 406
Environmental Management Science Program............. 407
Program Direction.................................... 407
Policy Office........................................ 407
Project Closure Account.............................. 407
Privatization........................................ 407
Section 3103. Other defense activities............... 408
Nonproliferation and verification research and
development........................................ 408
Russian Reactor Core Conversion Program.............. 408
Chemical and Biological Research and Development
Activities......................................... 409
International Nuclear Safety Program................. 410
Nuclear Smuggling and Counterterrorism............... 410
Scientific Exchanges between the United States and
China and Russia................................... 411
Materials, Protection, Control and Accountability.... 412
Naval Reactors....................................... 412
Declassification Productivity Initiative............. 413
Section 3104. Defense environmental management
privatization.......................................... 413
Section 3105. Defense nuclear waste disposal............. 414
Subtitle B--Recurring General Provisions..................... 414
Section 3121. Reprogramming.............................. 414
Section 3122. Limits on general plant projects........... 414
Section 3123. Limits on construction projects............ 414
Section 3124.00Fund transfer authority................... 414
Section 3125. Authority for conceptual and construction
design................................................. 414
Section 3126. Authority for emergency planning, design,
and construction activities............................ 415
Section 3127. Funds available for all national security
programs of the Department of Energy................... 415
Section 3128. Availability of funds...................... 415
Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 414
Section 3131. Defense environmental management
privatization projects................................. 415
Section 3132. International cooperative stockpile
stewardship programs................................... 416
Section 3133. Modernization of enduring nuclear weapons
complex................................................ 416
Section 3134. Tritium production......................... 417
Section 3135. Processing, treatment, and disposition of
spent nuclear fuel rods and other legacy nuclear
materials at the Savannah River Site................... 418
Section 3136. Limitations on use of funds for laboratory
directed research and development purposes............. 419
Section 3137. Permanent authority for transfers of
defense environmental management funds................. 420
Section 3138. Prohibition on recovery of certain
additional costs for environmental response actions
associated with the Formerly Utilized Site Remedial
Action Project program................................. 420
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 420
Section 3151. Administration of certain Department of
Energy Activities...................................... 420
Section 3152. Modification and extension of authority
relating to appointment of certain scientific,
engineering, and technical personnel................... 420
Section 3153. Annual report on plan and program for
stewardship, management, and certification of warheads
in the nuclear weapons stockpile....................... 421
Section 3154. Submittal of biennial waste management
reports................................................ 421
Section 3155. Repeal of obsolete reporting requirements.. 421
Section 3156. Commission on safeguarding and security of
nuclear weapons and materials at Department of Energy
facilities............................................. 422
Section 3157. Modification of authority on commission on
maintaining United States nuclear weapons expertise.... 422
Section 3158. Land transfer, Bandelier National Monument. 422
Other Items of Interest...................................... 423
Asset disposition........................................ 423
Cuban nuclear reactors................................... 423
Environmental Science Program............................ 423
Federally Funded Research and Development Centers........ 424
Fissile Materials Disposition........................... 425
Funding for Greenville Road Improvement Project,
Livermore California................................... 425
Improving collaboration between the Department of
Defense and Department of Energy laboratories.......... 425
Interagency acquisitions done under the Economy Act..... 426
National Defense Fixed Assets Acquisition............... 427
Reports on alternative fuel and renewable energy
technologies for military applications................. 427
Report on Idaho Radioactive Waste Management Complex
Cleanup................................................ 428
Report on incentives for highly creative and innovative
laboratory scientists and engineers.................... 428
Robotics and Intelligent Machines Initiative............ 428
Supply of radiation-hardened microelectronics........... 429
Technical exchange on defense-related transportation
technologies........................................... 429
Title XXXII--Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............. 431
Section 3201. Authorization.............................. 431
Title XXXIII--National Defense Stockpile......................... 433
Title XXXIV--Naval Petroleum Reserves............................ 435
Title XXXV--Panama Canal Commission.............................. 437
Subtitle A--Authorization of Expenditures from Revolving Fund 437
Subtitle B--Facilitation of Panama Canal Transition.......... 437
Section 3511. Short title; references.................... 437
Section 3512. Definitions relating to Canal transition... 437
Part I--Transition Matters Relating to Commission Officers
and Employees.............................................. 437
Section 3521. Authority for the Administrator of the
Commission to accept appointment as the Administrator
of the Panama Canal Authority.......................... 437
Section 3522. Post-Canal transfer personnel authorities.. 438
Section 3523. Enhanced authority of Commission to
establish compensation of Commission officers and
employees.............................................. 438
Section 3524. Travel, transportation, and subsistence
expenses for Commission personnel no longer subject to
Federal Travel Regulation.............................. 438
Section 3525. Enhanced recruitment and retention
authorities............................................ 438
Section 3526. Transition separation incentive payments... 439
Section 3527. Labor-management relations................. 439
Section 3528. Availability of Panama Canal Revolving Fund
for severance pay for certain employees separated by
Panama Canal Authority after Canal Transfer Date....... 440
Part II--Transition Matters Relating to Operation and
Administration of Canal.................................... 440
Section 3541. Establishment of procurement system and
board of contract appeals.............................. 440
Section 3542. Transactions with the Panama Canal
Authority.............................................. 440
Section 3543. Time limitations on filing of claims for
damages................................................ 441
Section 3544. Tolls for small vessels.................... 441
Section 3545. Date of actuarial evaluation of FECA
liability.............................................. 441
Section 3546. Notaries public............................ 441
Section 3547. Commercial services........................ 441
Section 3548. Transfer from President to Commission of
certain regulatory functions relating to employment
classification appeals................................. 442
Section 3549. Enhanced printing authority................ 442
Section 3550. Technical and conforming amendments........ 442
Legislative Requirements......................................... 443
Departmental Recommendations..................................... 443
Committee Action................................................. 443
Fiscal Data...................................................... 443
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 446
Regulatory Impact................................................ 446
Changes in Existing Law.......................................... 446
Additional Views of Senator John McCain.......................... 447
Additional Views of Senator James M. Inhofe...................... 454
Additional Views of Senator Carl Levin........................... 456
Additional Views of Senator Edward M. Kennedy.................... 462
Additional Views of Senator Jeff Bingaman........................ 463
Additional Views of Senator John Glenn........................... 466
Additional Views of Senator Max Cleland.......................... 469
105th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 105-29
_______________________________________________________________________
AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 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
_______
June 17, 1997.--Ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Thurmond, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 924]
The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an
original bill to authorize appropriations during the fiscal
year 1998 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 1998;
(2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each
military active duty component of the armed forces for
fiscal year 1998;
(3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the
Selected Reserve of each of the reserve components of
the armed forces for fiscal year 1998;
(4) authorize the annual average military training
student loads for the active and reserve components of
the armed forces for fiscal year 1998;
(5) impose certain reporting requirements;
(6) impose certain limitations with regard to
specific procurement and 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 1998; and
(8) authorize appropriations for national security
programs of the Department of Energy for fiscal year
1998.
Committee overview and recommendations
National security remains the federal government's most
important obligation to its citizens. The Committee on Armed
Services recognizes its critical role within the Senate in
carrying out the powers relating to national security set out
below which are granted to Congress in the Constitution:
To declare war.
To raise and support Armies.
To provide and maintain a Navy.
To make rules for the government and regulation of
the Land and Naval forces.
To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining
the militia.
To give its advice and consent to treaties and to the
nominations of Officers of the United States.
The members of the committee further understand the
importance of the committee's jurisdiction within the Senate
over matters relating to the ``common defense,'' the Department
of Defense, the Military Departments, and the national security
programs of the Department of Energy.
The budget agreement reached this year represents a
historic endeavor by the Congress and the President to reach a
balanced budget by fiscal year 2002. While the budget agreement
protects our military forces from unrealistic and unwise cuts,
the committee remains concerned that the funding levels for
defense may not provide sufficient funds to adequately sustain
over time the current force levels as well as the personnel,
quality of life, readiness, and modernization programs critical
to our military services. The committee intends that the
achievement of a balanced budget will not adversely affect the
readiness and capabilities of our military forces and will
endeavor, within thefunds agreed upon for defense in the budget
agreement, to ensure their essential readiness and capabilities.
Changes in the world situation or threat, and adverse impacts from
funding shortfalls on general readiness or on vital operational
capabilities, are among the trends that might indicate a requirement
for additional funds for defense. In such cases, the committee believes
that national security requirements must take precedence over lesser
priorities within the budget.
As the committee embarked on its legislative
responsibilities for the 105th Congress, the Chairman
established a set of national security priorities to guide the
committee through the authorization process for fiscal year
1998.
In the Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 1998, the
committee worked to achieve an appropriate balance between
near-term and long-term readiness through investments in
modernization, infrastructure and research; maintenance of
sufficient end-strengths at all grade levels and policies
supporting the recruitment and retention of high quality
personnel; fielding of the types and quantities of weapons
systems and equipment needed to fight and win decisively with
minimal risk to our troops; and ensuring an adequate, safe and
reliable nuclear weapons capability.
The committee modified the budget request to improve
operations and achieve greater efficiencies and savings. The
committee sought to eliminate defense spending that does not
contribute directly to the national security of the United
States. Savings were realized by accelerating programs where
appropriate, and by limiting new program starts.
The committee worked to protect the quality of life of our
military personnel and their families. Quality of life
initiatives include provisions designed to provide equitable
pay and benefits to military personnel, including a 2.8 percent
pay raise to protect against inflation, and the restoration of
appropriate levels of funding for the construction and
maintenance of troop billets and military family housing. This
year, the committee increased funding for the repair and
maintenance of barracks and dormitories to help alleviate
critical funding problems in these areas.
The committee remains concerned about military readiness,
particularly with the underfunding of flying hours accounts in
the Department of Defense. To ensure that U.S. armed forces
remain the preeminent military power in the world, readiness
requirements must be adequately funded, including sufficient
opportunities to train.
The committee notes with concern the continuing migration
of modernization funds to operations and maintenance accounts.
The committee believes a more robust, progressive modernization
effort will not only provide capabilities requisite for future
military operations, but will lower future operational and
maintenance costs as well.
The committee has increased investment in the broad
spectrum of research and development activities to ensure that
United States military forces remain superior in technology to
any potential adversary. The committee believes that effective
development of advanced technologies will be a key factor in
determining the victors on future battlefields. A program of
stable, long-term investment in science and technology will
remain vital to United States dominance of combat on land, at
sea, in the air, and in space.
The committee also directed a more detailed programming and
budgeting process for the reserve components. Efforts by this
committee over the last several years have been unsuccessful in
requiring proper programming and budgeting for the reserve
components. The Department of Defense continues to provide
testimony on the importance of these components, but has failed
to provide the necessary resources to ensure their
effectiveness. The utilization and effectiveness of reserve
component forces are dependent on proper funding to reduce the
backlog in maintenance and repair of equipment; adequately fund
an appropriate quantity and quality of training; enhance
infrastructure and base operations programs; and support
efforts maintaining adequate stocks of supplies, repair parts,
fuel, and ammunition.
The Department's Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is based
on a strategy which retains the requirement for a capability to
fight two concurrent major regional contingencies. However,
even with the higher funding provided in the outyears of the
budget agreement, the QDR recommends force structure reductions
of up to 130,000 military personnel as well as reductions in
key modernization programs in order to provide funds for
essential modernization. The committee is concerned that a
mismatch may develop between the strategy and actual force
capability.
Finally, the committee sought to accelerate the development
and deployment of theater missile defense systems and to
provide adequate funding for a national missile defense system
to preserve the option to deploy such a system in fiscal year
2003. This bill also supports expeditious deployment of land
and sea-based theater missile defense systems to protect U.S.
and allied forces against the growing threat of cruise and
ballistic missiles.
The committee intends that, within the balanced budget
agreement, we will provide adequately for our men and women in
uniform to defend our nation. The committee will continue to
examine the adequacy of the funds we allocate to our national
security. At the same time, we must search for ways to improve
the efficiency and effectiveness of our defense establishment--
especially in the support structure--so that we can achieve
savings to devote to the cutting edge of our military combat
forces.
During the past several months, the committee has worked in
its traditional bipartisan manner, placing the national
security interests of the United States and the American people
above other considerations. The National Defense Authorization
Bill for Fiscal Year 1998 reflects a bipartisan approach to
these priorities, and provides a clear basis and direction for
U.S.national security policies and programs into the 21st
century.
Explanation of funding summary
The administration's budget request for the national
defense function of the federal budget for fiscal year 1998 was
$265.3 billion, of which $195.8 billion was for programs which
require specific funding authorization.
The committee's authorization recommendation is
substantially larger ($268.2 billion in budget authority) than
the amount requested. The primary reason for this difference is
that the committee authorized an additional $4.2 billion in
procurement and $1.0 billion in Research and Development.
The following table summarizes both the direct
authorizations and equivalent budget authority levels for
fiscal year 1998 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 totaling $268.2 billion in budget
authority, which is consistent with the fiscal year 1998 Budget
Resolution, an increase of $2.6 billion above the President's
budget request.
Offset Folios 35 to 39 Insert here
<SKIP PAGES = 005>
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
Last year the committee registered its concern over the
continued deferral of procurement and again noted
administration promises of a better future and the contrasting
reality of each year's budget request. The fiscal year 1998
request has an altogether too familiar theme of a better future
while requesting reductions and restructures for the current
year. The defense budget has been reduced drastically since
1985 and the downward trend continues with no sign of
improvement.
The recently released Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)
avoided the question of modernization in the near term by
making program reductions beyond the future years defense
program (FYDP). The committee notes with concern that the
panel's proposal to meet future modernization requirements
relies on savings and efficiencies that may never be realized.
The budget submitted by the administration does not provide
the resources to equip the forces it says are needed for
national security. This administration has once again prompted
the committee to act to enhance modernization and future
readiness of the military services.
Last year, the committee gave priority to buying basics,
investing to achieve savings, and investing in the future. This
year, the committee has again adhered to this strategy. The
committee's emphasis on acquiring equipment in economic lots
and on efficient schedules is evident throughout this report.
The committee continues to look for the Department of
Defense and the individual services to provide essential
modernization support to the reserve components. The committee
has observed an apparent inability of the Department to include
minimum reserve component modernization requirements in the
FYDP. The committee believes it essential for both the active
and reserve components to work together to identify and fund
modernization of reserve component units that have served the
Department and this nation so well in both domestic and
overseas operations. As a result of the balanced budget
agreement, future budgets will provide fewer opportunities for
the Congress to supplement historically inadequate budget
requests and address reserve component shortfalls. Both active
and reserve components must recognize the criticality of a
collective modernization plan in lieu of a segmented and
unaffordable program, and take steps now toward that end.
Explanation of tables
The tables in this title display items requested by
theadministration for fiscal year 1998 for which the committee either
increased or decreased 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. Unless noted explicitly in the report, all
changes are made without prejudice.
SUBTITLE A--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
Section 107. Chemical Demilitarization Program.
The budget request included $741.2 million for the chemical
agents and munitions destruction program for operations and
maintenance ($472.2 million), procurement ($82.2 million),
research and development ($66.3 million), and military
construction ($120.5 million).
The committee recommends a $5.0 million reduction to the
budget request for operations and maintenance, a $5.0 million
reduction to the budget request for procurement, and a $4.0
million increase to the budget request for research and
development to accelerate the development and fielding of the
Army's mobile munitions assessment system.
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)
On April 29, 1997, the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)
entered into force, with the United States as a party. With the
entry into force of the CWC, the United States is now obligated
by international law to destroy its unitary chemical stockpile,
binary chemical weapons, recovered chemical weapons, and former
chemical weapons production facilities by April 29, 2007, and
its miscellaneous chemical warfare materiel by April 29, 2002.
The United States is required by the Convention to declare, 180
days after entry into force to the Organization for the
Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the method of
destruction that it will use to destroy its chemical weapons.
In 1985, the Congress directed the Army to destroy its
unitary stockpile because it was obsolete and becoming
unstable. As a result, the Army developed a plan to incinerate
the chemical agents and munitions on-site at the eight sites in
the United States and on Johnston Atoll in the Pacific.
The U.S. chemical stockpile also includes what is called
``nonstockpile'' chemical warfare materiel. Most of this
materiel dates back as far as World War II and includes the
binary chemical weapons, miscellaneous chemical warfare
materiel, recovered chemical weapons, former production
facilities, and buried chemical warfare materiel. Under
direction by the Congress, in 1992 the Army established the
Nonstockpile Chemical Materiel Program, a plan to dispose of
the chemical weapons materiel not stored in the eight chemical
stockpile sites.
The United States is committed to destroying its chemical
stockpile and related warfare materiel. To date, of the 31,500
tons in the U.S. chemical stockpile, 1,600 tons in the
stockpile located at Johnston Atoll and Tooele, Utah, have been
destroyed. Despite the recent success, the Congress remains
concerned about the cost and schedule for the destruction
program. A key factor in the progress of the program is the
continuing disagreement between the affected states and
localities and the Department of Defense on the method of
destruction to be used.
The committee remains concerned about the program cost and
the ability of the Army to meet the destruction deadline for
the unitary and nonstockpile items by the time frame indicated
in the CWC. The cost increases and schedule delays of the
Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program are driven largely by the
ability of the Army to obtain environmental permits for the
construction and operation of the disposal facilities and
compliance with environmental laws and regulations.
Currently, the combined life-cycle cost estimate for
disposal of the unitary and nonstockpile programs is $27.6
billion, which includes $12.4 billion for the chemical
stockpile disposal program and $15.2 billion for the
nonstockpile chemical materiel program. The estimated life-
cycle cost for the two programs does not include the costs of
dismantling the nine chemical destruction facilities, as
required by the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal
Year 1986 (P.L. 99-145).
It has historically taken the Army longer than anticipated
to reach agreement with the states and local communities to
obtain the necessary permits for construction and operation of
the facilities. Of the nine proposed destruction facilities,
two have been built and are operating: one is located on
Johnston Atoll in the Pacific and the other facility is located
at Tooele, Utah. For example, the Army originally anticipated
that it would obtain permits for the systemization operation of
the Tooele, Utah, facility by 1992. However, permits were not
received and systemization operations at the Tooele Chemical
Agent Disposal Facility did not begin until August 1993, 17
months later than anticipated. The actual destruction of the
chemical stockpile located at Tooele began in August 1996.
Based on a report prepared by the General Accounting
Office, the programs are likely to cost more than the estimated
$27.6 billion planned for the two programs, because of delays
in obtaining the permits for construction and operation of the
facilities. The Committee believes it is necessary for the
President to become more involved in the process at the
federal, state and local levels, to overcome the significant
delays in obtaining the necessary permits. In this regard, the
committee recommends a provision that expresses its concern
that the United States ensures that it complies with its
obligations under the CWC and not place the U.S. in
anticipatory breach of its obligations. The committee also
recommends that the President submit to Congress a report 180
days after enactment of this Acton the steps being taken to
ensure compliance with the destruction obligations of the CWC. The
report should also include a review of steps taken by the Army to
minimize the escalating cost of the disposal program, as well as
potential cost reduction initiatives.
Russian Ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention
The committee is extremely disappointed by the failure of
the Russian Duma to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention,
prior to its entry into force on April 29, 1997. To date, the
Congress has approved $145.5 million in the Cooperative Threat
Reduction (CTR) program to assist the Russian government in
destroying its chemical weapons stockpile. The committee would
emphasize that it does not believe it is the responsibility of
the United States to provide substantial financial assistance,
or financial guarantees, to Russia to entice it to ratify the
CWC. In short, the committee believes it is Russia's
responsibility to finance the implementation of its arms
control agreements.
SUBTITLE B--ARMY PROGRAMS
Insert folio 43 here
Offset Folios 43 to 58 Insert here
<SKIP PAGES = 015>
Section 111. Army helicopter modernization plan.
The Committee recommends a provision that would limit the
expenditure of more than 25 percent of funds authorized for
modifications or upgrades to aircraft until such time as the
Army provides an assessment of aviation requirements and
reports on future modernization programs. The committee is very
concerned about the lack of a definitive modernization plan for
the utility helicopter fleet. While the Army has outstanding
requirements for Blackhawk utility helicopters, it has failed
to ensure that modernization requirements are funded in the
future years defense program (FYDP) and continues to look for
the Congress to address modernization shortfalls each year.
The committee questions the Army's decision to cease
procurement of Blackhawk helicopters without establishing a
viable and funded plan to address an aging UH-1 Huey helicopter
fleet. The committee notes proposals to buy an undetermined
amount of additional Blackhawks, proposals to re-engine UH-1
aircraft with Comanche engines, and proposals to conduct a
service life extent program (SLEP) for UH-1 aircraft. While the
committee remains supportive of Army rotary wing aircraft
modernization, the committee is hesitant to support any
specific investment strategy until an overall budget plan is
provided.
The recommended provision requires the Army to conduct an
assessment of current and projected requirements, establish a
baseline program for both new aircraft procurement and aircraft
modification requirements, provide a plan for service extension
programs, display aircraft retirement plans, and assess the
implications of Army plans and funding for aircraft on the
defense industrial base. Critical to this effort is the
requirement for the Secretary of the Army to certify that the
program highlighted in this report will be funded in the Future
Years Defense Program (FYDP).
Section 112. Multiyear procurement authority for AH-64D Longbow Apache
fire control radar.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Army to enter into a multiyear procurement contract,
beginning in fiscal year 1998, for procurement of the AH-64D
Longbow Fire Control Radar. The committee understands that this
action can be accomplished with existing funds for this program
and that this multiyear authority will ultimately reduce
program costs.
OTHER ARMY PROGRAMS
Army Aircraft
C-XX(UC-35)
The budget request did not include funds for UC-35A
aircraft (formerly known as the C-XX). The UC-35A is a fast,
medium range air transport aircraft. The Army has a requirement
for 35 UC-35A's, and has a total of seven either on order or
delivered.
Noting that there is an approved Mission Needs Statement
and Operational Requirements Document to support the program,
and that the Army has programmed for the procurement of the
aircraft in the outyears, the committee recommends an increase
of $23.0 million to procure an additional five UC-35A aircraft
in fiscal year 1998.
UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters
The budget request included $183.2 million to procure 18
UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters. The committee notes that there is
an existing multiyear contract for 18 aircraft per year with an
option for an additional 18 aircraft at significantly lower
cost. The committee strongly supports an additional 18 aircraft
in fiscal year 1998 to support the industrial base until end-
state requirements can be identified after the Quadrennial
Defense Review process is complete. If additional Blackhawk
aircraft are required after the fiscal year 1998 buy, the
pending Navy procurement along with supplemental Army
participation could serve as a basis for increased procurement
based on the currently authorized multi-year contract. In order
to meet production rate requirements and span the gap between
requirements and inventory, the committee recommends an
additional $127.3 million to procure a total of 36 aircraft in
fiscal year 1998. It is expected that procurement of these
aircraft will result in a corresponding fielding of 36 UH-60
aircraft from the Army to priority Army National Guard units.
CH-47 cargo helicopter
The committee is concerned about the significant funding
shortfalls in aircraft modernization accounts. Given a priority
unfunded medium cargo helicopter requirement for the Army
Reserve, the committee recommends an increase of $45.0 million
to procure and support the fielding of two new CH-47 aircraft
to the Army Reserve. The committee strongly encourages the Army
to resource additional requirements in subsequent budget
requests in accordance with its aircraft modernization plan.
UH-1 modifications
The budget request included $4.7 million to resource new
navigation and communication avionics for UH-1 helicopters. The
committee continues to be very concerned about the current and
projected state of the Army utility helicopter fleet and the
lack of a definitive, funded modernization plan. The committee
encourages the Army to develop a viable plan to meet future
aviation modernization requirements for both active and reserve
components and will closely review any funding requests for
Army helicopters until this plan is provided. Therefore, the
committee recommends a decrease of $2.0 million for UH-1
modifications.
OH-58D Kiowa Warrior
The budget request included $38.8 million for safety
modifications to the existing Kiowa Warrior fleet. The
committee recognizes the contribution that Kiowa Warriors
provide as armed scouts for land forces. While the Army is in
the process of developing a new armed scout helicopter, the
Comanche, it is clear that Kiowa Warriors will be called on to
perform the scout function for the Army well into the next
century. The committee notes an outstanding requirement to
apply safety modifications to these aircraft to ensure the
continued safe operation of the fleet and enhance existing
capabilities. Therefore, the committee recommends an additional
$15.0 million to complete additional safety retrofit
requirements.
Aircraft survivability equipment
The budget request included $4.6 million to support
fielding of self-protection equipment for Army aircraft. The
committee strongly supports efforts to promote self-protection
for aircraft and aircrews and believes that this area is not
funded at an appropriate level. The committee recognizes
continuing Army efforts to test and field the Suite of
Integrated Radio Frequency Countermeasures (SIRFC) modular
systems and Suite of Integrated Infrared Countermeasures
(SIIRCM) designed to meet requirements for aircraft
survivability systems. The committee also notes that there are
significantly limited capabilities currently available in this
area, and recommends an increase of $8.1 million to support
SIRFC and SIIRCM testing and integration efforts.
Training devices
The budget request did not include funding for aviation
training devices. The committee is concerned about the non-
availability of a geographically focused flight simulator data
base for flight training in the Korean theater of operations.
The committee recalls the international incident created when a
helicopter flight crew strayed over the international border
into North Korea and was shot down by North Korean military
forces. It is very possible that this incident could have been
avoided had a Korean terrain data base been available to train
flight crews. The committee understands that the Army has
recognized the requirement for modifying existing flight
simulators in Korea to a geographically specific data base and
that this requirement has not been supported due to a severely
constricted defense budget. Therefore, the committee recommends
an increase of $18.6million to support the fielding of this
updated database for Army aviation training in Korea and hopes this
will serve to improve flight safety and combat readiness.
Common ground equipment
The budget request included $30.6 million to procure ground
and aviation support equipment. While the committee recognizes
the need to modernize Army airfield support equipment, the
significant increase in the airfield support equipment account
cannot be supported in light of current year budget
constraints. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of
$3.0 million to bring funding in line with prior year spending
levels.
Army Missile
Avenger modifications
The budget request did not include funding for the Avenger
slew-to-cue modification that enjoyed recent success during the
Army's Advanced Warfighting Exercise (AWE) conducted at the
National Training Center in April 1997. The slew-to-cue
modification greatly enhances gunner effectiveness in acquiring
and defeating air threats facing a ground force. The committee
was pleased to note the success of this system during the AWE
and encourages the Army to field these modifications to
existing Avenger systems as soon as possible. The committee
also notes the Army effort to develop effective and affordable
training devices for the Avenger system, and understands that a
new Table Top Trainer (TTT) has been developed and is available
at very low cost. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0
million to begin procurement of these training devices and
suggests the principal focus for initial fielding of these
training devices should be for reserve component units who must
make the most efficient use of available training time. The
committee recommends an additional increase of $13.0 million to
begin the slew-to-cue modification effort and encourages the
Army to resource outstanding requirements in future budget
requests.
Hellfire missile
The budget request included $279.7 million to procure
Hellfire missiles. The committee understands that there are
$10.7 million in unobligated funds from both 1996 and 1997.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.7 million
for this program.
Extended range Multiple Launch Rocket System rockets
The budget request included $2.9 million for program
support. No production has been funded for fiscal year 1998 and
the Army is currently unable to exercise a fiscal year 1998
option for additional missiles while remaining several thousand
missiles short of established requirements. The committee
recommends an increase of $12.0 million to support minimum
production requirements for 1998 and notes the future year
budget projections will maintain a baseline production effort.
Multiple Launch Rocket System launchers
The budget request included $102.6 million to procure MLRS
launchers necessary to meet Army requirements. The committee
continues to support Army efforts to convert existing
divisional MLRS structure to the new 2 x 9 configuration. This
conversion resulted from lessons learned during the Gulf War
and will enhance the organic fire support of division fire
support units. The committee recommends an increase of $25.1
million to accelerate the conversion process.
Army Tactical Missile System
The budget request included $114.5 million to produce Army
Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) missiles. The committee notes
the recent decision by the Army to pursue annual procurements
of the ATACMS missile in lieu of the multi-year contract
authorized and funded in the National Defense Authorization Act
for fiscal year 1997. The committee questions whether doubts
expressed by the Department with respect to the ability of the
ATACMS missile to destroy specific target sets will potentially
lead to a future decrease in missile procurement. Given this
uncertainty, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0
million from the fiscal year 1998 budget request, with the
remaining funds to be used to resolve any outstanding issues
associated with missile performance and procurement. The
committee also directs the Army to certify missile performance
for projected target sets and report the results to
congressional defense committees no later than 1 December 1997.
Stinger modifications
The budget request included $12.4 million to conduct
materiel upgrades of the Stinger surface to air missile system.
Noting an outstanding requirement to conduct Stinger Block 1
upgrades to 549 missiles at an economic production rate, and
recognizing the importance of these missiles, the committee
recommends an increase of $9.3 million to support additional
upgrades necessary to field Block 1 missiles to Force Package 2
units.
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles
Bradley base sustainment
The budget request included $125.6 million to continue low
rate initial production of the A3 configured Bradley Fighting
Vehicle. The committee is concerned about the slip in fielding
the first unit with these new vehicles and believes the
original schedule should be maintained. These new vehicles
provide a digital command and control capability, increased
lethality and survivability, and improved sustainability.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $62.4
million to maintain a smooth low-rate initial production rate
prior to full scale production in fiscal year 1999.
Carrier modifications--M113A3
The budget request included $20.2 million for upgrades to
existing tracked carrier systems. The committee recognizes the
important role that these systems play in ensuring troop safety
on the battlefield and notes the significant outstanding
requirements for M113 upgrades. Therefore, the committee
recommends an increase of $20.0 million to maintain stable
program funding.
M1 Abrams tank modifications
The budget request included $29.8 million to apply
modification kits to M1 Abrams tanks to improve lethality,
survivability, and safety. The committee notes is an
outstanding requirement for a safety interlock necessary to
prevent tank drivers from being injured during turret movement.
The committee believes this safety issue should be corrected
and recommends an increase of $3.0 million to modify existing
M1 tanks with an interlock safety device.
Small arms programs
The committee remains concerned about the small arms
industrial base and Department of Defense management of small
arms industrial base issues. The committee believes it
important to understand current and future requirements for
small arms and industrial base implications in an era of
declining resources. Therefore, the committee directs the
Department of Defense to conduct an assessment of the small
arms industrial base and to provide an update to the calendar
year 1994 plan entitled, ``Preservation of Critical Elements of
the Small Arms Industrial Base,'' which was prepared by the
Army Science Board. This assessment should include
consideration of the recommendation in the 1994 Army Science
Board report on procurement of small arms, spares and repairs
from the small arms industrial base and should assess minimum
industrial base requirements necessary to support current and
projected procurement of small arms in both peace and war.
Further, the assessment should provide a list of options for
consideration by the Congress necessary to preserve the small
arms industrial base. The results of this assessment shall be
provided to the Congress no later than March 1, 1998. The
Department of Defense is prohibited from entering into any
contract that exceeds a one year period of performance,
including options, for the procurement of small arms,
modifications to small arms, or spares and repairs for small
arms until 90 days after the report is completed and forwarded
to the Congress.
The budget request did not include funding for either the
MK-19 Grenade Launcher or the M240B Medium Machine Gun for
fiscal year 1998, which could result in a break in production
for these vital weapon systems, even though there are
outstanding requirements for over 6,000 additional MK-19s and
approximately 10,000 M240B Machine Guns. The committee believes
that minimum production levels must be maintained and
recommends an increase of $13.0 million to span the MK-19
production funding gap and an additional $15.0 million for
M240B production. The committee directs the Army to ensure that
future year budgets sustain minimum production requirements
until such time as outstanding requirements have been
satisfied.
Army Ammunition
Army ammunition
The committee is concerned with the inadequate funding for
ammunition procurement that was contained in the President's
budget request. Ammunition is an important contributor to
military readiness for training and in anticipation of
conflict. The committee recommends the following adjustments to
the budget request for Army ammunition procurement:
Small Arms: Millions
5.56 mm................................................... $2.5
7.62 mm................................................... 0.5
50 cal.................................................... 0.1
Mortar:
120 mm HE, M734........................................... 20.0
Tank:
120 mm TP-T M831/M831A1................................... 9.8
120 mm TPCSDS-T M865...................................... 12.7
Rockets:
Hydra-70.................................................. 36.2
Fuze:
Fuze ARTY M767............................................ 20.0
Other:
Selectable Lightweight Attack Munitions................... 10.0
Simulator Antitank M27.................................... 0.5
Production Base:
Armament Retooling & Manufacturing Support................ 40.0
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal.................................................... 152.3
Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support
The committee is aware that although the budget request
includes $5.0 million for the continuation of the Armament
Retooling and Manufacturing Support (ARMS) program, a total of
$45.0 million is necessary for the program to remain viable in
fiscal year 1998. Therefore, the committee recommends an
increase of $40.0 million for this program. The committee
expects these funds to be utilized in the most effective manner
to ensure preservation of those facilities most likely to be
required to fulfill the military's needs to support the
national military strategy. The committee expects the Army to
provide adequate funding for this program in the future.
Other Army Procurement
High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle
The budget request included $66.2 million to procure 774
High Mobility Multi-Purpose Vehicles (HMMWVs). The committee is
very concerned about the budget request funding level, which is
$96.5 million less than fiscal year 1997 and clearly
insufficient to maintain minimum production rates. Realizing
the large number of HMMWVs in the force, over 92,000 vehicles,
and an outstanding requirement of over 18,000 additional
vehicles, the committee does not understand the Army's apparent
acceptance of a break in production in fiscal year 1998.
Additionally, the committee understands the Army is developing
the next generation vehicle which will go into production in
fiscal year 2000. Clearly, an inactive production capability in
fiscal years 1998 and 1999 will not be able to meet outstanding
short-term HMMWV requirements and will increase the funding
level necessary to begin production of the new vehicle as
start-up costs will be significant. The Army has recognized
this issue and acknowledged an unfunded requirement for this
program. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of
$75.0 million for the Army, along with a corresponding increase
for the Marine Corps, to bridge the gap until the next
generation system enters production. The committee strongly
recommends the Army review fiscal year 1999 priorities and
ensure that this vital production capability is adequately
funded in future years. Additionally, the committee directs the
Army to ensure that minimum production requirements for up-
armored HMMWV's are maintained.
Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles
The budget request included $209.4 million to procure 1506
Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) trucks. The committee
notes that the funding level requested for fiscal year 1998
will not sustain minimum production rates, resulting in a
production break for this vital truck modernization effort.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $44.0
million to support this critical underfunded Army requirement.
Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles
The committee, noting a request for additional funding to
span a break in production for the heavy truck fleet, is very
concerned about the apparent inability of the Army to maintain
sufficient funding required to field critical wheeled vehicle
programs and maintain a viable production base. The committee
is concerned about Army budget decisions in this arena and
questions the ability of the Army to pay for restart costs that
would be necessary as a result of inadequate funding in the
budget request. The committee recommends the following
increases necessary to support outstanding requirements and
maintain a viable industrial base: $50.0 million to procure 150
Palletized Load System (PLS) trucks and 50 trailers, which will
support the fielding of two additional transportation
companies; $45.0 million to procure 96 Heavy Equipment
Transporter Systems (HETS): to avoid a break in production, and
to support fielding of an additional HETS transportation
company; and $33.0 million for 103 Heavy Expanded Mobility
Tactical Truck (HEMTT) wreckers required for fielding
shortages.
Army data distribution systems
The budget request included $37.3 million to procure
additional enhanced position location reporting systems
(EPLRS). EPLRS serves as the digital backbone for the Army and
is critical to ongoing digitization efforts. The committee
supports the fielding of these critical systems and recommends
an increase of $37.3 million to meet Force Package 1
requirements.
Echelon Above Corps Communications-Warfighter Information Network
The budget request included $82.4 million to support
ongoing modifications to the Area Common User System (ACUS) and
support its migration to the Army's Warfighter Information
Network (WIN) systems architecture. The committee has
consistently supported this effort, which greatly enhances the
range and linkage between warfighters in the tactical arena.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $33.0
million for this critical activity.
Information system security program
The budget request included $10.2 million to procure
information security systems for the Army. The committee is
concerned that the budget submission does not fund Airterm KY-
100 devices and that this will result in a break in production.
The committee recognizes that some Force Package 1 requirements
have not yet been filled and that secure communications are
criticalto any warfight effort. The committee recommends an
increase of $5.5 million to procure 400 Airterm (KY-100) devices.
Sentinel
The budget request included $41.0 million to continue
procurement of the AN/MPQ-64 Sentinel radar. These new air
defense radars provide a ground sensor for deployed forces to
ensure force protection. The committee notes an outstanding
requirement for additional radars critical to preclude a
fielding gap between these sensors and new communications
equipment, and therefore recommends an increase of $20.2
million to procure additional radars necessary to meet future
fielding requirements.
Night vision devices
The budget request included $85.3 million for night vision
equipment vital to enhance combat effectiveness and save lives
on the battlefield. The committee is encouraged by the Army
effort to develop and field effective night vision equipment
but remains concerned that sufficient quantities have not yet
been obtained to meet warfighting and contingency requirements.
The committee notes that there are outstanding requirements for
this equipment and recommends the following increases:
(1) $8.0 million to procure Infrared Aiming Lights
AN/PEQ-2;
(2) $17.0 million to procure AN/PVS-7D systems;
(3) $10.0 million to procure AN/PAS-13 Thermal Weapon
Sights;
(4) $1.0 million to procure 2,900 borelights.
Standard Army management information system tactical computer platform
The budget request included $36.1 million to continue
efforts to automate various support functions for the Army. The
committee has long supported work in this area and recognizes
the efficiencies and savings that can be achieved through
state-of-the-art automation support. Continued investment in
this arena will serve to support warfighting capabilities and
will save precious resources in peacetime. The committee
understands that additional commercial equipment is available
that is compatible with current generation software required
for combat service support functions. Therefore, the committee
recommends an increase of $33.0 million to support this
critical underfunded Army requirement.
Reserve component automation system
The budget request included $114.3 million to fund the
Reserve Component Automation System (RCAS) that will support
administration and management of Army National Guard and Army
Reserve forces. While the committee recognizes the importance
of this program to the reserve components, fiscal constraints
for 1998 call for steady program funding. Significant
increases, such as the $42.0 million budgeted for RCAS this
fiscal year, cannot be supported. Therefore, the committee
recommends a decrease of $30.0 million for RCAS which still
provides a funding increase for this program.
Dump truck
The budget request did not include funding for dump trucks.
The committee has long supported the acquisition of some of the
less glamorous items that enhance the ability of combat support
units to perform critical functions both on and away from the
battlefield. Noting the request from the Army for additional
funding necessary to replace aging engineer equipment in both
active and reserve components, the committee recommends an
increase of $39.0 million to accelerate procurement of 200
heavy dump trucks and to meet severe shortages throughout the
fleet.
Generators and associated equipment
The budget request included $7.7 million to procure
generators to meet tactical electrical power requirements for
the Army. The committee recognizes that requirements for new
generators are significant and that current technology
equipment provides greater operations and maintenance savings
and enhances readiness. Clearly, new digitization initiatives
require constant and reliable electrical power and the proper
equipment is crucial to ensure the success of that effort. The
committee recommends an increase of $31.0 million to fund
economic order quantities and procure new generators necessary
in Korea and Europe.
Simulation Network/Close Combat Tactical Trainer
The budget request included $92.7 million to procure
additional training modules for fixed site and mobile
platforms. The committee notes an Army request to change a
portion of fiscal year 1998 procurement funding to a research,
development, and acquisition line to resolve outstanding issues
associated with system reliability. These difficulties were
outlined in a February 1997 Operational Test Readiness Review
(OTRR) that identified 50 system stability items as unresolved.
The committee understands the importance of this training
system, but is concerned about the existence of these issues
after investing $370.7 million in the program. The committee
supports the transfer of $11.5 million from Other Procurement-
Army to PE 64780A (Combined Arms Trainer) to resolve
reliability issues. The committee also recommends an additional
decrement of $10.0 million from procurement and directs the
Army to ensure that software reliability problems are resolved
before proceeding withlarge expenditures for procurement of
additional modules.
Special equipment for user testing
The budget request included $14.9 million to support
equipment necessary for user testing. The committee recognizes
the importance of testing as the Army accelerates the
development of new equipment to support the Force XXI
initiative. In recognition of the importance of this function,
the Army has requested additional funding necessary to ensure
the requisite equipment is available through a combined
procurement in fiscal year 1998 instead of a five-year
procurement strategy. The committee recommends an increase of
$33.2 million to support this important effort.
SUBTITLE C--NAVY PROGRAMS
Insert offset folio 71 here
Offset Folios 71 to 91 Insert here
<SKIP PAGES = 020>
Section 121. New attack submarine program.
In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996, Congress mandated competition for the future procurement
of nuclear attack submarines, overruling a Department of
Defense recommendation that would have assigned all future
submarine construction to Electric Boat Corporation (one of the
two contractors then capable of building nuclear submarines).
Additionally, Congress established the framework for an
advanced submarine technology program that would ensure Navy
submarines remain technologically superior to any potential
threat and directed the Secretary of Defense to develop a
comprehensive plan for insertion of new technology into future
nuclear attack submarines.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997
reaffirmed congressional direction for competition in the
procurement of future nuclear attack submarines. Confronted
with a budget request that did not reflect its intent with
respect to competition, Congress added additional funding for
advance procurement and construction of nuclear attack
submarines that would be authorized for construction at
Electric Boat Corporation in fiscal year 1998 and at Newport
News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company in fiscal year 1999.
Congress also drew upon reports submitted by the Department of
Defense and an independent technology review panel to
substantially increase funding for advanced submarine
technology.
During the intervening period before submission of the
budget request, informal discussions between the Navy and the
committee made clear that the Navy was having great difficulty
in developing its fiscal year 1998 budget proposal. Unfulfilled
expectations about ship construction resources that would be
available were disrupting the Navy's ability to carry out
congressional direction for construction of nuclear attack
submarines and still provide sufficient funds for other, high
priority ships.
Against this backdrop senior leaders of the Defense
Department and the Navy called on members of the committee in
February 1997 to describe an agreement between the two
shipbuilders and the Navy on a new production teaming
arrangement that would link Electric Boat and Newport News
cooperatively rather than through competition. They reported
that cost savings from the teaming arrangement would permit the
Navy to present a balanced shipbuilding plan in the budget
request with all ships fully funded. The Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology also advised the
committee that the Department of Defense (DOD) now considers it
vital to national security to maintain two shipyards that are
capable of building nuclear submarines.
As structured, the production teaming arrangement and the
Navy's proposed funding of it during the period from fiscal
year 1998 to fiscal year 2002 would:
(1) establish the framework for a contractual
relationship between the Navy, Electric Boat, and
Newport News for cooperative submarine construction;
(2) eliminate the need for design transfer by
creating a single design database that will be used by
both shipyards;
(3) provide for a production process in which
learning is enhanced by each shipyard repetitively
producing the same modules, such as bow, stern, command
and control, and propulsion machinery;
(4) alternate assembly and outfitting of submarines
between the two yards;
(5) construct four submarines over the five year
period on a schedule that will permit efficient level
loading of workload in each shipyard; and
(6) reinforce a competition for ideas that will
encourage both shipyards to propose new technologies
for insertion into future nuclear submarine designs.
The Navy projects that cost savings from the teaming
arrangement relative to the present production plan for the
first four submarines will be substantial. The Navy's
procurement plan, comparing the costs of annual procurement of
four submarines with those of the teaming arrangement, projects
the following cost savings:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Item and Opportunity savings
(millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learning Curve and Change Order Improvement--Construction of
modules by a single builder and avoidance of production
gaps....................................................... $385
Material Procurement--Block buy of ships allows more cost
effective purchase......................................... 40
Reduced Profit--Teaming produces lower overall fees......... 45
Design Transfer Cost Avoidance--Single design database
available to both shipyards................................ 15
Stable Employment Levels at Hull Cylinder Facility--
Continuous manufacture vice fluctuating employment profile. 75
Facilities--Reduces duplication of most facilities and sets
of special equipment; minimizes non-recurring cost......... 300
Overhead Rate--Reduced labor increases rate................. (220)
-----------
Net Estimated Savings................................. 640
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, the budget request and associated draft
legislative provisions submitted by the DOD proposed a teaming
arrangement between Electric Boat Corporation and Newport News
Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company for construction of the next
four nuclear attack submarines and a congressional commitment
sufficient to begin execution of this plan. Such a commitment
would be necessary to achieve the cost savings from economic
order quantities of material and would markedly enhance
workload and workforce planning and stability.
While the committee has strongly supported competition for
future procurement of nuclear attack submarines, it finds that
the Navy and the shipbuilders have made a persuasive case for a
production teaming arrangement for the first four submarines.
Consequently, the committee recommends authorization of $2.3
billion, the budget request, for the construction of a nuclear
attack submarine and $284.8 million, also the budget request,
for advance procurement of components for future nuclear attack
submarines. The committee also recommends a provision that
would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter into a
contract or contracts for the construction of four nuclear
attack submarines under the terms of the teaming arrangement
that have been negotiated between Electric Boat and Newport
News Shipbuilding. In order to ensure that maximum cost savings
can be achieved for the fiscal year 1998 submarine, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to take the
necessary actions to be prepared to enter into contracts under
this provision as soon as it is enacted.
Sec. 122. Nuclear aircraft carrier program.
During a hearing on Navy shipbuilding programs this year,
the committee reviewed the current status of the Navy's
aircraft carrier program. The post-Cold War carrier force
structure includes 12 aircraft carriers, 11 in the active force
and one in the reserves. Of these 12 aircraft carriers, three
are conventionally-powered and nine are nuclear-powered. In
fiscal year 1998 the average age of the conventional carriers
of the active force will be 37 years, and the average age of
the nuclear carriers will be 14 years. To maintain this force
structure, the Navy must begin construction of its next
carrier, CVN-77, by fiscal year 2002 in order to complete it by
fiscal year 2008. Completion in this year is necessary to
replace the last conventional carrier, USS Kitty Hawk (CV-73),
that will still be in service in the active force. Kitty Hawk
will be 47 years old at that time. Based on experience with the
USS Midway (CV-41), which was also 47 years of age when
decommissioned in 1992, maintaining aircraft carriers in an
operational status to such an age is achievable, but at greatly
increasing expense in the latter years.
Driven by a strong operational requirement to sustain
carrier force structure and a need to complete construction of
CVN-77 in time for it to replace Kitty Hawk, senior leadership
in the Navy and the Office of the Secretary of Defense mounted
an intensive effort during preparation of the budget request
and its associated Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) to
identify sufficient resources for the task. The effort was
successful, but it demanded that some very difficult choices be
made. Funding was reduced for a number of other programs, some
very important in their own right but of lesser priority. As
presently structured, the FYDP submitted with the budget
request would fund CVN-77 in the traditional manner by means of
advance procurement funding of $695.0 million in fiscal year
2000, with the remaining balance of $4.5 billion included in
fiscal year 2002.
Hearing testimony has made it clear that the planned
construction schedule for CVN-77 has been primarily driven by
resource constraints and has not been determined by cost or
operational effectiveness considerations. The last nuclear
aircraft carrier, CVN-76, was authorized in fiscal year 1995.
The seven year gap between CVN-76 and CVN-77 exceeds any
construction interval between individual carriers in the past
thirty years. The longest previous gap was six years between
USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70), a fiscal year 1974 ship, and USS
Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71), a fiscal year 1980 ship. Data
points of note when considering the planned seven year gap
between CVN-76 and CVN-77 are the facts that: (1) Theodore
Roosevelt required more man-hours to complete, because of
turnover and skill deterioration of the workforce; and (2)
produced higher vendor costs than any other carrier of the
class built to date.
To explore the force structure, cost, and industrial base
implications of the current plan, the Navy commissioned the
RAND Corporation of Santa Monica, California, to perform an
independent, quantitative analysis of the aircraft carrier
industrial base with a focus on CVN-77. The study involved
consultations with the Director of Naval Nuclear Propulsion and
a detailed analysis of conditions at Newport News Shipbuilding
and Drydock Company (NNS), the only shipyard now capable of
building nuclear aircraft carriers. The results of this study
were presented as testimony by a senior RAND analyst at the
committee's fiscal year 1998 shipbuilding hearing. Principal
findings were as follows:
(1) without CVN-77, shipyard capabilities will be
reduced in scale, but remain viable;
(2) current plans for construction of CVN-77 and the
following carrier, CVX, will maintain aircraft carrier
force structure at 12 if the USS Enterprise (CVN-65)
remains in service until age 52 when her nuclear fuel
will be exhausted;
(3) a carrier has never been retained in active
service for 52 years, but the Navy is confident that it
can do so with Enterprise;
(4) delaying CVN-77 would increase its cost by more
than $300 million in fiscal year 1998 constant dollars
if the delay were one year, rising to $400 million for
a three year delay;
(5) delaying CVN-77 by one year would dictate the
start of two carriers, CVN-77 and CVX, within three
years of each other because of the need to complete CVX
before Enterprise's nuclear fuel is exhausted; and
(6) starting advance procurement and construction of
components for CVN-77 in fiscal year 1998 without
altering the fiscal year 2008 delivery date can reduce
construction costs by about $390 million in fiscal year
1998 constant dollars and reduce vendor costs by about
$80 million, a potential total savings approaching $470
million in constant dollars from which inflation has
been excluded.
In parallel with the RAND effort, the Navy conducted its
own independent review of the potential cost benefits of
accelerating the start date of CVN-77 while holding its
delivery date constant. The Navy also evaluated a proposal for
a ``smart buy'' funding profile that was submitted to the Navy
by NNS. The NNS proposal asserts that approximately $450
million in labor and material costs and $150 million in
inflation costs could be saved by initiating advance
procurement and construction for CVN-77 in fiscal year 1998.
The NNS proposal identifies several reasons, also identified by
the RAND study, that costs will be greater if the FYDP
construction schedule prevails:
(1) loss of learning;
(2) layoff, rehiring, and retraining costs;
(3) laying up and subsequent non-recurring cost of
reconstituting vendor production lines; and
(4) loss of opportunity to achieve economic order
quantities for CVN-77 components by combining them with
procurement of materials for CVN-76.
As an alternative to the current FYDP, the ``smart buy''
proposal would employ a tailored approach to procure major
material items in conjunction with purchases for CVN-76 or in a
manner that would allow principal suppliers to level load their
production lines and avoid costly shutdowns. Similarly, an
earlier start on construction of selected structural components
would eliminate the need for costly layoffs and loss of
learning at NNS.
Correspondence from the Chief of Naval Operations to the
committee summarizes the results of the Navy's independent
review of potential savings that could be realized in
construction of CVN-77. That correspondence states that the
Navy's cost analysis of the underlying assumptions and methods
used by NNS in developing its ``smart buy'' proposal shows that
implementing the plan could produce savings of as much as $400
million in constant dollars.
As a separate but related matter, the committee evaluated a
new initiative in the budget request to develop and insert new
technologies into future carrier designs. During testimony
insupport of the fiscal year 1997 budget request, a Navy witness
deplored the limited amount, $6.0 million, being invested in research
and development of carriers that would serve into the second half of
the next century and characterized it as indicative of a persistent
lack of intelligent investment by the Navy that has existed for over
thirty years. The fiscal year 1998 budget request addresses this issue
directly. It includes $125.1 million to develop new technologies for
CVX and an additional $18.0 million designated for CVN-77 to realize
CVN-77 as a transition carrier. The emphasis of this effort would be to
evaluate new technologies that could reduce CVN-77's life-cycle cost,
identify technology that could cost-effectively backfit into other
carriers of the Nimitz class, and mature technology that could also be
included in the design for CVX.
The Chief of Naval Operations has emphasized the importance
of using CVN-77 as a transition in correspondence to the
committee. Technologies that have been identified for
evaluation on CVN-77 include improved launch and recovery
equipment, weapons handling upgrades, information system
management upgrades, reduced manning initiatives, and combat
systems technologies aimed directly at the CVX design.
In evaluating the merits of accelerating the start of
construction of CVN-77, it was necessary for the committee to
determine whether an early start would have an unfavorable
impact on CVN-77 as a transition carrier. In response to
specific committee inquiries on this matter, the Navy
thoroughly reviewed the advance procurement and construction
proposed for CVN-77 against the timelines of its technology
insertion program for the carrier, determined that there will
be no conflict, and advised the committee to that effect.
Based on its review of the Navy's aircraft carrier program,
both in the short and long term, the committee recommends a
provision that would authorize:
(1) an increase of $345.0 million above the budget
request for the procurement and construction of nuclear
and non-nuclear components for the CVN-77 program;
(2) the Secretary of the Navy to enter into a
contract or contracts with the shipbuilder for the
procurement and construction of such components; and
(3) $35.0 million, an increase of $17.0 million, in
PE 63512N for research, development, test, and
evaluation of technologies that are candidates for
inclusion in CVN-77.
The committee directs the Navy to develop its future
budgets for CVN-77 in a manner that phases funding for its
construction and produces the savings predicted by the
contractor's ``smart buy'' proposal, RAND's analysis, and the
Navy's own internal analysis. The committee expects the Navy to
take the following table as a statement of the committee's
intent:
CVN-77 ANNUAL FUNDING
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------------------------- Total
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FYDP.......................................... 0 0 695 0 4,505 5,200
Committee..................................... 345 170 875 135 3,074 4,600
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Difference.............................. +345 +170 +180 +135 -1,430 -600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 123. Exception to cost limitation for Seawolf submarine
program.
In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996, Congress established a cost cap on procurement of the
three Seawolf class submarines (SSN-21, SSN-22, and SSN-23)
that Congress has authorized. The cost cap was put in place to
impose discipline on a program that had experienced large
amounts of cost growth and had yet to implement the financial
and management controls needed to arrest them. The cost cap was
discussed thoroughly with the Navy before its adoption, and its
final dollar amount was based on cost estimates and projections
provided to Congress by the Navy.
This year the Navy has called the committee's attention to
a concern that emerged as a result of the independent
monitoring and review established by the Navy to verify that it
is remaining within the cap. The issue derives from the fact
that the Seawolf program went through an abrupt cancellation
when the President submitted the budget request for fiscal year
1993. Although six Seawolf submarines had been authorized and
money had been spent on all six, the President chose to
continue construction only on the lead ship of the class, SSN-
21.
In subsequent years, Congress partially restored the
program, eventually authorizing three Seawolf submarines. The
last of the three, SSN-23, was authorized in fiscal year 1996,
the same year in which Congress imposed the current cost cap.
When the Navy assisted in developing the cost cap amount, it
did not propose inclusion of the sunk costs that had been
incurred on canceled submarines. However, unresolved questions
have emerged as to whether some portion of these costs, such as
those for detail design or for components that may eventually
be used in the three Seawolf submarines, should be included in
the cost cap. These are not hidden costs that have suddenly
appeared. The Navy has routinely reported them as part of total
program cost. Rather, the issue is their categorization.
The committee became aware of this accounting issue for the
first time in May 1996, at a point when the committee had
almost completed its final review of the fiscal year 1997
budget request. The committee chose to deal with the matter by
acknowledging in the committee report on S. 1745 (S. Rept. 104-
267) that certain costs had not been included in the cost cap
amount. This report language reflected the committee's
judgementthat the cost cap had been put in place to safeguard
against future cost growth, not as an accounting tool to document sunk
cost.
During its review of the fiscal year 1998 budget request,
the committee has analyzed the wording of the cost cap and
discussed the legal issues involved with the Navy. The
committee has concluded that an amendment of the cost cap
provision to clarify congressional intent with respect to sunk
costs associated with now canceled submarines would be
appropriate. The committee believes that the cost cap should be
stringent and require constant vigilance, but should not be an
impossible goal to achieve. Consequently, the committee
recommends a provision that would reaffirm the existing cost
cap but make clear that certain costs associated with now
canceled Seawolf submarines should not be taken into account.
Section 124. Airborne self-protection jammer program.
The statement of managers language accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (H.
Rept. 104-724) noted that the fiscal year 1997 authorization
for the procurement of 36 airborne self protection jammer
(ASPJ) systems was intended to provide a contingency response
capability, and did not reflect the conferees'' commitment to
additional procurement of ASPJ systems or to restarting series
production for U.S. government customers at that time.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision to end ASPJ
procurement.
The committee recognizes the contribution that the ASPJ has
made to the continuing mission in Bosnia. However, the
committee does not support restarting serial production of the
ASPJ due to its past testing failures and the nature of its
rapidly aging technology. The committee instead encourages the
Department to continue its efforts in the development of the
integrated defensive electronics countermeasure (IDECM) system
for the F/A-18E/F, and a spinoff capability for the F/A-18C/D
to capitalize on emerging technology and commonality.
OTHER NAVY PROGRAMS
Navy Aircraft
AV-8B Harrier remanufacture
The budget request included $300.1 million to procure 11
AV-8B remanufactured aircraft for the Marine Corps. The fiscal
year 1997 plan for AV-8B remanufacture called for a procurement
of 12 aircraft in fiscal year 1998. However, the budget request
for fiscal year 1998 only included 11 aircraft, a further
indication of the Department of Defense's inability to execute
its own previously stated procurement program.
In order to provide for the Department's own plan from last
year, the committee is persuaded to recommend an increase in
the budget request for AV-8B Harrier remanufacture of $24.6
million in order to restore the procurement quantity to 12
aircraft.
Aircrew trainer/simulators
The committee continues to support the use of simulators to
enhance training necessary for aircrew proficiency. The
committee received a request for additional funding to buy a
mobile aircrew procedures trainer (APT) and to upgrade an
operational flight trainer (OFT), AV-8B weapons system trainer
(WST) and a maintenance trainer at Cherry Point. These
simulators are key elements of the Marine Corps aviation
campaign plan. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase
of $65.0 million to procure and upgrade these essential
training devices.
V-22 Osprey
The budget request for the V-22 was $597.1 million for 5
MV-22 aircraft.
In fiscal year 1997 the committee encouraged the Department
of Defense to accelerate the procurement of the MV-22 to reap
the savings available from a more efficient rate of production.
Unfortunately, the budget request for fiscal year 1998 did not
follow the committee's encouragement, but followed its previous
course of inefficient production and had to reprogram
additional funds authorized and appropriated for advanced
procurement into development to provide for a sufficient
management reserve to continue the program on schedule more
efficiently.
Noting the constrained circumstances in the near and far
term, the committee is still persuaded that an addition to the
procurement of MV-22s will result in efficiencies and increased
capabilities for deployed Marines. Accordingly, the committee
recommends an increase of $90.0 million to the budget request
to procure an additional MV-22 in fiscal year 1998.
EC Hawkeye early warning aircraft
The budget request included $257.0 million for the
procurement of three Ec aircraft. The Ec is a carrier-based
aircraft designed for early warning, interceptor and strike
control, as well as other missions. The Navy resumed production
of the Ec in 1995, with the intent of purchasing four aircraft
per year for a total of 36 aircraft. However, the fiscal year
1998 budget request only included three aircraft, with the
rationale that there were not enough funds for the planned buy.
The effect of this cut in the administration's own plan is an
increase in the unit cost of the aircraft, so that restoring
the fourth aircraft provides a $4.4 million per aircraft
savings.
Realizing that the Ec is a proven aircraft in its second
production run, and not a developmental program, the committee
recommends an increase of $68.0 million to acquire a total
offour Ec aircraft for fiscal year 1998.
T-45 trainers
The budget request included $269.7 million for 12 T-45
trainer aircraft for the Navy. The committee notes with concern
the recent grounding of the T-2 trainers because of flight
control malfunctions. The T-2s are being replaced by the T-45.
The committee has been informed that acceleration of fielding
the T-45 will reap significant savings by avoiding up to $93.3
million in shut down costs.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $102.0
million to procure six additional T-45 trainer aircraft to
achieve operational and support cost savings.
EA-6B support jamming upgrade
The budget request included $86.8 million for modifications
to the EA-6B Prowler airborne electronic warfare aircraft.
Subsequent to the budget request the committee learned of an
emergent requirement to counter recently detected special radar
techniques. Evidence indicates that a new family of threats has
the potential to operate effectively in the presence of EA-6B
or EF-111A jamming. However, there is now an opportunity to
incorporate a low risk, affordable upgrade to the EA-6B in
conjunction along with modifications already underway to
counter the new family of threats.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a increase of $25.0
million to the budget request for EA-6B modifications, with
$13.0 million to be used for nonrecurring costs including
integration and test prototypes, and $12.0 million to produce
the modified Band 9/10 transmitters to provide an initial
capability for one carrier air wing.
Helicopter crash attenuating seats
Section 136 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 directed the initiation of a program to
provide crash attenuating troop seats for CH-53E helicopters,
using commercially developed, energy absorbent seats. The
committee recommended an increase of $14.0 million in fiscal
year 1997 to continue the program and recommends an increase of
$10.0 million to provide for the integration of crash
attenuating troop seats into the CH-53E aircraft and for the
procurement and retrofit of seats in 81 of the 165 helicopters
now in the inventory.
P-3C anti-surface warfare improvement program
The budget request contained $74.7 million for the
procurement of four P-3C anti-surface warfare improvement
program (AIP) kits and for associated installation, logistics
support, engineering change proposals and training.
In order to meet requirements set by the unified commanders
in chief (CINCs) to provide 40 forward-deployed P-3C maritime
patrol aircraft, the Navy has adopted a plan that demands a
significant and continuous contribution from its reserve
squadrons and also pursued a plan to modify its fleet of P-3C
aircraft to a configuration that better meets the operational
mission the aircraft are expected to perform. While the primary
mission of the aircraft during the Cold War was anti-submarine
warfare, its role as a surveillance asset is now emphasized.
The P-3C anti-surface warfare improvement program (AIP), begun
in fiscal year 1994, is designed to provide a commercial off-
the-shelf (COTS)/non-developmental item (NDI) upgrade to the
Navy's existing fleet of P-3C aircraft to improve its
capability to conduct anti-surface warfare (ASUW), over the
horizon (OTH) targeting, and command and control interface with
other command centers and fleet units. The P-3C AIP gives the
aircraft a much better capability to execute littoral warfare
missions at a reasonable price.
Unfortunately, while the CINCs continue to strongly support
the P-3C AIP program, the fierce competition for declining
defense resources has produced persistent underfunding of this
modernization program by the Navy. An operational requirement
calls for the procurement of 68 kits between fiscal years 1996
and 2001 at an economical procurement rate of 12 kits per year.
However, the Navy budgeted resources for only one kit in fiscal
year 1997. Exacerbating the impact of this underfunding is the
price schedule of the modernization contract, which was
optimized for a procurement rate of 12 aircraft per year at the
expense of greatly increased unit cost for quantities less than
12.
In the committee report that accompanied S. 1745 (S. Rept.
104-267), the committee expressed strong reservations about the
Navy's increasing reliance on Congress to support a program
with well-documented requirements. The committee also expressed
concern about the concurrent Navy plan, also reflected in the
fiscal year 1997 budget request, to further reduce its maritime
patrol force structure from 13 active and 9 reserve (13/9)
squadrons to 12 active and 8 (12/8) reserve. Based on its
evaluation of the maritime patrol requirements being imposed by
the CINCs and their desire for only the most capable aircraft
to satisfy them, the committee recommended increases in funding
to: (1) sustain the P-3C AIP program at a cost effective rate
of 12 aircraft per year with a reduction in unit cost of more
than 70 percent; and (2) maintain the Navy's maritime patrol
force structure at 13/9. The committee also directed the
Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to Congress on how he
proposed to satisfy CINC requirements if the fiscal year 1998
budget request funded less than 12 kits. In fact, the budget
request continues the underfunding pattern of the recent past.
It requests four kits vice 12 at a cost penalty of a 25 percent
increase in unit cost. The Secretary of the Navy's report that
accompanied the budget request acknowledges the difficulty the
Navy is having in executing its original plan for modifying P-
3Cs to the AIPconfiguration and lays out a plan that will
require an unprecedented commitment on the part of its reserve maritime
patrol force structure to support the CINCs' forward deployed
requirements.
After reviewing the Navy's plan, the committee is skeptical
about the Navy's ability to successfully execute it over the
long-term. The plan requires a full commitment by two reserve
squadrons to maintain one aircraft forward deployed on a
continuous basis, has the potential for a relatively small
cadre of modernized aircraft to rapidly accumulate flight hours
far in excess of projections, and appears to have only limited
ability to surge in response to an emergent requirement.
The Navy has informed the committee that the four kits
included in this year's budget request are insufficient to
maintain a minimum sustaining production level. This would
appear yet another indication that the Navy is unwilling to
budget adequately for a priority CINC requirement.
Consequently, the committee has chosen to recommend only a
modest increment of additional funding, sufficient only to
procure two additional AIP kits. Although there is a valid
requirement for additional kits, and production at a higher
rate would be more cost effective, the committee made clear in
S. 1745 that there are many other programs in the queue with
equally strong but unfunded requirements. The committee
reiterates that it does not believe it appropriate that
Congress become a primary funding source for the P-3C AIP, nor
does the committee intend to take the program on as a
continuing entitlement. Consequently, the committee will
closely monitor the Navy's execution of the P-3C AIP program
during fiscal year 1998 and revisit the matter during its
review of the fiscal year 1999 budget request. During the
intervening period, the committee will seek additional input
from the CINCs on their method of establishing requirements for
deployed P-3Cs and the priority of this requirement relative to
others that they have levied for forward deployed forces.
In summary the committee:
(1) recommends an increase of $17.3 million above the
budget request for the procurement of two P-3C AIP
kits; and
(2) directs the Secretary of the Navy to formally
evaluate the advisability of renegotiating the P-3C AIP
contract to eliminate the cost penalties that are being
incurred as a consequence of current Navy budgeting
practices.
Navy Weapons
Tomahawk land attack missile
Tomahawk is a long range, autonomous, precision strike
weapon launched from either surface ships or submarines. It has
been used in Desert Storm, twice in Iraq in 1993, in Bosnia in
September 1995, and in Iraq in September 1996. To maintain
missile inventories and provide them with upgraded capability,
the Navy has been remanufacturing older Block II and Tomahawk
anti-ship missiles (TASM) to the newer Block III configuration.
In correspondence to the committee, the Chief of Naval
Operations has indicated that fiscal constraints have prevented
the Navy from funding this remanufacture program at the rate
needed to maintain afloat inventories.
The committee has supported the Tomahawk program in the
past for both new production and the remanufacturing of
existing missiles. Tomahawk, with its proven performance,
continues to make an enormous contribution to our national
security and long- range, world-wide power projection, as
demonstrated in Desert Storm, Iraq, and Bosnia.
The committee notes that the budget plan would stop buying
new missiles at the end of fiscal year 1998. Considering the
likelihood that there could be additional demands for these
land attack missiles to outfit a much greater number of
vertical launch cells in the fleet, the cessation of new
production may not be a prudent course of action. The committee
is aware that the Navy is also considering innovative
operational concepts that would involve:
(1) firing missiles without having designated a
specific target and allowing forces deployed closer to
the target set to provide final guidance information,
or
(2) launching missiles to allow them to loiter in a
target area until needed by on-scene forces.
The capabilities of Tomahawk for both strategic and
tactical missions, centered around its very long range and
accuracy at an affordable cost, are unique in the inventory.
The committee is concerned that the Navy may not have given
adequate attention to continuing the new production program
while pursuing guidance, sensor, munitions, long-range
propulsion, reliability, and affordability enhancements or
exploring the full effects of these innovative operational
concepts on inventory objectives.
The committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million to
accelerate the remanufacture of approximately 115 Tomahawk
missiles to the Block III configuration.
Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Navy to conduct a review of overall inventory objectives for
Tomahawk missiles that takes into account:
(1) potential new applications of warhead
technologies;
(2) additional demands for missiles to fill an
expanding inventory of vertical launch cells; and
(3) planned technology enhancements emphasizing
extended range and loitering and retargeting
capability.
The Secretary should provide a report on this review prior
to the submission of the fiscal year 1999 defense budget.
Penguin missile program
Neither the budget request nor the Future Years Defense
Program contained funding for additional procurement of Penguin
missiles.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1997included a provision that authorized the Navy to enter into a
contract for multiyear procurement of not more than 106 Penguin
missiles and limited the amount that could be expended for such
procurement to $84.8 million. This provision was based on the existing
shortfall in Penguin missile inventory and the premise that the Navy
would be able to negotiate a very favorable price, about 55 percent of
the average unit procurement cost for previous lots. Congress
subsequently appropriated $7.0 million to procure Penguin missiles in
fiscal year 1997.
Penguin is the only operational Navy helicopter-launched
missile in the Navy's weapon inventory. It provides Navy
surface combatants with a defense against surface threats armed
with anti-ship missiles. A principal operational advantage of
Penguin is its relatively long operational range, which permits
a helicopter armed with Penguin to remain outside the launch
envelopes of potential targets.
The committee has learned that, while final contract
negotiations on the fiscal year 1997 procurement are not yet
complete, the proposed price submitted to the Navy by the
contractor was even lower than the projected savings that
motivated last year's congressional action. The committee has
concluded that additional funding in fiscal year 1998 could
produce even greater cost reductions through labor learning and
production stability. To sustain procurement of the Penguin
missile during fiscal year 1998, the committee recommends an
increase in funding of $15.0 million for procurement of
additional missiles to satisfy outstanding inventory objectives
for both the tactical and telemetry variants.
Standard missile modification
The budget request included $35.6 million for the
modification of 80 Standard SM-2 Block II missiles to the Block
IIIB configuration. These missiles are being modified to
provide homing improvements for operations in a hostile
electromagnetic countermeasures environment. The current
shortfall versus inventory objective exceeds 700 missiles.
Production of modified missiles began in fiscal year 1997 with
an initial production lot of 40. Acceleration of procurement
would not only provide the fleet with the capability to counter
a threat that is already deployed, but would also produce
savings through a more efficient production rate.
The committee considered various options for accelerating
procurement of Standard missile modification kits using
improved operational capability, funding availability, and risk
associated with the slope of the production ramp as variables.
The committee recommends an increase of $15.3 million for the
modification of 40 additional Standard SM-2 Block II missiles
to the Block IIIB configuration. This increase would result in
a total procurement for fiscal year 1998 of 120 missile
modification kits and produce a resulting production increase
between fiscal year 1997, the first year of limited rate
initial production, and fiscal year 1998 of 80 missiles. The
committee believes that this increase represents a prudent
balance between production risk and increased operational
capability.
Navy and Marine Corps Ammunition
Marine Corps ammunition
The committee is concerned with the inadequate funding for
ammunition procurement that was contained in the budget
request. Ammunition is an important contributor to military
readiness; for training and in anticipation of conflict. The
committee recommends the following adjustments to the budget
request for Marine Corps ammunition procurement:
Item Millions
5.56 mm............................................... 3.0
40 mm................................................. 5.0
Charge, Demolition Assembly........................... 15.0
SMAW.................................................. 10.0
-----------------
Subtotal........................................ 33.0
Shoulder Launched Multi-Purpose Assault Weapon
The budget request did not include funding for the Shoulder
Launched Multi-Purpose Assault Weapon (SMAW). The committee is
aware of growing problems associated with Marine Corps SMAW
system. Three problems are of particular concern to the
committee. First, the existing SMAW launcher is becoming
unreliable and unmaintainable. Second, the Marine Corps
requires an improved high explosive dual purpose (HEDP) round
with double the range of the existing round in the inventory.
Third, the Marine Corps inventory currently includes over
46,000 HEDP rounds which are restricted from use due to age and
deficient design. Therefore, the committee recommends an
increase of $10.0 million to address these concerns. Of the
funds provided, $2.2 million shall be available for
improvements to SMAW launchers, $2.2 million shall be available
for procurement of improved HEDP rounds, and $5.6 million shall
be for the repair of existing, restricted HEDP rounds within
the current inventory.
Navy Shipbuilding and Conversion
Advanced submarine technology insertion
The budget request contained $150.1 million in fiscal year
1998 and $172.5 million in fiscal year 1999 in various program
elements for advanced submarine technology.
The committee has learned that, while the Navy has
maintained its commitment to fund advanced submarine technology
at a robust level relative to historic norms, the budget
request included nofunding for the detailed design necessary to
insert technologies that will mature in the near-term into nuclear
attack submarines that are scheduled to begin construction in fiscal
years 1998 and 1999.
The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million above
the budget request for the detailed design necessary to insert
near-term technologies into nuclear attack submarines scheduled
for authorization in fiscal years 1998 and 1999.
Arleigh Burke class destroyer program.
The budget request contained $2.7 billion for the
procurement of three Arleigh Burke class guided missile
destroyers and $157.8 million of advance procurement for an
additional destroyer. These funds have been requested under
authority provided in the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1997 for the Navy to enter into a multiyear
contract for the procurement of a total of 12 destroyers at a
procurement rate of three destroyers per year during the four
year period from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 2001. This
authorization for multiyear procurement was made after the Navy
provided compelling testimony that a stable, predictable
procurement profile over the four year period would produce
savings of $1.0 billion.
The DDG-51 destroyer is a centerpiece of the Navy's surface
combatant force. It provides power projection, fleet air
defense, and a formidable antisubmarine warfare capability. At
committee hearings this year, Navy witnesses strongly affirmed
the significant improvement in the Navy's readiness and
warfighting capability that could be achieved by the
authorization of a fourth DDG-51 class destroyer in fiscal year
1998. They also stated that, as a result of the stability
provided by the multiyear contract, the Navy could buy a fourth
destroyer at a very favorable price. In subsequent
correspondence to the committee, the Chief of Naval Operations
reiterated the cost savings that could be achieved by buying a
fourth DDG-51 in fiscal year 1998 to address validated surface
combatant requirements. By way of specific example, he noted
that, before Congress authorized the multiyear buy, the average
constant year cost for a single DDG-51 destroyer was $950.0
million. Conversely, his estimate of the marginal cost of an
additional destroyer in fiscal year 1998 is $720.0 million, a
25 percent reduction.
The committee has been extremely concerned for several
years about the low rate at which the Navy is procuring ships,
including DDG-51 class destroyers. As funding in the
procurement accounts has declined, building programs have been
extended and annual quantities reduced. Inefficient procurement
rates have caused unit costs to soar. The number of ships under
construction in U.S. shipyards has declined by over 70 percent
in the past 15 years and private-sector shipyard employment has
fallen by over 60 percent in the same period of time. Ships are
not being acquired at a rate necessary to sustain the Navy's
long-term force structure. The committee is particularly
concerned about the lack of a clear upward trend in procurement
rates in the latter years of the Future Years Defense Program.
The number of new ships in the Navy's budget this year is the
lowest in a generation.
In an effort to partially offset this trend, the committee
has pursued a policy of accelerating planned ship construction
to satisfy outstanding operational requirements and achieve
cost savings through more efficient procurement. Based on
strong Navy testimony on the improvements in readiness,
warfighting capability, and cost savings that would result, the
committee recommends an increase of $720.0 million above the
budget request for the procurement of a fourth DDG-51 class
destroyer in fiscal year 1998.
Oceanographic survey ship
The budget request contained no funding for an additional
oceanographic survey ship. The Navy has been procuring a new
class, the TAGS-60 class, of oceanographic survey ships. The
mission of this multi-purpose class is to collect deep ocean,
littoral, and coastal oceanographic data essential for meeting
existing and emerging requirements for precise survey data.
In a 1995 report to Congress regarding the state of
oceanography, the Navy confirmed a backlog of 360 ship-years of
data collection requirements. Of this amount, 240 ship-year
equivalents need to be accomplished by oceanographic survey
ships. The remaining 120 ship-years can be accomplished by
alternate means, such as remote sensing, international
agreements, and cooperative data exchange. The Navy analysis
also noted that a survey fleet of eight oceanographic ships
could fulfill existing data collections requirements. To date,
only seven relatively modern oceanographic survey ships are in
service or under construction.
Based on a well-documented requirement, the committee
recommends an increase of $75.2 million above the budget
request for procurement of an additional oceanographic ship,
TAGS-65. Construction of this ship will satisfy the Navy's
requirement for modern oceanographic survey ships.
Other Navy Procurement
Submarine propulsor
The budget request contained no funding to complete
procurement of a spare propulsor and an additional rotor
assembly for the Seawolf class submarine. A propulsor consists
of three major subassemblies: the forward fixed assembly; the
aft fixed assembly; and the rotor. The Navy began procurement
of a spare propulsor in fiscal year 1997 by contracting for an
aft fixed assembly and a rotor. Funding constraints have caused
the Navyto delay budgeting for the remaining components until
fiscal years 1999 and 2000. Given the extensive schedule of tests
planned for SSN-21, the lead ship of the class, the committee believes
that earlier procurement of a complete spare propulsor and an
additional spare rotor would be prudent.
The committee recommends an increase of $38.3 million above
the budget request for the procurement of a spare forward fixed
propulsor assembly and an additional spare rotor in fiscal year
1998.
AN/WSN-7 inertial navigation system
The budget request included $12.3 million for procurement
of additional AN/WSN-7 ring laser inertial navigation systems.
The AN/WSN-7 continuously and automatically determines and
indicates a ship's position, attitude (heading, roll, and
pitch), and velocity. This system replaces three legacy
navigation systems, providing equipment commonality between
surface combatants, submarines, and aircraft carriers. The
annual operating cost of the AN/WSN-7 is projected to be only
ten percent of the cost of operating the legacy navigation
systems it replaces. Accelerated procurement of the AN/WSN-7
could produce a substantial savings in maintenance costs.
The committee recommends an increase of $18.0 million above
the budget request for the procurement of additional AN/WSN-7
navigation sets. If this recommendation is adopted, the
estimated savings in maintenance costs over the period of the
Future Years Defense Program between fiscal years 1998 and 2003
would be about $27 million.
Integrated combat weapons system
The combat systems presently installed on the Navy's mine
countermeasures ships are comprised of an assortment of
independent subsystems developed by various manufacturers using
technology that is now more than 20 years old. Financial
constraints at the time of procurement prevented the Navy from
employing a systems engineering and integration approach that
could have provided for easy electronic communication between
various combat systems sub-elements. Consequently, combat
systems' performance falls short of requirement and
expectations. Further, the fleet is experiencing an above
average number of equipment failures with these systems,
resulting in high maintenance costs.
To resolve these maintenance and performance issues, the
Navy is developing an integrated combat weapons system for its
mine countermeasures ships. The system will establish one
standard architecture for both the MCM and MHC classes of
ships, reduce unique equipment racks and stations from 13 to 2,
reduce line replaceable units from 788 to 53, provide digital
data exchange via a fiber optic local area network, provide for
easy connection to the Navy's battle force tactical trainer
(BFTT), and permit easy access and operation of the fleet's
joint combat information standard.
The committee has previously encouraged the Navy to improve
its mine countermeasures capabilities and has determined that
additional funding in fiscal year 1998 would permit
acceleration of the integrated combat weapons system by about
one year. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of
$10.3 million in PE 63502N to accelerate the following
developmental efforts:
(1) rehosting of mine countermeasures ship combat
systems to open architecture standards;
(2) linkage of the mine warfare onboard trainers on
the mine countermeasures ships to the BFTT; and
(3) development of needed modifications to the AN/
SQQ-32 mine detection sonar towed body.
AN/BPS-15H submarine navigation radar
There was no funding in the budget request for the
procurement of AN/BPS-15H submarine radar navigation sets. The
Navy has been procuring the AN/BPS-15H, a commercial off-the-
shelf (COTS) variant of the AN/BPS-15 radar navigation set, and
its associated mast assembly for installation on new
construction submarines and for backfit on SSN-688 class
submarines. Procurement of the COTS variant has produced a
substantial cost savings over a comparable system built to
military specifications, has enhanced operational performance,
and has improved navigational safety. Using funds provided in
prior years, the Navy will be able to complete radar upgrades
for the SSN-688 class. Continued procurement of additional AN/
BPS-15H radar sets in fiscal year 1998 would avoid a production
break with its associated restart costs, and permit the Navy to
complete an upgrade of 15 Trident class submarines.
The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million for
the procurement of additional AN/BPS-15H radar sets for
installation into Trident class submarines and for use as
training and refit facility assets.
Cooperative engagement capability
The cooperative engagement capability (CEC) has been
developed to provide a major improvement in the Navy's battle
force anti-air warfare (AAW) capability by coordinating
information from all air and ship sensors into a single, real
time, composite track picture that possesses fire control
quality. CEC entered the engineering and manufacturing phase of
development in May 1995. It achieved initial operational
capability (IOC) in September 1996 and was approved for limited
rate initial production beginning in fiscal year 1998. The
Department of Defense has accorded high priority to development
and fielding of CEC. In testimony to the committee in support
of the fiscal year 1997 budget request, the Secretary of
Defense singled it out as an important program with great
potential for widespread jointapplication, particularly in
satisfying requirements for theater ballistic missile defense.
The budget request does not satisfy the previous timeline
for CEC development and procurement, nor does it reflect the
elevated priority accorded it by the Secretary of Defense.
Despite the successful performance of CEC during IOC
evaluation, there is no procurement funding for it in the
budget request. The consequence will be at least a one year
delay in providing the fleet with a very important operational
capability. This importance has been emphasized by the Chief of
Naval Operations in correspondence addressed to the committee.
As an additional item for consideration, the committee
received a report from the Secretary of the Navy on spectrum
interference between CEC and other fleet weapons systems and
data links. Among other matters, this report provided proposed
options for resolving interference between CEC and the data
link used by the SH-60B helicopter. The report concluded that
the most effective method for eliminating this interference
would be to shift the SH-60B data link to an alternate
frequency band.
The committee's review has determined that the Navy's
decision to omit funding in the budget request was not caused
by any emerging technical problems that could have increased
the risk associated with production or performance. Rather, it
appears that the elimination of procurement funding predicted
in the fiscal year 1997 Future Years Defense Program occurred
as the result of a diversion to satisfy the resource demands of
contingency operations. The committee believes this budgeting
approach is short-sighted, particularly when high priority
programs with urgent operational requirements are decimated as
a result. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of
$114.8 million to restore the funds needed to keep CEC on
schedule. The committee also recommends an increase of $14.5
million in PE 63658N to:
(1) $5.0 million to initiate development of a Ku-band
data link kit for the SH-60B helicopter;
(2) $5.0 million to continue the transition of design
responsibility from its developer to the CEC
procurement contractor; and
(3) $4.5 million to continue integration of CEC into
the Marine Corps Hawk missile system.
Information Technology-21
The Navy has informed the committee of a new, fleet-driven
initiative, Information Technology-21 (IT-21), that has emerged
since formulation of the budget request. IT-21 will provide for
accelerated introduction of command, control, communications,
and computer (C4I) innovations that have been developed in the
commercial marketplace and for merging them with existing
systems and capabilities.
As described by the Navy, the goal of IT-21 is to enable
the warfighter to exchange classified and unclassified tactical
and non-tactical information from a single desktop computer,
shorten decision timelines, and increase combat power through
more effective and coordinated use of relevant information.
Through the IT-21 initiative the Navy intends to adapt and
develop new operational concepts at a pace that remains abreast
of the explosion of information technology that prevails in the
commercial sector. The Navy's objective is to shift from
platform-centric to network-centric warfare. The focus of
platform-centric warfare tends to be mass on mass, extensive
physical infrastructure, large overhead, and immense capital
expenditure. Conversely, the Navy has concluded that a network-
centric approach will allow it to leverage intellectual
capital, focus specific information on relevant tasks, and
produce reductions in infrastructure and overhead.
While the IT-21 concept evolved and was formulated too late
to be incorporated into the budget request and its associated
Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) as a coordinated budget
initiative, numerous programs with existing budget lines will
be drawn together as IT-21 sub-elements. Existing programs that
would be accelerated, and to some extent redirected, include
the joint maritime command information system (JMCIS), the Navy
tactical command support system (NTCSS), the Navy switch and
cable plant modernization program (NASCAMP), the Navy
information systems security program (ISSP), the Challenge
Athena commercial wideband satellite program, and the afloat
telecommunications service (ATS). New capabilities, all
available in commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) systems, such as
the automated digital network system (a UHF modem upgrade to
ensure adequate bandwidth for each ship) and asynchronous
transmission mode (ATM) local area networks (LAN), represent
emerging technologies that will make vital contributions to the
IT-21 initiative.
The Navy has informed the committee that it is in the
process of realigning the C4I resources in its FYDP to bring
them into consonance with IT-21 and provide strong out-year
support for the initiative. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff has also written to the committee to endorse the IT-21
initiative.
The Navy's goal is to have every battle group and
amphibious ready group, including cruisers and guided missile
destroyers, deploy with IT-21 capability by the year 2000.
The committee is impressed with the Navy's vision for IT-21
and the emphasis it places on the use of actual commercial
products, vice the use of COTS technology that must still be
adapted for specialized Navy use. However, the committee urges
the Navy to use caution before committing significant resources
to massive software reprogramming efforts that would simply
convert from one programming language to another with little,
if any, improvement in capability. To provide an initial
impetus to the IT-21 initiative and to assist the Navy to
achieve its goal of a fully outfitted fleet by the year 2000,
the committee recommends an increase of $157.2 million above
the budget request. Of this amount $147.9 would be for
procurement and $9.3 million would be operations and
maintenance funding.
Integration and test facility command and control initiative
The Navy is pursuing a continuing initiative to provide
fully integrated and supportable command, control,
communications, computer, and intelligence (C4I) systems at its
integration and test facilities. These facilities are used for
architecture design, systems engineering, integration, and to
provide life-cycle support for the fleet's C4I systems.
The committee has learned that additional funding at the
Navy in-service engineering (NISE) East facility would enhance
the facility's ability to incorporate its integration
facilities and laboratories into a baseline network that will
allow much more effective application of its full product line.
Additional communication nodes and terminal devices, as well as
an increase in existing network bandwidth to accommodate
additional users, would permit the facility to support the wide
variety of operational protocols and physical interfaces
associated with new fleet tactical C4I systems. Additional
funding would also give NISE East the means to deliver fully
integrated and tested systems to various shipbuilding programs
and support integration strategies such as the Navy's
Information Technology-21 initiative.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million above
the budget request for engineering design; hardware and
software procurement; and installation, testing, and
documentation of the additional technical networking
infrastructure that will enhance NISE East's ability to
integrate all of its C4I product line laboratories. Of this
amount $2.0 million would be for procurement and $2.0 million
would be operations and maintenance funding.
Sonobuoy procurement
The budget request contained $28.4 million for the
procurement of AN/SSQ-53E passive sonobuoys and $24.3 million
for the procurement of AN/SSQ-62E active sonobuoys.
Use of sonobuoys during antisubmarine warfare (ASW)
training and additional loss of inventory caused by expiring
shelf-life have caused consumption to outstrip annual
procurement for several years. Despite previous efforts by the
committee to maintain sonobuoy inventory levels through
additional funding and despite both an overall reduction in the
Navy's ASW force structure and two year extensions beyond
contract shelf-life, available inventories of the AN/SSQ-53E
and AN/SSN-62E have fallen inexorably. The Navy's projected
inventory of AN-SSQ-53 sonobuoys at the end of fiscal year 1998
would not meet the inventory requirements of a single major
regional crisis. The projected shortfall for the AN/SSQ-62E
would be less critical, but would impose a major constraint on
training expenditures. In correspondence with the committee,
the Navy has stressed the importance of resolving shortages in
these two types of sonobuoys.
The committee recommends an increase of $19.0 million for
the procurement of additional AN/SSQ-53E and $7.0 million for
the procurement of additional AN/SSQ-62E sonobuoys.
NATO Sea Sparrow missile system low light level television
The Navy has been upgrading the fire control systems of
fleet ships equipped with the NATO Sea Sparrow missile. The
change involves replacing the existing isocon-based low light
level television (LLTV) with solid state multi-spectral
electro-optics. This charge coupled device (CCD) ordnance
alteration (ORDALT) has produced a three fold reduction in mean
time between failure, reducing maintenance costs. The multi-
spectral capability provided by the CCD ORDALT significantly
improves the ability of the NATO Sea Sparrow's fire control
system to detect and engage modern cruise missiles. It also
provides an improved capability for real-time threat
identification, particularly at night, and manual target
tracking in an emissions controlled environment.
The committee has learned that funding constraints
encountered by the Navy in developing the budget request caused
it to terminate the CCD ORDALT upgrade program before it will
be completed. Aside from the increased maintenance costs and
reduced operational performance implicit in this decision, the
Navy will be forced to maintain, at an additional expense,
supply support for the old isocon-based LLTV. Consequently, to
reduce future costs and improve the fleet's operational
performance, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0
million above the budget request for the procurement of
additional CCD ORDALT kits.
NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system
The budget request included $8.2 million for continued
development of the NULKA active countermeasures decoy. It also
contained $24.7 million to procure NULKA decoys, launch
subsystems, and training systems.
The NULKA decoy is scheduled to begin production during
fiscal year 1997. It has been developed to improve surface ship
survivability against anti-ship missiles (ASM). The ASM threat
is growing rapidly. By the year 2000 an estimated 100 nations
will possess more than 40,000 ASMs. These missiles will pose a
potent threat to surface combatants and amphibious ships
involved in littoral operations.
In its review of the budget request, the committee has
determined that additional procurement funding in fiscal year
1998 would permit the Navy to acquire NULKA decoys at a more
efficient rate and permit more complete outfitting of deploying
battle groups. Additional development funding would accelerate
fielding an electromagnetic capability, which will permit a
more rapid upgrade of the NULKA round to accommodate new
friendly emitters as they enter the fleet, and also deal with
the evolving ASM threat.
The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million
forprocurement of additional NULKA decoys and for installation of their
launching subsystems. The committee also recommends an increase of $2.0
million in PE 64755N for continued development of the NULKA decoy to
improve the ease with which it may be adapted to the future
electromagnetic spectrum associated with fleet operations.
The committee has also learned that in November 1996, based
on successful developmental testing and a concern about the
proliferating ASM threat, the Navy designated NULKA as a
cornerstone program that will lead surface electronic warfare
into the next generation of combat systems and made a policy
decision to accelerate its procurement and fleet introduction.
This decision appears consistent with an overall strategy of
maximizing surface ship combat capability in littoral
operations and validates the priority that the committee has on
the decoy's development for the past several years. However,
the same policy decision that accelerated NULKA also rearranged
its installation priority on Navy ships. Originally developed
to provide protection to ships, such as amphibious ships, that
are relatively poorly equipped to engage advanced ASMs, the
Navy has now decided to give first priority to installation of
NULKA on its most powerful surface combatants, guided missile
cruisers, and destroyers, while assigning amphibious and fleet
support ships the lowest priority. The reason for this decision
remains unclear and is inconsistent with prior threat analysis.
Further, the committee has become aware of cost growth that
has occurred in the projected unit cost of the NULKA round.
While some of this cost growth can be reasonably attributed to
a decrease in projected yearly procurement quantities imposed
by lower than expected procurement resources, the cause of the
balance remains unclear. The committee is very concerned that
the Navy did not inform the committee when this cost growth
became apparent and also failed to acknowledge it in
documentation submitted with the budget request.
To ensure that all information needed for an informed
decision is available, the committee directs the Secretary of
the Navy to provide the analysis and rationale that led it to
rearrange its priorities for installation of NULKA in Navy
ships and to also provide a detailed report on cost growth that
has occurred in the projected unit cost for NULKA rounds. These
reports should be submitted no later than August 15, 1997.
Oceanographic equipment
During its review of the fiscal year 1998 budget request,
the committee determined that investment funding for
oceanographic equipment was reduced significantly in fiscal
years 1996 and 1997. Based on prior experience, the committee
believes that regular funding for oceanographic equipment is
necessary to keep up with commercial advances in technology, to
routinely replace damaged equipment or equipment lost at sea,
and to adjust to mission changes, such as a recent emphasis on
littoral surveys, bottom characterization for mine
countermeasures, and precise bottom imagery to support undersea
war requirements. It would appear that funding in fiscal years
1996 and 1997 and in the budget request is insufficient to
maintain an adequate replacement program.
The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million above
the budget request to provide additional funding for
procurement of oceanographic survey equipment, such as shallow-
water multibeam systems, outfitting of hydrographic survey
launches, high resolution acoustic imagery systems, upgraded
survey and navigation equipment suites for use in cooperative
international hydrographic programs, digital side-scan sonars,
``fly away'' survey suites that can be mounted aboard small
vessels for surveys of opportunity, and unmanned undersea
vehicles used for ocean data collection.
Marine Corps Procurement
Javelin
The budget request included $42.1 million to procure 194
Javelin missiles. The committee supports the Marine Corps
effort to replace aging Dragon missiles and has been pleased
with the progress of this joint Army/Marine Corps program that
has resulted in the production of an extremely capable anti-
armor missile system. The committee recommends an increase of
$17.0 million to procure an additional 186 missiles in fiscal
year 1998 and allow the Marine Corps to reach its acquisition
objective with the projected funding in the Future Years
Defense Program.
Night vision equipment
The budget request did not include any funding for night
vision equipment. The committee continues to support efforts to
field night vision equipment to the armed forces to allow them
to fight and win at night. The committee is concerned about the
inadequate funding in fiscal year 1998 for unmet night vision
requirements. The committee recommends an increase of $7.0
million to procure the following:
(1) 1.2 million for AN/PEQ-4 infrared aiming lights;
(2) 2.2 million for 6,250 borelights;
(3) 2.7 million for high power laser pointers;
(4) 0.9 million for mounting brackets.
Base telecommunications infrastructure
The budget request included $17.5 million to upgrade Marine
Corps base telecommunications infrastructure, including
completion of work at Camp Pendleton and Camp Butler. The
committee recognizes the numerous outstanding requirements for
infrastructure upgrades and the capabilities and
efficienciesthat these upgrades bring to an installation. The committee
recommends an increase of $24.8 million to support additional work at
Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point and Marine Corps Air Station
Beaufort while allowing the Marine Corps to use an existing contract to
facilitate these efforts.
Improved direct air support center
The committee received a request for additional funding to
field new satellite communication equipment. Such equipment is
necessary to enhance future interoperability and capability as
reliance on digital communications increases. These devices
will also provide greater flexibility for Direct Air Support
Central (DASC) operations. The committee recommends an increase
of $0.4 million to support this fielding.
Light Tactical Vehicle Replacement program
The budget request did not include any funding for the
Light Tactical Vehicle Replacement (LTVR) program, which is
currently scheduled to begin in 2000. The committee is very
concerned about the current state of Marine Corps High Mobility
Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) fleet that has aged
considerably due to corrosion and wear. The committee notes the
operational success of HMMWVs and strongly supports the LTVR
program. The committee recommends an increase of $55.0 million
to begin the critical LTVR program in fiscal year 1998.
International standards organization truck beds
The committee recognizes Marine Corps efforts to improve
deployment capabilities and the progress made to date toward
fielding efficient International Standards Organization (ISO)
beds for transporting cargo. The Marine Corps has successfully
fielded 86 percent of requirements and can complete fielding of
these beds for a modest investment. The committee recommends an
increase of $6.2 million to support final fielding of ISO truck
beds.
Power equipment assorted
The committee notes ongoing efforts by the Marine Corps to
field critical power generation equipment to the force. The
Army has current contracts to acquire a variety of generators.
The committee recommends an increase of $22.1 million to
support an increasing demand for power generation equipment.
Shop equipment contact maintenance system
The committee understands that current Marine Corps contact
maintenance vehicles have reached the end of their service
life. The Marine Corps has established a program to replace
these vehicles with equipment that supports maintenance efforts
for forward deployed forces. The committee believes that this
critical equipment should be replaced as soon as practicable,
and recommends an increase of $12.2 million to procure 122 shop
equipment contact maintenance (SECM) systems.
Combat rubber reconnaissance craft
The committee supports Marine Corps efforts to procure
combat rubber reconnaissance craft (CRRC) capable of
transporting eight combat loaded Marines from amphibious
shipping to shore. The committee recommends an additional $1.6
million to procure 72 boats and achieve the acquisition
objective.
Chemical/biological incident response force equipment
The committee supports the ongoing Marine Corps effort to
field a well-equipped and capable force that can respond to
chemical/biological incidents worldwide and assist in
detection, decontamination, and medical missions associated
with such an event. Marine efforts in fiscal year 1997 were
successful in providing an initial core capability and the
committee noted the successful deployment of this capability to
the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta. The committee is concerned,
however, that much of the equipment used by the Chemical/
Biological Incident Response Force has been diverted from other
Marine units and believes that this equipment should be
replaced. The committee, therefore recommends an increase of
$15.0 million to provide for replacement equipment.
Combat vehicle appended trainer
The committee supports training device programs that
enhance combat readiness at low cost. The committee understands
that there is an opportunity to modify existing Army training
devices that could be used to train Marine crews on Marine
Corps armored vehicles. The committee recommends an increase of
$9.2 million to initiate the requisite changes that would
accelerate fielding of these devices.
Items less than $2 million
The committee was provided a list of miscellaneous
equipment that the Commandant of the Marine Corps recommended
for consideration should additional funds become available.
These items included such equipment as underwater breathing
equipment, advanced demolition kits, and logistics information
systems.
The committee believes that these types of lower visibility
hardware are too often lost in the discussions of defense
priorities, although such gear can make a significant
contribution to war fighting capability.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of$10.0
million for these items in the Procurement, Marine Corps account.
SUBTITLE D--AIR FORCE PROGRAMS
Insert offset folio 120 here
Offset Folios 121 to 132 Insert Here
<SKIP PAGES = 012>
Section 131. B-2 bomber aircraft program.
The committee recommends a provision prohibiting the use of
funds to procure any additional B-2 bomber aircraft or to
maintain any part of the bomber industrial base solely for the
purpose of preserving the option to procure additional B-2
bomber aircraft in the future.
The committee provided exceptions to the prohibition, by
exempting any B-2 bomber aircraft that is covered by a contract
for production as of the date of enactment of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 or for any part
of the industrial base needed to produce or upgrade the 21
authorized B-2 bombers, for so long as necessary to complete
the production of such aircraft.
OTHER AIR FORCE PROGRAMS
Air Force Aircraft
F-15E attrition aircraft
The budget request included $159.0 million to continue the
procurement of F-15E strike aircraft. Because of an ongoing
foreign military sale of F-15 aircraft, the Air Force is able
to achieve significant efficiency in procuring three additional
F-15E aircraft, thus completing the planned buy of 18 attrition
reserve F-15E aircraft. Accordingly, the committee recommends
an increase of $100.8 million for procurement of three
additional F-15E aircraft.
F-22 requirements
The committee notes the delays and cost overruns in the F-
22 program, and views with concern inadequate Air Force
programming to support the F-15 in future years. In briefings
on the fiscal year 1998 budget request, the Air Force outlined
funding plans for the F-15 that included reductions of $147.7
million over the next three years, with a reduction of $72.6
million in fiscal year 1998 alone. Changes to the F-15 program
include elimination of Global Positioning System capability for
the F-15 A-D, elimination of the heads-up display (HUD) for the
F-15C/D, and cancellation of the ALQ-135 (Band 3) for the F-
15C/D.
All of this occurs at a time when the Air Force is
requesting additional F-15 aircraft to maintain force
structure. The committee recognizes the need for adequate force
structure in the Air Force, but questions the apparent effort
to ``starve'' the F-15's future modifications in order to fund
the F-22, or to prematurely retire F-15s because they are ``not
capable,'' when the aircraft would be very capable with
modifications and upgrades. Accordingly, the committee
recommends an increase to the budget request of $72.6 million
to restore canceled F-15 modifications in fiscal year 1998.
F-22 event-based decision making
Section 218 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997 required the Department of Defense to submit
to Congress a report on event-based decision making for the F-
22 aircraft program (fiscal year 1997 events) by October 1,
1996 and to submit the fiscal year 1998 event-based decisions
with the budget request. As of April 1, 1997, neither report
had been received by Congress--six months after the first
report was due.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997
also required reports on the estimated cost of F-22 production
and the net benefits of developing the F/A-18E/F. Funds were
fenced, or withheld, in each of those cases, pending receipt of
the reports. Those reports were received in a timely fashion,
and a hearing was held to examine those reports and their
implications. The committee can only infer that the Department
only responds in a timely fashion to congressional direction
when it is accompanied by conditional penalties or statutory
prohibitions.
Accordingly, the committee recommends the elimination of
procurement funds for the F-22 for fiscal year 1998. The
committee encourages the Department to plan for F-22
procurement in fiscal year 1999 and beyond, and to submit
substantial reports on F-22 event-based decision making that
will add to the committee's confidence in the oversight and
control of the program. Considering the disparities found in
the statements of official witnesses on the cost estimates for
F-22 production and the lack of explanation of the program's
$2.2 billion overrun in engineering and manufacturing
development (EMD), failure to provide reports on the substance
of the program does little to foster confidence in the
program's management or cost estimates.
In the last few years, Air Force witnesses have asserted
that event-based decision making would guide the F-22 program
through possible rough spots, yet when asked for the criteria
or details of such decisions, there was no response. The
silence is more troubling when it comes at a time of cost
overruns and conflicting estimates of future production costs.
Further, the Air Force's initiatives to control future
production costs will not take effect until after fiscal year
2004, thus leaving the intervening six years undefined, except
for a recently disclosed $2.2 billion overrun in EMD. Providing
the report required in section 218 would serve to create
confidence in the program in the near term. There is currently
a lack of confidence due to recently disclosed overruns and
estimates of large overruns yet to come in the production.
The report should be more than a projected calendar of
contract awards. Increased development costs raise concerns
about the program's long-term procurement costs. Increased
developmentcosts tend to imply increased procurement costs
throughout a program. The committee is concerned that the restructuring
of EMD and transfer of funds from procurement to development may result
in continuing cost problems.
In recent testimony and public statements, Air Force
representatives have alluded to using the lessons learned from
the C-17 program to salvage the F-22. The C-17 program was also
described as an event-based program. The following table
describes the events, timing, and funding for the C-17 program
as it appeared in the statement of managers accompanying the
National Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 1994 (S. Rept.
103-112).
C-17 EVENT-BASED CONTRACT AWARDS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Lot Lot size Event Original plan Plan last year Plan this year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 89............... II........ 4........ Mission Computer Awarded........ ............... ...............
Software
Critical Design
Review.
FY 90............... III....... 4........ R&D Aircraft (T- Jan. 90........ Jul. 91........ ...............
1) Assembly
Complete.
FY 92 (was FY 91)... IV........ 4........ First Flight of Oct. 90........ Aug. 92........ May 93
First (actual).
Production (P-
1) & R&D
Aircraft (T-1).
FY 93 (was FY 92)... V......... 6........ Acceptance of Sep. 91........ Mar. 93........ Dec. 93.
Fifth
Production
Aircraft (P-5).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the event-based planning did not necessarily keep the
C-17 program on track, it did at least provide useful
visibility into the program's progress.
The committee is aware that the F-22 program has $81.3
million from fiscal year 1997 advance procurement funds that
could be used to protect the schedule for the fiscal year 1999
production, thus ensuring that there is no break in the early
production of the F-22. Therefore, the committee recommends a
reduction in the fiscal year 1998 budget request of $80.9
million for F-22 advanced procurement. The committee encourages
the Department to complete and submit substantive reports when
required, and to request any remaining F-22 advanced
procurement in the fiscal year 1999 budget request.
C-130J
The budget request included $49.9 million for one Air Force
C-130J. The committee recommends an increase to the budget
request of $371.1 million and a restructuring of the budget
request as mentioned below.
Spares and support
Release of fiscal years 1996 and 1997 funds to purchase C-
130s had been delayed until recently because of insufficient
programmed logistics support funding for the C-130s which had
been authorized and appropriated. When questioned about the
plan to provide logistics support for the 1996 and 1997, the
Air Force responded that the plan to fund the spares relied
upon Congress to increase the authorization and appropriations
to pay for the shortfall.
If the Congress should fail to provide the additional
funds, the Air Force has indicated that it would withhold one
of the aircraft that was previously authorized and
appropriated. The committee sees the ``plan'' as more of a non-
plan, and accordingly, recommends a reduction of $49.9 million
to the budget request as contained in line 11 of the aircraft
procurement line (APAF) and an increase in line 12a, C-130
logistics of $48.0 million.
The committee expects the Air Force to program adequately
for the spares for all its aircraft, and to refrain from
including new aircraft in the budget request, when it cannot
afford to support those already authorized and appropriated.
C-130 remanufacture report
In the statement of managers accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (S. Rept. 104-
267), the committee directed the Secretary of Defense to
provide a report, no later than March 1, 1997, on the net
benefits of pursuing a program to design, develop, and produce
renewed C-130 aircraft through remanufacture of existing
airframes. The report arrived at the committee on April 30,
1997 and did not answer the question. Instead the report
reviewed requirements, inventory, modernization, and disposal
of C-130's, concluding that the present fleet of C-130's is
sufficient, and modernization efforts are adequate. The report
further concluded that the merits of the alternative approaches
to C-130 fleet modernization would be thoroughly examined.
Unfortunately, the report was requested for just such an
examination and the Department's reply was unacceptable. The
committee directs the Department to provide by January 1, 1998,
the report examining the remanufacturing alternative as
originally requested. If the Department fails to comply with
explicit guidance again, the committee will feel compelled to
recommend punitive actions.
WC-130J
In order to complete the replacement of the aging weather
reconnaissance aircraft in the Air Force Reserve, the committee
recommends an increase of $177.0 million and $29.7 million for
associated support.
EC-130J
The committee also recommends an increase to the budget
request of $70.5 to continue the modernization of the 193rd
Special Operations Wing, which presently operates EC-130E
aircraft that have been in service for over 33 years and will
soon reach the end of their service life.
C-130J
The committee also recommends an increase of $95.8 million
to the budget request for two C-130Js to continue modernization
of the Air National Guard.
Joint Primary Aircraft Training System
The budget request included $65.4 million for 18 Joint
Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS) aircraft. The JPATS is
a joint Air Force/Navy program to replace T-37 and T-34 primary
flight training aircraft and associated ground based training
systems. The committee has learned that an increase of $12.2
million to the budget request would allow the Air Force to
acquire the JPATS at the most efficient rate allowed, 22
aircraft instead of 18 under the contract's variations in
quantity (VIQ) matrix. Accordingly, the committee recommends an
increase of $12.2 million to the budget request for an
additional four JPATS aircraft. The recommended addition to the
budget request requires no subsequent year funding. The
increase was requested by the Air Force in its unfunded
priorities.
F-15 PW-220E modifications
The budget request included $169.6 million for F-15
modifications, with $23.2 million was for F100-220E engine
upgrades of F-15 aircraft. The PW-220E program is a
modification program to change the F100-PW-100 engine on the F-
15C/D to a newer F100-PW-220 Equivalent, or ``E''
configuration. An additional $323.7 million ($22.8 million in
fiscal year 1999) is programmed for the upgrades through fiscal
year 2003. Because the F100-PW-220E engine is more reliable and
maintainable than previous configurations, the committee
recommends an increase of $22.8 million to the budget request
to accelerate the engine modifications by one year.
F-16 targeting/navigation pods
The Air Force uses the low-altitude navigation and
targeting infrared for night (LANTIRN) systems to provide night
attack capability for the F-15E and later models of the F-16.
The LANTIRN system includes several additions to aircraft,
including two pods (one with a wide field of view for
navigation and one with a narrower field of view for
targeting), plus software to enable the system to work with the
aircraft carrying the pods.
Earlier models of the F-16 aircraft (Blocks 25, 30, and
32), however, are unable to carry both the navigation and
targeting pod portions of the LANTIRN system simultaneously.
This means that these aircraft have no ability to self-
designate precision guided munitions. The Air Force indicates
that this inability precludes the Air Combat Command from
including the squadrons operating these earlier model aircraft
in the planning process for world wide rotational deployments.
The Air Force has informed the committee that there are
non-developmental item (NDI) systems that incorporate the
targeting and navigation functions in one pod. The Air Force
also indicates that some of these NDI systems use the LANTIRN
software and have capability comparable to LANTIRN, but are
cheaper than the LANTIRN pod system.
The committee believes that improving the capability of
existing F-16 squadrons to make them available to meet
worldwide rotational deployments would help reduce demands on
personnel operational tempo and improve warfighting ability.
Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $8.66 million
to be combined with prior year funding to procure pods and
support equipment to equip one F-16 squadron. The recommended
increase is shown in line 30 of the budget request for Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force.
Rivet Joint technology transfer
The committee believes that fusion of space and airborne
infrared sensor data will significantly improve theater
ballistic missile warning as well as active defense and attack
operations. This need can be met by transferring operationally
proven Cobra Ball infrared sensor system fusion technology to
the Rivet Joint fleet. To initiate this effort, the committee
recommends an increase of $20.0 million in Air Force
Procurement for Rivet Joint modification.
SR-71
The budget request did not include funds for SR-71 upgrades
or modifications. The SR-71 provides a valuable capability for
wide area surveillance from a unique platform, and the
committee views its continued availability as crucial until
there are operational unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) in place
and capable of providing the necessary coverage. Since high
altitude endurance UAVs have so far not met expectations, the
committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million to the budget
request for upgrades and modifications of the SR-71. The
committee encourages the Department to reprogram funds as
necessary to continue the operation of the SR-71 in fiscal year
1998.
U-2 Sensor Upgrades
The budget request did not include funds to complete the
conversion of older U-2 sensors to a common
baselineconfiguration, which began last year. As a result of
congressional action for fiscal year 1997 and a reprogramming within
the Department, the U-2 reconnaissance program began a sustainment
effort to allow the fielding of 11 fully capable Senior Glass sensor
systems. The common baseline became necessary because previous systems
and parts of the Senior Glass configuration had been experiencing
vendor and support problems.
The committee recommends an increase of $13.0 million to
the budget request to complete the common baseline effort.
Air Force Missile
Titan IV space boosters
The committee is aware of excess fiscal year 1997 funds in
the Titan IV space booster program. In addition, the committee
anticipates savings to accrue in fiscal year 1998 as a result
of efforts to restructure the Titan IV program. Therefore, the
committee recommends a reduction of $100.0 million in the
fiscal year 1998 budget request for Titan IV procurement.
Excess fiscal year 1997 funds should be used to offset the
reduction in the fiscal year 1998 request. The committee is
aware that DOD is considering the possibility of reprogramming
these fiscal year 1997 funds. The committee will not approve
such a request and directs the Secretary of Defense to leave
excess fiscal year 1997 funds in the Titan IV program.
Air Force Ammunition
Air Force ammunition
The committee is concerned with the inadequate funding for
ammunition procurement that was contained in the President's
budget request. Ammunition is an important contributor to
military readiness for training and in anticipation of
conflict. The committee recommends an additional $16.8 million
to the Air Force budget request for ammunition procurement of
GBU-28.
Other Air Force Procurement
Theater deployable communications
The budget request included $17.0 million for procurement
of theater deployable communications (TDC). The committee
recommends an increase of $38.0 million to accelerate the
procurement of TDC by acquiring an additional six sets.
TDC is a compact, high bandwidth system used by forward
deployed forces for communications. Procurement of TDC allows
the retirement of aging, obsolete equipment, providing for a 30
percent reduction in required airlift support for
communications equipment. The current 12 year acquisition
profile for TDC is inefficient and slow to provide necessary
capabilities to forward forces.
DEFENSE-WIDE PROGRAMS
Insert offset folio 141 here
Offset Folios 142 to 146 Insert Here
<SKIP PAGES = 005>
Common automatic recovery system
The budget request did not include funding to continue
common automatic recovery system (CARS) logistic support. Since
CARS successful test program completion, the committee has
encouraged the Department to complete procurement of the full
nine CARS systems with previously provided funds. In order to
field the full complement of previously provided CARS, the
committee recommends an addition of the $3.0 million for
logistic support.
Additionally, the committee has learned of a proposal to
capitalize on the success of this low cost landing system for
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) by providing a lightweight,
portable approach display system for expeditionary force
helicopters. Accordingly, the committee recommends a $2.0
million increase to the budget request to develop an
expeditionary common automatic recovery system.
MH-47E helicopter replacement
The committee notes a Special Operations Command
requirement to modify an existing CH-47 to MH-47E configuration
in order to replace an aircraft destroyed in a crash. The
committee recommends an additional $40.5 million to support
this MH-47E conversion effort.
Night firing scopes
The Special Operations Command intends to procure night
scopes for use on M4A1 carbines, beginning in fiscal year 1999.
Recognizing the critical nature of this requirement and an
overall shortage of night vision equipment, the committee
supports an acceleration of this program. Therefore, the
committee recommends an increase of $2.4 million to procure 600
night scopes for improved target acquisition and fire control
on the M4A1 carbine.
Counter proliferation/weapons of mass destruction
The committee supports an increase of $4.2 million for this
classified program.
National Guard and Reserve Equipment
The budget request included $968.5 million for National
Guard and Reserve Equipment, as shown in the table below:
National Guard and Reserve Equipment and Aircraft:
Item Millions
Aircraft Procurement, Army........................................ $0
Procurement of WTCV, Army......................................... 22.1
Procurement of Ammunition, Army................................... 143.8
Other Procurement, Army........................................... 382.9
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total, Army................................................... 548.7
Aircraft Procurement, Navy........................................ 35.1
Procurement of Ammunition (Navy & Marine Corps)................... 6.0
Other Procurement, Navy........................................... 3.9
Procurement, Marine Corps......................................... 17.9
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total, Navy................................................... 62.9
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force................................... 238.2
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force.............................. 29.5
Other Procurement, Air Force...................................... 89.2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total, Air Force.............................................. 356.9
Department of Defense Total................................... 968.5
The committee continues to support modernization of the
National Guard and reserve and recognizes the increasingly
critical role that these forces play in worldwide deployments.
In an era of limited resources, the most significant challenge
facing the Congress in this arena is that of determining both
system modernization priorities and appropriate funding levels.
The committee is concerned about the level of funding for
reserve component modernization in service budgets. Clearly, if
the historical use of reserve component forces is a guide, the
Congress should focus on modernization priorities associated
with those key roles and functions performed by the reserve
components in past and current operations and ensure that the
equipment that these activities require is modern and
comparable to that used by the active component counterpart.
The committee recommends that the Army, in concert with the
Army National Guard, concentrate on completion of the
conversion of National Guard combat units to combat support and
combat service support in accordance with the Total Army
Analysis 2003 (TAA03) and the Army National Guard Division
Redesign Study. The committee also recommends that the Army and
the Army National Guard consider additional reorganization of
National Guard combat force structure to meet critical
artillery shortfalls. The committee understands that there is
an additional requirement for 11 MLRS battalions beyond what
has been currently fielded. The committee considers the
artillery requirement to be critical to any future combat
operation and believes that this function can be well supported
by the Army National Guard.
Additionally, the committee notes a significant amount of
additional funding provided in this bill in support of reserve
component modernization. Reserve component modernization will
benefit from $45.0 million for two additional CH-47 Chinook
helicopters for the Army Reserve; $127.3 million for 18
additional UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters that will result in a
fielding of a requisite number of aircraft to the Army National
Guard; $45.0 million for an additional reserve component Heavy
Equipment Transporter Systems (HETS); $50.0 million for an
additional 150 Palletized Load System (PLS) trucks and 50
trailers for reserve component units; and $2.0 million for
Avenger Table Top Trainers for the Army National Guard. These
congressional adds alone account for an additional $269.3
million that will support reserve component modernization.
The committee encourages both the active and reserve
component leadership to work together to identify future
modernization requirements and ensure that they are funded in
accordance with Department of Defense funding guidance.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $653.0
million to the budget request for National Guard and reserve
Miscellaneous Equipment and aircraft, as follows:
Miscellaneous Equipment Millions
Army Reserve...................................... $40.0
Navy Reserve...................................... 40.0
Marine Corps Reserve.............................. 40.0
Air Force Reserve................................. 40.0
Army National Guard............................... 80.0
Air National Guard................................ 40.0
National Guard and Reserve aircraft
Items Millions
WC-130J............................................... $177.0
C-130J................................................ 95.8
EC-130J............................................... 70.5
Logistics Support for WC-130J......................... 29.7
The committee directs that miscellaneous funding will be
allocated exclusively by reserve component chiefs. The
committee recommends that the funding allocated for the Army
National Guard be used for the following items: medium truck
extended service programs (ESP); Heavy Equipment Transporter
Systems (HETS); MLRS artillery systems; Avenger air defense
systems; training simulators; night vision equipment, and the
Deployable Universal Combat Earthmovers (DEUCE).
Fundingallocated by reserve component chiefs or any alternative
proposal for the funding provided for the Army National Guard must meet
the criteria established in Section 1059, Sense of Congress regarding
funding for reserve component modernization not requested in the annual
request.
The committee recommends a total of $1.9 billion for
National Guard and Reserve equipment and aircraft.
ADDITIONAL MATTERS OF INTEREST
SUBTITLE E--OTHER MATTERS
Section 141. Prohibition on use of funds for acquisition or alteration
of private drydocks.
The committee is concerned with the excess capacity in the
nation's public and private shipyards. As the Navy force
structure continues to decline, the requirement for shipyard
maintenance capacity also declines. Unfortunately, funds
provided to the Department of Defense (DOD) are sometimes used
inadvertently to increase shipyard capacity without appropriate
consideration of the long-term consequences. Therefore, the
committee recommends a provision that will prevent the use of
DOD funds to further increase excess capacity.
Section 142. Replacement of engines on aircraft derived from Boeing 707
aircraft.
The budget request did not include funds for re-engining
Boeing 707-type aircraft. Two years ago, the committee
supported an initiative to re-engine two RC-135 aircraft and
recommended funds for nonrecurring integration and procurement
of two CFM56 engine kits for those aircraft. The committee is
convinced of the merits of the program to re-engine RC-135
aircraft. As a result, the committee recommends an increase to
the budget request of $54.8 million for the installation of two
CFM56 engine kits on RC-135 aircraft.
The committee views with concern the large fleet of Boeing
707-type aircraft derivatives in the Air Force inventory that
are, or will be, in need of re-engining to reduce operation and
support costs, to increase efficiency, and to meet Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) standard for noise. A recent
review of 707-type airframes revealed that, of the 647 707-type
airframes in the Air Force inventory, 402 have been reengined,
and an additional 15 aircraft will be re-engined by fiscal year
2000.
While there have been re-engining programs for the Air
Force's Boeing 707 type fleet over the years, there is a need
for comprehensive analysis of costs, benefits, and programming
for the remainder of the 707-type fleet. The requirement for
modernizing its fleet of Boeing 707 derivative aircraft seems
to have been omitted from the present and recent Air Force
budget requests, possibly leading to a choice between a major
procurement ``bow wave'' in future years or premature
retirement of many aircraft. Accordingly, the committee
recommends a provision that would require an analysis of re-
engining requirements, program requirements, and benefits to
ensure that this vital requirement is not ignored in future
planning and programming.
Section 143. Exception to requirement for a particular determination
for sales of manufactured articles or services of Army
industrial facilities outside the United States.
The committee is concerned that with the end of the Cold
War and the onset of reduced defense budgets, many of our
military industrial facilities are operating inefficiently due
to a lack of work. The committee understands that there are
some cases where the excess capacity created by the lack of
work can be utilized by allowing these facilities to provide
commercial entities with articles and services for inclusion in
weapon systems that will ultimately be procured by the
Department of Defense. Utilizing this excess capacity will
serve to reduce the current waste, create a more efficient
facility, provide private industry with quality service, and
maintain a critical work force. Therefore, the committee
recommends a provision that would authorize Army industrial
facilities to sell to commercial entities articles or services
that will ultimately be incorporated into weapon systems
procured by the Department of Defense.
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
Alternative fuel vehicles
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT), Public Law 102-486,
requires Federal agencies to purchase alternative fuel vehicles
to meet 50 percent of their annual new vehicle acquisitions in
fiscal year 1998. The goals of such acquisitions are to ensure
that Federal agencies assist in meeting Federal goals to
accelerate the reduction of incremental costs associated with
alternative fuel vehicles, to propel alternative fuel vehicles
into a position of standard manufacturers' models, and to
expand the fueling infrastructure for alternative fuel vehicles
into a nationwide network. Executive Order 13031, dated
December 13, 1996, directed each agency to develop and
implement plans to comply with the alternative fuel vehicle
acquisition requirements of the Energy Policy Act by February
13, 1997, and to submit the plans to the Office of Management
and Budget.
The Department of Defense, with its large fleet of
vehicles, plays a significant role in achieving the goals of
the program, particularly through its ability to purchase a
wide variety of alternative fuel vehicle types, such as
alcohol, electric, andnatural gas. According to information
available to the committee, a total of 7,491 alternative fuel vehicles
should be procured or acquired for use in fiscal year 1998. That figure
is based upon the number of new vehicles intended to be purchased by
the Department in fiscal year 1998 that are defined as EPACT ``covered
fleet'' vehicles. The committee directs the Department of Defense to
provide a report by January 1, 1998 that identifies the actual number
and types of alternative fuel vehicles it intends to purchase in fiscal
year 1998. The committee further directs the Department to provide an
annual report, within 150 days after the beginning of each fiscal year,
that identifies the number and type of alternative fuel vehicles that
it plans to purchase in the following fiscal years.
Automated data processing equipment
The budget request included $125.1 million to support
modernization of the automation infrastructure. The committee
is concerned that the Army has retained approximately 8000
legacy secure facsimile systems that could become a burden to
maintain as repair parts become scarce. The committee is also
aware that new technology has resulted in secure facsimile
machines that are lighter, easier to maintain, and more capable
than existing systems. The Secretary of the Army is therefore
directed to provide a report, no later than March 1, 1998, to
the congressional defense committees that establishes future
requirements for secure facsimile machines, displays the costs
and benefits of replacing existing legacy systems with newer
technology machines, and outlines the department funding plan
for addressing future requirements.
Coast Guard port security units
The budget request contained no funding for equipment for
Coast Guard port security units (PSU).
The Coast Guard has notified the committee of an unfunded
requirement for $13.6 million to purchase the equipment
necessary to field three new PSUs and to replace the equipment
of three existing PSUs that were originally stood up in 1987.
The PSUs are units of the Coast Guard Reserve that have been
mobilized on several occasions, including during Desert Storm
and Uphold Democracy operations in Haiti. Their missions
include waterside security of ports and filling security
perimeter gaps between land side security forces and coastal
and barrier assets. There is no unit of the Coast Guard's
active force that performs a comparable mission and could
provide the PSUs with excess equipment by transfer. The Coast
Guard has also informed the committee that requirements levied
by the unified commanders in chief dictate the need to
establish three new units to supplement those already in
existence.
While the committee was unable to identify funds to provide
additional resources for Coast Guard port security units, the
committee has no objection to the requirement being satisfied
by the use of funds already included in the defense function
for defense related activities (budget subfunction 054) in the
budget request for support of the Coast Guard.
Global Air Traffic Management
Global Air Traffic Management (GATM) is an Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and International Civil Aeronautics
Organization (ICAO) initiative that allows worldwide access for
Department of Defense aircraft. To become GATM compliant,
aircraft will have to modified and upgraded to incorporate
digital data links, GPS receivers, and other modifications.
The committee acknowledges the need to create a coherent,
comprehensive plan for all cargo and passenger carrying DOD
aircraft that must comply with near-term FAA and ICAO mandates
to ensure continued access to worldwide airspace. Accordingly,
the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
report no later than March 3, 1998 to the congressional defense
committees that describes the Department's plans to comply with
GATM requirements, and the budget programming necessary to meet
the outyear requirements of GATM. The report should explain the
Department's plans for incorporation of commercial off-the-
shelf (COTS) systems and non-developmental item (NDI) solutions
to ensure near-term and future compatibility with civilian
systems and to reduce the cost of implementing non-tactical
GATM requirements.
Tactical aviation
Last year's Senate committee report on S.1745 (S. Rept.
104-267) laid the foundation for a thorough examination of
tactical aviation modernization through the requirement of
reports on the costs of the F-22 and its event-based program.
Later, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1997 (Public Law 104-201) added requirements to examine the net
benefits of developing the F/A-18E/F, its unit costs for
various production rates, and a report on the Joint Advanced
Strike Technology (JAST) program, which has been renamed the
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program.
Of these reports, the reports on F-22 cost and F/A-18E/F
net benefit included fences on program funding until the
reports were provided to the Congress. Reports on F-22 event-
based decision making were due on October 1, 1996 and February
3, 1997 with the submission of the budget request, and no
restriction was placed on the program pending receipt of the
event-based reports. As of April, 1997, those reports had not
been received, leading the committee to believe that the
Department only provides important background for decisions
where there are penalties for noncompliance. The report on the
JAST (now JSF) program is due on May 15, 1998.
In addition to these reports, the committee is aware that
theDepartment has formed a tactical aviation working group
within the Joint Staff to assess various options for future decisions
related to the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The committee notes
that before the QDR was completed, program requests had changed from
calendar year 1996 to calendar year 1997, in part because of
assumptions about the outcome of the QDR. Also, programs have changed
without any reference to the strategy-based work of the QDR. For
example, the restructure of F-22 engineering and manufacturing
development (EMD) occurred through an infusion of production funds in
development to make up for a $2.2 billion overrun, and the F/A-18E/F
program has been cut by four aircraft.
The Subcommittee on AirLand Forces held two hearings on
tactical aviation modernization to receive testimony on both
the broad strategic considerations of tactical aviation and
programmatic considerations and the costs of the present
administration plan. Many themes emerged from the hearings,
especially:
(1) the present program for modernization is
unaffordable;
(2) the tactical aviation modernization program does
not seem to be based on a clear strategy; and
(3) the Navy and Air Force have a different
assessment of future needs or a different approach to
meeting the future.
While awaiting the preliminary results of the QDR, the
committee intends to put the tactical aviation modernization
program into a placeholder status for fiscal year 1998, pending
clear decisions from the department on its future requirements
and programs.
Tactical trailers/dolly sets
The budget request included $8.0 million for tactical
trailer equipment. The committee understands that there is
promising new technology in trailer equipment that would allow
a single operator to load and unload heavy equipment. One
example of this new technology is a hydraulic traveling axle
trailer system that positions a trailer so that equipment can
be driven or winched onto the trailer platform. This new
equipment is currently available on the commercial market and
would reduce current Army crew requirements. The committee
understands that the Army is in the process of establishing a
new requirement that may allow for the use of these
commercially available products. The committee encourages the
Army to finalize work on requirements for new, simple to
operate trailer equipment and to explore other products
currently available to commercial contractors for potential
military use.
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
The committee recommends investments in research and
development to address future mission needs by ensuring 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 university and industry science and
technology efforts. The committee's research and development
priorities were to ensure future battlefield dominance by
increased emphasis on advanced technology programs and to
achieve future savings.
Explanation of tables
The tables in this title display items requested by the
administration for fiscal year 1998 for which the committee
either increased or decreased 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.
Unless noted explicitly in the report, all changes are made
without prejudice.
SUBTITLE A--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
SUBTITLE B--PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, AND LIMITATIONS
Section 211. Joint Strike Fighter program.
The budget request included $930.8 million in three program
elements: $448.9 in PE 603800N; $458.1 million in PE 603800F;
and $23.9 million in PE 603800E for development of the Joint
Strike Fighter (JSF).
Tactical aviation programs have been the subject of intense
scrutiny during committee and subcommittee hearings. One theme
that emerged consistently has been the overall cost of the
three planned programs: the F-22; F/A-18E/F; and the JSF. The
issue of requirements and the relationship to known or
postulated threats has been a second consistent theme.
Realizing that the JSF program emerged from an amalgam of
developmental programs that were individually unaffordable, the
committee has been encouraged by the program's consistent
emphasis on unit cost and the incorporation of emerging
technologies to provide improved capabilities within strict
cost guidelines.
The continued progress of the JSF program offers real hope
foracquiring advanced aircraft designed to be efficiently
manufactured and supported through a common support structure. While
the concepts, goals, and progress to date have been encouraging, the
committee views with concern the proposed order of fielding finished
JSF aircraft. The program cancellations and combinations that led to
the JSF most directly affected the Navy's strike capability. For
example, the A-12 program cancellation that was the result of a program
overrun that exceeded one billion dollars, and the subsequent tactical
aviation restructurings led to a near-term situation that is the exact
reverse of what it should be. Instead of a small number of stealth type
aircraft based forward on aircraft carriers and a significant force of
capable multi-role aircraft to wage the larger type campaigns such as
Desert Storm, the stealth aircraft are based in the heart of America,
where they can be moved forward only after a foothold has been
established or host nations provide support and the multi-role aircraft
are on board carriers.
In an attempt to reset the balance in the future, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the
Navy stealthy strike aircraft capable of carrier-based strike
operations are expeditiously fielded as the first priority of
the JSF program. The committee recommends a provision that
would direct the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to
the congressional defense committees that would describe the
development and production sequencing for the various JSF
aircraft, not later than February 15, 1998.
Alternative engine program
The budget request included funds for the continuation of a
program to establish an alternative engine for the joint strike
fighter, but omitted funds for fiscal year 1998. The committee
is persuaded that there is a need for an alternative engine for
the JSF, but expects the Department to program sufficient funds
in the future years for a robust, accelerated profile.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in the budget
request of $28.0 million to accelerate the alternative engine
program, with the understanding that the Department will
provide for the accelerated program in fiscal year 1999 and
beyond.
Section 212. F-22 aircraft program.
The committee views with concern the recently revealed cost
overruns of $2.2 billion in the F-22 engineering and
manufacturing development (EMD) program. While the Air Force
asserts that the restructure of the program leaves the overall
program top line for the sum of development and production
untouched, the restructure deletes the following:
(1) the four pre-production verification (PPV)
aircraft (-$706.0 million), which were to have been
used for flight testing and to measure and validate
manufacturing techniques; and,
(2) fifty four production aircraft (-$1.45 billion)
over the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP).
These steps were taken to prevent further schedule slips
through a transfer of $2.2 billion to the EMD program.
Cost analyses
The committee is also concerned about recent assertions by
the Secretary of the Air Force that any further discussion of
cost analyses of the F-22 are ``not useful at this point.'' On
the contrary, the committee is convinced that discussions of a
potential $16.0 billion overrun in production and an
acknowledged $2.2 billion overrun in EMD are not only useful,
but vital in framing decisions on present and future defense
spending.
A review of the F-22 program history related to unit cost
estimates shows clearly why cost analyses are critical at this
point. In 1985, the USAF established an average unit flyaway
cost goal of $35.0 million in fiscal year 1985 dollars ($41.2
million in fiscal year 1990 dollars). The goal provided an
affordability restraint on proposed designs, and was based on a
buy of 750 aircraft at a production rate of 72 per year,
produced between 1992 and 2005.
As a result of the 1990 Major Aircraft Review, the
production rate was reduced from 72 to 48, and the unit flyaway
cost was revised to $51.2 million. In 1991, the Milestone II
Defense Acquisition Board decision reduced the total planned
buy to 648, with production scheduled between 1996 and 2012.
While the flyaway costs continued to increase, so also did the
program acquisition unit costs (PAUC), defined as total program
cost divided by total units. PAUC represents the total amount
paid by the taxpayers, divided by the units delivered in a
program, and is the most inclusive measure of program costs,
since stretch-outs and intra-program transfers are all included
in the PAUC. No amount of transfers of funds from production to
development, or vice versa, will affect the PAUC, hence it is
the best measure for overall program costs.
As outlined in hearings on tactical aviation, present
estimates of PAUC depend on the validity of as-yet-undefined
cost savings measures. Present Air Force estimates of F-22 PAUC
would be $161.1 million per aircraft, under the best
circumstances. If the Air Force's cost saving initiatives are
not successful, then the more substantial CAIG estimate for
cost should be used, as it is based in part on costs actually
incurred on the first EMD aircraft.
It is imperative that the program, already suffering from
an over two billion dollar overrun, be closely monitored as it
proceeds through development. Accumulated cost data during the
remaining development phase and early low rate production
should serve to build confidence in the Air Force's proposed
initiatives. Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision
to ensure future costs are controlled, using cost cap similar
inscope to those applied to the B-2 program.
Section 213. High Altitude Endurance Unmanned Vehicle program.
The budget request included $216.7 million for High
Altitude Endurance (HAE) unmanned air vehicles (UAVs). The two
HAE UAVs are the Global Hawk, formerly the Tier II plus, and
the Dark Star, formerly the Tier III minus. Each has different
characteristics, but both are designed for high altitude
extended flights. The programs are presently managed by the
Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA), and are
differentiated from tactical UAVs, which are designed for
shorter flights, less endurance, and for use by field
commanders.
The committee has recently learned of slips in the program
schedule and cost overruns in the overall program. Although the
HAE program had been limited to $10.0 million in unit flyaway
pricing, it now appears unlikely that the aircraft can be
produced for that amount. The committee is concerned about the
progress of the HAE program, from the crash of the Tier III
minus to the overrun and delayed first flight in the Tier Two
plus program.
While there has been much written and said about the future
of UAVs in gathering intelligence or providing timely
battlefield awareness, the promises have not yet been
fulfilled. A common theme in discussion of UAV program has been
that the major expenses of systems are in the sensors, ground
stations, and data links, rather than in the air vehicles.
While this is true with respect to planned cost, it has
resulted in an almost cavalier attitude toward air vehicle
development.
UAVs are struggling to graduate from small, ``disposable'',
inexpensive aircraft to multi-million dollar systems, requiring
a serious approach to testing and fielding. There is the added
problem related to the use of advanced concept technology
demonstrations (ACTD) to field complex, developmental systems,
that barely fit the definition of mature technologies. The
results have been discouraging so far, especially when compared
with the promises and plans for UAV employment.
Tier II plus
The committee was told that the Tier II plus was being
developed under an entirely new acquisition approach. In
exchange for the limiting military standards and procurement
regulations, the contractor was free to trade operational and
performance goals to maximize military utility, while adhering
to only one requirement: a unit flyaway price of $10.0 million.
Now it appears the contractor needs an additional infusion
of money to produce the systems, and the committee has been
reminded that the $10.0 million unit flyaway price applies to
production after successful completion of the ACTD. The
reasoning seems inconsistent since there is no requirement for
the program to go to production; ACTD's are intended to be
limited demonstrations. Under the circumstances, the need for
additional funds for the ACTD strains credibility.
The committee has recently learned that the Defense
Airborne Reconnaissance Office is preparing contingency plans
for the entire HAE program, reducing the planned eight Global
Hawks, six Dark Stars, and three ground stations to five Global
Hawks, three Dark Stars and two ground stations. The
restructuring would be required if:
(1) there are continued delays in substantial flight
testing;
(2) there are high cost overruns; or
(3) further unforseen technical difficulties arise;
or
(4) there are unsuccessful first flights.
While the committee agrees with the Department of Defense
that there is a need to proceed cautiously until a record of
success is established, there are questions about what is to be
done in the near term. Accordingly, the committee recommends a
provision that would aid the Department in it's efforts to
control and stabilize the programs.
Section 214. Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile program.
The statement of managers accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (H. Rept. 104-247)
included an additional $50.0 million in PE 205601N, Harm
Improvement, to continue development of the advanced anti-
radiation guided missile (AARGM). The conferees noted that
funds were to be spent only for design reviews and support for
test and evaluation. The report also encourages the Secretaries
of the Navy and Air Force to fund the fiscal year 1998
requirements for the program. The Department did not do so.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision that would
direct that $25.0 million of fiscal year 1997 funds be used for
higher priority programs.
Section 215. Federally funded research and development centers.
The committee notes the continued progress of the
Department of Defense (DOD) in overseeing the management of the
Federally funded research and development centers (FFRDC) by
their sponsoring organizations within the department and the
military services. As a result of the of the DOD commitment to
the five-year plan established in 1995 for the management of
such organizations, the committee has recommended a provision
that would impose a ceiling on the total staff years of
technical effort that may be funded for Defense FFRDC's in
fiscal year 1998. This is intended to provide the DOD with a
more appropriate and flexible management framework than would a
ceiling on total annual funding for DOD work conducted in
defense FFRDC's.
The committee will continue to monitor this issue closely
toensure that DOD maintains appropriate management controls on
the work performed by the Defense FFRDC's. Such organizations should be
limited to performing work within their core competencies and should
not compete with the private sector. The committee is prepared to
consider reimposing annual funding ceilings should past management
problems recur.
Section 216. Goal for dual-use science and technology projects.
The committee remains interested in dual-use strategies for
research and development of technologies applicable to the
missions of the Department of Defense (DOD). That interest has
been reflected in the passage of legislation to expand the use
of other transactions authority in section 2371 of title 10,
United States Code, as well as the authorization of continued
funding for the dual-use applications program in the Office of
the Secretary of Defense. The committee notes the continued
pressure on science and technology funding in the Department of
Defense and believes that appropriate dual-use strategies
within the military services have the potential to use
constrained defense resources to leverage commercial investment
in technologies critical to future battlefield dominance.
The DOD dual-use program is at a critical turning point.
The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology
has announced that the DOD intends to cease funding dual-use
applications as a separate program in the budget of the Office
of the Secretary of Defense at the end of fiscal year 1999.
After that point, the services will be expected to carry out
dual-use projects within their core science and technology
programs. Unfortunately, the DOD has developed no specific
process to ensure that such a transition will take place,
despite the military services' resistance to dual-use
technology development. The committee commends the DOD for
structuring the dual-use program in fiscal year 1997 to create
a strong incentive for the military services to use their core
science and technology funds for dual-use projects. However,
that initiative alone will not be sufficient to achieve the
integration of significant, sustained dual-use activity in the
services' science and technology programs.
There are several major barriers to the greater use of
dual-use strategies by the military services. For example,
contracting officers are reluctant to depart from the use of
contracts or grants due to a lack of understanding of the other
transactions authority. Also, the military services are
required to develop technologies to meet operational
requirements that do not have commercial analogs. Current
constrained science and technology budgets do not allow the
services to pursue technologies for which dual-use strategies
might be more appropriate. Finally, there remain significant
barriers between commercial technology developers and the
systems requirements of operational users within the military
services.
For these reasons, the committee recognizes that there will
be a transition process that involves the shifting of dual-use
programs from OSD to the military services. As a first step in
the process of that transition, the committee recommends a
provision that would establish a set of goals with increasing
levels of funding for new starts in the applied research (6.2)
accounts of the military services to be devoted to dual-use
projects in each of fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000. The
committee believes strongly that this approach will yield more
effective long-term success than an approach that would direct
the military services to fund dual-use technologies at a
required percentage of their science and technology programs,
beginning in FY 1998. For purposes of this section, those dual-
use projects entered into by the military services would have
to require a minimum cost-share of 50 percent from non-federal
participants in order to count toward meeting the specified
goal. The provision would also assign oversight responsibility
for implementation of dual-use technologies to the official who
reports directly to the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology.
In light of the recent rescission of the $50.0 million
appropriated for dual-use programs in fiscal year 1997 and the
lack of definition of the dual-use program request for fiscal
year 1998, the committee recommends an authorization of $125.0
million for the dual-use applications program in fiscal year
1998, a reduction of $100.0 million below the amount of the
request. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to
administer the program in fiscal year 1998 in the same fashion
as the dual-use program is being administered in fiscal year
1997.
Section 217. Transfers of authorizations for counterproliferation
support program.
The fiscal year 1998 budget request included $65.2 million
for the Counterproliferation Support Program to accelerate the
development and deployment of essential military
counterproliferation technologies and capabilities in the
Department of Defense (DOD) and the military services.
The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million to
the counterproliferation support program: $3.0 million for the
high frequency active auroral research program (HAARP); $1.0
million for development of a portable trace element detection
system that utilizes a laser plasma technique that enables
quick sampling of reflected light, which could be used for on-
site inspections of chemical and biological facilities; $6.0
million for continuation of the SAFEGUARD program; $10.0
million for the continuation of the counterproliferation
mission planning analysis and planning system (CAPS) to support
theater commanders and special operations forces in preparing
for regional contingencies involving weapons of mass
destruction.
In addition, the committee recommends a $7.0 million
increase to the budget request for defense operations and
maintenance for the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM)
for equipment to detect, attack, and destroy underground
facilities, and fortraining activities to locate, identify,
seize, destroy, render safe, transport, capture, or recover weapons of
mass destruction from deep underground structures.
The committee is concerned about the amount of funds
expended by the government for government administrative and
Systems Engineering and Technical Assessments (SETA) support
under the HAARP program. Of the funds made available last year
for HAARP, the committee understands that roughly twenty
percent went for government overhead and SETA support. The
committee understands that these activities are necessary.
However, the committee is concerned that the amounts authorized
for HAARP to conduct experiments and to demonstrate its utility
for DOD requirements is being diverted. The committee directs
that the combined government overhead/SETA support costs be no
more than ten percent.
Chemical and Biological Detection
The potential use of chemical agents and weapons continues
to pose a serious threat to the survivability and effectiveness
of U.S. forces. The committee supports efforts by the
Department to improve our ability to detect and identify
chemical agent production and storage facilities. National
capabilities and technologies such as the SAFEGUARD sensor
suite could provide a near-term, low risk capability to detect,
confirm, and monitor certain weapons of mass destruction
effluents. The committee supported proof of concept activities
in fiscal years 1996 and 1997. To complete the proof of concept
activities, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0
million to PE 62384BP for the SAFEGUARD program.
Mission Planning and Analysis
The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remains a
continuing national security concern and challenge for the long
term. To address this challenge, the committee has supported
funding for a counterproliferation analysis planning systems
(CAPS). The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million
in the counterproliferation support program (PE 63160D) for
counterproliferation analysis planning systems: $4.0 million
for U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) and $6.0 million for
USSOCOM.
Transfer Authority
The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
Department of Defense to transfer up to $50.0 million from
fiscal year 1997 defense-wide research and development accounts
for counterproliferation support activities that are determined
by the Counterproliferation Review Committee to be necessary
and in the national security interests.
Underground and Deep Underground Structures
The committee has recommended the use of $4.5 million
available in the counterproliferation support program ($1.5
million in fiscal year 1996 and $3.0 million in fiscal year
1997) for the exploration of a ``deep digger'' concept for hard
target characterization. The committee continues to support
efforts by the Department to focus its research and development
efforts aggressively on programs to detect and discriminately
attack and destroy underground facilities. The committee
continues to believe the ``deep digger'' concept could possibly
address a critical gap in our armed forces' capabilities. The
committee understands that only a small portion of funds has
been released to conduct a feasibility study for theoretical
validation of the program. ``Deep digger'' has the potential
for use in a variety of missions, because it could be delivered
either by ground forces or by aircraft. The committee directs
the Department to report to the committee by October 31, 1997,
on the status of the program.
Section 218. Kinetic Energy Tactical Anti-Satellite Technology Program.
The committee notes that in testimony before the committee
on March 12, 1997, witnesses from the Department of Defense
expressed support for proceeding with the kinetic energy anti-
satellite (KE-ASAT) program and the Department's intention to
obligate additional funds appropriated in fiscal year 1998 for
this program, even though no funds were requested. Based on
this indication of support from DOD and the level of investment
already achieved, the committee believes that it would be wise
for DOD to complete the development of the KE-ASAT program and
preserve the option of fielding a limited operational
capability in the future. Therefore, the committee recommends a
provision that would authorize $80.0 million in PE 63892D to
continue this effort in fiscal year 1998. The provision also
prohibits the obligation of funds in PE 65104D, relating to
technical studies and analyses, until the funds appropriated
for the KE-ASAT program in fiscal year 1998 have been released
to the KE-ASAT program manager.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees by May 1, 1998,
detailing the environmental and operational impacts in space of
the debris that would result from a successful use of a KE-ASAT
weapon by the United States, or other anti-satellite weapon by
any other nation. The report should also describe features of
the KE-ASAT program designed to mitigate this potential
problem.
Section 219. Clementine 2 Micro-Satellite development program.
The committee has supported the Clementine 2 micro-
satellite near-earth asteroid interception mission. In fiscal
year 1996, the U.S. Air Force Space Command, in conjunction
with the Air Force Phillips Laboratory, initiated the
Clementine 2 micro-satelliteprogram as a follow-on to the
highly successful Clementine 1 mission. The Clementine 2 program is
intended to develop, test, and flight-validate a variety of
miniaturized spacecraft technologies with applications to a wide number
of military and intelligence space programs. By using near-earth
asteroids as sensor demonstration targets, the mission will also
provide benefits to the civil science community. The budget request did
not include any funds for this program. Therefore, the committee
recommends a provision that would increase funding for the Clementine 2
program by $50.0 million (in PE 63401F) to continue this effort under
the control of the Space Warfare Center, with execution by the
Clementine team (Phillips Laboratory, the Naval Research Laboratory,
and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory). The provision would
also prohibit the obligation of more than $35.0 million of funds
authorized in PE 64480F for the Global Positioning System Block IF
satellite system until the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress
that the Secretary has made available for obligation funds appropriated
for fiscal year 1998 for the Clementine 2 Micro-Satellite program.
SUBTITLE C--BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAMS
Section 221. National Missile Defense program.
The committee continues to support a focused effort to
develop and deploy a National Missile Defense (NMD) system to
defend the United States against limited ballistic missile
attacks. The committee acknowledges that the Secretary of
Defense has recently reiterated his commitment to preserving
the option of deploying such a system in fiscal year 2003.
Recognizing the continuing controversy over NMD deployment
policy, the committee recommends a provision that would
strengthen the option to deploy an NMD system in fiscal year
2003 without specifically establishing an overarching
deployment policy.
This provision would require the Secretary of Defense to
structure and fund the NMD program so as to support an
integrated NMD system test in fiscal year 1999. The provision
would also require the Secretary of Defense to prepare a plan
for the development and deployment of an NMD system that could
achieve initial operational capability in fiscal year 2003.
Finally, the provision recommends an authorization of $978.1
million for NMD in fiscal year 1998.
Section 222. Reversal of decision to transfer procurement funds from
the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.
On December 23, 1996, Program Budget Decision 224C3,
signed by the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller),
transferred all procurement funds for ballistic missile defense
programs from the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BODO)
to the military services. The committee strongly opposes this
decision and recommends a provision that would reverse it.
The committee has concluded that, for purposes of
continuity and management coherence, BODO should continue to
manage the program procurement funds in cases where BODO
already manages the program research, development, test, and
evaluation funds. This is a basic principle dating back to the
creation of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization. The
committee is concerned that transferring procurement funds from
BODO to the military services will force unhealthy and
unnecessary tension between missile defense programs and
already under funded service modernization programs. This
tension will be particularly acute in the years beyond the
Future Years Defense Program when the services would be
required to identify and dedicate the needed ballistic missile
defense procurement funds from within service accounts that are
likely to be under funded.
SUBTITLE D--OTHER MATTERS
Section 231. Manufacturing Technology program.
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
and the military services have not made sufficient progress in
implementing the requirement in section 2525 of title 10,
United States Code, to seek the participation of manufacturers
of manufacturing equipment in the projects under the
manufacturing technology program. Therefore, the committee
recommends a provision that would amend section 2525 to clarify
the rationale for the current requirement. The committee
directs that the Defense Logistics Agency and each of the
military services provide to the congressional defense
committees, no later than February 15, 1998, a report
describing their respective procedures for implementing the
requirement in 2525(c)(2) of title 10, United States Code, as
amended, including the manner in which the requirement is
addressed in solicitations for contracts under the program.
Section 232. Use of major range and test facility installations by
commercial entities.
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
current authority in 10 U.S.C. 2681 for the Department of
Defense (DOD) to provide for the use of test and evaluation
installations by commercial entities from September 30, 1998 to
September 30, 2001. The committee also recommends a provision
that would require the DOD to submit a report identifying
procedures to ensure that the commercial use of DOD major range
and test facilities testing services is not competing with
private sector testing services.
Section 233. Eligibility for the Defense Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Research.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 257 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337) to ensure the eligibility
of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories
to participate in the Defense experimental program to stimulate
competitive research.
Section 234. Restructuring of National Oceanographic Partnership
Program organizations.
Section 282 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201) added chapter 665,
National Oceanographic Partnership Program, to title 10 of the
United States Code. Section 7902 of chapter 665 provided for
the establishment for the National Ocean Leadership Council,
whose duty it would be to coordinate national oceanography
programs, partnerships and facilities, and to coordinate policy
efforts of all Federal activities involved in oceanographic
surveys and research.
The National Ocean Leadership Council was to be made up of
the Secretary of the Navy, who would serve as chairman for the
first two years, and 17 officers representing: eleven federal
agencies with significant roles in oceanographic research; the
National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of
Engineering and the Institute of Medicine; and representatives,
appointed by the chairman, to represent the interests of State
government, academia, and ocean industries.
In signing the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997, the President issued a statement that the
statute's method for the appointment of certain members of the
National Ocean Leadership Council would violate the
Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Although the statement
provided that the Council should not exercise significant
governmental authority, the administration allowed the Council
to be convened with the 12 members whose appointment did not
raise any constitutional issue, pending the enactment of
corrective legislation.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 7902(b) revising the membership of the Council to
remove the members whose appointment would raise constitutional
questions. The National Oceans Leadership Council would remain
as currently established by the administration, with members
representing the 12 Federal agencies with significant
oceanographic interest. The committee recommends that the
membership of the Council's advisory panel be expanded to
include representatives from the National Academy of Sciences,
the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of
Medicine, as well as government, academia, and the oceans
industry.
ARMY
Insert offset folio 170 here
Offset Folios 171 to 175 insert here
<SKIP PAGES = 005>
Army research institute
The committee recommends an increase of $3.6 million to
fully fund an array of research activities at the Army Research
Institute related to personnel recruitment and training as well
as issues related to gender and racial integration. The
additional funds are recommended to be authorized as follows:
PE 61102A, $0.5 million; PE 62785A, $0.3 million; PE 63007A,
$1.3 million; PE 65803A, $1.5 million.
The committee directs that any significant reductions in
the Army Research Institute activities be carried out only
after the Army has conducted a formal assessment of its
continuing needs for the research carried out by the institute.
University and industry research centers
The committee recommends an increase of $2.3 million in PE
61104A to restore funding for the advanced telecommunications
and information distribution research program (ATIRP) and the
advanced sensors consortium. The committee intends this funding
to allow the Army Research Laboratory to achieve its program
objectives by providing the funding stability necessary to
allow non-federal participants to make long-term commitments to
the program.
Materials technology
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE
62105A to continue exploratory development of hardened
materials for use on high performance missile systems. The
development of an all-composite shroud and integrated missile
structure offers the potential for significant weight reduction
in such critical military programs.
National Automotive Center
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE
62601A to expand the activities of the National Automotive
Center. The committee directs the Army to develop a management
plan to accelerate the infusion of commercial automotive
technology into Army land warfare systems through the
activities of the center. The committee directs that the
management plan be submitted to the committee no later than
February 15, 1998.
Liquid propellant technology program
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
62618A to complete the liquid propellant technology program in
fiscal year 1998. The committee intends the increased funding
to be used to address the issues of reliable ignition of the
propellant and to complete work on material compatibility
research.
Environmental technology
The committee supports the ongoing joint effort between the
U.S. Army Environmental Center/Environmental Technology
Division and the Tennessee Valley Authority/Muscle Shoals
Environmental Research Center to develop, demonstrate, and
validate the Plasma Energy Pyrolysis System (PEPS) technology.
The committee recommends an additional $8.7 million in PE
62720A for that purpose.
Although environmental applications of plasma technology
are at an early stage of development, plasma heating was used
to make metal products and refine nitrogen for fertilizer
production at the turn of the century. The purpose of PEPS is
to develop plasma technology as a method of producing heat for
the breakdown of waste materials.
The Army has identified various complex military waste
streams that have significant disposal costs. Waste streams
resulting from incineration processes associated with
conventional furnaces raise environmental concerns regarding
toxic air emissions and the disposal of ash contaminated with
heavy metals.
The Muscle Shoals Environmental Research Center provides a
level of technical expertise that stems from forty years of
experience in working with electric arc furnaces, a thermal
process similar to PEPS. For that reason, the participation of
the Muscle Shoals Environmental Research Center is a necessary
element of PEPS. However, the committee directs that no more
than 15 percent of the PEPS funds be made available for the
participation of the Muscle Shoals Environmental Research
Center.
The goals of the PEPS program are to evaluate the
capability of plasma technology for the destruction of
hazardous components, verify slag suitability for regular
landfill disposal, identify potential hazards associated with
the process emissions, and develop qualified cost estimates for
the future use of the process on large scale operations. The
committee expects a report on the progress made in meeting
these goals with fiscal year 1998 funds.
The committee also supports the initiation of the Radford
Environmental Development and Management Program (REDMAP) at
the Radford Army Ammunition Plant, Virginia, for the
development of an integrated environmental and pollution
prevention management and control system. The committee
recommends an additional $6.0 million in PE 62720A for that
purpose.
It should be noted that some of the basic research
necessary for REDMAP has already been done through the Facility
Environmental Management and Monitoring System (FEMMS) at
Tobyhanna Army Depot, Pennsylvania. It is the committee's
expectation that REDMAP will use relevant information developed
through FEMMS.
Innovative methods of energy conservation and the economic efficiency
of energy sources
The committee recognizes the need for technology
development to enhance the military application of innovative
methods of energy conservation and the economic efficiency of
energy sources. It is essential that the Federal Government
keep pace with the private sector developments in this area.
The committee recommends $1.75 million in PE 603712N to
establish a cooperative research and development effort between
Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) in Crane, Indiana and
private industry. The committee further recommends $4.0 million
in PE 602784A for additional technology development of energy
efficient military applications between the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Construction Engineering Research Laboratories and
private industry. In each instance, participants from the
private sector shall contribute an amount of funding that is
equivalent to the federal funding level.
Military engineering technology
The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE
62784A to enhance research in combat support, combat
engineering, and base facility construction, operation and
maintenance in winter and in cold regions of the world. Recent
experiences in Bosnia have highlighted the significant increase
in resources required to deploy a military force in a winter
environment, especially for operations in an area with degraded
infrastructure. The armed forces of the United States could
face similar challenges in many other areas of national
security interest, such as Korea and the northern flank of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Medical advanced technology
The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE
63002A to continue development of intravenous membrane
oxygenator (IMO) technology for the treatment of lung injuries
as a result of combat. The committee believes that this
artificial lung technology has the potential to significantly
reduce combat deaths resulting from exposure to trauma and
chemical agents.
Nutrition research
The committee recommends an increase of $3.6 million in PE
63002A to continue nutrition research in support of
improvements to the Meals Ready-to Eat (MRE) system. The
committee views this research as increasingly important for
maintaining the health and readiness of deployed forces and
expects the Army to include funding for this program in future
budget requests.
Combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology
The budget request included $32.7 million to develop new
technologies designed to enhance the effectiveness of Army
combat systems. The committee has noted with great interest the
technological developments in aluminum metal matrix composites
that have a great potential to strengthen armored vehicle track
shoes and engine components at significantly reduced weight.
This effort was decremented in the Department effort to fund
ongoing operations in Bosnia. The committee believes this
program should be maintained and recommends an increase of $9.0
million in PE 63005A (project D440).
Wave net technology
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 in PE 63006A
to continue development of wave net technology to increase
communications bandwidth utilization in selected applications.
The committee believes that wave net technology is a promising
candidate for, among other applications, compression of second
generation forward-looking infrared video from scout sensors
for near-real time transmission over combat net radios with
minimal errors. The committee expects that the Army will
request funds to continue the development and deployment of
this technology in its budget request for fiscal year 1999.
Vehicular mounted mine detector
The budget request included $19.3 million for research on
countermine technologies and for continued development of three
vehicular mounted mine detector prototypes for comparative
performance testing. The committee strongly supports
countermine technology exploration and believes the vehicular
mounted mine detection technology shows great promise. The
committee recommends an increase of $6.6 million to support
enhancement of automatic mine detection capabilities and to
facilitate more extensive field testing for this much needed
equipment.
Missile defense Battle Integration Center
The committee has supported the missile defense Battle
Integration Center (BIC) at the Army's Space and Strategic
Defense Command for integrating missile defense and space
capabilities for the warfighter through synthetic battlefield
environments. The role of the BIC has expanded to numerous
exercises, experiments, demonstrations, and training
activities. To continue this important capability, the
committee recommends an increase of $22.0 million in PE 63308A.
The committee directs the Director of the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization to provide a report to the committee by
February 1, 1998, detailing how the BIC is integrated into
overall U.S. missile defense programs and efforts.
All source analysis system
The budget request included $24.0 million for the All
Source Analysis System (ASAS). This system plays a key role in
providing the means to receive, process, and forward
battlefield intelligence to the warfighter. The committee
understands that great progress was made last year in
developing fusion technologies for this effort and was pleased
to note the outstanding capabilities that this system provided
to field commanders during the recent Army Advanced Warfighting
Experiment. The committee believes that the Army should
continue the effort to expand the potential applications for
advanced fusion technology insertion and recommends an increase
of $3.2 million to continue this effort.
Force XXI tactical operation centers
The budget request included $18.4 million to support
development of air defense command and control systems. The
committee recognizes the significant advancements made in
digitizing air defense tactical operation centers and notes a
request for additional funding necessary to capitalize on
existing work and begin development of a next generation
digitized facility required for Force XXI units. The committee
recommends an increase of $5.0 million to initiate this
critical development effort.
Force XXI architecture
The Army continues to make great progress in evaluating new
technologies and potential applications for the 21st century
force. The Force XXI Advanced Warfighting Experiment has
demonstrated that information age technologies can be
integrated into battlefield operating systems. Great potential
has been demonstrated in this Army effort to enhance
situational awareness. The committee understands that
additional work is required to design the architecture
necessary to ensure interoperability on the digital
battlefield. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of
$14.0 million in PE 64805A to meet funding requirements for
Army Architecture development.
Firefinder
The budget request included $2.6 million to support
preplanned product improvements to existing AN/TPQ-37
Firefinder systems. The committee recognizes the importance of
the Firefinder system in providing accurate and timely
targeting information to our forces on enemy artillery and
missile positions and notes a request for supplemental funding
to conduct critical work in reducing target error factors and
support acquisition of 13 modification kits necessary to meet
Army requirements for upgraded systems. The committee
recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 64823A to support
these efforts and encourages the Army to resource any remaining
outstanding requirements to fieldthe most effective system
possible.
Tactical high energy laser program
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE
65605A and an increase of $35.0 million in PE 63308A to fully
support efforts in the tactical high energy laser (THEL)
program for follow-up testing and the provision of software
upgrades necessary for designing a self-defense capability for
the system.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) research and development
The budget request for North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) research and development activities in the Department of
Defense and the military services included $13.5 million for PE
63790D, $13.1 million for PE 63790A, $13.1 million in PE
63790N, and $13.4 million in PE 63790F.
In addition to the funds requested for NATO research and
development activities, the budget request for fiscal year 1998
included $1.5 million in the Army program for international
cooperative research and development and $3.7 million in the
Air Force program element for international activities. These
resources are to be used to support general research and
development activities not allocable to specific research and
development (R&D) missions. The resources would also be used to
fund travel costs and administrative support for participation
in international forums, such as NATO, and to pay U.S. costs
associated with negotiating international agreements, overseas
R&D liaison and coordination offices, and NATO armaments
groups.
The committee recommends that all costs of implementing the
NATO research and development activities be included in a sub-
element of the program elements for the separate military
service and defense accounts. Therefore, the committee
recommends that no funds requested for the Army international
cooperative research and development program and the Air Force
international activities program be authorized. Further, the
committee recommends an increase of $700,000 increase to the
budget request for the Army NATO R&D program and $2.0 million
to the Air Force NATO R&D program.
Combat vehicle improvement program
The budget request included $136.5 million for critical
improvements to combat systems. The committee notes a critical
requirement for the continued effort to upgrade the computer
core of the M1A2 Abrams tank, including the second generation
Forward Looking Infrared Radar (FLIR), through the Abrams
System Enhancement Program (SEP). Without additional funding,
the scope of the development effort will be significantly
reduced with a possible slippage in the schedule for the
overall upgrade program.
The committee also notes the Army has been working to
develop improvements to information display systems for the
M1A2 Abrams tank and began to evaluate advanced field emission
display technology earlier this year. These devices, designed
to provide more effective displays of tactical information for
tank commanders, have shown great promise. The committee is
encouraged by the development work completed to date and
recognizes the potential that these systems have to reduce per
unit cost and improve information display clarity. Therefore,
the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE
23735A for the M1 Abrams SEP effort and an increase of $12.0
million in PE 23735A to continue development of the Field
Emission Display devices.
Aircraft modifications/product improvement program
The budget request included $2.6 million for aircraft
modification/product improvement programs. The committee
recognizes the need for the Army to expedite the remanufacture
of its aging fleet of CH-47 Chinook helicopters. The committee
is very concerned about the actions of the Department to defer
this program for an additional year in light of other
priorities. Aircraft safety and reliability is of paramount
importance and the Army has established a viable plan that
should be maintained. The committee recommends an increase of
$30.0 in PE 23744A million to restore this program to the
previously planned funding level and to address these issues as
soon as practicable.
Force XXI digitization
The committee supports Army initiatives designed to
digitize the future force. The Army has made considerable
progress toward that goal over the past year and demonstrated
the potential that digitization offers in the recent brigade-
sized Advanced Warfighting Experiment (AWE) that was conducted
at the National Training Center. At this experiment the
Experimental Force (EXFOR), which was equipped with 87
different digital systems and over 5,000 individual pieces of
equipment, conducted combat operations in the most realistic
training environment that could be provided, short of an actual
war. This digital equipment included unmanned aerial vehicles,
a networked computer system, global positioning satellite
receivers, position reporting transmitters, digital radios, and
advanced night vision and thermal imaging equipment. Members of
the EXFOR were able to utilize unprecedented real-time friendly
situational awareness from individual fighting vehicles all the
way up to division level, as well as unprecedented intelligence
on enemy operations. Digital equipment also provided the EXFOR
with integrated and automated mission planning, mission
execution, and command and control capabilities never before
available to any Army in the world.
In recognition of the importance of this Army initiative,
thecommittee has added nearly $150.0 million to the budget
request to increase the level of funding for digitization programs.
Additional funding was provided for Force XXI Architecture, Force XXI
Battle Command and Tactical Operation Centers, the Warfighter
Information Network, Enhanced Position Locator Systems, and Sentinel
radars.
There are a number of questions that must be addressed
before the decision is made to expand this technology
throughout the Army, including: cost; vulnerabilities; the
integration of new technology into existing systems; the impact
of this technology on the Army's organizational structure and
doctrine, and on tactics, techniques and procedures to execute
this doctrine; the impact on the training base; and the impact
on personnel systems, including leader development.
Realizing that the Army is currently analyzing the data
collected during the exercise, the committee is concerned about
comments from the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation
(DOT&E) that there was no increase in lethality, survivability,
and operational tempo attributable to digitization. Preliminary
reports also suggested that fratricide may have been higher
during the experiment. While the committee is concerned about
this observation, it notes that these comments were based on
observation only and were not based on data collected during
the exercise.
The May 1997 Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)
indicates that the results of the AWE will be used to determine
force structure, materiel requirements, and doctrine for
digitized units and that the fielding of the first digitized
corps will be several years sooner than the original calendar
year 2006 deadline.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Army to report by
February 1, 1998, on the plan for fielding both a digitized
division and a digitized corps. The report should address the
DOT&E critique and detail the analysis of AWE results,
including vulnerabilities to potential countermeasures.
Finally, the report should provide the force structure,
materiel requirements with a requisite fielding plan,
anticipated impact on the training base and the personnel
system, required doctrinal and tactical changes, and
comprehensive cost estimates and those portions of the fiscal
year 1999 Future Years Defense Program that are attributable to
the fielding of the digitized division and corps. The committee
further directs the Army to update the digitization report on
an annual basis and provide this report to the congressional
defense committees by February 1.
Additionally, the Army will report, not later than October
1, 1997, on plans to include jamming and electronic
countermeasures in the next division-level AWE currently
scheduled to be conducted in November 1997. Included in this
report will be a long-term plan for developing the ``red team''
countermeasures activity to keep pace with AWE efforts. The
committee must understand potential vulnerabilities of
digitization systems and be confident that these
vulnerabilities are being addressed to allow for reasoned
judgments on the appropriate architecture, equipment, and pace
for fielding new systems. This long-term plan will also be
addressed in all subsequent annual digitization reports to the
Congress. The committee directs that not more than 25 percent
of the $14.0 million authorized for Force XXI Architecture be
obligated until 30 days after the Secretary of the Army submits
the ``red team'' report to the congressional defense
committees.
Force XXI battle command
The budget request included $156.9 million to support
ongoing digitization efforts within the Army. The committee is
encouraged by the results of digitization experiments conducted
this year and recommends an increase of $11.0 million in PE
23758A to support procurement of applique requirements. The
committee notes additional costs associated with a revised
acquisition strategy associated with fielding the first
digitized division.
Missile/air defense product improvement program
The budget request included $17.4 million for missile
modification/product improvement programs. The committee
recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 23801A to
complete work on the advanced cruise missile seeker for the
Patriot system.
The committee continues to support Army efforts to improve
capabilities in the missile defense arena. The committee
recognizes a growing cruise missile threat and the limited
capabilities that ground forces have to defend against these
threats. Ongoing efforts to develop an improved seeker capable
of detecting and engaging cruise missiles are near completion
and require an additional $10.0 million to complete work and
provide the Army with a viable option for cruise missile
defense.
RDT&E infrastructure support
The committee remains concerned about the proportion of
RDT&E funding allocated to infrastructure support. In an effort
to slow this trend until a more comprehensive infrastructure
rationalization process is initiated, the committee recommends
a total reduction of $31.7 million to be allocated as follows:
Millions
Army:
PE 65801A................................................ $4.0
Navy:
PE 65853N................................................ 5.0
PE 65864N................................................ 12.0
Air Force:
PE 64259F................................................ 6.0
PE 65808F................................................ 1.5
PE 65878F................................................ 3.2
NAVY
Insert offset folio 186 here
Offset Folios 187 to 192 Insert here
<SKIP PAGES = 006>
Power electronic building blocks
The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE
62121N to accelerate the development of power electronic
building block (PEBB) technology through virtual prototyping.
The committee supports PEBB and its contribution to meeting the
goals of the Department of Defense and the Navy to reduce
manning, reduce cost, and enhance survivability for future
shipboard architectures.
Materials technology
The committee recommends a decrease of 4.0 million in PE
62234N in the vacuum electronics in order to balance the
investment strategy for vacuum electronics and solid state
technologies.
Second source for carbon fibers
In fiscal year 1997, Congress added $3.0 million in PE
62234N for the qualification of new processes for aviation
platforms and the development of a second source for carbon
fibers. The budget request for fiscal year 1998 did not include
the funds necessary to complete this qualification process. The
committee supports the Navy's increased efforts to address
science and technology materials development in support of
Naval platform affordability, supportability, and mission
performance. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0
million in PE 62234N to complete the qualification of new
processes, such as resin transfer molding, and the
establishment of a second source for carbon fibers and prepreg
systems.
Titanium processing technology
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE
62234N to support the development of the plasma quench process
for use in the production of ultra-fine titanium powder and in
the injection molding process. The committee believes the
plasma quench process offers the defense and aerospace
industries a cost-effective and environmentally sound means of
meeting growing titanium requirements while ensuring that
domestic sources of titanium metal remain viable into the
future. The committee directs that all applicable competitive
procedures be used in the award of contracts or other
agreements under this program, and that cost-sharing
requirements for non-federal participants be utilized where
appropriate.
National oceanographic partnership program
The National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP), was
established in the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997, for the purpose of leveraging all U.S.
oceanographic efforts in the Navy, in industry, and in academia
to benefit national security. The President's fiscal year 1998
budget request included $5.0 million in the Navy's
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Technology program (PE 62435N)
for NOPP. The committee recommends an increase of $16.0 million
in PE 62435N to fully fund NOPP in fiscal year 1998 at $21.0
million. The committee expects other Federal agencies involved
with NOPP to begin budgeting for this program in fiscal year
1999. The committee recommends that the partnership focus the
additional funding in the following areas: global observation;
training programs and career guidance for ocean scientists;
scientific utilization of military data; and marine information
data basing and networking; and partnership among federal
agencies, academia, industry and other members of the
oceanographic scientific community.
Global observation of ocean processes is recognized as the
foundation for forecasting environmental conditions in support
of forward-deployed Naval operations. The committee recommends
that $10.0 million be used for ocean observation systems in
order to establish the means for continuous, high resolution
measurements of oceanic physical, biological, chemical and
geological processes. Focus should be placed on exploitation of
existing military observational systems (including the
Integrated Undersea Surveillance System), development of
networking sensors, real-time data transmission/assimilation
and broad accessibility to data.
Emphasis should be placed on the education of civilian and
military oceanography students and future scientists. The
committee recommends that $2.5 million be used to develop
training programs and career guidance for ocean scientists,
primarily within the graduate research community, emphasizing
career sectors of interest to the Navy. Participation in such
programs shall be determined using a merit-based, competitive
selection process.
Support is required for oversight groups, such as the
government-industry MEDEA Ocean panel, to continue defining the
best mechanism for declassifying Navy data holdings as well as
access to operational systems for a broad range of educational
and research activities. The committee recommends that $1.0
million be used to further scientific utilization of military
data.
Current technologies provide a range of applications that
could facilitate the transmission of existing information on
the oceans. The need for this network is supported by national
security concerns regarding an array of marine-related issues,
such as coastal hazard mitigation and safe harbor navigation.
The committee recommends that $2.5 million be used to support
marine information databasing and networking.
The committee recommends that $5.0 million be used for
partnerships among Federal agencies, academia, industry, and
other members of the oceanographic scientific community
tostrengthen the coordination of oceanographic research and development
activities and Navy operational requirements.
The committee directs that all applicable competitive
procedures be used in the award of contracts or other
agreements under this program, and that cost-sharing
requirements for non- federal participants be utilized where
appropriate.
Undersea weapons technology
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE
62633N to accelerate technology leading to the development of a
quick reaction anti-submarine/anti-torpedo weapon needed for
close-range engagements and for the protection of surface ships
and submarines from torpedo attack. The additional funding
should be used to mature hydrodynamics and propulsion
technologies for the 6.25,, Torpedo vehicle and expand guidance
and control technologies to accelerate fleet introduction of
this versatile weapon.
Composite helicopter hangar
The Office of Naval Research's surface ship technology
program has developed enabling technologies that can lead to
reduced radar signatures and improved sensor performance. The
potential cost and weight savings of composite materials make
them an attractive alternative to thin, high-strength steel
plate and beam construction. An additional potential benefit
would be the reduction in radar cross section that could be
obtained by shaping and contouring that can not be achieved
with steel. While technical challenges such as durability,
maintenance and repair, outfitting, fire survivability in a
manned space, and local loading due to shock from mounted
equipment must be addressed, development of composite
technology for future surface combatants appears to offer great
promise. A logical first step would be the fabrication of a
composite helicopter hangar for DDG-51 class ships.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million above
the budget request in PE 63508N to begin a developmental effort
to design and fabricate the outer shell of a DDG-51 helicopter
hangar structure using composite materials.
Commandant's warfighting laboratory
The budget request included $20.0 million to continue a
highly successful effort that began in fiscal year 1997 with
the formation of the Commandant's Warfighting Laboratory. The
committee notes the wide range of Marine Corps experimentation
efforts conducted over the course of fiscal year 1997 and
recognizes that the lessons learned today will lead to a more
capable Corps in the future. The Commandant has charted a
vigorous path for fiscal year 1998 and identified additional
experimentation opportunities that are not supportable within
current budget constraints. The committee recommends an
increase of $15.0 million in PE 63640M to support the more
robust experimentation efforts proposed for this program.
Freeze-dried blood research project
The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE
63706N to continue research on freeze-dried blood processes to
develop a safe and reliable supply of blood for combat
casualties. The technology will freeze-dry blood platelets for
the purpose of extending shelf-life, destroying potential
contaminating viruses, and reducing space required for storage
of blood stocks. The committee recognizes the commercial
potential of this technology and encourages the Navy to pursue
dual-use application and cost-sharing in this program to the
maximum extent practicable.
High frequency surface wave radar
The high frequency surface wave radar (HFSWR) is an
advanced technology demonstration (ATD) designed to improve
over the horizon cruise missile detection and tracking of low-
flying, high speed anti-ship cruise missiles, aircrafts, and
ships. This technology shows great promise not only for ship
protection but also for anti-tactical ballistic missile and
counter-drug efforts. In fiscal year 1997, Congress authorized
$84.4 million for the ATD program, reducing the budget request
by $20.0 million. The reduction was not intended to impact
mature technologies. The committee recommends an increase of
$4.0 million in PE 63792N to complete the high frequency
surface wave radar advanced technology demonstration.
Remote minehunting system
The remote minehunting system (RMS) is a remotely operated
system that is being developed to detect and classify mines. It
will operate from surface combatants and provide the Navy with
an organic means of finding and avoiding mines. The program is
pursuing an evolutionary acquisition strategy that achieves
capability in steps. The RMS(V)2, a prototype, was deployed in
fiscal year 1997 onboard a Spruance class destroyer to evaluate
its operational utility and ability to operate with other fleet
units. The RMS(V)3 is currently in development, with fleet
introduction scheduled for fiscal year 1999. RMS(V)4, the final
pre-production prototype, is projected to have a coverage
capability five times the results that RMS(V)2 produced in
fiscal year 1997.
As noted in the committee report on S. 1745 (S. Rept. 104-
267), the committee has been concerned with the Navy's lack of
progress in resolving serious gaps in its mine countermeasures
capabilities. These deficiencies were highlighted during Desert
Storm. Reports provided to the committee on the performance
ofRMS(V)2 during its operational evaluation in fiscal year 1997 are
encouraging. The Navy has informed the committee that additional
funding for the RMS would:
(1) provide for completion of a second engineering
development model, including an over-the-horizon
communications subsystem that would greatly extend
employment options for the system; and
(2) support integration into the DDG-51 class
destroyer and its AN/SQQ-89 combat system.
The committee recommends an increase in procurement funding
of $7.9 million in PE 63502N to accelerate development of the
RMS and reflect the high priority that the committee places on
the introduction of an organic mine countermeasures capability
into the Navy's battle groups and amphibious ready groups.
Advanced submarine technology
The budget request contained $150.1 million in fiscal year
1998 and $172.5 million in fiscal year 1999 in various program
elements for advanced submarine technology.
The committee has learned that, while the Navy has
maintained its commitment to fund advanced submarine technology
at a robust level relative to historic norms, much of the
funding is concentrated on command, control, communications,
computer, and intelligence (C4I) systems or improvements to
various sensors. Relatively little has been budgeted for
improvements in the hydrodynamic and propulsion technologies
that could lead to new breakthroughs toward achieving the goal
of more capable but less expensive design.
To accelerate the development of what are now considered
far-term technologies, such as an advanced propulsor, rim
driven motors, and advanced hull forms, the committee
recommends an increase of $15.0 million above the budget
request in PE 63561N.
Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle
The budget request included $60.1 million to support the
ongoing development of the next generation amphibious armored
personnel carrier for the Marine Corps. The committee
recognizes the need to conduct an aggressive testing and
development effort for this system and the inherent risk in
conducting this type of evaluation with only two prototypes.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.1 million in PE
63611M to procure a third prototype vehicle to support the
maturation of the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle design
and provide for risk mitigation efforts.
Navy tactical missile system
A series of recent Navy studies have indicated that a naval
variant of Army tactical missile system (ATACMS), christened
NTACMS by the Navy, could greatly enhance the effectiveness of
naval strike warfare and fire support. The proposed NTACMS
would adapt the Army Block IA missile with the M74 submunition
for naval use. Additionally, the potential exists for future
variants that would be equipped with anti-armor submunitions or
a hard target penetrator. During 1995, a successful proof-of-
concept ATACMS test shot was conducted from a Navy ship. In
November 1996, an ATACMS, modified to the proposed NTACMS
configuration, was successfully launched from a Navy MK 41
vertical launcher at White Sands, New Mexico. Further, a
feasibility study has shown that a common naval variant can be
developed for both surface and submerged launch.
In addition to studies focused specifically on NTACMS, a
comprehensive program review, conducted earlier this year by
the Navy, has generated an increased emphasis on the mission of
land attack from the sea by surface ships and submarines. In
the committee's view, a higher priority for maritime strike is
consistent with the Navy's strategic emphasis on littoral
warfare. Although there is no funding in the budget request or
its associated Future Years Defense Program for development of
NTACMS, the Navy has advised the committee that the budget
request being developed for fiscal year 1999 will contain
substantial resources for it. This funding has come about as
the result of a memorandum of agreement that has been
negotiated between the surface warfare and submarine warfare
divisions of the Navy staff to provide jointly resources for an
NTACMS development program that will be executed by the
Director, Strategic Systems Programs (DIRSSP). The DIRSSP will
serve as the sole contracting authority within the Navy for all
dealings related to NTACMS missiles. As a further sign of its
commitment to developing NTACMS, the Navy has realigned about
$7.0 million of fiscal year 1997 funds to begin concept
development work.
The Navy has advised the committee that additional funding
in fiscal year 1998 would be of great value in pursuing the
program for developing NTACMS that has evolved since
preparation of the budget request. Accordingly, the committee
recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE 63795N for this
purpose.
Land attack Standard missile
The Navy has notified the committee of its desire to pursue
a new technology demonstration for a land attack Standard
missile (LASM). The goal of this program would be to determine
the feasibility of converting existing Standard missiles into
land attack missiles. It would consist of an engineering
technology demonstration and a series of four risk-reduction
flight demonstrations. The Navy asserts that in order to
expedite the effort, reduce its risk, and dramatically reduce
non-recurring demonstration costs, it could integrate these
flight demonstrations into the Terrier target flight
demonstrations that commence in August 1996. Such integration
would permit the concurrent use of common hardware, software,
and flight algorithms for both programs and completion of the
demonstrationby the fall of 1998. The results could then be
used in preparation of the fiscal year 2000 budget request.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
63795N to permit the Navy to pursue a flight demonstration
program for the LASM.
Naval surface fire support
The Navy has been developing an improved version of its 5-
inch naval gun to strengthen its ability to provide shore fire
support for amphibious operations and land attack. The effort
has involved an upgrade to the existing 5-inch/54 caliber gun
to give it the capability to shoot higher energy, rocket-
assisted rounds; develop an extended range guided munition
(ERGM); apply advanced propellants; and provide modifications
to the fire control system, needed to accommodate longer ranges
and times of flight of the rounds.
A program review conducted by the Navy earlier this year
has caused it to place increased emphasis on the land attack
mission. This review identified a requirement for a naval
surface fire support warfare control system (NWCS). This
mission planning system will be able to receive digital target
information provided by systems such as the Army's advanced
field artillery tactical data system (AFATDS), make the
necessary translation, and transmit it to a ship's gun fire
control system (GFCS) in a form that will permit the GFCS to
compute necessary gun control orders. As presently envisioned
by the Navy, NWCS would be hosted on an advanced tactical
weapons control system (ATWCS) console. Fiscal year 1997
funding of $2.0 million has been made available for this
effort, but no funding for it was included in the budget
request for fiscal year 1998. Consequently, the timeline for
NWCS is not complementary to the development effort for the
other subsystems of the 5-inch naval gun upgrade.
The committee supports the Navy's efforts to improve its
naval surface fire support capability, an area of notable
weakness that has been discussed at length in previous
committee reports. Additional funding in fiscal year 1998 would
reduce overall program risk in development of NWCS and help to
ensure that the multiple initiatives needed to develop the 5-
inch naval gun weapons system remain on complementary
timelines. Information received from the Navy indicates that it
intends to support continued development of NWCS in future
budget submissions. Accordingly, the committee recommends an
increase of $15.1 million in PE 63795N.
Nonlethal weapons and technologies of mass protection program
The committee notes that U.S. military forces are
increasingly confronted by unorthodox, non-traditional, and
asymmetrical threats. These challenges, and an increase in low
and medium-intensity conflict, require the Department of
Defense to evaluate new technologies and doctrine for the use
of force. In particular, the committee believes that the
Department should focus on the development of weapons that
facilitate the containment of conflict across the operational
continuum, while promoting national interests worldwide.
In reviewing technologies for research and development, the
nonlethal weapons (NLW) program should include as principles
for consideration that collateral damage and noncombatant
casualties are highly undesirable in contemporary conflicts,
and that nuclear based deterrence is ill-suited to regional and
subnational conflicts in which units are small, dispersed, and
the enemy is embedded. At times, the enemy may be an affinity
group, not a state-centered entity, and it may be extremely
difficult to distinguish the enemy from host population.
An essential element of this concept is the development of
advanced technologies to provide U.S. military forces with
greater flexibility to manage, shape, deter, or contain future
conflicts. These technologies include acoustics, lasers,
counterbattery systems, magnetics, kinetics, entanglements, and
nonlethal chemical systems such as foam, adhesives and markers.
The committee commends the efforts of the military
services, particularly the Marine Corps through the Sea Dragon
experiments, to evaluate advanced technology options and new
doctrine to enhance operational effectiveness. The committee
encourages the Department to increase its investments in this
area, and to undertake associated doctrinal and training
initiatives to better leverage technology development.
For the past two years, the committee has taken steps to
consolidate and streamline the Department of Defense and
military service programs for research, development, and
procurement of nonlethal weapons technologies. To that extent,
Congress established a single program element for nonlethal
weapons technologies, with the Marine Corps designated as the
executive agent for the program. In addition, the Congress
supported dramatic increases in funding for the nonlethal
weapons and technologies program.
Despite these efforts, the Department continues to
underfund many key efforts in the nonlethal weapons program. It
is the committee's view that the Department continues to
interpret its directions as a license to coerce the military
services to fund NLW programs out of existing funds, rather
than provide additional funds. The actions of the Department
have undermined other priority requirements identified by the
military services and resulted in a reluctance on the part of
the services to request additional funding for NLW activities.
In this regard, the committee has identified a deficit of
funding in the NLW program for research, development, testing
and evaluation of acoustics bio-effects testing, active denial
technology, foam applications and the vortez ring generator, as
well as for modeling and simulation and technology investment.
The budget request for fiscal year 1998 included $16.8
million for the Department of Defense nonlethal weapons (NLW)
program. To address the deficit identified by the committee for
researchand development of NLW technologies, the committee
recommends an increase of $3.3 million in PE 63851M to the budget
request.
Advanced communications and information technologies
Recognizing the need for strengthening integrated systems
development in reliable, secure communications and efficient
design and operations, the committee recommends an increase of
$5.0 million in PE 64707N for an advanced communications and
information technology initiative. This initiative will allow
the Secretary of the Navy to enter into an agreement with a
qualified institution having strong, integrated research
capabilities in broad user communications testbeds, systems
engineering, fiber optic sensors and transmission devices,
secure and reliable wireless communications, effective user-
friendly human computer interfaces, and scientific
visualization. This initiative will improve the Navy's
capabilities to support distributed computing, integrated
services training, education, information dissemination and
simulation. The committee directs the Secretary to follow all
applicable competitive procedures in awarding this agreement,
require the institution awarded the agreement to contribute at
least twice the amount of funding provided by the federal
government to execute the program, and stipulate in the
agreement specific savings in research or other federal
expenditures that will accrue from accelerating research
covered under the agreement.
Parametric airborne dipping sonar
The budget request contained no funding for the parametric
airborne dipping sonar (PADS).
The committee remains concerned at the Navy's slow progress
in developing PADS technology. As previous committee reports
have noted, the committee believes that the PADS technology has
potential for improving weapon systems performance in
applications such as dipping sonars installed in helicopters.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE
604212N for the continued development of PADS. The committee
expects the Navy to continue testing of the PADS prototype,
perform the studies needed to evaluate the technical
feasibility of integrating PADS into the AN/AQS-22 sonar
system, examine the logistics implications of such integration,
evaluate manufacturing capability, determine the potential
improvement in the Navy's readiness and warfighting
capabilities that PADS could provide, and develop an estimate
of the future costs associated with continued development and
procurement of PADS if development is successful. The committee
directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report that
addresses these questions no later than February 15, 1998.
Helicopter upgrade program
The committee supports ongoing efforts by the Marine Corps
to maintain commonality between the AH-1W and UH-1N as these
aircraft are upgraded to meet future warfighting requirements.
The committee notes Marine Corps plans to restructure the UH-1N
cockpit configuration to increase the commonality with the AH-
1W aircraft. The committee supports this effort and agrees to a
Marine Corps request to realign $5.6 million from procurement
to research and development in PE 64245N to complete the
development of a common cockpit.
Integrated defensive electronic countermeasures
The budget request included $51.8 million for the
continuing development of the integrated defensive electronic
countermeasures (IDECM) system. Though designed for the F/A-
18E/F, the IDECM radio frequency countermeasures (RFCM) system
may be a cost effective solution for the needs of the F/A-18C/
D, and allow for efficiencies through commonality and reduced
support costs. The committee recommends an increase of $15.0
million to the IDECM program in order to expand operational
tests of the basic system to include the onboard configuration
for the F/A-18C/D, thus accelerating the low rate initial
production decision to June 1999 for both configurations.
High power discriminator
The committee supports the concept of using existing X-Band
radar technology in support of the Navy's theater ballistic
missile defense effort. The proposed high power discriminator
(HPD) would consist of a solid state X-Band radar for long-
range acquisition and discrimination for theater ballistic
missile defense and cruise missile defense. This concept would
leverage the significant investment already made in the Army's
ground-based radar. The committee recommends an increase of
$35.0 in PE 64307N to initiate HPD development.
Maritime fire support demonstrator
The budget request includes $103.0 million of Navy funding
in PE 64310N and $47.2 million of Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA) funding in PE 63763E for continued
development of an arsenal ship demonstrator. The arsenal ship
is a joint Navy and DARPA program to develop and demonstrate a
ship that is low cost, has minimal crew size, and can deliver
massive, immediate land attack firepower.
Phase I, the concept development phase, was completed in
January 1997. Three industry teams were selected to proceed to
Phase II, the detailed functional design phase, which is
scheduled for completion in January 1998. At that point a
single team will be selected to build the arsenal ship
demonstrator. Construction is scheduled for completion in
fiscal year 2000.
The original operational concept, published in April
1996,called for a force of about six arsenal ships that would be
forward deployed, on station in support of a unified commander in
chief. However, evolutionary evaluation of the concept and future
budget realities have caused the Navy to abandon its plan for a
relatively near-term objective force of six arsenal ships. Instead,
guided by the results of a recently completed cost and operational
effectiveness analysis (COEA) for the next generation of surface
combatant, the SC-21 or DD-21, the Navy has realigned the arsenal ship
program and redesignated the arsenal ship demonstrator as a maritime
fire support demonstrator (MFSD). The Navy plans to use it to evaluate
the ``leap ahead'' technologies the Navy intends to incorporate into
DD-21.
Technologies now planned for the MFSD include:
(1) fully integrated sensor-to-shooter connectivity
that enables remote targeting and assignment of
missiles and guns;
(2) an advance hull form providing for improved fuel
economy, reduced ship motion, and greatly improved
survivability;
(3) automated propulsion and weapons control
functions coupled with remote monitoring and minimum
maintenance equipment to permit significantly reduced
manning;
(4) a ship-wide integrated advanced computing system
architecture employing commercial off-the-shelf (COTS)
technology that will provide a common computing
environment for all systems;
(5) improved battle hardening through double or
triple hulling, damage tolerant girders and structures,
automated and remotely operated damage containment and
suppression systems, and a ship-wide wide area network
for damage control assessment and monitoring; and
(6) ship signature reduction through an integrated
topside design and acoustic and the use of hull
coatings, active noise control, isolation mounting, and
commercial monitoring to achieve infrared and acoustic
signature reduction.
The Navy concept for execution of land attack missions has
evolved into delivery by a closely interconnected, distributed
network of multi-mission surface combatants, rather than
through massive firepower, concentrated in a limited number of
single-mission hulls. This evolved concept is reflected in the
preferred option of the SC-21 COEA that will become DD-21, a
multi-mission destroyer optimized for land attack.
The Navy now considers that the newly designated MFSD lies
on the critical path to successful development of a DD-21
design in time for lead ship construction in the fiscal year
2003 or 2004 time-frame. As envisioned by the Navy, virtually
all of the technologies that its concept development phase
identified for the MFSD will be relevant to DD-21. By
aggressively pursuing development, construction, and at-sea
evaluation of the MFSD, the Navy thinks it will be able to
significantly reduce technological and design risk for DD-21,
maximize access to new technologies through the energetic
competition in progress for the demonstrator, obtain the
benefit of industry expertise, and directly support the results
of the SC-21 COEA.
While many of the technologies envisioned for DD-21 are
already reflected in the MFSD concept, there are some that are
not. In correspondence to the competing contractors, the MFSD
joint program office has identified several that are candidates
for DD-21 but are still in the early stages of development.
These include advanced integrated electronic warfare system
(AIEWS), integrated power system, advanced human computer
interface, multi-function radar (X band), lightweight broadband
variable depth sonar, volume search radar (L band), and
vertical gun for advanced ships (VGAS). Additional capabilities
that must also be incorporated into the MFSD and the DD-21, if
they are to fully realize their potential, include a firm set
of sensor-to-shooter links and the command and control systems
needed for real-time execution of land attack missions by a
distributed network of ships.
The Future Years Defense Program that accompanied the
budget request calls for lead ship authorization of the first
DD-21 in fiscal year 2003. In order for the MFSD to make the
contribution to the DD-21 design effort that the Navy considers
essential, it is crucial that the demonstrator remain on
schedule and be available for at-sea testing in fiscal year
2000. Given that the development schedule for the demonstrator
is very accelerated and entails the incorporation of a number
of new technologies for the first time, schedule risk must be
considered high. To mitigate this risk, the committee
recommends an increase of $25.0 million in PE 64310N to ensure
sufficiently robust funding is available early in Phase III,
the construction phase, to ward off schedule risk and promote
the introduction of additional new technologies into the MFSD.
Multi-purpose processor
In its review of the fiscal year 1997 budget request, the
committee identified the multi-purpose processor (MPP), a small
business innovative research (SBIR) initiative developed under
the sponsorship of the New SSN Submarine (NSSN) Program, as a
very successful initiative that has not only been incorporated
into the NSSN command, control, computer, communications, and
intelligence system, but has also been adopted as a cornerstone
for acoustic processing upgrades to the SSN-688, SSN-688I, and
SSBN-726 class submarines. Using commercial off-the-shelf
(COTS) hardware and an open software architecture, the MPP
provides a capability to easily transport new, advanced
software to existing hardware installations. It now lies at the
heart of the Navy's acoustic rapid COTS insertion program
(ARCI), a program designed to permit the SSN-688 class to
regain acoustic superiority over the diesel and nuclear
submarines of other navies.
Although the Navy has accorded priority to the MPP by
allocating $27.4 million to it in the budget request, 90
percentof these funds are for its procurement for installation
in ARCI kits. The committee's review indicates that additional
investment for continued development of the MPP would be of great
benefit, particularly within the Navy's research and development
community. Accordingly the committee recommends an increase of $25.0
million above the budget request in PE 64503N to be used as an SBIR
follow-on for advanced development of MPP transportable software
technology, technology insertion, advanced processor software builds,
and for providing MPP units and training throughout the fleet and the
Navy research and development community.
Seawolf shock test
The committee has learned that technical difficulties with
the titanium torpedo tube doors and the wide aperture array
fairing during pre-delivery testing of the Navy's first Seawolf
class submarine, SSN-21, have consumed funds originally
budgeted for shock testing of the submarine in fiscal year 1997
and delayed delivery until June 1997. Consequently, the
scheduled testing date has slipped into fiscal year 1998. Shock
testing is an integral part of the Seawolf live fire test and
evaluation program. It is necessary to establish a battle
damage survivability benchmark for the entire class.
The Navy has notified the committee of this emergent
requirement that was not included in the fiscal year 1998
budget request and stressed the importance of completing the
testing in fiscal year 1998. The Navy has stated that
additional delays would seriously disrupt the extensive program
of post-delivery testing that is scheduled for SSN-21.
The committee recommends an increase of $17.0 million above
the budget request in PE 64561N to permit shock testing of the
Seawolf class submarine, SSN-21, in fiscal year 1998.
Future surface combatants
The six year shipbuilding plan submitted by the Navy with
the budget request provides for authorization of the lead ship
of the next generation of surface combatant, identified as the
SC-21, in fiscal year 2003. The budget request included $55.0
million in PE 63564N for design development for SC-21. The
Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) that accompanied the budget
request projects total research and development funding for SC-
21 of about $730 million over the six year period from fiscal
year 1998 to fiscal year 2003. Prior funding for SC-21 has been
minimal, on the order of $30 million, and has been expended
primarily for various studies and analyses.
At the time the budget request was submitted, a cost and
operational effectiveness assessment for (COEA) SC-21 was still
in progress. Budget briefings that the Navy provided to the
committee could only discuss a range of COEA options for the
ship. These varied from a very robust, full capability
combatant, comparable to an evolved DDG-51, to a cheaper ship
of more limited capability. While still possessing a multi-
mission capability, this less robust option emphasized maritime
fire support as its primary mission.
By the time the committee convened a hearing on
shipbuilding in April 1997, SC-21 COEA results were available,
and the Navy was prepared to discuss its intentions for the SC-
21 design in more detail. The Navy reports that the maritime
fire support option, now called DD-21 by the Navy, has emerged
as the preferred option. In pursuing a design for DD-21, the
Navy intends to emphasize ``leap ahead'' technologies, minimum
manning, the lowest possible life-cycle cost, and maximum
practical use of commercial practices for technology insertion
and construction. As discussed elsewhere in this report, the
primacy of the land attack and fire support mission for DD-21
has provided a far greater relevance to the arsenal ship or
maritime fire support demonstrator as a bridge between DDG-51,
which is optimized for area air defense, and DD-21, which will
be expected to fill a role much more comparable to the arsenal
ship's mission of land attack through massive firepower.
Based on information developed at this year's shipbuilding
hearing and historical analysis, the committee believes that,
given the current state of the design effort for DD-21 and the
funding currently programmed to develop it, a lead ship
authorization in fiscal year 2003 will be quite difficult to
achieve, particularly if bold advances in ship, command and
control, and weapons system design are the stated objectives.
Funding constraints alone could severely inhibit the Navy's
ability to realize its objectives for DD-21, which is poorly
funded in the FYDP, for a fiscal year 2003 lead ship award. By
way of comparison to the approximately $730 million allocated
to DD-21, over $2.2 billion will be spent to bring the next
generation nuclear attack submarine (NSSN) to a point where it
will be ready for lead ship authorization. Similarly, the Navy
is already investing almost $150 million per year for
development of a design for the next generation aircraft
carrier, CVX, which is not scheduled to begin construction
until fiscal year 2008. The Navy's planned effort to make CVN-
77 a transition carrier, funded at about $120 million over the
FYDP, will also make many important contributions to the design
of CVX. Consequently, the committee has concluded that
development of a design for DD-21 that is in consonance with
the Navy's objectives for the ship at the current level of
funding is fraught with risk. Even with expected design
contributions from the arsenal ship or maritime fire support
demonstrator, which the Navy now considers crucial to
successful development of DD-21, the development timeline for
DD-21 remains high risk.
Although the committee has detected a clear disparity in
funds programmed for the designs of these future combatants
(DD-21, CVX and NSSN), it appears that, in the aggregate, the
Navy has committed itself to greater emphasis on technology
investment, active participation by industry, and better
specification ofdesign objectives to guide its commitment of
resources. However, the committee has become concerned, based on
testimony and briefings, that an environment is not in place or a
process in operation that will actively facilitate a rapid and ready
exchange of information between these development efforts in a manner
that will avoid duplication. While numerous integrated process teams
have been conceived or are already at work, their efforts appear to be
suboptimized within various stovepipes in the Chief of Naval Operations
(CNO) staff or within directorates in the Navy's systems commands.
Communication between them seems to occur more on an ad hoc basis than
as the result of a cohesive management process. For example, it is not
clear to the committee that many of the numerous lessons learned from
the ``smart ship'' experiment, which has been underway for the past two
years under the sponsorship of the surface warfare division of the
CNO's staff, have been proliferated in a way that would permit them to
contribute to the development efforts that are in progress for CVN-77
and CVX. Similarly, the model of the Submarine Technology Oversight
Council that has been put in place to explore advanced submarine
technology has not been incorporated in an analogous role into other
ship design activities.
An additional item for committee consideration late in the
budget review process was a Navy plan for sustaining future
combatant force structure that has been developed to
accommodate the results of the Department of Defense's
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), completed in May 1997. The
QDR identified the need for the Navy to perform a mid-life
conversion of its Aegis cruiser force. The objective of the
conversion will be to package theater ballistic missile defense
(TBMD), area air defense command and control, land attack, and
crew reduction technologies into a class-wide upgrade, thereby
assuring a useful role for the Aegis cruiser force into the
third decade of the next century. The Navy has concluded that
this conversion program will enable otherwise unaffordable
acceleration of TBMD and land attack capability into the Navy's
surface combatant force, while providing critical industrial
work prior to full rate production of DD-21. The Navy has
indicated that a modest increment of initial funding in fiscal
year 1998 could provide significant leverage in bringing the
planning for this conversion program to early fruition.
To deal with the funding and schedule risk that the
committee has associated with development of DD-21 and to
provide design funding that will permit the Navy to initiate
its cruiser conversion program, the committee recommends an
increase of $25.0 million above the budget request in PE
64567N. The committee also strongly encourages the CNO and the
Secretary of the Navy to review thoroughly the management
practices currently in place for ship design development to
ensure that the Navy is deriving maximum benefit from its
research and development investment. The committee intends to
examine this area in more detail at future hearings and
strongly desires that ongoing results of this management review
be provided to the committee through interim briefings that
will facilitate an open exchange of ideas.
Infrared search and track system
The budget request included no funding for continued
development of the infrared search and track system (IRST). The
Navy has been developing IRST to provide a passive detection
and tracking system, operating in a different portion of the
electromagnetic spectrum from radar, that will complement
existing shipboard radars by continuously scanning the horizon
for threat platforms or sea-skimming missiles. Horizon search,
for which IRST would be optimized, is an area of relative
weakness for active radars.
Although various studies have repeatedly validated that
IRST could provide a major improvement in ship survivability
against sea-skimming cruise missiles, a succession of Navy
budget requests has provided only subsistence level funding.
Congressional intervention in the form of additional funding
has been necessary to keep the program alive, albeit with a
much extended developmental timeline. Without benefit of any
supporting analysis, the budget request and its associated
Future Years Defense Program terminates funding for IRST.
Information provided by the Navy indicates that prior year
funding should be sufficient to complete Phase I of the current
two-phase program through its land-based testing stage but is
insufficient to conduct at-sea tests. The Phase II program for
engineering and manufacturing development would be unfunded,
and no funding would be available to preserve the option to
continue development in the future.
The committee has supported IRST with recommendations for
additional funding in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 because the
committee strongly believes that developing a search and track
system, not dependent on active transmissions by either
friendly or threat emitters, could make an extremely important
contribution to successful naval operations. The potential
utility of an infrared capability is demonstrated by the
emphasis that the Navy is placing on developing an upgrade to
its rolling air frame missile that will employ an infrared
seeker for the entire target engagement and the infrared homing
capability being incorporated into its Standard missile.
Lacking any supporting rationale from the Navy other than
budget constraints, the committee disagrees with the Navy's
relative priorities. Consequently, the committee recommends an
increase of $13.0 million in PE 64755N for continued
development of the IRST system. Of this amount the committee
recommends that $6.5 million would be provided from a reduction
in funding in PE 64307N. The remainder would be provided by an
increase above the budget request. The committee would direct
that none of the $6.5 million provided from PE 64307N be from
funds included in the budget request for the smart ship
project, project K2308. The committee would also direct that,
absent a new and compelling study that somehow reverses the
results of a rich body of prioranalysis that supports the
potential utility of IRST, the Navy will continue to fund and execute
the development of IRST in future budget requests.
Ship self-defense system
The budget request included $31.3 million for continued
development of the ship self-defense system (SSDS). This system
introduces a distributed processing, open architecture combat
system based on a local area network. It uses commercial off-
the-shelf equipment and reuses a substantial amount of software
that was developed for the cooperative engagement capability
(CEC).
The committee has been informed that additional funding for
SSDS could be used to fully integrate SSDS, the advanced combat
direction system (ACDS), and CEC in the Navy's mission critical
ships. Current funding allows only an elementary degree of
integration via simple interfaces.
The committee recommends an increase of $19.0 million in PE
64755N to pursue the system integration needed to integrate
CEC, ACDS, and SSDS local area networks to create a single
tactical picture and a central integrated combat direction
system.
Advanced deployable system
The advanced deployable system (ADS) is being developed by
the Navy to deal with a growing worldwide proliferation of
diesel submarines. It will be a system that can be rapidly and
covertly deployed in littoral waters. Its next major
developmental milestone decision is scheduled for fiscal year
1999.
ADS development has proceeded well to date. Additional
funding for ADS in fiscal year 1998 would not only reduce risk,
but could strongly reinforce the possibility that a milestone
decision now scheduled for fiscal year 1999 could produce an
early decision for initial production. Such a decision could
provide a fleet operational capability two years earlier than
planned and save some $95 million in acquisition costs. To
improve the probability of this favorable outcome, the
committee recommends an increase of $44.0 million above the
budget request in PE 64784N.
Classified program reduction
The committee recommends a reduction of $10.0 million in a
classified Navy program. Details are provided in the classified
annex to this report.
Communications interoperability and reliability
In reviewing the budget request, the committee has noted
Department of the Navy plans for introducing new multimedia
communications capabilities including digital voice, text,
data, video imagery, and graphics that will be incorporated
into a diverse mix of networks, transmission media, and
transmission terminals. Advancements in computing capability
and the integration of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS)
technology offer new opportunities to increase operational
capability at reduced cost. However, the committee has
concluded that the Department needs to place greater emphasis
on ensuring compatibility between emerging COTS technology and
legacy systems that are likely to remain in service for at
least another decade, if not longer. The committee believes
that taking action as new systems are introduced to ensure the
continuing reliability and security of hybrid networks would be
a prudent course to follow.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.7 million above
the budget request in PE 24163N to pursue a program of
independent testing and evaluation of COTS wired and wireless
multimedia communications components and systems suitable for
joint/combined military and civilian networked applications.
The committee encourages the Department to utilize these funds
to conduct a demonstration project to verify the utility of the
concept, while upgrading the communications network for the
Navy's Northeast Regional Maintenance Center at Portsmouth
Naval Shipyard. The committee directs that all applicable
competitive procedures be used in the award of contracts or
other agreements under this program and that cost-sharing
requirements for non-federal participants be utilized where
appropriate.
Marine common hardware suite
The committee understands that the Marine Corps is
exploring new requirements and procurement strategies for
computers and peripherals. The committee received a request for
additional funding necessary to allow the Marine Corps to
evaluate and test Marine common hardware suite (MCHS) products.
The committee recommends an additional $0.7 million in PE
26313M to support this effort.
Manufacturing technology program
The committee is once again disappointed in the Navy's
budget request for the manufacturing technology (MANTECH)
program. This program has traditionally focused on making
weapon systems and equipment more affordable through the
application of advanced manufacturing methods to weapon systems
production. In this time of severe budget constraints, the
committee would expect the Navy to make every effort to pursue
programs directed at lowering the long-term cost of weapon
systems.
In 1994, at the request of the military services, the
committee shifted the management of MANTECH from the Office of
the Secretary of Defense to the military services. Congress has
made every effort to provide the military services with the
authority and flexibility to direct MANTECH in order to make
the program more responsive to the military services' specific
manufacturing needs. Despite the Department of Defense stated
policy of makingthe affordability of future systems a key
priority for research and development programs, the Navy did not
provide funding for MANTECH in the fiscal year 1998 budget request.
In the February 26, 1997 hearing before the Senate Armed
Services Committee, the Navy leadership admitted that the lack
of funding was an oversight that they planned to rectify. The
committee directs that the Navy provide the committees with its
plan to strengthen the MANTECH program. That report should
include a future years funding profile for the stabilization of
this program at the fiscal year 1997 and 1996 funding levels.
In order to address funding shortfalls for fiscal year 1998
the committee recommends a transfer of $50.0 million into PE
78011N from the following sources: $15.0 million from the
Advanced Technology Transition program (PE 63792N); $5.2
million from Other Procurement, Navy, DD-963 modernization;
$3.6 million Other Procurement, Navy, AOJ modernization; $6.2
million from Weapons Procurement Navy, BQM-74 targets; and
$20.0 million from Other Procurement Navy, Spares and Repair
Parts.
AIR FORCE
Insert Offset folio 212 here.
Offset Folios 213 to 218 Insert here
<SKIP PAGES = 006>
Phillips laboratory exploratory development
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE
62601F for the reusable space launch program for the
development and demonstration of military unique reusable space
launch technologies.
High frequency active auroral research program
The committee recommends increases in a number of program
elements to support continued experimentation in the high
frequency active auroral research program. The recommended
increases are as follows: PE 62601F, $5.0 million; PE 63160D,
$3.0 million; PE 63714D, $3.0 million.
ALR-69 radar warning receiver
The budget request included $25.6 million for electronic
combat technology research and development. The committee
recommends an increase of $14.0 million in PE 0603270F for
development of the ALR-69 radar warning receiver. The committee
has been made aware of an initiative to incorporate research
done at Wright Laboratories into a precision location and
identification (PLAID) upgrade program for ALR-69 radar warning
receivers. The initiative offers the chance to bring reserve
and guard aircraft capability into parity with active forces
through a cost-effective upgrade program.
Missile technology demonstration
The committee has supported past missile technology
demonstration (MTD) experiments, which have contributed to the
ballistic missile technology program and demonstrated
capabilities to attack hardened and deeply buried targets. The
budget request did not include funds to continue this program.
In order to complete MTD-3 and begin planning of MTD-4, the
committee recommends an increase of $8.3 million in PE 63311F.
Military space plane
The committee is aware of ongoing efforts in the Department
of Defense on the part of the Air Force and U.S. Space Command
to define a concept for development of a military space plane.
The committee has supported DOD involvement in NASA's Reusable
Launch Vehicle (RLV) program and continues to believe that DOD
must coordinate technology development with NASA. Nonetheless,
the committee believes that DOD should begin to define a space
plane concept that meets military requirements yet exploits
progress made in NASA's RLV program. The committee is aware
that U.S. Space Command has begun to develop operational
concepts and requirements for such an effort. However, the
budget request didnot include funds for this program. To
support technology and operational concept development as part of an
overall military space plane effort, the committee recommends an
increase of $10.0 million in PE 63401F. The committee strongly urges
the Secretary of Defense to identify additional resources to support
these efforts in the future years.
Solar thermionic orbital transfer vehicle
The committee has supported thermionics technology
development for space applications. The solar powered orbital
transfer vehicle program has been identified by the Air Force
as a Third Millennium initiative. This program combines
thermionic technology for electricity production and thermal
propulsion which can be used to move spacecraft to higher
orbits or new orbits. To continue this important effort, the
committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 63401F.
Geo space object imaging
To support the growing emphasis on global surveillance and
control of space, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0
million in PE 63605F to complete the development of a high
power illuminator laser imaging system to satisfy deep space
mission military requirements.
Asynchronous transfer mode program
Asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) is a commercially
supported technology that provides a means to efficiently
distribute multimedia (voice, video, data) digital information
to field users and is designed for use over very low noise
fiber optic interconnections. The Air Force is augmenting the
emerging commercial networking technology so that it can be
used during tactical deployments. The committee recommends an
increase of $0.4 million in PE 63789F to provide ATM prototype
units for Air Force and joint service needs.
Variable stability in-flight simulator test aircraft
The budget request did not include funds for the variable
stability in-flight simulator test aircraft (VISTA) in fiscal
year 1998.
Initial investigations of the integration of thrust
vectoring (TV) for basic control of an advanced fighter
aircraft have been completed in a variety of programs. The
Russian SU-37 demonstration at the Paris Air Show indicated
that potential adversaries realize the benefits that TV can
provide if properly implemented. To date there has been no
program to develop or evaluate the requirements for:
(1) the use of TV integrated with the flight control
system;
(2) the flying qualities necessary for operation in
the high angle of attack (AOA) environment;
(3) trade-off of the tactical utility of thrust
vectoring in air to air combat;
(4) evaluate the potential reduction or elimination
of tail control surfaces; and
(5) replicate the performance and qualities of
potential adversaries in a tactical environment.
In order to continue U.S. technological advancement in thrust
vectoring and flight control technology, the committee
recommends the Air Force continue the VISTA program as a stand-
alone research project to explore the issues listed above.
The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE
64237F to continue development of VISTA as a TV test aircraft
because of the high payoff of VISTA as a research vehicle and
its low program cost compared with similar programs. Currently
the VISTA is nearing completion of the first phase of a three
phase program to install and integrate TV into its variable
stability system and flight test the system. Presently, only
the first phase is funded. The committee expects the Air Force
to program for completion of the three year VISTA program to
install and integrate TV into its variable stability system.
F-22 engineering and manufacturing development program
The budget request included $2,071.2 million for
engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) of the F-22.
The future years defense program (FYDP) last year programmed
$1,651.0 million for F-22 EMD, exclusive of the four pre-
production verification vehicles (PPV). The increase in EMD
funding for fiscal year 1998 is a result of the cancellation
and transfer of the funds for the PPV, aircraft that were to be
used in the test program to verify manufacturing methods as
well as conduct test flights.
The committee has repeatedly noted its concerns with the F-
22 program, and in the statement of managers accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (S.
Rept. 104-267) expressed concern related to the Defense Science
Board (DSB) report on concurrency and risk in the F-22 program.
Specifically, the DSB noted that the engine development and
passive surveillance electronics are the highest risk areas
and, that in the event of inadequate progress, the program
could be slipped.
Cost overruns and restructuring
Consistent with the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201), the Air Force began a
cost review of the program at about the same time as the Cost
Analysis and Improvement Group (CAIG) of the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD) began work on a cost study of the
program. Both the Air Force and the CAIG estimated increased
costs for F-22 production, and the estimates were explained in
a hearing before the Subcommittee on Airland Forces. However,
not only has theestimate for production increased, the Air
Force has also requested an infusion of production funds into the EMD
program to complete development.
A total of $2,159.0 million transferred to the EMD program
derives from elimination of four test aircraft, or pre-
production verification (PPV) vehicles, and from foregoing
production of 54 operational aircraft during the period of the
FYDP. The result will be no change to the overall program cost
over the FYDP, but at the cost of removing content; four test
aircraft and 54 production aircraft. These changes are required
for the development program to continue.
The Air Force and the contractor team have proposed a
series of initiatives to bring the estimated production costs
back to the levels of the fiscal year 1997 request. The Air
Force expects to finalize these initiatives in August 1997 when
negotiations determine the pricing of the first five production
lots of the F-22.
In testimony prior to the National Defense Act for Fiscal
Year 1997, the Air Force informed the committee that
restructuring of the program had been costly in the past and
had resulted in future cost escalations, estimated at three
times the amount of the cut to the program. Now, the Air Force
and the manufacturer want to slip the program and add funds to
the development program, before negotiating the price for the
first five lots of aircraft.
Placeholder status
The committee views the infusion of PPV funds into the
development program as premature, and recommends funding be
provided at the level requested for fiscal year 1998
development as requested in Fiscal Year 1997. The committee's
recommended funding at this level provides for a stable
program, as previously outlined. Accordingly, the committee
recommends $1,651.0 million, a reduction of $420.0 million, for
the development of the F-22. The committee looks forward to
receiving information regarding the outcome of definitized cost
data on EMD and the completion of contract negotiations for the
first five lots of aircraft.
B-2 Multi Stage Improvement Plan (MSIP)
Situational awareness
The budget request included $355.8 million for continued
development of the B-2 bomber. The committee recommends an
increase in the budget request of $ 15.0 million, as requested
in the Chief of Staff of the Air Force's unfunded priorities
list.
The B-2's evolving role as a multipurpose bomber has
required the reexamination of its specific capabilities,
especially with regard to connectivity and situational
awareness. Recent developments in situational awareness,
especially the emergence of practical, jam resistant data links
have greatly enhanced tactical aviation's capabilities. The
incorporation of Link 16 data links in the B-2 would greatly
enhance the crew's ability to change in tactical situations by
using updated threat status, target information, and allied
aircraft locations.
Data displayed in real time would be especially important
to B-2 crews involved in long duration flights to combat areas
and when mission planning could be overtaken by events during
transit.
Maintainability
The budget request included $355.8 million for development
of the B-2 bomber. The committee recommends an increase of $6.8
million to the budget request for B-2 development. Realizing
that stealth aircraft require careful maintenance to achieve
their maximum potential, the committee supports studies to
evaluate an advanced exhaust lip and hot trailing edge (HTE)
thermal protections systems for the B-2 and directs the Air
Force to program for such upgrades, should the studies prove
the benefits of these improvements.
Minuteman safety enhanced reentry vehicle
In fiscal year 1997, Congress authorized and appropriated
$13.7 million to ensure the cost-effective addition of the Mk-
21 warhead capability to the ongoing Minuteman III Guidance
Replacement Program. These funds were authorized and
appropriated for the initial prototype and testing of the
modification required to protect the option for the possible
use of the Mk-21 reentry vehicle on Minuteman III once the
Peacekeeper missile is retired. The budget request did not
include funds to complete the initial prototype and testing.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0
million in PE 64851F for this purpose.
Aging landing gear life extension
The committee is concerned that the Air Force has been
extending the use of aircraft landing gear far beyond their
original design life. The KC-135 was designed for a 30-year
lifetime, but will retire at 86 years and the B-52, designed
for a 30-year life, will retire at 94 years.
The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE
65878F to develop the necessary engineering tools to
efficiently overhaul aircraft landing gear equipment. The
committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be
used in the award of contracts or other agreements under this
program, and that cost-sharing requirements for non-federal
participants be utilized where appropriate.
Conventional Air-Launched Cruise Missile Block II upgrade
The budget request did not include funds for Conventional
Air-Launched Cruise Missile (CALCM) research and development or
production funding for fiscal year 1998. However, the committee
has been informed that the Air Force intends to use fiscal year
1997 funds for CALCM Block II development and two other related
CALCM projects. By combining the CALCM Precision Strike
Demonstration technology with a new warhead concept, the Air
Force hopes to be able to attack hard and buried targets from
long range. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase
of $3.5 million to the budget request to complete Block II
engineering and manufacturing development. Moreover, the
committee encourages the Air Force to reprogram funds as
necessary to procure Block II CALCM should development efforts
prove successful.
Theater battle management system
The budget request included $24.0 million for theater
battle management command and control research and development.
Theater battle management system (TBM) is designed to integrate
air support for ground forces through the air support
operations center (ASOC). The committee understands that an
additional $4.0 million would accelerate TBM development in
fiscal year 1998, especially the prototyping of connectivity to
provide improved information flow between Army corps elements
and the ASOC, including flow of Air Force information to
support targeting and resource allocation decisions.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0
million to the budget request for TBM.
Cruise missile defense
Given the growing threat posed by cruise missiles, the
committee continues to support development of a comprehensive
cruise missile defense architecture, integrated into DOD's
overall air and theater missile defense efforts. Because
counter cruise missile technologies have matured at the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and because DARPA
funding to support key sensor technologies ends in fiscal year
1998, the committee strongly urges the Air Force to begin to
integrate these technologies into operational platforms.
Specifically, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million in PE 27417F to begin the necessary upgrades to the
Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), and an increase of
$10.0 million in PE 27581F to begin necessary upgrades to the
Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS). The
committee expects the Air Force to continue these two important
initiatives in the future.
C-5 Modernization
The budget request included $83.0 million for C-5
modifications in fiscal year 1998, and the future years defense
program (FYDP) plans for $75.6 million in fiscal year 1999,
$147.0 million in fiscal year 2000, $117.2 million in fiscal
year 2001, $119.8 million in fiscal year 2002, and $81.8
million in fiscal year 2003 for C-5 modifications. In view of
the substantial funds already programmed for the C-5
incremental modernization, the committee is persuaded that a
robust program to increase the service life of the C-5 could be
developed to improve total C-5 performance and delay retirement
of the C-5 to 2025 or later, thus providing outsize and heavy
cargo load carrying capability (tanks, helicopters, etc.),
while saving on the procurement of new transport aircraft.
The committee has learned of studies that predict a service
life of greater than 50,000 hours is achievable for the C-5 if
steps are taken now. Cost estimates of $32.4 million for each
aircraft's modernization could not only yield the extended
service life, but also significant increases in load carrying
capability and reliability through the incorporation of newer
engines and components in the aircraft.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $20.4
million to the budget request, with $8.0 million provided to
definitize the program and $12.4 million for prototype
development, to begin the modernization of the existing C-5
fleet as a low cost alternative for long-term air mobility.
Measurement and signature intelligence software development and
training facility
The committee recommends an increase of $4.2 million in PE
31315F for the measurement and signature intelligence (MASINT)
software development and training facility (SDTF). This funding
will continue the fiscal year 1997 effort to develop and refine
collection methodologies and analysis tools and provide the Air
Force with a capability for training MASINT system operators
and analysts.
DEFENSE-WIDE
Insert offset folio 226 here
Offset Folios 227 to 231 Insert here
<SKIP PAGES = 005>
Defense Experimental Program to stimulate competitive research
The committee commends the Department of Defense for
including $10.0 million in the budget request to continue
research under the Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research (DEPSCoR) in fiscal year 1998. The
committee directs, that of the funds authorized to be
appropriated in PE 61103D, an additional $10.0 million be used
to fund this program, with a total of $20.0 million available
for DEPSCoR.
Chemical and Biological Defense Program
The budget request included $530.9 million for the
chemical-biological defense program, including $320.9 million
in research and development, test and evaluation and $210.0
million in procurement. In addition to the funds requested for
the chemical-biological defense program, the budget request
included $61.0 million for the biological warfare defense
program (PE 62383E).
The committee recommends an increase of $6.5 million for
chemical and biological research and development activities and
a $6.5 million reduction for biological defense activities in
PE 62383E.
The Department of Defense (DOD) identified an excess of
$16.1 million of the fiscal year 1997 funds within procurement
for the chemical and biological defense program that are not
executable until the end of fiscal year 1999. The planned
acquisition strategy for the biological integrated defense
systems (BIDS) in fiscal year 1997 included procuring 36
systems and spares. However, only 14 systems are to be
assembled by the Army's Chemical and Biological Defense Command
by the end of fiscal year 1998, with the remaining 22 systems
being assembled by the end of fiscal year 1999. According to
the Department, there is no need to procure systems far in
advance of assembly, and the reduction would not affect the
chemical and biological defense program. The committee believes
this source should be redirected to procurement and research
and development efforts in the chemical-biological defense
program, and counterproliferation and counterterrorist research
and detection efforts to protect against the use of weapons of
mass destruction.
Medical defenses against biological agents
Gaps exist in the biological warfare defense capability of
the United States and should be corrected in an expedited and
cost-
effective manner. Recent developments in therapeutic human
antibody technologies offer a possible solution. The Senate
report on the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year
1997 (S.Rept. 104-267) required the Department of Defense to
report on the utility and possible benefits of this medical
technology in reducing the biological agent threat. However, to
date, the committee has not received any information from DOD
on this technology. The committee understands that private
medical industry can provide the expertise and support to
initiate a program of this nature in a timely manner. The
committee has urged the Department on many occasions to
leverage the expertise resident in private industry,
particularly when there is experience and a proven track record
can be shown.
The Department's current plans are built around the use of
vaccines. However, the pool of vaccine producers is small.
Biological warfare threats can evolve much faster than the
vaccine development cycles. The committee understands that the
development and production of therapeutic human antibodies has
a proven track record. Work in this area has been established
and is available in FDA licensed commercial firms. The
committee recommends that DOD leverage the resident expertise
within private industry to conduct a feasibility study on the
use of therapeutic human antibodies in the Department's plan to
protect U.S. forces against the evolving biological threat. The
Department should submit a report to Congress on its findings
by December 31, 1998. At a minimum, the study should include an
analysis of the threats, agents, the enemy stocks to select
target candidates against which to develop antibodies and the
possible tradeoff of the use of human monoclonal antibodies as
a medical defense against biological agents. Of the funds
requested in fiscal year 1998 in PE 62383E, the committee
directs that $1.5 million be used to conduct a study on the use
of antibodies as medical defenses against biological agents.
Additionally, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0
million in PE 61384BP for a joint service core research program
to develop a prototype hybrid integrated sensor array for
chemical and biological point detection. The committee
understands that this program would integrate metal-oxide and
biochemical film technologies with piezoelectric/optical
sensors and study the response of sensor prototypes to chemical
and biological agent simulants, such as organophosphorus,
bacteria and ovalbumin. The committee supports efforts to
expand the knowledge in military relevant fields of chemical
and biological research that could improve the operational
performance of present and future DOD components.
Domestic Emergency Response Program
The budget request for fiscal year 1998 included $48.7
million for domestic emergency response activities. The
committee recommends authorization of the requested amount.
Since 1993, the Congress has expressed its concern with the
potential domestic terrorist use of nuclear, chemical,
biological and radiological agents and weapons against
civilians, as well as military forces in the United States. Due
to the Department of Defense expertise in the chemical and
biological defense area, Congress requested a report on how DOD
could use its expertise to assist in domestic terrorist
incidents. On June 13, 1996, in consultation with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, ajoint report was submitted to
Congress by the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy,
entitled `` Preparedness and Response to a Nuclear, Radiological,
Biological, or Chemical Terrorist Attack.'' In response to the
recommendations made in the report, the Congress included a provision
in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public
Law 104- 201), that required the President to take immediate action to
enhance the ability of the Federal Government to respond to domestic
terrorist attacks involving nuclear, chemical, biological or
radiological agents and weapons. The Congress appropriated $42.6
million for the establishment of a Domestic Emergency Response Program
to provide enhanced support to improve the capabilities of State and
local authorities to respond and provide assistance during these
incidents, including $9.8 million for DOD to conduct interagency
domestic emergency response exercises.
The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations
and Low Intensity Conflict (SO/LIC) has overall supervision of
the domestic emergency response program, to include oversight
of policy and resources. The Secretary of the Army has been
designated as the executive agent of the program and will take
the lead in coordinating DOD training assistance to Federal,
State and local officials in responding to chemical and
biological weapons threats. The Army Director of Military
Support (DOMS) will serve as the focal point for coordination,
and the Chemical and Biological Defense Command (CBDCOM) has
been appointed as the program director for management execution
of the program. The committee understands that the Army will
also take the lead in coordinating DOD assistance to the
Department of Energy, in domestic terrorist incidents involving
nuclear weapons.
Chemical-biological response teams
Section 1414 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997 required DOD to establish at least one
chemical-biological emergency response team, similar in concept
to the Nuclear Emergency Search Team and Accident Response
Groups. The committee understands that DOD is in the process of
establishing a consequence management response task force under
the unified command structure that will consist of several DOD
consequence management response elements. The committee also
understands that this consequence management response task
force will include elements from the U.S. Army's Technical
Escort Unit (TEU), the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of
Chemical Defense (USAMRICD), the U.S. Army Medical Research
Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), and the U.S.
Marine Corps Chemical/Biological Incident Response Force
(CBIRF). The Navy/Marine Corps activated the Chemical/
Biological Incident Response Force (CBIRF) in June 1996 to
respond to chemical and biological incidents occurring on Naval
installations and Department of State legations around the
world. In order to maintain the necessary capabilities to
support Federal response to threats or acts of chemical or
biological weapons terrorism, the committee believes that it is
important that DOD ensure the effective coordination of the
expertise resident within the Chemical and Biological Defense
Command, DOD medical organizations, the TEU, and the CBIRF, so
that resources and funds are leveraged to the fullest extent
possible to ensure the ability to respond to an incident
involving chemical and biological weapons.
Recognizing the achievements of the Technical Support
Working Group (TSWG), a subgroup of the Interagency Working
Group on Counter Terrorism, in coordinating interagency and
international research and development requirements for
combating terrorism, and SO/LIC's Counterterror Technical
Support (CTTS) Program in developing responsive solutions to
these requirements, the committee directs the DOD to use the
TSWG and CTTS program to coordinate the research and
development requirements of the DOD response elements for
chemical and biological terrorism. To ensure that programs and
requirements address the highest priority deficiencies, SO/LIC
will continue to coordinate its efforts in the CTTS program
with the Counterproliferation Support Program (CPSP) and the
Chemical and Biological Defense Program (CBDP).
The U.S. Marine Corps has identified a $4.5 million
unfunded research and development requirement for biological
detectors to support the CBIRF. The committee recommends an
increase of $4.5 million to the chemical and biological defense
program (PE 62384BB). The committee directs the Marine Corps to
coordinate this, and other Marine Corps research and
development requirements for combatting terrorism, with the
TSWG. The committee understands that the TSWG will ensure that
all research, development and acquisition efforts in support of
the CBIRF are fully integrated and coordinated with other DOD
research and development efforts for combatting terrorism, as
well as with overall DOD technology efforts related to chemical
and biological defense.
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization funding
The fiscal year 1998 budget request included approximately
$2.6 billion for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
(BODO), including funds for research, development, test, and
evaluation (RDT&E), and military construction. The budget
request also included $386.4 million in procurement funds
formerly managed by BODO that were transferred to the military
services. As addressed elsewhere in this report, the committee
recommends that these procurement funds be transferred back to
BODO. Consistent with this recommendation, the committee will
address these fiscal year 1998 procurement funds as part of the
budget request for BODO.
The committee's recommended funding allocations for BODO in
fiscal year 1998 are summarized in the following table.
Additional programmatic and funding guidance are also provided
below.
BODO FUNDING ALLOCATION
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Request Change Recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support Technology.............................................. 249.5 +188.4 437.9
THAAD \3\....................................................... 560.7 -202.7 358.0
TMD-BM/C3 \1\................................................... 20.2 .............. 20.2
Navy Lower Tier \2\............................................. 283.3 .............. 283.3
Navy Upper Tier................................................. 194.9 +80.0 274.9
MEADS........................................................... 48.0 .............. 48.0
BPI............................................................. 12.9 +5.0 17.9
NMD \3\......................................................... 504.6 +474.0 978.6
Joint TMD \3\................................................... 544.6 +34.0 578.6
PAC-3 \2\....................................................... 556.8 .............. 556.8
BODO total................................................ 2,975.5 +578.7 3,554.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Procurement only.
\2\ Procurement and RDT&E.
\3\ RDT&E and Military Construction.
Support technology
The committee continues to support BODO's wide bandgap
electronic material development program. Higher speed and
higher temperature operation afforded by wide bandgap
electronic materials could enhance the miniaturization and
functionality of advanced sensors and processing systems for
space-based ballistic missile defense (BMD) sensors and ground-
based radar systems. The committee recommends an increase of
$14.0 million in PE 62173C to support this important activity.
The committee continues to support the Atmospheric
Interceptor Technology (AIT) program to develop and flight test
advanced kill interceptors with potential applications for a
wide range of theater missile defense (TMD) programs. The
committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million in PE 63173C
to continue the AIT program.
The committee supports the efforts of the U.S. Air Force
and BMDO to develop a joint program for proceeding toward a
space-based laser (SBL) flight demonstrator. The committee
notes that the Director of BMDO commissioned an independent
review team (IRT) to study the space-based laser program and
recommend a preferred course of development. According to the
SBL-IRT, the most prudent course for the SBL is to proceed on a
low risk program that could lead to a launch of an ABM Treaty
compliant space demonstrator in fiscal year 2005. To achieve
this goal, the SBL-IRT recommended a funding level of $148.0
million for the SBL program in fiscal year 1998. The committee
endorses the SBL-IRT recommendations and recommends an increase
of $118.0 million in PE 63173C to begin implementing them. The
committee believes that such an SBL readiness demonstrator can
be conducted without violating the ABM Treaty. In addition,
proceeding with a readiness demonstrator will not commit the
United States to development or deployment of an operational
SBL program, but will preserve this option for future
consideration.
The committee is concerned that, following an investment of
approximately $800.0 million to develop and launch the
Midcourse Space Experiment (MSX) satellite, BMDO and the Air
Force now have not allocated funding to continue operation of
this system following the failure of the cryo-cooler system.
The committee notes that the Air Force has developed a proposal
for an advanced concept technology demonstrator (ACTD) to
continue MSX operation to exploit the sensors that remain
operational. The Air Force has estimated that such an ACTD
would require $6.4 million in fiscal year 1998. The committee
is disappointed that these funds were not identified by the
Department of Defense. Given the degree of useful life
remaining in the MSX system and the amount of valuable data it
could still collect, the committee recommends an increase of
$6.4 million in PE 63173C to continue operations of the MSX
satellite. However, the committee expects the Department of
Defense to request the necessary funding to continue MSX
operations in fiscal year 1999 and beyond.
The committee has supported BMDO's efforts to evaluate
innovative launch concepts, especially those utilizing
pressure-fed rocket engine technology. The committee recommends
an increase of $10.0 million in PE 63173C to support low cost
launch concepts, including the Scorpius concept.
Theater High Altitude Area Defense system
The committee continues to support the development,
production, and fielding of Theater High Altitude Area Defense
(THAAD) as a matter of highest priority. The committee notes
that, notwithstanding recent failures to achieve an intercept
of a target, the THAAD system has accomplished virtually all
other test objectives to date. The committee is encouraged by
the recent findings of the two review teams that have evaluated
the THAAD design and development program: specifically, that
the THAAD system design and operational requirements are
fundamentally sound.
The committee understands that, due to delays in the THAAD
flight schedule, funds appropriated in fiscal year 1997 and
funds contained in the budget request for fiscal year 1998 for
THAAD are currently excess to the THAAD program in those
specific fiscal years. The committee, therefore, recommends a
reduction of $202.7 million in fiscal year 1998 and directs
BMDO to use excess fiscal year 1997 funds to cover necessary
fiscal year 1998 requirements, as requested by the Secretary of
Defense. This reduction is made without prejudice to the THAAD
program and with the expectation that DOD will make up these
funds in the outyears. The committee also recommends the
transfer of the remaining $58.8 million fiscal year 1998 THAAD
Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) funds to the
THAAD Demonstrationand Validation (Dem/Val) account, for a
total authorization of $353.4 in PE 63861C. The committee understands
that approximately $340.0 million will need to be added to the THAAD
program in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 to properly realign THAAD
funding. The committee expects the Department of Defense to add such
funds in the Future Years Defense Program, and to take such measures as
may be possible to accelerate fielding of the THAAD first unit equipped
(FUE), consistent with a moderate risk program.
Navy Upper Tier (Theater Wide)
The committee continues to strongly support the Navy Upper
Tier program. The committee welcomes the administration's
decision to increase funding for this program and to position
it to become a major defense acquisition program. The
committee, however, does not believe that sufficient funding
has been added or sufficient priority attached to this program.
The committee notes that the Chief of Naval Operations has
recommended an increase of $80.0 million for this program in
fiscal year 1998. Such an increase would enable acceleration of
the AEGIS/Lightweight Exo- Atmospheric Projectile (LEAP)
intercept test to the maximum extent now achievable. The
committee supports this acceleration and recommends an increase
of $80.0 million in PE 63868C.
Boost phase interceptor
The budget request includes $12.9 million for the U.S.-
Israeli boost phase intercept system based on an unmanned
aerial vehicle (UAV). This level of funding, however, is
insufficient to adequately support necessary risk reduction
efforts. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of
$5.0 million in PE 63870C to support such efforts.
National Missile Defense
The budget request for the National Missile Defense (NMD)
program was $504.1 million. The committee has maintained for
the last several years that the NMD program is severely
underfunded. In the context of the Quadrennial Defense Review,
the Department of Defense has acknowledged this funding
shortfall and recommended an increase of $474.0 million for NMD
in fiscal year 1998, and approximately $2.3 billion over the
years of the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). The committee
notes that this does not include any funding for the actual
deployment of an NMD system.
Although the committee is pleased that the Secretary of
Defense has sought to clarify actual NMD funding requirements,
it is disappointed that it has taken so long. Even with
significant congressional increases over the last two years,
the NMD program remains high risk, largely due to the
Department's failure to adequately fund robust testing
activities. Unfortunately, the addition of $474.0 million in
fiscal year 1998 will do little in the near-term to compensate
for this neglect. The committee is concerned by the lack of
detail accompanying the Secretary of Defense's request to
increase the NMD program budget by $2.3 billion over the FYDP.
In addition, the committee is not satisfied with the degree of
information provided to date on how past NMD funding increases
have been spent. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary
of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees, not later than November 1, 1997, providing a
detailed accounting of how NMD funds have been spent since the
beginning of fiscal year 1996 and a detailed plan for the
allocation of NMD funding in the FYDP. In addition, the
Secretary shall provide a detailed description of the cost
estimating and cost control mechanisms in place within DOD for
the NMD program, and an assessment of whether they are
adequate.
The committee supports the NMD Joint Program Office and the
decision to award a contract for a lead system integrator
(LSI). The committee urges BMDO to proceed expeditiously with
selection of an LSI contractor and the overall NMD program.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $474.0
million in PE 63871C.
The committee believes that BMDO should continue to explore
sea-based NMD options. The committee is aware of analysis that
shows that a version of the Navy Upper Tier theater missile
defense (TMD) system could be employed in an NMD role.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director of BMDO to submit
a report to the congressional defense committees by February
15, 1998, describing whether and how the Navy Upper Tier
program could be upgraded in the future to provide a limited
NMD capability. The report should address the technical issues
associated with a sea-based NMD option as well as costs
associated with such a concept. The report should also address
whether and how a sea-based NMD system could be integrated into
and supplement a ground-based NMD system, and whether and how a
sea-based system could provide additional capabilities in
support of the requirements for the existing NMD program.
Joint theater missile defense
The committee supports the efforts being performed at the
Army Space and Strategic Defense Command's Advanced Research
Center (ARC). The ARC continues to be a valuable tool in
support of the Army's development of both theater and national
missile defense systems. Therefore, the committee recommends an
increase of $7.0 million in PE 63872C for support of the ARC.
The budget request includes $38.7 million for BMDO's
Israeli Cooperative Project, which includes funding for the
Arrow ballistic missile defense system. The committee
recommends an increase of $15.0 million in PE 63872C to support
interoperability design so the Arrow can operate alongside
forward deployed U.S. missile defense systems. The committee
urges BMDO to identify additional funds in the outyears to
continue this important cooperative effort to ensure that U.S.
systems are fully complemented by the Arrow system.
The committee notes that the Secretary of Defense has
requestedthat an additional $12.0 million be added to the
budget request to support the Department's efforts to develop a theater
air and missile defense integrated systems architecture. The committee
supports this request and recommends an increase of $12.0 million in PE
63872C for this purpose.
Reuse technology adoption program
The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE
62301E to continue efforts focused on software reuse
technology, methodologies, and education programs in the
Department of Defense. The program should focus on using
evolutionary approaches to the use of software recycling for
constructing new systems based on a common architecture.
The committee believes that there is significant
application for reuse technology in the commercial sector.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
require that each non-federal provider under this program
prepare and submit a management plan for transitioning its
program to 100 percent non-federal funding within an
appropriate time period specified by the Secretary.
Tactical technology
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 in PE 62702E
to provide for lethality demonstration and the definition of a
tactical configuration of the small low-cost interceptor device
(SLID). This will allow for an assessment of integration and
configuration of SLID on the Abrams, Bradley, and HMMWV
platforms.
High definition display systems
The committee recommends an increase of $18.0 million in PE
62708E to accelerate the development of rugged and flexible
high definition displays for use in military applications. The
committee also intends that the additional funds be used to
increase the number of evaluations of emerging display
technologies in such applications.
Hard carbon-based coatings
The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE
62712E to ensure effective transition of technologies using
pulsed laser deposition of hard carbon coatings to specific
applications in the Department of Defense.
Seamless high off-chip connectivity
The committee recommends an increase of $7.5 million in PE
62712E for continued research and development of Seamless High
Off-Chip Connectivity (SHOCC)to improve the price and
performance characteristics of computing capability for the
military. The committee directs that all applicable competitive
procedures be used in the award of any contract or other
agreement under this program, and that robust cost-sharing
requirements for non- federal participants be used where
applicable. The committee believes that this technology has a
number of significant commercial applications and intends that
any future funding be contingent on strong commercial
investment in the technology.
Defense Special Weapons Agency
The committee recognizes that the end of the Cold War has
changed the risk to the United States from a nuclear weapons
attack. However, the threat is evolving, not disappearing. The
committee is concerned that budget reductions and a resulting
loss in technical expertise have caused the nation's ability to
analyze the effects of a nuclear weapons attack on military and
other systems and structures, and to provide reliable and
timely technical guidance to drop below acceptable levels. As
noted previously by the committee, the Department of Defense
(DOD) must take concrete steps to ensure that the military
services and civilian personnel retain their nuclear core
competencies and critical scientific and engineering skills.
The committee believes that additional funding is necessary
to maintain stewardship of this national capability and
recommends a $15.0 million increase to the budget request for
fiscal year 1998 for the Defense Special Weapons Agency
(DSWA)for research and development activities related to
maintaining critical core competencies and skills in nuclear
weapons effects. Additionally, the committee believes the
Department should increase its annual fiscal year funding
levels in this area by $10.0 million annually in order to
sustain a more robust program to understand, predict, and
mitigate effects of nuclear explosions.
Structural Response and Blast Mitigation
Research and development on weapon effects, weapon and
target interaction, and force protection technologies have wide
antiterrorism applicability. Expeditious identification of
promising technologies and materials by the Technical Support
Working Group (TSWG), could provide the means to reduce the
vulnerability of key military, government, and public buildings
to terrorist attacks involving conventional explosives. In
particular, Defense Special Weapons Agency's (DSWA) expertise
in the area of weapon and target interaction represents an
investment which should be leveraged to the fullest extent
possible to advance further the understanding of structural
response to blast and to develop blast and shock mitigation
technologies, including those which can be retrofitted to
existing structures.
The committee encourages the Department to utilize DSWA
expertise and unique testing capabilities to accelerate the
fielding of new protective technologies including affordable
andpractical retrofit options for existing structures.
Additionally, the committee suggests the Department leverage existing,
promising technologies designed to mitigate earthquake and corrosion
related damage. The committee recommends that the Department consider
developing a set of structural engineering design guidelines and
standards modeled after those developed by other Federal agencies, like
those developed by the Department of State for new embassy office
buildings, to prevent the collapse of buildings and structures
subjected to heavy blast loads.
Vulnerability of electronic technologies and space systems to radiation
and electromagnetic pulse
The United States continues to expand its military and
commercial reliance on advanced electronic technologies and
space systems. The committee has previously expressed its
concern that the Department is not paying enough attention to
the potential vulnerability of the next generation satellites
and high technology upon which U.S. forces depend and in which
industry is investing billions of dollars, to the effects of
radiation and electromagnetic pulse (EMP).
In response to the committee's concerns, the Defense
Special Weapons Agency has conducted activities that have shown
electronics, computers, and communication systems can be highly
susceptible to disruption and damage from high altitude
nuclear, as well as conventional, explosions. The committee
notes that a potential adversary possessing only a few nuclear
weapons could seriously impair or negate military operations,
as well as critical civil and commercial activities, and is
concerned that funding reductions have permitted only limited
attention to this rapidly growing problem. The committee
recommends an increase of $3.0 million to examine further the
national implications of high altitude nuclear and conventional
effects.
Counterterror technical support
The budget request for fiscal year 1998 included $34.9
million for the counterterror technical support program for
antiterrorism and counterterrorism projects which support and
are integrated into the national interagency response to
national terrorism. The program also addresses deficiencies
cited in response to questions about the adequacy of
counterterrorism research and development posed in Presidential
Decision Directive 39 (PDD-39).
The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million for
structural response and blast mitigation research and
development, $6.0 million for counterterrorist explosive
research, and $3.0 million for the demonstration of non-
intrusive inspection technologies.
The tragic Khobar Tower incident in Saudi Arabia
highlighted the vulnerability of U.S. forces and the need for
more adequate protection against these heinous acts of
terrorism. In order to enhance the security of persons and
property of the United States, the committee believes it is
necessary to develop innovative security technologies.
The committee supports collaborative efforts with allies
who have demonstrated counter-terrorism capabilities, such as
Israel and the United Kingdom, which can provide the United
States a cost-effective way of remaining at the cutting edge of
technology. The committee understands that the Department of
Defense (DOD) recently collaborated with Israel and the United
Kingdom on an international cooperative research and
development program to strengthen existing structures against
terrorist and ballistic missile attacks. The committee
recommends an increase of $6.0 million to the budget request to
examine retrofit options and to develop design guidelines for
new and existing structures. This effort should include the use
of composite systems and retrofit applications technologies
such as those demonstrated for seismic retrofitting of highway
columns and corrosion damage.
The committee has supported funding for a non-intrusive
inspection technology, known as pulsed fast neutron analysis
(PFNA). The committee believes this technology could provide
the Department with a broad spectrum of automated inspection/
detection operations capability, which could aid in the search
for explosives, chemical and biological agents, toxic
materials, and special nuclear materials. The committee
recommends that the remainder of the increase recommended for
this program be utilized for the demonstration of the PFNA.
Research and Development for Combating Terrorism
The committee understands that the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity
Conflict (SO/LIC) currently coordinates and is responsible for
the execution of all aspects of the Department's interagency
research and development (R&D) efforts for combating
conventional and unconventional (weapons of mass destruction)
terrorism within the Counterterror Technical Support (CTTS)
Program. Through its role as the Executive Agent for the
Technical Support Working Group (TSWG) and the CTTS Program,
SO/LIC has the full perspective on multiagency and
international R&D to combat terrorism. The TSWG, a subgroup of
the Interagency Working Group on Counterterrorism, is
responsible for the development of technologies to meet the
needs for combating terrorism, while ensuring integration and
coordination with all agencies across the government and with
specified countries. Recognizing this success in coordinating
among many agencies nationally and with three countries
internationally, and acknowledging ongoing efforts that support
state and local response requirements, the committee recommends
that the DOD continue, through the TSWG, to work closely with
Federal agencies responsible for addressing the equipment needs
of state and local responders.
Advanced lithography
One of the five principle components of the Revolution in
Military Affairs, as outlined in the Secretary's
QuarterlyDefense Review, is ``a robust multi-sensor information grid
providing dominant awareness of the battlespace to our commanders and
forces''. The new systems that will provide this battlefield awareness
are dependent on the continued evolution of computer technology and
particularly, the availability of smaller and faster microchips.
The Navy's proximity x-ray lithography program is focused
on producing microchips that enable processors with speeds
thousands of times faster than current technology. The new
microchips would make it possible for the Department of Defense
(DOD) to develop and field: extremely high-speed processors for
real-time threat identification, identification of friendly
forces, automatic target recognition, and autonomous
operational capabilities; microelectromechanical systems (MEMS)
for remote sensing and countermeasures; multispectrual,
infrared, and electro-optical sensors for threat and target
identification; autonomous smart sensors and systems capable of
self-preservation; and high-resolution displays for command
centers and tactical operators.
The demonstration of a related program for the development
of a point-source x-ray lithography system capable of sub-0.15
lithography is near completion. That technology has a number of
near-term applications in the low volume production of
monolithic microwave integrated circuits (MMIC) for military
uses.
The committee recommends an increase of $23.0 million to PE
63739E to continue the proximity x-ray lithography program and
an increase of $2.0 million in the same program element to
complete the point-source x-ray lithography program in fiscal
year 1998 under the current memorandum of understanding between
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the
Navy. The committee recommends a decrease of $3.0 million in
project MT-06 in the same program element as a partial offset
for these recommended increases. The committee directs the DOD
to focus the funds for the proximity portion of the increase on
the following priorities: (1) development of an e-beam pattern
generator; (2) resist development, absorber stress control, and
other key elements of process development; (3) stepper
upgrades; (4) mask repair; and (5) mask inspection.
The committee is concerned that the advanced lithography
program has yet to bear fruit, despite substantial expenditures
over an eight-year period. Therefore, the committee directs
that Naval Air Systems Command, in consultation with the Naval
Research Laboratory, submit to Congress, within 180 days of
enactment of this Act, a plan to expeditiously complete the
project with fieldable technology. The plan shall not exceed
three years and should contemplate a minimum of 50% cost-share
by industry in fiscal year 1998 and a substantially greater
industry share in any subsequent effort. If it is not feasible
to develop fieldable technology within the period specified,
the DOD is directed to discontinue the effort after fiscal year
1998. In light of the important defense implications of this
technology, the committee directs the Navy to include
provisions in research contracts or other agreements in this
area to adequately protect against technology transfer to
foreign nations.
Advanced concept technology demonstrations
The committee notes that the budget request of $121.0
million for advanced concept technology demonstrations is more
than twice the amount of $56.9 million authorized and
appropriated for fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends a
reduction of $20.0 million in PE 63750D, without prejudice, to
fund other higher priority programs.
Electronic commerce resource centers
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
63753D for the establishment of a new electronic commerce
resource center to complement the existing network of centers.
The committee urges the Department of Defense to consider
establishment of the new center at an institution of higher
learning that has a record of success in commercial electronic
projects. The committee directs that all applicable competitive
procedures be used in the award of contracts or other
agreements under this program, and that cost-sharing
requirements for non-federal participants be utilized where
appropriate.
High performance computing modernization program
The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in PE
63755D to sustain the operations of supercomputing centers
established with Department of Defense (DOD) funds. The centers
can play an integral role in helping the Department meet its
supercomputing capability requirements. The Air Force Phillips
Laboratory and Air Force Space Command continue to rely on one
such center to provide image processing and simulation
capabilities. Another such center continues to provide key
support to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization and the
Navy. The committee directs that the distributed centers that
are the recipients of the funds included in this increase
develop management plans that includes a reasonable period of
transition to full sustainment funding by government and non-
government facility users. Therefore, the committee directs
that the distributed centers, in conjunction with the DOD,
prepare and submit such plans to the congressional defense
committees no later than March 15, 1998.
Reductions in new starts
The committee notes with concern the significant growth in
funding for new starts in a number of programs managed by the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Therefore, the
committee recommends a reduction of $5.0 million in PE 63760E
and $5.0 million in PE 63762E.
Large millimeter-wave telescope program
The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE
63762E to complete the Department of Defense (DOD) portion of
the development of the large millimeter-wave telescope. The
committee believes that future years DOD funding for this
project should not be necessary.
Land warfare technology
The committee recommends an increase of $4.4 million in PE
63764E to complete wind tunnel testing of rotor technology
under the active structural control program. The committee
believes that this program has significant potential to reduce
the acoustic signature as well as to lower life-cycle costs of
rotary wing aircraft. The committee expects the Army to budget
for the application of this technology on new systems and
systems in the current inventory, should the technology
complete successful testing.
Vehicle teleoperation capability development program
The committee recommends an increase of $9.5 million in PE
63709D to accelerate the development of the vehicle
teleoperation capability (VTC) development program to allow for
the fiscal year 1999 procurement of the VTC by the military
services. This technology will allow near-term deployment of
capabilities for the remote operation of vehicles to reduce
risks to military men and women during hazardous operations.
The technology has already demonstrated an ability to save
lives during testing in Bosnia.
Non-acoustic antisubmarine warfare
The budget request contained $15.4 million, a 40 percent
decline from fiscal year 1997, for the Department of Defense
(DOD) advanced sensor applications program (ASAP). This program
emphasizes the application of non-acoustic technology to
antisubmarine warfare. The ASAP operates within the DOD as an
independent effort that complements a parallel Navy submarine
security program. It provides an alternate emphasis and focus
to ensure that a diverse array of antisubmarine technologies
are evaluated and technological surprise does not occur.
As discussed elsewhere in this report the committee has
recommended an increase of $3.0 million in PE 63714D for the
high frequency active auroral research program (HAARP). As a
separate matter, based on testimony regarding the worldwide
proliferation of modern diesel and air independent propulsion
submarines and the increased capabilities of advanced nuclear
submarines that the Director of Naval Intelligence provided
during a committee hearing in April 1997, the committee is very
concerned about the declining emphasis on the ASAP implied by
the lower than expected budget request. The committee
recommends authorization of $18.4 million, an increase of $3.0
million, in PE 63714D for the ASAP to continue work on
scattering theory, microwave radiometry, multispectral
analysis, and ocean imaging investigations and other on-going
advanced sensor application programs. Further, the committee
expects that the DOD will proceed in accordance with the plan
proposed to the committee by the Assistant Secretary of the
Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition in
correspondence dated March 11, 1997, for the competitive
evaluation of the ATD-111 light detection and ranging sensor
and the April Showers sensor.
Integrated data environment program
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE
63736D for the integrated data environment (IDE) program within
the Continuous Acquisition and Life-cycle Support activities
(CALS). The committee believes this program to have significant
potential for increasing spare parts availability through
improved electronic data exchange.
Technical, studies, support and analysis
The committee recommends a reduction of $8.0 million for
unnecessary funding growth in PE 65104D. The committee notes
that the recommendation provides the same funding level as was
authorized and appropriated for fiscal year 1997.
Command Intelligence Architecture/Planning Program
The Command Intelligence Architecture/Planning Program
(CIAP) was established by the Office of the Secretary of
Defense to provide the unified commands with an intelligence
planning process that documented intelligence requirements
linkage to mission accomplishment, current and required future
intelligence capabilities, and strategies to achieve required
outyear capabilities. In view of CIAP's success, the focus of
the program has been expanded to encompass command, control,
communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (C4ISR). The program now supports the broader
goal of C4ISR integration throughout the Department of Defense,
with special emphasis on supporting the nine unified commands.
The committee endorses the broadened focus of CIAP and
recommends an increase of $5.8 million in PE 35898L to ensure
this vital effort is adequately funded. The committee directs
the Secretary of Defense to fully fund this program in the
outyears.
Communications helmet
The budget request includes $1.7 million for research and
development of special operations equipment advanced
requirements. The committee received a Special Operations
Command request for additional resources to procure prototype
communications helmets for evaluation. The committee supports
this effort and recommends an increase of $0.3 million in PE
1160404BB.
Heavy sniper rifle
The committee notes the ongoing effort of the Special
Operations Command (SOCOM) to support Army efforts to test,
evaluate, and type classify a new .50 caliber ball round for
the heavy sniper rifle. The committee recommends an increase of
$0.4 million in PE 1160606BB to support the SOCOM contribution
to the joint effort, which is projected to save approximately
$1.7 million annually in procurement unique to special
operations.
Improved limpet assembly modular
The budget request included $0.8 million to begin
development of the improved limpet assembly modular (ILAM).
This activity includes the design, fabrication, and testing of
the ILAM system, a weapon designed to incapacitate ships in
port. The committee notes an unfunded requirement to begin this
program. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of
$1.0 million in PE 1160404BB to fund the initial development of
this critical capability.
Remote activation munition systems
The budget request includes $6.4 million to continue
development and selective procurement of remote activation
munition systems (RAMS). The committee notes an unfunded
requirement to complete development of type B and type C
receivers as well as an unfunded requirement for the
procurement of type A receivers. The committee recommends an
increase of $1.0 million in PE 1160404BB to complete
development work on these receivers and $2.0 million in
procurement to acquire the inventory objective for the type A
receiver.
USSOCOM joint threat warning system training system
The U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) is developing
an integrated tactical system called the joint threat warning
system (JTWS). When development is complete, the system will
provide:
(1) monitoring and direction finding of
communications and non-communications signals;
(2) receipt and correlation of tactical intelligence
broadcasts; and
(3) processing support for the tactical application
of received data.
JTWS is being designed as a scaleable system that will
consist of user-defined modules that are driven by a software
system compatible with a variety of JTWS configurations matched
to the needs of various USSOCOM weapons systems.
To enhance crew and individual performance, USSOCOM is
concurrently developing a JTWS training program. This effort,
begun in fiscal year 1997, will develop embedded proficiency
and operator tutorial training modules that can be used for
garrison, enroute, and deployed training. Successful
development of the JTWS training system will obviate the need
for a separate and expensive training infrastructure for JTWS
and a need to procure additional tactical systems solely to
meet training requirements.
The committee supports efforts to reduce training
infrastructure costs, which can add considerably to a combat
system's life cycle costs, and to maintain complimentary
development schedules for the JTWS and its associated training
system. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of
$6.0 million in PE 1160405BB for continued development of the
embedded JTWS training system. Of this amount, $4.0 million
would be to complete the development of the training modules
and an additional $2.0 million would support procurement of
embedded proficiency trainer production models and operator
training tutorial modules. The committee also recommends an
additional increase of $1.0 million of operations and
maintenance funding to support the developmental effort.
Operational test and evaluation
The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE
65118D to allow the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation,
to more fully support the warfighting commanders through the
CINC Operational Field Assessment program. The committee views
this program as a primary mechanism to support the exploration
of operational concepts and to address critical issues in a
quick response mode. Given the apparent support for this
program within the Department of Defense, the committee expects
that the increase will only be necessary for fiscal year 1998
and that the DOD will include adequate funding for the program
in future year budget requests.
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
600 gallon fuel tanks for F-16
The Air Force is conducting a limited demonstration of 600
gallon fuel tanks for certain F-16 missions. Once the initial
tests and analysis are complete, a flight clearance with a
limited flight envelope will be issued for further
demonstrations.
The committee understands that a preliminary study in
calendar year 1993 suggested that flying with the 600 gallon
tanks on Block 50 F-16 aircraft for up to 20 percent of its
flight hours would be acceptable and would not reduce the
useful service life of the aircraft. Because of concerns
regarding structural limits and fatigue, the committee is not
prepared to recommend additional funding for the 600 gallon
tanks. The Air Force must first complete testing and
recommendations regarding F-16 structural fatigue.
Congress appropriated $4.0 million in fiscal year 1997 to
buy additional tanks presuming that testing would have been
completed in early calendar year 1997. Testing to date has been
hampered by defective pylons delivered to the Air Force test
officials.The delay has caused a slip in initial and follow-on
testing. The committee supports the Air Force's intent to complete the
testing and, if the testing is successful, the use of fiscal year 1997
funds to purchase additional fuel tanks in fiscal year 1998.
Flat panel display technology
In 1994, the Department of Defense Flat Panel Display
Technology Task Force declared that flat panel display (FPD)
technology was a critical technology. Because of their lower
life-cycle costs and improved performance characteristics, FPD
systems increasingly replace cathode-ray tubes in many U.S.
military aircraft and ground combat vehicles. Suppliers within
the U.S. have provided highly effective FPD systems that are
custom designed to meet military requirements.
The committee is aware that as a result of cost and
schedule constraints, the Department of Defense (DOD) has
procured some consumer-grade displays designed primarily for
laptop computers, which are then ruggedized for military use.
As in the case of any commercial insertion, these procurement
decisions require careful analysis of life-cycle cost and
performance tradeoffs to ensure that military user needs are
met. Quantitative data to support such cost and performance
tradeoffs are not always readily available. Therefore, the
committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology to perform a study of the
environmental and performance requirements and test data on
performance of both custom and consumer-grade FPD systems in
various military platform applications. Additionally, this
study should assess life-cycle costs and support issues such as
commonality, supportability, and availability of both custom
and consumer-grade FPD systems. The study should specifically
address the potential benefits of FPD system interface
standards and open systems approaches.
The Under Secretary should submit the results of this
study to the committee by March 1, 1998. Weapon system program
managers shall use data from this study in FPD system tradeoff
decisions, with the objective of meeting user needs at the
lowest life-cycle cost.
Improved shipbuilding competitiveness
The committee is aware of the Navy's interest in working
with the U.S. shipbuilding industry to coordinate efforts at
improving the competitiveness of U.S. shipyards. Such efforts
would involve the Navy, shipbuilders, suppliers, designers, and
other experts in production and supply methods. Increasing the
competitiveness of U.S. shipyards could yield more commercial
contracts that would reduce the costs of Navy shipbuilding
programs and increase stability in the domestic shipbuilding
industry. The committee urges the Navy to develop a plan,
working with industry, to improve the competitiveness of U.S.
shipbuilding. The committee believes that this effort should
involve the appropriate elements of the Office of Naval
Research, the Naval Sea Systems Command, and the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency's Maritech program.
The Navy should report the results of this planning effort
to the congressional defense committees prior to submission of
the fiscal year 1999 budget request.
Intercooled recuperated gas turbine engine
The budget request contained $32.3 million in PE 63573N for
continued development of the intercooled recuperated (ICR) gas
turbine engine. The ICR engine is a joint development effort of
the United States and the United Kingdom. Considerable
resources have been devoted to development of the ICR engine as
a next generation propulsion system for surface combatants. The
primary objective of the program has been to develop an engine
that will produce substantial fuel savings and emission
reductions. Having experienced technical problems, principally
as a result of deficiencies in the design and manufacture of
the pre-production recuperator, the ICR program has resumed its
forward progress during fiscal year 1997, successfully
completing a series of test milestones.
The ICR engine was previously programmed for installation
on later ships of the DDG-51 class. However, the program delays
caused by the recuperator failure and a revised Navy plan for
multiyear procurement of 12 DDG-51 destroyers at the lowest
possible cost have caused the Navy to conclude that it is no
longer cost-effective to incorporate the ICR engine into the
DDG-51 class. However, the ICR engine remains a strong
potential candidate for inclusion into future Navy ship
designs.
The budget request and the Future Years Defense Program
(FYDP) provide for continuing development of the ICR engine
through its land-based test phase. However, no provision has
been made for continuing development of the ICR engine beyond
the land-based test phase. Specifically, there is no funding in
the FYDP for at-sea testing of the ICR engine, a necessary step
for its introduction into fleet ships.
The committee believes that at-sea testing is necessary to
fully evaluate the operation and reliability of the ICR engine
before a well-informed decision can be made regarding
production and the engine's inclusion in future designs. To
better evaluate this objective, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to prepare and submit, no later than
September 30, 1997, a plan that makes provisions for at-sea
testing, provides options for completion of development and
introduction of the ICR engine into the fleet if testing proves
successful, and contains estimates of the costs necessary to
accomplish these objectives.
Joint experimentation plan
The committee is familiar with the separate experimentation
initiatives in which each of the military services are
developing future capabilities. Ongoing initiatives include the
Army's Advanced Warfighting Experiment, the Marine Corps'
Hunter WarriorExercise, Battle Labs, and numerous other
efforts. The committee is very concerned that there is little or no
focus or effort on joint experimentation activities. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to review the experimentation
efforts of the military departments and provide the committee with a
joint experimentation plan directed at rapidly conceptualizing and
developing the forces and joint operational capabilities needed through
the 2010 timeframe.
The report should address the following: how the fielding
of advanced technologies are being synchronized across the
military services to enable the development of new operational
capabilities; how command, control, communications, and
computer (C4), and intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities are being integrated jointly
to achieve information superiority; how military service
experimentation efforts are being linked with the joint
experimentation plan designed to implement the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff's Joint Vision 2010 operational
capabilities; how the Department will conduct ``red team''
vulnerability assessments of new technologies and ensure that
new systems are effective in countermeasure environments; and
whether the Department should establish an Experimental Joint
Task Force composed of units from each of the military services
with the mission of experimenting with new technologies,
organizational structures, and joint concepts of operations.
The report on Joint Experimentation will be submitted to the
congressional defense committees by March 30, 1998.
Materials for micro system components
The committee is aware of the capabilities at the
Department of Energy Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) to conduct research on issues
associated with the development of materials for use in the
microelectromechanical systems program currently under the
direction of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA). The committee urges DARPA to explore collaborative
research efforts with INEEL to take advantage of these existing
research capabilities.
Minimally invasive surgery
Minimally invasive surgery refers to procedures that permit
the extensive surgical treatment of patients while minimizing
the requirement to open the body with long, deep incisions. The
medical technology industry and medical research institutions
have developed technologies, such as lasers, computers, optics,
and robotics, and techniques to apply them, that hold great
promise for advancing minimally invasive surgical capabilities.
Such surgical techniques have direct and useful application for
battlefield medicine, and could reduce the cost, pain, and
danger of surgery performed in support of military health care
during peacetime. The committee urges the Defense Department to
study the benefits of sponsoring a collaborative effort of
industry, medical research institutions, and the military
services to identify and evaluate enabling technologies for
minimally invasive surgery.
National crash survival data
For nearly thirty years the Naval Biodynamics Laboratory
(NBDL) focused its efforts on the test, study, and analyses of
human body response to crashes. Using this research data, NBDL
initiated development of a national data bank for use in
ongoing endeavors to reduce crash-related fatalities and
serious injuries. In 1996, the NBDL ceased operations before
the data base was completed.
The committee recognizes the great benefit of a national
data base for the research community to better understand the
effect of seat belts, air-bags, and seating systems on humans
during crash conditions. In the United States alone, the annual
toll from crash related trauma is 150,000 deaths and more than
200,000 brain and spinal cord injuries. On a global scale, it
has been estimated that half a million people die annually and
about 15 million are injured as a result of traffic crashes
alone.
The committee believes that Department of Transportation
would be a more appropriate repository for this data. The
committee urges the Navy to enter into discussions to effect
the transfer of this data to the Department of Transportation
to make the greatest use of this valuable research.
National Solar Observatory
The National Solar Observatory (NSO) is internationally
recognized as the world's best site to study the sun. NSO
scientists carry out frontier research in solar physics working
to understand and predict the occurrences and effects of solar
flares and other bursts of radiation. The committee understands
that solar activity is increasingly vital for global
communications, military surveillance, and navigation.
The Air Force supports the NSO operations through its
Science and Technology program in the amount of $650,000 that
is then transferred to the National Science Foundation, to
operate the NSO. The committee supports the continuation of
this annual contribution for the support of the NSO.
Software acquisition management practices
The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense is
working to improve its management and maintenance of software
intensive systems. These efforts are critical given the fact
that a large percentage of the Department's software intensive
programs continue to experience significant cost, schedule, and
performance problems. The committee encourages the Department
to increase the use of software acquisition management
practices developed by the Software Engineering Institute and
successfullypiloted by the military services.
Terminal guidance systems for small munitions
The committee is aware of the potential for inexpensive
terminal guidance systems for small munitions, such as Hydra 70
and DRAGON, to improve the lethality of these munitions on the
battlefield. Shrinking inventories of small munitions make
increased lethality a vital interest of the nation's armed
forces. The committee is also aware of a promising technology
that may make terminal guidance systems for small, spinning
projectiles realistic and affordable. The committee directs the
Secretary of the Army to provide a report by March 1, 1998 to
the congressional defense committees on the potential costs and
benefits of terminal guidance systems for small munitions.
Totally integrated munitions enterprise
The committee notes the successful initiation of the
Totally Integrated Munitions Enterprise (TIME) project at the
Institute for Manufacturing and Robotic Sciences, and continues
to believe that this program has potential to be a significant
component of the Army's plans to meet its munitions industrial
base restructuring and reconfiguration needs. The committee
urges the Army to consider reprogramming funds to continue this
program beyond fiscal year 1997.
United States-Japan management training
The committee continues to believe that the United States-
Japan management training program demonstrates significant
potential for preparing young American scientists, engineers,
and managers for positions in American industry and government.
The program facilitates access to Japanese research and
development institutions. The committee notes that $10.0
million was appropriated in fiscal year 1997 to continue the
program. Although no funding was included in the budget request
for fiscal year 1998, the committee believes that continued
investment in the program may be warranted. The Secretary of
the Air Force may apply funds in PE 61102F, or the Secretary of
Defense may apply funds in PE 61103D, to continue the program
at a maximum level of $10.0 million.
The committee notes the significant level of funds provided
to the program by non-federal sources in compliance with
statutory requirements. However, the committee believes that
the program should expeditiously transition to reliance on
funds provided by the Department of Commerce or the primary
beneficiaries of the program in the commercial industry. Any
DOD funding of the program should be provided only in relation
to the actual participation by the Department and the military
services.
Wireless communications for the digital battlefield
The committee is aware of research and development work in
the area of wireless communications for digital battlefield
that was programmed to continue under the focused research
initiative that was terminated in the Defense Appropriations
Act for Fiscal Year 1997. The committee believes that this
project has significant potential for supporting military
service efforts to deploy emerging operational concepts on the
future battlefield. The committee urges the Department of
Defense to evaluate this project and to find the means to
continue the project if it is determined that the research has
sufficient promise.
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
``The Storm Clouds are on the Horizon''
During the course of the year, the committee received
testimony from the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, the service chiefs, the unified
commanders-in-chief, and several other high ranking military
and civilian officials at the Department of Defense.
Furthermore, members of the committee and staff spent
significant time among the men and women of the operational
forces, observing training operations and discussing issues
that impact the readiness of these armed forces and their
ability to carry out assigned missions.
Although the Administration stated that ``strong support
was provided for training, maintenance, supplies and other
essentials needed to keep U.S. forces ready to fight and win
decisively,'' its budget request for fiscal year 1998 reduced
real funding for these areas by $1.4 billion. This is
especially troubling at a time when the committee is beginning
to hear of serious concerns expressed by U.S. military officers
that the readiness of our armed forces is in jeopardy. If
readiness truly remains the Administration's highest priority,
the committee fears that the other accounts (modernization,
quality of life, research and development) are even more
seriously underfunded.
Readiness Crisis?
Both commanders and personnel at operating units around the
nation have expressed a great deal of concern regarding the
readiness of the armed forces. Military units, and the
personnel within them, are being overused and under funded to
the point that, as one officer stated, ``we are returning to
the days of the hollow force.'' One letter written to Senator
Thurmond by a non-commissioned officer accurately captures this
concern. In this letter, the individual relates the grueling
pace that he has witnessed of both active and Reserve
components in support of peacekeeping and other contingency
operations. In one case, he noted the ``18-23 hour days, 7 days
a week'' schedule that he and his companions endured while
deployed to Southwest Asia. He also expressed concern regarding
the condition of the equipment supplied to the armed forces.
``We have old, worn out equipment that is difficult to maintain
because we cannot always get the parts needed to repair them.'' He
concludes by stating that ``it is the same way wherever we go;
outdated, broken equipment, a lack of spare parts, overworked and
underpaid GIs, resulting in an inability to perform our mission.''
While there is no doubt that our military forces are the
finest in the world, that they are performing their assigned
missions, and are capable of defeating any potential enemy of
today, there is concern that, given current trends, this state
of affairs will not always remain true. This concern is best
captured by the words of one military officer when he stated,
``the storm clouds are on the horizon.''
The concerns of this officer were echoed by a number of
other commanders who remember with considerable distress the
condition of the armed forces in the latter part of the 1970s.
These concerns are not reflected in the official reports the
committee has received from the Pentagon. In fact, rather than
indicating that there are problems, these reports and
statements indicate that the readiness of our military forces
are at an all-time high. It is not clear why there is such a
discrepancy between the concerns of some operational commanders
and official reports. However, this discrepancy is troubling to
the committee.
Causes and Solutions
There are two key factors that threaten to undermine the
readiness of our forces; a lack of adequate funding and, the
over-commitment of a greatly reduced force structure. Unless we
take the necessary steps to correct these problems, our
military capability will incur significant degradation as we
enter the 21st century.
Although the entire defense budget is insufficient to meet
the demands that this administration places upon the armed
forces, it is the modernization accounts that provide us with
the greatest challenge. The inadequate funding within these
accounts, particularly with the procurement programs,
exacerbates the problems caused by other funding shortfalls.
For example, much of our military equipment is aging rapidly
and requires increased maintenance, driving a need for
increased operations and maintenance (O&M) funding. However,
since additional funding is not available to increase the O&M
accounts, training suffers in order to make available necessary
maintenance funds.
Without adequate modernization of the armed forces,
increased amounts of maintenance funds will be required;
causing a further drain on the procurement accounts and making
it even more difficult to replace the aging equipment. In turn,
this will require even more maintenance dollars as the
equipment grows older; further reducing the amount of funds
available for the procurement accounts; and so the cycle will
continue in a constant, downward spiral.
The funding crisis is further aggravated by the continual
deployment of forces to contingency operations such as Southern
Watch and Provide Comfort. Everyone who owns a car understands
that the more you drive it, the more maintenance it requires,
the more gas it consumes, and the faster it wears out. This is
the situation in which our forces currently find themselves.
According to the latest Quarterly Readiness Report provided to
the Congress, ``the high operations tempo (OPTEMPO) experienced
by some high demand, low-density systems accelerates wear and
tear on equipment and places heavy demands on personnel.'' In
fact, according to one senior officer, the armed forces ``do
not have time to train'' because of these demands.
These peacekeeping and contingency operations also restrict
our ability to respond in the early stages of a major regional
war. According to the same readiness report, ``the ability to
quickly disengage and redeploy from ongoing contingencies
continues to be a concern.'' ``In the event U.S. forces were
required to withdraw from Bosnia, lift assets required for
withdrawal could impact initial surge of forces, especially for
a major regional contingency.''
While the committee believes that there are situations in
which the deployment of the U.S. military is necessary to
protect America's vital interests, the committee is concerned
that the administration may have set too low of a threshold for
determining the need to commit these forces.
Furthermore, the committee believes that it is important to
consider the financial cost of these deployments. Over the past
few years, the Department of Defense has spent billions of
dollars on contingency operations that had little or no
relevance to our vital national interests. Those funds could
have greatly contributed to the modernization of the aging
military equipment or the improvement of the facilities in
which our military personnel must work and live.
The U.S. cannot force its military to expend more resources
than we are willing to provide and still expect it to remain a
viable force for the future when it may be called upon to
defend American interests. The committee is encouraged by
Secretary Cohen's remarks which indicate that he understands
this problem, and hopes that he is able to bring about a more
responsible use of our military forces so that they are ready
to respond to the needs of this nation.
The committee is concerned, our military personnel are
concerned, and the American people should be concerned. If we
are to avoid losing our balance and finding ourselves on that
constant downward spiral, we must act decisively and begin
providing the resources necessary to support the missions we
ask of our armed forces.
Overview
The Operations and Maintenance (O&M) accounts include
approximately 33 percent of the total Department of Defense
budget. Expenditures from these accounts pay the costs for the
day-to-day operations of our military forces; all individual,
unit, and joint training for military members; 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; and 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 and unnecessary O&M expenditures for low
priority or non-defense programs only serve to restrict the
availability of funds for modernization programs.
The budget request included $93,471.6 million for the
operation and maintenance of the armed forces and component
agencies of the Department of Defense in fiscal year 1998.
The committee recommends authorization of $93,509.0 million
for the O&M accounts for fiscal year 1998, an increase of $37.4
million from the budget request. Due to the concern which was
expressed by the Chief of Staff of the Army and the Commandant
of the Marine Corps that the funding of their services was
insufficient to meet requirements, the Army and the Marine
Corps were given the highest priority for additional funding.
The recommended amount authorized for the O&M accounts
includes, to the extent provided in an appropriations act,
transfer of $150.0 million from the National Defense Stockpile
Transaction Fund.
The committee recommends authorization of $1,488.1 million
for the revolving and management funds.
The recommended authorization for fiscal year 1998 is
summarized in the following table:
Offset Folios 259 to 282/1000 Insert here
<SKIP PAGES = 024>
SUBTITLE A--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
Section 303. Armed Forces retirement home.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$79.9 million from the Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund
to be appropriated for operation of the Armed Forces Retirement
Home during fiscal year 1998.
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 an
appropriation act, to transfer $150.0 million from the National
Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund to the operations and
maintenance accounts.
Section 305. Fisher House Trust Funds.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
funds to be appropriated for operation of the Fisher Houses
during fiscal year 1998. The recommended provision authorizes
$150,000 to be appropriated from the Fisher House Trust Fund,
Department of the Army, and $150,000 to be appropriated from
the Fisher House Trust Fund, Department of the Navy. No funds
are authorized to be appropriated from the Fisher House Trust
Fund, Department of the Air Force.
SUBTITLE B--DEPOT-LEVEL ACTIVITIES
The committee is concerned that the administration
continues to ignore the spirit of the law and the Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process by pursuing a policy of
privatizing-in-place the depot maintenance workloads currently
performed at the Kelly Air Logistic Center (ALC), Texas, and
McClellan ALC, California. The actions of the Administration on
this matter appear to have tainted the BRAC process by
inserting politics into what was designed to be apolitical. At
a time when the Department of Defense is seeking authority to
conduct additional rounds of base closures, the committee finds
it troubling that the Air Force continues to refuse to reduce
its excess depot capacity by moving the Kelly and McClellan
workloads to the remaining air logistics facilities. The
committee is determined to ensure that excess capacity is
reduced, the integrity of the BRAC process is preserved, and
the Department of Defense (DOD) operates as efficiently as
possible. Therefore, the committee recommends a series of
provisions to improve the efficiency and effective management
of DOD maintenance depots.
Section 311, Definition of Depot-Level Maintenance and
Repair, would codify the definition of depot-level maintenance
and repair and essentially restates section 324 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 as passed by the
Senate. This provision would simply codify the definition of
depot maintenance contained in the DOD directive on the
maintenance of military materiel (directive 4151.18), as
including materiel maintenance or repair requiring the overhaul
or rebuilding of parts, assemblies, or subassemblies and the
testing and reclamation of equipment. This definition would
apply to depot maintenance funded through interim contractor
support or contractor logistics support which has not always
been reported as depot maintenance in the past. This definition
would not include ship modernization activities.
Section 312, Restrictions on Contracts for Performance of
Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair at Certain Facilities, would
require that the Air Force utilize at least 75 percent of the
remaining capacity at each air logistics center prior to
privatizing-in-place the workload currently performed at Kelly
and McClellan. Furthermore, in order for these workloads to be
privatized-in-place, they could not have been core logistics
capabilities prior to July 1, 1995. Finally, the Secretary of
Defense must determine that performing the workloads at Kelly
or McClellan would be cheaper for the Air Force than performing
them at the other ALCs over the long-term. While these
requirements apply to privatizing-in-place the workloads at
Kelly or McClellan, they do not apply to the privatization of
the workloads at any other location.
Section 313, Core Logistics Functions of Department of
Defense, would codify the current DOD definition of core
logistics functions and require that the Department of Defense
maintain sufficient capability (not actual repair) within the
public depots to perform maintenance and repair of ``mission
essential'' weapons systems and equipment required to support
the Joint Chiefs of Staff contingency scenarios. This provision
also requires the Department to calculate the required core
maintenance levels annually and report to Congress the results
of this determination, to include identification of mission
essential systems and equipment, required core capabilities,
actual number of direct labor hours required for each
capability, and decision as to organic/private workload mix
necessary to achieve the required core capability.
Section 314, Percentage Limitation on Performance of Depot-
Level Maintenance of Materiel, changes the 60/40 ratio to 50/50
as requested by the Secretary of Defense, effective October 1,
1998, and changes the basis for calculating what is public
depot maintenance from work performed by Federal employees to
work performed in Federal facilities. This provision would
allow more flexible arrangements with the private sector for
participating in the performance of maintenance workloads in
Department of Defense (Government-owned, Government-operated)
organic depot maintenance facilities.
Section 315, Centers of Industrial and Technical
Excellence, would require the Secretary of Defense to designate
thedepot-level activities of the Department of Defense as
Centers of Technical Excellence and would encourage these centers to
form public-private partnerships for the performance of depot-level
maintenance and repair.
Section 316, Clarification of Prohibition on Management of
Depot Employees by Constraints on Personnel Levels, would
clarify that current law (10 U.S.C. 129) requires employees at
public depots be managed by funding levels and workloads rather
than by any artificial constraints such as end-strength
ceilings.
Section 317, Annual Report on Depot-Level Maintenance and
Repair, would require the Secretary of Defense to provide an
annual report to Congress outlining the percentage of depot
maintenance funding which was used for maintenance in public
depots and the percentage of depot maintenance funding which
was used for maintenance at private facilities.
Section 318, Report on Allocation of Core Logistics
Activities Among Department of Defense Facilities and Private
Sector Facilities, requires DOD to evaluate an alternative set
of criteria for distinguishing core from non-core maintenance.
Section 319, Review of Use of Temporary Duty Assignments
for Ship Repair and Maintenance, requires the General
Accounting Office to review the Navy's rationale, conditions,
and factors for using TDY shipyard workers to perform ship
maintenance work at homeports.
Section 320, Repeal of a Conditional Repeal of Certain
Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair Laws and a Related Reporting
Requirement, simply repeals a provision from the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 which is now
irrelevant because the DOD failed to submit an acceptable plan.
Section 321, Extension of Authority for Naval Shipyards and
Aviation Depots to Engage in Defense-Related Production and
Services, would extend through fiscal year 1998 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 military services to bid on defense-
related production and services.
SUBTITLE C--ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISIONS
Section 331. Clarification of authority relating to storage and
disposal of nondefense toxic and hazardous materials on
Department of Defense property.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2692 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify
exemptions from the prohibition against Department of Defense
(DOD) storage or disposal of toxic or hazardous material that
is not owned by the Department. The administration recommended
this provision to ensure that the Department has appropriate
authority to control munitions stored or disposed of in
connection with Defense activities.
The amendment would address the following DOD related
activities: (1) storage of explosive and hazardous materials in
conjunction with space launch programs; (2) storage of member
personal property, such as guns, ammunition, and related
material, when such storage is in the interest of public
safety; (3) storage of allied/foreign munitions during joint
testing, exercises or coalition warfare; (4) storage of
explosives and hazardous materials in support of other U.S.
Government agencies, to include State and local law enforcement
agencies; (5) storage of contractor owned explosive materials
when performing a service for the benefit of the U.S.
Government; and (6) storage of commercial explosives on DOD
installations participating in full or partial privatization.
The activities described are necessary for the routine and
cost effective operation of DOD installations or will
facilitate proper handling of the materials concerned. The
amendment would ensure the Department's preservation of
valuable resources and public safety. The provision does not
create any competitive conflict with the private sector.
Section 332. Annual report on payments and activities in response to
fines and penalties assessed under environmental laws.
The committee recommends a provision that would require an
annual report of fines and penalties assessed against the
Department of Defense (DOD) under Federal, State, or local
environmental law. The use of DOD environmental program funds
for these purposes should be the subject of careful
congressional oversight. The report will facilitate scrutiny in
this area.
Section 333. Annual report on environmental activities of the
Department of Defense overseas.
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department of Defense (DOD) to report on overseas environmental
restoration, compliance, and other international environmental
activities. The Department would be required to include the
overseas environmental information in its annual environmental
reports to Congress. The committee is interested in oversight
of funds used in support of the Department's overseas
environmental policy.
Specifically, the committee is concerned about the level of
DOD funding for international environmental activities, such as
conferences, meetings, pilot studies, and bilateral cooperative
efforts. Between fiscal years 1994 and 1997, the Department
obligated or expended about $3.5 million in support of these
international environmental activities. The use of these funds
was not based on a specific need for overseas installation
access or sustained operations, the preservation of the health
and safety of U.S. troops overseas, or legal obligations
directly related to current or former DOD functions overseas.
The committee is concerned that there is a growing emphasis
on the increased obligation and expenditure of limited DOD
funds for international environmental activities, which reduces
funds available for domestic and overseas environmental cleanup
andcompliance requirements and other defense purposes. The
Department's overseas environmental policy should be defined by legal
requirements and fiscal responsibilities. Therefore, the committee has
concluded that the international environmental activities described
above would more appropriately be funded out of the budget of the
Department of State.
Section 334. Membership terms for Strategic Environmental Research and
Development Program Scientific Advisory Board.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2904(b)(4) of title 10, United States Code, to provide
that the length of service for members appointed to the
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program
(SERDP) Scientific Advisory Board would be for not less than
two years and not more than four years. The Department of
Defense recommended this proposal to give the SERDP director
the flexibility to fill unexpected vacancies on the Board.
Section 335. Additional information on agreements for agency services
in support of environmental technology certification.
Section 327 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997 authorized the Department of Defense to
initiate a program to provide for agreements in support of
multi-state and regional certification of environmental cleanup
technology. It was anticipated that the agreements would be
used as a vehicle to reimburse state regulatory agencies for
their participation in multi-state and regional certification
actions.
The administration submitted a legislative proposal for
fiscal year 1998 that would have provided authority to enter
into similar agreements for cleanup and compliance
technologies. However, the Department has failed to provide any
guidelines or restrictions related to state reimbursements and
has not yet used the section 327 authority. Under the
circumstances it would be premature to expand the section 327
authority.
In addition, the committee notes that the certification of
viable environmental technologies benefit commercial, state,
and federal interests. Therefore, the committee directs the
Department to develop a program that allows for cost-sharing
among vendors, states, and the Department.
In order to ensure accountability, a provision has been
included that would require the Department to prepare
guidelines for reimbursement and cost-sharing. The committee
has also included a provision that would expand the reporting
requirement under section 2706(a) of title 10, United States
Code, as it relates to agreements in support of environmental
technology certification.
Section 336. Risk assessments under the Defense Environmental
Restoration Program.
The Department of Defense (DOD) has maintained that the
relative risk site evaluation methodology provides a
quantifiable basis for directing resources to remediate sites
that pose the greatest risk to human health and the
environment. The relative risk site evaluation involves three
site categories: high; medium; and low. According to the
Department, the high relative risk sites are given a greater
funding priority than the medium and low relative risk sites.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) conducted a review of
the Department's relative risk method of justifying
requirements and allocating funds. Based upon information
provided to the committee, there is reason to question the
credibility of the Department's risk-based approach and the
degree to which it facilitates the establishment of legitimate
funding priorities. Therefore, the committee recommends a
provision that would direct the Secretary of Defense to define
the elements of a relative risk assessment, to develop uniform
guidance for site assessment and ranking, and to ensure
consistent application of the guidance.
In addition, the committee directs that the funds requested
for the fiscal year 1998 administration of the Defense
Environmental Restoration Account (DERA) be reduced by $30.0
million to reflect concerns regarding the management and use of
relative risk site evaluations. Moreover, the Defense
Environmental Restoration Program Annual Reports to Congress
for Fiscal Years 1995 and 1996 suggest that there are
discrepancies underlying the relative risk information provided
to the Congress. Another $30.0 million reduction of the overall
fiscal year 1998 DERA request is directed because of an
unexplained incongruence associated with a high relative risk
ranking of sites with low contamination levels.
The reduction of funds shall be reflected proportionately
within the individual lines of the DERA account. Hopefully, the
decreased funding will compel more effective program management
and the elimination of inconsistencies.
The committee expects the GAO to continue its review of the
Department's relative risk assessments and report to the
committee by February 1, 1998. The committee is particularly
interested in ensuring that there is consistent application of
uniform guidance in relation to the Department's use of the
relative risk methodology.
Section 337. Recovery and sharing of costs of environmental restoration
at Department of Defense sites.
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to: (1) provide guidance to the military
departments and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) that
resolves current disparities; (2) require the military
departments and DLA to aggressively pursue future cost
reimbursement and recovery actions; (3) require the military
departments and the DLA to identify contractors or other
private third parties involved in contamination at Department
of Defense (DOD) sites; (4) require the military departments
and DLA to obtain all relevant dataregarding contractors or
other responsible parties identified, regardless of wrongdoing; (5)
require the military departments and DLA to gather and maintain the
most timely and accurate cost data available to the departments and
other agencies'' records; (6) require the military departments and DLA
to provide consistent estimates, including all cleanup costs for DOD
environmental reports to Congress, regardless of the source of funds;
and (7) require the military departments to offset environmental
restoration budget requirements with amounts recovered from liable
third parties or contractors.
According to a series of General Accounting Office (GAO)
reports on DOD environmental cleanup, the Department has
incurred a significant amount of cleanup expenses in instances
in which a third party may have contributed to the
contamination of government property. The GAO review of DOD
cost-recovery efforts did not include formerly used defense
sites (FUDS).
The GAO reported that the DOD lacks uniform guidance
regarding the policies and practices for recovery of such
costs. In the absence of such guidance, the military
departments have taken different approaches. Information
provided to the committee suggests that inconsistent policies
have contributed to a lack of focus and minimal cost-recovery
or cost-sharing at third party sites, particularly at
government-owned/contractor-operated facilities.
It is the committee's view that the funds associated with
the administration of the Defense Environmental Restoration
Account (DERA) should be reduced by $30.0 million to reflect
the inefficiencies and mismanagement inherent to the
Department's inaction on third party cost-recovery actions. The
decrease of the fiscal year 1998 DERA budget request shall be
taken proportionately from individual lines within the account.
The decreased funding should serve to motivate the DOD to
immediately eliminate this and other DERA management
inefficiencies.
The committee expects the GAO to continue its review of DOD
cost-recovery efforts and report to the committee by February
1, 1998. The committee is particularly interested in the degree
to which cost-recovery may offset projected environmental
cleanup requirements throughout the Department.
Section 338. Pilot program for the sale of air pollution emission
reduction incentives.
The committee recommends a provision that would support the
administration's proposal to give the military departments the
authority to sell emission reduction credits, also known as
incentives. The provision directs the Secretary of Defense to
promulgate regulations that would provide for the retention of
the proceeds at the facility that developed the credits for
sale. The provision would also allow for use of proceeds from
the sale of emission reduction credits to pay for fees and
other charges associated with identifying, quantifying, or
valuing the credits. Subsequent to the development of credits,
less than $500,000 may be retained Defense-wide.
The Clean Air Act directs states to establish state
implementation plans (SIPs) to attain and maintain the national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), which are health based
standards established for certain criteria pollutants (sulphur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide,
ozone, and lead). To further this mandate, the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) (42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(A)) encourage
the states to include ``economic incentive'' programs in the
SIPs. Such programs serve to reduce air pollution by allowing
for the sale of credits received for reduction of emissions of
criteria pollutants.
A number of State and local air quality districts have
already established various types of emission trading systems
that the private sector has been able to utilize. However,
Federal agencies lack the authority to take full advantage of
the economic incentives inherent to these emission trading
opportunities.
Federal fiscal law generally requires that proceeds from
the sale of government property be deposited in the U.S.
Treasury. That requirement precludes the military departments
from retaining funds generated through the reduction of air
emissions and the sale of resulting credits. Such fiscal
constraints inhibit an agency's reasonable efforts to use the
proceeds from the sale of emission reduction credits or
economic incentives to purchase needed air credits in other
areas and results in disparate treatment of Federal facilities.
The administration maintains that the retention and use of
proceeds at the facility level effectively encourages the
successful use of pollution prevention measures through
economic incentives. The committee concurs. The new authority
for sale of emission credits and use of proceeds would be
beneficial to active and closing facilities within the
Department of Defense. The committee views the ability to
retain proceeds at the facility level as a key element of this
provision.
Section 339. Tagging system for identification of hydrocarbon fuels
used by the Department of Defense.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Department of Defense to conduct a pilot program to
determine if hydrocarbon fuels used by the Department can be
tagged. The tagging of these fuels would help deter theft and
facilitate the determination of the source of surface and
underground pollution in locations having separate fuel storage
facilities from the Department and civilian companies.
SUBTITLE D--COMMISSARIES AND NONAPPROPRIATED FUND INSTRUMENTALITIES
Section 351. Funding sources for construction and improvement of
commissary store facilities.
The committee recommends a provision that would permit the
Defense Commissary Agency to deposit revenues from fees paid by
sources of products, known as business management fees, from
certain activities of commissary store facilities and from
products offered for sale in the commissary under consignment
with exchanges as designated by the Department of Defense into
the same account as the surcharge funds.
Section 352. Integration of military exchange services.
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
secretaries of the military departments to integrate the three
military exchange systems by September 30, 2000.
The committee appreciates the concerns expressed by the
military services during discussions of integration of the
military exchange systems. The committee intentionally gave the
mission, to develop and implement a plan to integrate the
exchanges, to the secretaries of the military departments,
since the exchanges and the dividends are so critical to the
quality of life programs within the services. The committee
expects the Office of the Secretary of Defense to provide
advice and expertise to assist the services in this endeavor.
The goal of the integration is to achieve efficiencies
which will offset increasing costs, ensure modernization of the
facilities and management systems, and maintain a robust
dividend to fund quality of life programs. In this way, the
integrated military exchange system will provide enhanced
service and better value to the uniformed service members while
maintaining service specificity in certain areas. The committee
recognizes that there are many complex issues which must be
addressed in order to integrate the exchanges, while
maintaining the unique character of the individual service
exchange stores. There are a number of areas, such as human
resources and distribution, which can be integrated early and
efficiently. There are other areas, such as information
management systems, which will take careful planning to
integrate in a manner that optimizes the technology available
in the current exchange systems and in the commercial market.
The committee intends that ship stores would continue to
operate separately from the exchange command as they do today.
The committee does not intend for the integration process
to be a ``take over'' by one exchange system, nor does the
committee expect that exchange stores will change the names or
logos in use today. The committee does expect, however, that
the service secretaries and the three exchange commands will
work together to find the most efficient manner in which to
serve active, reserve, and retired soldiers, sailors, airmen
and Marines and their families.
SUBTITLE E--OTHER MATTERS
Section 361. Advance billings for working capital funds.
The committee recommends a provision to limit the use of
advance billing in the working capital funds, except in cases
of national emergencies or when necessary to support
contingency operations. The military services would be required
to notify the congressional defense committees within 30 days
of advance billings being posted to the working capital funds
for amounts equal to or less than $50.0 million, and would be
required to notify the congressional defense committees 30 days
prior to posting the billings in cases greater than $50.0
million.
Excessive advance billing has continued, not withstanding
congressional guidance and initiatives to limit the practice.
The Department of Defense has used advance billing to the
working capital funds as a normal operating practice, rather
than the exception. In the case of Navy Working Capital Funds,
advance billing is continually used without any plans for
significant reductions. Failure to properly budget for these
activities and allowing these activities to operate in deficit
spending each year is not in keeping with good business
practices and risks the future readiness of the force. Removal
of activities from the working capital funds, use of direct
appropriations to fund these activities, or allowing working
capital activities to change rates in the year of execution is
not a viable solution to problems being experienced in working
capital funds. Proper budgeting and using full costing policies
allow for the proper financial management of working capital
fund activities. The restrictions placed on the Department of
Defense by this provision simply enforce the Department's
existing policies.
The committee notes that significant progress has not been
made in liquidating advance billing liabilities, and is
prepared to place further restrictions on working capital
funds, if these financial problems are not corrected.
Section 362. Center for Excellence in Disaster Management and
Humanitarian Assistance.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to operate a Center for Excellence in
Disaster Management and Humanitarian Assistance at Tripler Army
Medical Center to address the military's role in a wide range
of disaster initiatives throughout Southeast Asia and the
Pacific Basin region.
Section 363. Administrative actions adversely affecting military
training or other readiness activities.
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to provide the President, the Committee on
Armed Services of the Senate, the National Security Committee
of the House of Representatives, and the head of any relevant
Federal agency with written notification of any Federal
administrative action that has or would have a significant
adverse effect on the military readiness of any of the armed
forces or a critical component of the armed forces; such as
aMarine battalion preparing for deployment as part of a Marine
Expeditionary Unit, or Special Operations Forces dedicated to a
specific mission. Notification would be provided as soon as the
Secretary becomes aware of an adverse administrative action or proposed
administrative action. The notification would delay the implementation
of the action for a period of 30 days unless the Secretary determines
that the compliance with the proposed action is in the best interest of
the American public, or the President directs the Secretary to comply
based on a determination that the implementation of the action is more
important than the effects on military readiness.
The committee has become aware of two administrative
actions that could or would have a significant adverse impact
on training and readiness activities. In those instances, an
Executive agency acted without prior consultation with the
Department of Defense. The committee's recommended notice
provisions are intended to encourage Executive agency
consultations in advance of such administrative actions. It is
the committee's view that some form of Executive Branch process
would facilitate communication and encourage reasoned
resolution of issues that may arise among agencies. For
example, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9606) provides an
administrative process for any person, to include private or
public entities, that receive and comply with an order issued
under section 106(a) of the Act.
The first administrative action involved regulatory
waivers. In order to conduct certain types of training flight
activities, the Department of Defense operates under certain
waivers of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) safety rules
and must coordinate with the FAA in advance of utilizing those
waivers. The FAA recently suspended regulatory waivers
necessary for a major military training exercise. That action
was based on an FAA assertion that the Department failed to
coordinate in advance of the exercise. Documentation in
possession of the Department of Defense indicated that the
suspension was based on misinformation within the FAA. However,
the FAA did not discover the internal error until after there
had been a significant adverse impact on the training exercise.
An interagency consultation process could have prevented the
unnecessary suspension action and disruption of a major
military training activity.
The second administrative action involved an order that
could adversely impact the training of two Army National Guard
artillery battalions and one infantry brigade at the
Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR). That order was issued
on April 10, 1997 by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Region 1, Regional Administrator. The original effective date
of the order, April 21, was stayed because of the Army's timely
filed request for conference with the EPA Administrator.
Recently, the EPA modified the order and it became effective.
The April 10 order specifically directed the suspension of
all training range and impact area weapons activities that
involve lead munitions, high explosives, demolition's,
pyrotechnics or the use of propellants. The order also included
the submission of a work plan related to the covering of all
berms with plastic, removal of lead from all berms, and a
specific timetable for periodic unexploded ordnance clearance
sweeps of the training range and impact area. The order was
modified to allow for small arms training. The order would
still suspend the firing of artillery and mortar at MMR until
completion of an Impact Area Groundwater Study.
The EPA order is based on a single groundwater sample from
the MMR impact area that had traces of contaminants associated
with pyrotechnics and propellants. The Army maintains that the
sample evidence is limited and questionable, and therefore
seeks an amendment to the order. Region 1 maintains that the
adverse impact on readiness is justified by the fact that MMR
is located over a sole source aquifer for the Cape.
Historically, the sample site was used for disposal of
pyrotechnics and propellants. Ground disposal is now
prohibited. Region 1 has not attempted to confirm the results
of the sample in question or to determine whether the trace
indications of contaminants were the result of prior ground
disposal activities. Rather than defer administrative action
pending the continued site evaluation and collection of
adequate sampling data, the EPA, Region 1, elected to shut down
the MMR training range based on limited unconfirmed evidence of
possible groundwater contamination. According to the EPA, the
burden is on the Army to prove that the use of pyrotechnics and
propellants do not contribute to further site contamination,
and do not pose a threat to human health and the environment.
In short, the EPA view would compel the Army to prove a
negative.
Prior to the issuance of the April 10 order, the Army
National Guard responded favorably to all regulatory requests
related to a February 27, 1997 Region 1 order that directed the
development of the Impact Area Groundwater Study. Those
requests resulted in escalated site investigation costs ranging
from $3.5 million to approximately $10.0 to $20.0 million. The
following activities were increased, with particular focus on
the impact area: sampling wells from 33 to 43; groundwater
samples from 86 to 146; soil samples from 53 to 576; and soil
sampling analyses from 272 to 2370. Pending completion of the
study, the Army National Guard voluntarily suspended live fire
training with lead munitions and high explosive munitions. The
EPA acknowledges that every requirement of the first order was
met, and that they were satisfied with the Army National Guard
performance.
It is evident that Executive agency consultation should
have preceded the issuance of the April 10 order at MMR. The
Army National Guard responded to the first order in good faith,
and the EPA, Region 1 reacted with an administrative hammer,
the basis of which remains questionable. Interagency
consultation should have been a condition precedent to issuance
of the order.
Section 364. Financial assistance to support additional duties assigned
to Army National Guard.
The committee understands the valuable maintenance and
otherassistance that the Army National Guard can provide to the
active components of the Army. Unfortunately, this assistance is
limited because of the lack of clear authority for the Secretary of the
Army to provide financial assistance to the Army National Guard out of
funds appropriated to the Army in order to help defray the cost of such
assistance. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would
authorize the Secretary of the Army to contribute funds to the National
Guard in order to pay for the costs of those services carried out by
the Guard in the performance of maintenance and other responsibilities
of the Secretary.
Section 365. Sale of excess, obsolete, or unserviceable ammunition and
ammunition components.
The committee recommends a provision that will authorize
the Secretary of the Army to competitively sell excess,
obsolete, or unserviceable ammunition and ammunition components
to licensed manufacturers that have the capability to modify,
reclaim, transport, and either store or sell ammunition or
ammunition components. The ammunition or ammunition components
purchased under this authority must either be demilitarized or
used in such a way as the Secretary of the Army determines is
consistent with the public interest.
Rather than the current practice of paying for the
demilitarization of ammunition, this provision will allow the
Army to receive funds, ammunition, ammunition components, or
ammunition demilitarization services for ammunition or
ammunition components that are sold. This will result in the
savings of valuable defense dollars at a time when they are
becoming increasingly scarce.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide
a report not later than March 31, 1999, outlining the amount of
ammunition disposed of pursuant to this authority, and the
disposition of any revenues or other receipts.
Section 366. Inventory management.
The committee is concerned with recent reports that the
Department of Defense continues to possess several billion
dollars worth of excess inventory. While the committee
understands that much of this inventory is the result of the
dramatic drawdown in the size of the armed forces using these
supplies and that they will be utilized over the next several
years, the committee wants to be sure that the best commercial
practices are used in the future to ensure that excess
inventories are minimized. Therefore, the committee recommends
a provision that would direct the Director of the Defense
Logistics Agency to develop and submit to Congress a schedule
for the implementation of the best inventory management
practices found in the commercial sector that are consistent
with military requirements.
Section 367. Warranty claims recovery pilot program.
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
is not receiving the appropriate refunds owed it by original
equipment manufacturers for maintenance work performed in
public depots on systems under warranty. At a time when funding
for the Department of Defense is becoming increasingly scarce,
it is important to ensure that all options for reducing the
cost of maintaining military equipment are explored. Therefore,
the committee recommends a provision authorizing a pilot
program to recover any refunds owed the Air Force for
maintenance work performed in public depots on aircraft engines
while under warranty. Receipts under this program would be
returned to the appropriations account from which the
maintenance work was funded.
Section 368. Adjustment and diversification assistance to enhance
increased performance of military family support services by
private sector sources.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2391(b)(5) of title 10, United States Code, to
authorize the Secretary of Defense, through the Office of
Economic Development, to make grants, conclude cooperative
agreements, and supplement other Federal funds to assist State
or local governments in supporting the efforts of the
Department of Defense in privatizing family support activities.
These support services would include, but would not be limited
to, privatization and outsourcing of military family housing,
family housing referrals, child development centers, and
library services. The committee is encouraged by the actions
taken by the Department in this area and urges it to take
advantage of the knowledge and expertise of State and local
authorities in the privatization of family services.
ADDITIONAL MATTERS OF INTEREST
Army
Organizational clothing and individual equipment
The committee is aware of the significant benefits provided
by the organizational clothing and individual equipment
purchased through the Army Soldier Enhancement Program. These
items include the bivy-sac modular sleeping bag, improved
rainsuit, and the advanced combat vehicle crewman helmet, which
were on the unfunded requirement list of the Chief of Staff of
the Army, serve to improve the comfort and survivability of the
soldiers in the field. Unfortunately, there has been a
historical shortfall in funding for this program that has
delayed the fielding of the equipment to the individual
soldiers. Accelerating the purchase of this equipment will have
the dual benefit of equipping oursoldiers earlier and reducing
the outyear funding requirement. Therefore, the committee recommends an
increase of $70.0 million to the Army's operations and maintenance
account to accelerate the purchase of this equipment.
Aviation training
The committee understands that the Army currently has more
than 1600 pilots trained in older aircraft for which there is a
requirement of only 900. To alleviate the excess number of
pilots in the older systems, the Army has developed a program
to retrain the pilots in modern aircraft. This program is
intended to significantly improve the combat readiness of the
total force by providing the Army highly trained aviators in
more lethal, survivable, modernized systems. Unfortunately,
there is a $14.0 million unfunded requirement for this program
in fiscal year 1998 due to the cost of flight training for the
entire Army aviation training program. Therefore, the committee
recommends an increase of $14.0 to fully fund the retraining
program.
Logistics automation
The committee is aware of the requirement for additional
funding in Army logistics automation programs, such as the
Standard Army Retail Supply System, Standard Army Maintenance
System, Unit Level Logistics System, and Integrated Combat
Service Support System. Providing these additional funds will
result in cost savings as well as improvements in the
efficiency and effectiveness of the Army to perform assigned
combat service support functions. Additional funding for the
Standard Army Maintenance System would lead to an accelerated
fielding of this system which is essential with the impending
``Year 2000'' problem. Therefore, the committee recommends an
increase of $21.9 million to the Army operations and
maintenance account in order to provide the Army with the
required funding to accelerate these important programs.
Information systems security
The committee is aware of the $8.1 million unfinanced Army
requirement for information systems security. Information
systems security is a core function directly affecting the
ability of the Army to sustain current operations and rapidly
respond to crisis and contingency operations. If provided, the
$8.1 million would be used for training, threat/vulnerability
assessment, tools/risk management assessment, major command
support (MACOM), and firewall upgrades. The committee
understands that if the funding is not provided, the lack of
training would increase operational risks to Army tactical and
strategic systems by leaving them open to compromise and
penetration by hackers. Failure to fund a technical
vulnerability assessment will result in the fielding of a
tactical information infrastructure that will be vulnerable to
disruption and exploitation by an adversary. Furthermore,
failure to fund the tools/risk management assessment will
increase the overall operational risk to Army systems. In
addition, Army MACOMs will be unable to comply with Department
of Defense and Army directives to implement the required level
of information systems security protection. Finally, if the
additional funds are not provided, firewalls will rapidly
become out of date and will lose their effectiveness in
providing protection to Army information systems. Therefore,
the committee recommends an additional $8.1 million to fund
these important activities.
Real property maintenance
The committee is concerned with the continuing growth in
the backlog of real property maintenance (RPM) throughout the
Department of Defense. If this necessary maintenance continues
to go unfunded, the Department will be faced with even larger
costs to repair damages caused by inclement weather and other
environmental conditions. This problem is particularly serious
within the Army and the Marine Corps. The condition of military
facilities at places such as Fort Sill, Oklahoma; Fort Pickett
and Quantico, Virginia; Parris Island, South Carolina; and
Yuma, Arizona is indicative of the severity of the problem.
Necessary repairs on barracks, roads, airstrips, rifle ranges,
and other facilities at these and other locations are
continually deferred because of insufficient funding.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $140.0
million to the Army's operations and maintenance account and
$30.0 million to the Marine Corps' operations and maintenance
account for the maintenance of real property.
Of the $140.0 million in additional real property
maintenance funding for the Army, $100.0 million is to be used
to bring forward barracks renovations projects at military
installations including: $20.2 million for Fort Wainwright,
Alaska; $25.0 million for Fort Sill, Oklahoma; and $41.3
million for Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Accelerating these planned
future renovation projects will have the dual benefit of
improving the living conditions of our men and women in uniform
and providing the Army with the flexibility to use those funds
which were originally programmed to be used for these projects
in the future for other high priority programs.
Support of other nations
The committee is pleased by recent decisions by the
Department of Defense to implement reductions in headquarters
staffs of the military services. In anticipation of the savings
that will be realized by this decision, the committee
recommends a reduction of $15.0 million to the budget request
for Army international headquarters in support of other
nations.
Army enterprise architecture
The committee understands that despite the priority which
the Chief of Staff of the Army and the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs places on the Army Enterprise Architecture (AEA), there
is a $4.0 million shortfall in the budget request for this
program. AEA is composed of the technical (standards and
protocols), systems (material solutions), and operational
(information exchange requirements) architectures for Force
XXI. The ultimate objective of the AEA is to provide the
warfighter with a seamless, interoperable flow of timely,
accurate, accessible, and secure information that will provide
our forces a decisive edge in achieving information dominance.
The committee understands the importance of this program to the
Army and therefore, recommends an additional $4.0 million for
this program in order to allow the Army to establish the first
digitized force systems architecture for the fielding of a
digitized division in fiscal year 2000.
Navy
Flying hour program
The committee is concerned with the funding shortfall in
the flying hour program of the Navy and the Air Force. Concern
has been expressed that this shortfall may force the Navy to
curtail flying operations in the fourth quarter of fiscal year
1997.
However, this problem is not isolated to fiscal year 1997.
The Secretary of Defense has identified a $350.0 million
shortfall in the flying hour program of the Navy, and a $200.0
million shortfall in the flying hour program of the Air Force
for fiscal year 1998. This shortfall is surprising in light of
the testimony of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and the
Chief of Naval Operations before the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate that indicated that the Air Force and
Navy budget request for fiscal year 1998 was sufficient to meet
the requirements of their services. The committee is
disappointed that the Navy and Air Force are not able to
accurately assess the sufficiency of their budget.
However, in light of the severity of the shortfall, the
committee recommends an increase of $200.0 million for the
flying hour program of the Navy, and $30.0 million for the
flying hour program of the Air Force. The committee hopes that
future budget requests are more carefully reviewed to avoid
such shortfalls.
Naval oceanographic program
The committee recognizes the requirement to have adequate
oceanographic survey data to support littoral operations.
Unfortunately, the Navy currently has a survey backlog of 240
ship-years. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of
$7.5 million to the National Oceanography Partnership program
in order to reduce this backlog.
The committee further recommends an additional $12.0
million to the Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command for
equipment purchases, air operations, and contract support in
order to support survey operations and other data collection
requirements.
Marine Corps
Marine Corps initial issue
The committee recommends an increase of $20.7 million in
the operation and maintenance accounts for the Marine Corps to
purchase items of individual combat clothing and equipment.
This will help provide Marines in the field with the clothing
and equipment they need to survive and sustain themselves
during combat operations.
Personnel support equipment
Personnel support equipment (PSE) provides for the
replacement of furniture, furnishings, and equipment for
existing quarters and mess halls. Presently, furniture and
furnishings in quarters are antiquated and, in some cases, non-
functional. During fiscal years 1996 and 1997, the Marine Corps
has tried to replace these items and thereby improve the
quality of life of military personnel. Unfortunately, the
budget request is insufficient to achieve the seven year
replacement cycle standard established by the Department of the
Navy. Instead, the budget only provides enough funding for a
13.6 year replacement cycle. Therefore, the committee
recommends an additional $25.4 million in order to bring the
Marine Corps PSE replacement cycle more closely in line with
the Department of the Navy standard.
Air Force
KC-135 depot maintenance
The committee understands that the fiscal year 1998 budget
request is insufficient to fund all of the KC-135 depot
maintenance requirements. Increased depot maintenance costs due
to additional maintenance requirements, unprogrammed repairs,
and depot rate increases will result in 16 aircraft going
without the required maintenance. If sufficient funding is not
provided, aircraft will be grounded and availability to the
warfighting Commanders-in-chief will be reduced. Therefore, the
committee recommends an increase of $54.6 million to the Air
Force operations and maintenance accounts in order to fully
fund the required KC-135 depot maintenance.
Office of Special Investigation and Information Protection
The committee is aware that the Air Force has a $2.7
million shortfall in funding for the Office of Special
Investigation (OSI) Computer Crime Lab. If not corrected, this
shortfall will hinder OSI investigations. Therefore, the
committee recommends an increase to the Air Force operations
and maintenance budget in order to purchase the necessary
equipment to enhance the capabilities of the OSI Computer Crime
Lab.
Force protection
The increasing threat of attack from non-state actors was
made dramatically clear with the bombing of the Khobar Towers
in Saudi Arabia. The initial effort of the Air Force to improve
the protection of its military personnel was concentrated in
Southwest Asia and other vulnerable overseas locations.
Although $298.0 million was provided for force protection in
the Air Force fiscal year 1998 budget request, an additional
$57.6 million remains unfunded. The committee is disappointed
that the Air Force budget did not include sufficient funding to
pay for all force protection requirements. The committee
recommends an increase of $25.8 million to the Air Force
operations and maintenance (O&M) account to fully fund the O&M
portion of the unfunded requirement. The committee expects the
administration to sufficiently fund force protection programs
in the future rather than relying upon congressional increases.
Guard and Reserve Components
Reserve component training
The committee is aware of the shortfall in funding for the
training of the reserve components of the Army. This shortfall
currently places unacceptable risk on the Army's ability to
successfully prosecute the second major regional conflict
(MRC). In fact, only 37 percent of required training operations
tempo in combat support and combat service support units
required in the second MRC warfight is funded. Therefore, the
committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million in the
operations and maintenance accounts of the Army reserve
components; $30.0 million for the Army National Guard and $20.0
million for the Army Reserve.
Defense-Wide
Joint exercises
The committee is concerned with reports that the high
operations tempo (OPTEMPO) of the armed forces is further
aggravated by the growth in exercises initiated by the Joint
Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and the warfighting Commanders-in-chief
(CINC). These exercises provide valuable training to the staffs
of these organizations, however, they do not provide the same
quality of training to the operational forces. The committee
notes with support that the Quadrennial Defense Review has
recommended a reduction in such exercises in order to reduce
the high OPTEMPO demand upon the operational forces.
The committee is also concerned with the 17.3 percent
growth over the fiscal year 1997 funding level for the Joint
Staff. At a time when we are trying to streamline the
infrastructure and headquarters staffs within the Department of
Defense in order to ensure adequate funding for the readiness
and modernization of the operational forces, this dramatic
increase is not sufficiently justified.
Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $62.9
million to the Joint Staff request. This level of funding would
still provide an increase of 8 percent over the fiscal year
1997 funding level. The committee further directs the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide a report to the
congressional defense committees outlining the number of JCS/
CINC exercises planned over the future year defense program,
the cost of each of these operations, the sponsoring CINC or
other entity, the numberof military personnel who will be
involved in the exercises together with their units, and the training
value that will be provided.
Special Operations Command operations tempo sustainment
The committee is aware of the shortfall in funding for the
operations tempo of the forces in the U.S. Special Operations
Command (USSOCOM). This shortfall is the result of price
changes in the Defense Working Capital Funds. The net effect of
these price changes means it will cost USSOCOM $26.1 million
more to accomplish its current mission. The committee
understands that this shortfall, if not alleviated, will result
in a drastic reduction in the combat readiness of the Special
Operations Forces. Therefore, the committee recommends an
increase of $26.1 million to the operations and maintenance
account of the Special Operations Command.
Civilian personnel levels
The committee notes that the Department of Defense civilian
personnel drawdown continues faster than expected. During the
past several years, civilian personnel levels in the Department
of Defense have been reduced faster than anticipated when the
budgets for each succeeding fiscal year were drafted. This
drawdown means lower-than-budgeted civilian personnel levels,
resulting in savings of approximately $392.0 million during
fiscal year 1998. The committee has made the appropriate
adjustments in the fiscal year 1998 budget to reflect these
savings.
Miscellaneous Programs
Full funding of the Defense Health Program
The committee has realigned funds as requested by the
Department of Defense to fully fund the Defense Health Program
in the amount of $274.0 million and to partially offset the
underfunding of the Navy flying hour program in the amount of
$24.0 million. The offset for this increase is the Military
Personnel and Operation and Maintenance foreign currency
fluctuation accounts in the following amounts:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Operations &
personnel maintenance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army.................................... 37.0 135.0
Navy.................................... 9.0 21.0
Marines................................. 4.0 2.0
Air Force............................... 12.0 53.0
Defense Health Program.................. .............. 15.0
Defense Wide............................ .............. 10.0
Totals............................ 62.0 236.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program
The budget request included $382.2 million for the
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program for activities in
Russia related to the elimination of strategic offensive arms,
weapons storage security, fissile material storage and fissile
material storage containers, chemical weapons destruction,
chemical weapons production facility conversion and
dismantlement, plutonium production reactor core conversion,
and defense and military contacts; in Ukraine for elimination
of strategic nuclear arms and defense and military contacts;
and for other activities related to elimination of weapons of
mass destruction and defense and military contacts in the newly
independent states (NIS) of the former Soviet Union.
The committee recommends a $60.0 million reduction to the
budget request for fiscal year 1998. The committee understands
that funds authorized in prior years for the purchase of
nuclear storage canisters for Russia and for activities in
Belarus in the sum of $69.0 million remain available and will
not be used as previously planned. With regard to the nuclear
storage canisters, the committee understands that Japan plans
to provide financial assistance for the purchase of these
canisters. With regard to Belarus, the President was unable to
certify to its compliance with certain requirements described
in Section 1203(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 103-160). The committee
recommends that funds previously authorized for activities in
Belarus, but not expended, no longer be held in escrow, but
rather be used for activities planned in fiscal year 1998.
Chemical Weapons Convention
The budget request for CTR includes $51.0 million for the
CTR chemical weapons (CW) destruction support program, which
was established in July 1992 when the United States signed a
CTR implementing agreement with the Russian Federation. CTR
chemical weapons destruction support assistance is designed to
assist the Russian Federation in destroying its chemical
stockpile and fulfilling their obligations and responsibilities
under the Bilateral Destruction Agreement (BDA) and the
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). The committee understands
that the objective of the CTR chemical weapons destruction
program is to help Russia ``jump start'' its chemical
destruction program, not to shift the financial burden of
destroying Russia's stockpile to the United States. The Russian
Federation must provide the majority of the resources and
effort to destroy its own chemical stockpile.
To date, the Congress has authorized and appropriated
$145.5 million, of which $61 million has been obligated, for
the development of a site specific comprehensive implementation
plan (CIP), establishment of a fixed-site central chemical
weapons destruction analytical laboratory (CAL), and to conduct
a joint U.S./Russian assessment and validation of the Russian
two-step CW destruction process of neutralization and
bituminization to beused in the destruction of its chemical
stockpile.
Following the U.S. ratification of the CWC on April 24, the
Russian Duma voted against ratification of the CWC, saying that
they lacked the resources necessary to pay for the destruction
of their chemical agent and weapons arsenal. The Russian Duma
suggested that, if possible, it would approve the CWC later
this fall if certain conditions are met. The Duma also asked
for ``significant'' international financial assistance to help
Russia destroy its stockpile. Condition 14 of the CWC
resolution of ratification approved by the Senate expressed the
view of the United States that Russia must maintain a
substantial stake in financing the implementation of both the
Bilateral Destruction Agreement and the CWC. The committee
believes it is not the responsibility of the United States to
provide financial guarantees so that Russia will ratify the
CWC. The committee further believes that it is not the
responsibility of the United States to pay for Russia's
implementation of its commitments under the BDA and the CWC, if
ratified by Russia.
Overseas humanitarian demining and Commander in chief initiative
activities
The committee strongly supports the humanitarian demining
and Commander in chief (CINC) initiative activities of the
Department of Defense. These activities have enabled military
personnel of the Department of Defense to forge valuable
relationships with the armed forces and civilian populations of
other nations. Therefore, the committee authorizes $25.1
million to fully fund the planned humanitarian demining and
$15.0 million for CINC initiative programs of the Department of
Defense, including the Demining Center of Excellence.
National Defense Sealift Fund
LMSR procurement
The budget request contained $812.9 million in the national
defense sealift fund (NDSF). Of this amount $581.3 million
would be for the procurement of two large medium speed roll-on/
roll-off (LMSR) strategic sealift ships, $131.5 million for
resolution of cost growth that has occurred on LMSRs authorized
in prior years, $70.0 million for advance procurement of
components for an LMSR that is planned for authorization in
fiscal year 1999, and $30.1 million for completion of prior
year ships.
In fiscal year 1997 Congress appropriated funds to
accelerate the procurement of one LMSR strategic sealift ship
from fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 1997. This action
reflected an emphasis on resolving shortages in strategic
sealift that were identified in the Joint Chiefs of Staff's
Mobility Requirement's Study (MRS) and subsequently reaffirmed
by an update that the Joint Staff performed after completion of
the Bottom-Up Review. However, the committee has now learned
that the Commander in chief of the U.S. Central Command, the
principal intended beneficiary of the Army's afloat
prepositioning program, has recommended that the Army should
preposition its third brigade set of heavy combat vehicles
ashore, rather than afloat on LMSR strategic sealift ships.
Additionally, the committee has reviewed the strategic sealift
construction program and has found that there has been: (1)
loss of efficiency, caused by the magnitude of work in progress
in the two shipyards that are building LMSRs; (2) program cost
growth of $131.5 million; and (3) construction delays of up to
seven months in both shipyards. The committee believes that
these problems and ongoing labor disputes will likely delay
deliveries even longer and will seriously disrupt the phasing
on the LMSR construction program. These combined factors: (1)
verifying the appropriate prepositioning policy for Army
equipment; and (2) construction disruption that will likely
prevent proper execution of NDSF funds budgeted in fiscal year
1998 for LMSR construction have caused the committee to
conclude that a pause for reflection is prudent.
Consequently, the committee recommends that the budget
request for the NDSF be reduced by $651.3 million, the amount
identified for procurement of two LMSR sealift ships in fiscal
year 1998 and for advance procurement for an additional sealift
ship in fiscal year 1999.
National defense sealift fund
The committee has been informed that funds previously
authorized and appropriated in the national defense sealift
fund (NDSF) are in excess of requirements because of contract
savings. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of
$25.0 million below the budget request in the NDSF.
Maritime prepositioning force recapitalization
The committee notes that the oldest of the thirteen ships
that currently constitute the Marine Corps maritime
prepositioning force (MPF) are approaching the end of their
service lives. The committee is aware that the Department of
the Navy is evaluating advanced concepts for future preposition
assets as part of the MPF 2010 initiative. The committee
believes further attention to this issue is warranted and
recommends an increase of $1.0 million in the national defense
sealift fund (NDSF) to provide support for a Department study
of future requirements and specifications for MPF
recapitalization.
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
Authorization for the Department of Defense to deposit funds in the
Foreign Military Sales Trust Fund Account for Canada's purchase
of military equipment
The administration submitted a legislative proposal that
would authorize payment of $100.0 million to Canada; $10.0
million per year for ten years. The administration's proposal
suggests thatthe $100.0 million would be spent for
environmental cleanup of four former U.S. sites in Canada: 21 Distant
Early Warning (DEW) Line sites; Goose Bay Airfield; Haines-Fairbanks
Pipeline sites; and the U.S. Naval Station, Argentia. However, the
entire $100.0 million would be paid into the Foreign Military Sales
(FMS) Trust Fund Account and it appears that the Canadian Government
could draw against this account to purchase unspecified military
equipment from an undetermined manufacturing source, unrelated to
environmental cleanup. The payment is contingent upon congressional
authorization.
Regardless of the purpose for which the $100.0 million
would actually be spent, the Department of Defense (DOD) has
indicated that it has no legal obligation to fund the cleanup
of the four Canadian sites. The Department has also indicated
that residual value of the former U.S. sites, such as the Naval
Station, Argentia, was not considered in determining the $100.0
million settlement. In addition, the Department has stated that
despite the parties' inability to agree on the issue of legal
liability, ``* * * the U.S. agreed to work toward an equitable
settlement because of our uniquely close and long-standing
relationship with Canada * * *.''
The committee is concerned that by funding the $100.0
million settlement, in the absence of any legal obligation, the
Department could set an untenable precedent for other foreign
country interests that fall into the same category as the
Canadian sites. The committee concludes that it would be more
fiscally responsible to use the constrained DOD budget to fund
foreign environmental activities for which the Department has a
legal obligation or requirement. The committee directs the
Department to manage future issues of this nature in a manner
that is consistent with its legal obligations and fiscal
responsibilities.
Continued operations at Fort Pickett, Virginia
Fort Pickett, Virginia, operated for decades as an Army
post and training facility. Under the Base Realignment and
Closure Act of 1990, Fort Pickett was recommended for closure,
but with ranges, facilities, and training areas remaining for
limited training. The committee is aware of ongoing discussions
between the Army and the Commonwealth of Virginia to provide
for the Virginia Department of Military Affairs to manage Fort
Pickett for the Army, effective October 1, 1997, and to address
the continuation of important military training activities.
Virginia has raised concerns about the potential exposure
to environmental liabilities associated with the new
arrangement. The committee understands that environmental
contamination already exists at Fort Pickett and that limited
training activities may continue at the post. Accordingly, the
committee urges the Army to work with Virginia to make sure
that the Commonwealth's concerns are satisfactorily addressed.
Contracted Flight Training Service
The committee notes that the Contracted Flight Training
Service program has been reduced and will no longer support
continuation of air-to-air electronic counter-measures training
for active duty units and personnel. The committee has a
history of supporting this program and believes that it has
resulted in significant savings to the Air Force and the Air
National Guard. The committee is concerned that this reduction
might result in less flight training and higher per-hour flight
training costs. Therefore, the committee directs the Air Force
to review its electronic counter-measures training and report
to the committee on its operational requirements and realized
cost savings compared to substantially similar levels of
training in prior years by March 1, 1998.
Defense environmental compliance
In the Senate report (S. Rpt. 104-112) for the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, the committee
gave the Department of Defense specific guidance on information
to be included in future annual compliance reports submitted
pursuant to section 2706(b) of title 10, United States Code.
The impetus for that direction was the lack of consistent
management of compliance accounts by the military departments.
Over the course of the last two years, the Department has made
some progress in attempting to develop uniform methods of
tracking daily operational costs and classes of activities that
require annual funding. There are some remaining concerns
regarding the definitions of Class I and II.
The Department of Defense environmental compliance policy
is to fund all Class I projects, which are intended to address
activities that are frequently out of compliance (whether or
not they have received a notice of violation), and activities
that will be out of compliance if not funded in the fiscal year
of the current budget request. The Department's Class II
definition includes projects and activities that are not
presently out of compliance (deadlines or requirements have
been established by applicable compliance requirements, but
deadlines have not passed or requirements are not in force),
but will be if not implemented in time to meet an established
deadline beyond the current year.
The Class I and Class II definitions overlap and may lead
to confusion regarding funding priorities. In addition, the
Department has informed the committee that all fiscal year 1998
compliance projects have been given Class I funding priority.
Any definition that places $2.0 billion worth of requirements
in a single undifferentiated class is not a useful tool for
distinguishing the Department's funding priorities. The
committee directs the Department to clarify the Class I and
Class II definitions and to eliminate overlap.
Defense Commissary Agency produce purchasing
The Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) has historically
purchased produce for sale in commissaries from local produce
growers.However, a recent study by the Hay Group under contract
from DeCA suggests that DeCA could achieve considerable savings in
produce purchasing by buying produce from a prime vendor. The committee
continues to encourage DeCA to employ the best business practices to
reduce its reliance on appropriated funding. However, the committee is
aware that changing the produce buying procedures to a prime vendor may
result in local produce growers losing their ability to provide local
produce to the commissaries. Produce is a perishable commodity and many
times consumers prefer to buy local produce in season. Some may suggest
that a prime vendor supplier may supply produce that is not as fresh as
locally grown produce.
Therefore, the committee directs the Defense Commissary
Agency to review the options available and submit a report
through the Secretary of Defense to the congressional defense
committees which describes the financial considerations
associated with each option, the advantages and disadvantages
of each option, the potential impact on local produce growers,
and an assessment of customer preference. This report is to be
submitted to the congressional defense committees not later
than November 14, 1997. The committee directs the Secretary of
Defense not to award a prime vendor produce contract for DeCA
for at least 90 days after the required report is submitted to
the Congress.
Department of Defense use of Ada computer language
The committee is unclear about the changing policy of the
Department of Defense (DOD) with respect to mandating use of
the Ada computing language. A recently issued National Academy
of Science National Research Council report, commissioned by
the DOD, recommended, among other things, that funding of the
Ada software program be continued at $15.0 million level in
fiscal year 1998. Yet, the DOD requested no funding in fiscal
year 1998 for the Ada Joint Program Office (AJPO), which
oversees the Ada program. As recently as March of 1997, the
Assistant Secretary for Command, Control, Communications and
Intelligence, stated that the study is a good one and was
prepared to accept and implement all of the report's
recommendations with one exception---that ``DOD should no
longer require Ada for any of its systems, but continue to
support it as the preferred language, particularly for our
weapons systems and C4ISR systems.'' The position of the
Secretary is that by removing the mandate, the lone contentious
point of resentment is also removed from the DOD software
process. By requiring a software engineering plan, the desired
results can be achieved without a mandate. Given the
significant amount of money DOD has invested in both developing
the Ada language and using it to build applications and the
unclear message the committee has received regarding the future
of the program, the committee directs the DOD to provide a
report to Congress no later than March 1, 1998, with respect to
its policy determination on whether or not the DOD views
utilization of Ada software as an essential ingredient for
current and future WAR FIGHTER and battlefield management
systems.
Department of Defense use of frequency spectrum
The trend toward a more information-based military requires
that the Department of Defense (DOD) has adequate access to
those portions of the frequency spectrum (primarily below 3.1
Ghz) used by the Department's communications equipment.
However, over the past five years, the Department has either
relinquished or agreed to share over 500 Mhz of spectrum. This
reallocation has already limited the capability of such systems
as the Navy's Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC).
Additional spectrum currently used by the DOD is being
sought for emerging telecommunications technologies and to gain
revenue from spectrum auctioning.
The committee is concerned that this continuing trend
toward incrementally chipping away at the DOD and the
intelligence community's assured use of the spectrum will
severely impact critical national security systems. It may also
inhibit training within the United States, which could
ultimately reduce readiness.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence and
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to perform a
systematic, detailed review of U.S. national security
requirements, and the impacts of further reallocation of those
portions of the spectrum currently used or dedicated to the
Department of Defense and the intelligence community. The
review should include the costs to the Department associated
with past and potential future reallocations of spectrum
frequency. The review should specify those systems that could
be, or have been, adversely impacted.
This review should be in accordance with U.S. national
security requirements rather than driven by budgetary
constraints or revenues from the sale of the spectrum. The
results of this review should be provided to the Committee on
Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on National
Security of the House of Representatives no later than March
31, 1998. The report should be submitted in both classified and
unclassified forms, as necessary.
Elimination of unnecessary training restrictions imposed under the
Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1532)
provides for the listing and protection of species that are
currently endangered or threatened with extinction. The listing
of an animal or plant results in limitations on activities that
could affect the species and in penalties for the ``taking'' of
a species. The committee is concerned about the degree to which
the Endangered Species Act has unnecessarily restricted
military training activities.
For example, there are currently 430 restricted training
areas on Fort Bragg, N.C., that have been designated to protect
the red-cockaded woodpecker. Of the 430 restricted training
areas, there are about 160 areas that would be eligible
forreconsideration because the red-cockaded woodpecker has abandoned
these sites. The committee directs the military departments and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to work closely together to eliminate
unnecessary training restrictions at Fort Bragg and other military
installations similarly impacted by the Endangered Species Act.
Environmental cleanup of formerly used defense sites
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, the Department of
Defense (DOD) remains responsible for the environmental cleanup
of DOD related contamination at formerly used Defense sites
(FUDS). These sites are not subject to the Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990, but were formerly owned, leased, or
otherwise operated by the Department of Defense, or any of its
components. The FUDS properties are now owned by private
citizens, states, local governments, or private organizations,
for example: Massabesic National Guard Target Range, Auburn,
New Hampshire; Black Hills Ordnance Depot, South Dakota;
Castner Range, Texas; and Rotterdam Industrial Park, New York.
The Army is the executive agency in charge of executing the
program and the Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for
managing the cleanup of FUDS sites.
It is the committee's view that FUDS cleanup should receive
full consideration for funding based on consistent assessment
and ranking of the elements of relative risk: the level of site
contamination; an identified receptor; and the evident pathway
that connects the contaminant and the receptor.
Environmental cleanup of lands conveyed by the Department of Defense
The Department of Defense (DOD) has been given authority to
transfer or convey certain lands that are not subject to the
Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1990, for example: Air
Force Plant No. 3, Tulsa, Oklahoma; Naval Weapons Industrial
Reserve Plant, McGregor, Texas; Naval Weapons Industrial
Reserve Plant, Calverton, New York; Air Force Plan No. 85,
Columbus, Ohio. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9620(h)) the
Department remains responsible for the environmental cleanup of
DOD related contamination of these lands subsequent to
transfer.
It is the committee's view that lands subject to conveyance
should receive full consideration for funding based on
consistent assessment and ranking of the elements of relative
risk: the level of site contamination; an identified receptor;
and the evident pathway that connects the contaminant and the
receptor.
Environmental liabilities at Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Colorado
Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA), which borders the Denver
metropolitan area, has been the focus of an aggressive soil and
groundwater contamination cleanup program since the mid-1980's.
The contamination is the result of two decades of on-site
disposal of hazardous waste associated with manufacturing and
testing chemical agents and other munitions. In addition,
portions of the arsenal were leased to Shell Oil Company for
the manufacture of pesticides from 1952 to 1987.
The operational mission at RMA was discontinued in the mid-
1970's, and in 1978 the Army initiated environmental
restoration activities. In 1987, RMA was placed on the National
Priority List (NPL). Based on a Federal Facility Agreement
signed in 1989, the Army was put in charge of the cleanup. The
Army and Shell have spent nearly $1.0 billion to date for
cleanup activities at RMA. Shell agreed to pay a portion of the
cleanup costs because of its contribution to the contamination
problem at RMA.
A portion of Shell's cleanup costs have been paid directly
into an Army account established under section 1367 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1987 (Public
Law 99-661). Funds deposited into that account are available
without fiscal year limitations for the purposes of conducting
environmental cleanup at RMA. As of December 1994, Shell
contributed about $274.0 million and the GAO reported that
about $116.0 million was deposited into the Army RMA account.
Through the administration's budget process the Army reported
that about $92.0 million remains in the Army RMA account for
future obligations.
The committee expects that the Army will conduct RMA
cleanup in fiscal year 1998 and in the future years with
available funds deposited in the Army account established under
Public Law 99-661. The committee directs the Army and other
military departments to ensure that any cost-sharing or cost-
recovery of cleanup funds at RMA or other Department of Defense
facilities be used to offset future budget requirements.
Environmental requirements at Department of Defense demolition,
construction, and renovation sites
Demolition, construction, and renovation activities
conducted at Department of Defense facilities are potentially
subject to a wide variety of environmental strictures,
depending upon the condition of the work site and the extent of
the activities at the site. Some of the more noteworthy
environmental statutes that could apply to these activities
include: the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA); and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA).
The committee is particularly interested in the Navy's plan
to relocate the Naval Systems Command to the Washington Navy
Yard (WNY). The WNY, established in 1799, was used throughout
most of its history as an industrial facility and the Naval Gun
Factory. Weapons systems were produced at the WNY through the
1950's. As a result of the heavy industrial use, there is a
high potential that WNY has been contaminated with a variety of
hazardoussubstances, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
methylene chloride, lead, arsenic, cadmium, and beryllium. One of the
lessons learned through the Love Canal tragedy was that hazardous waste
sites pose a great risk to public health and the environment.
The committee is concerned that the Navy could undertake
$200.0 million in new construction and renovation at WNY
without complying with the current environmental requirements
to assess the impacts of a proposed action, to conduct site
evaluations, to identify hazardous contamination, and to
initiate remedial action. The committee expects the Navy to
proceed with caution and to comply with all legal requirements
in order to preserve the environment and the health and human
safety of Navy military personnel, Navy civilian employees,
construction workers, and the residents of the area surrounding
WNY.
Indoor marksmanship training
The Department of the Army currently operates the only
remaining indoor small arms and rifle firing range in Military
District Washington at Ft. Belvoir, Virginia. The all weather
range is utilized for weapons qualifications by members of the
military services, Department of Defense personnel, and members
of other Federal agencies. Accordingly, any initiative to close
or alter the operation of the facility should undergo careful
scrutiny by the Department. Because the Ft. Belvoir facility is
such a valuable resource to the Military District Washington,
the committee directs the Department of Defense to conduct a
cost-benefit study of the effectiveness of the facility in
satisfying the training requirements of military and Federal
users prior to any initiative to close the facility. Specific
consideration should be given to the costs to the U.S.
government associated of current facility operations as
compared to costs associated with personnel travel, commercial
range use, and personnel time off station. An examination of
the operating costs of the Ft. Belvoir range should also be
compared with the operating costs of similar all weather
military range facilities.
Pollution prevention
The Department of Defense has historically relied upon
``end of pipe'' solutions to control and mitigate the effects
of using environmentally harmful materials and procedures. The
committee is encouraged that in recent years the Department has
placed an increasing emphasis on the reduction or elimination
of pollution problems at the outset through the use of
pollution prevention approaches. The committee commends the
Department for its recognition that prudent investments in
pollution prevention can reduce life cycle environmental costs
and liability, while improving environmental quality and
program performance.
For example, the Department appears to have recognized for
the first time that the integration of environmental
considerations into program management decisions can
substantially reduce life-cycle costs for major weapons
systems. The committee is particularly encouraged by the
success of the Department's efforts to reduce hazardous wastes
and air emissions through the development of paintless coating
systems. Similarly, the Defense Logistics Agency has made great
progress in implementing Executive Order 12873 by offering
products and services, such as re-refined oil and more energy-
efficient lighting, that reduce or prevent pollution. Recently,
the Army and the Air Force announced their preference for re-
refined oil and the Department made a strong commitment to
buying only recycled paper, given a reasonable price.
Despite the Department's commitment to pollution prevention
approaches and the high pay-back from pollution prevention
projects, no significant change in the pollution prevention
portion of the budget has yet occurred. For example, the
Department's fiscal year 1998 pollution prevention budget
proposal is roughly the same as the Department's fiscal years
1996 and 1997 pollution prevention budgets, adjusted for
inflation. The committee believes that a greater investment in
pollution prevention would reduce long-term compliance and
clean-up costs and increase the resources available for the
core requirements of the Department.
For this reason, the Department can and should do more to
build upon its record of purchasing items and services that
prevent pollution and to implement other pollution prevention
measures. While the ``green'' catalog issued by the Defense
Logistics Agency has helped encourage the purchase of
environmentally preferable products, that catalog currently
lists only a few hundred products. The committee understands
that the Department is considering a sustainable product
initiative to help identify additional products and services
that reduce or prevent pollution, resolve organizational and
procurement system barriers to their purchase, and reduce
environmental liability and compliance costs. The committee
encourages this initiative.
Potential depot maintenance savings
The 1995 Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC)
recommended closing the Sacramento, California and San Antonio,
Texas, depots and transferring their workloads to the remaining
depots or private sector commercial activities. The President,
in forwarding the recommendations of the Commission to Congress
for approval, indicated that the Sacramento and San Antonio
depots should be privatized in place or in the local
communities. In a September 1996 report, the General Accounting
Office (GAO) stated that opportunities existed to reduce Army
depot maintenance costs by transferring, rather than
privatizing-in-place, workloads from closing and downsizing
depots. The GAO estimated that this action would save the Air
Force $182.0 million and the Army $51.0 million annually.
Proposed revision of the standards for ozone and particulate matter
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a
revision to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
for ozone and particulate matter that could significantly
constrain training in nonattainment areas, require stringent
controls on combustion sources, and result in conformity
requirements that could negatively impact military operations,
quality of life, base realignment and closure (BRAC), and
community reuse. Some estimates indicate that one-third to one-
half of the United States could be designated non-attainment
for particulate matter, potentially affecting a large number of
military installations.
A Department of Defense witness at the April 15, 1997
environmental program hearing before the Subcommittee on
Readiness testified that implementation of the proposed
standards for ozone and particulate matter could result in
potential capital costs as high as $10.0 million per
installation. Despite the projected costs and adverse impacts
of the proposed standards, the Department of Defense (DOD)
failed to submit written comments for the administrative record
until approximately two weeks before the Readiness Subcommittee
hearing.
During the interagency review process, the Department of
Transportation, the Department of Energy, the Treasury
Department, the Council of Economic Advisers, and the Small
Business Administration all submitted written comments on the
proposed rulemaking. The Department of Defense refrained from
submitting written comments until April 1, 1997, subsequent to
the interagency review process and the public comment period.
The April 1 comments submitted by the Department of Defense
indicate that implementation of the proposed standards could
have a significant impact on military training, readiness,
quality of life, and environmental compliance budgets: (1)
constraints on Army/Marine Corps use of obscurants (smoke) and
off-road vehicles for training; (2) additional nonattainment
(N/A) areas that would require the federal government to
conduct more conformity analyses; (3) competition with
industrial sources for offsets; (4) increased price of offsets;
(5) more stringent controls on combustion sources; (6)
increased capital costs for control technology; and (7) the
inability to accommodate future BRAC and force structure
changes. The committee is concerned that the implementation of
the proposed standards could undermine Department of Defense
training and readiness and in turn pose a threat to the
national security. It is the committee's view that the
Department has an obligation to protect the interests of the
military departments and the DOD mission throughout the
administrative rulemaking process. The Department's future
actions in this area will be subject to careful scrutiny by the
committee.
Removal of polychlorinated biphenyls from Navy vessels prior to
disposal
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 15 U.S.C. 1605(e)
prohibits the manufacture, processing, use or distribution in
commerce of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) that are not
``totally enclosed.'' The term ``totally enclosed'' means any
manner that ensures ``insignificant'' human health and
environmental exposures to PCBs, as determined by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). TSCA directed the EPA to
promulgate rules for the disposal of PCBs.
In vessels identified for sale, scrap, transfer, or
sinking, the Navy has discovered minute quantities of PCBs that
the Navy has concluded are bound and non-leachable. The
existing EPA regulations make it difficult for the Navy to
dispose of these vessels. Moreover, the EPA's proposed PCB
``mega rule'' would not resolve the problem. The Navy has
concluded that the 1994 proposal would require: (1) the
labeling of all PCB uses, without thresholds; (2) EPA notice
and Navy air monitoring of all leachable PCBs; (3) extensive
shipboard wipe sampling; (4) removal of all concrete with PCB
residue--cleaning the spill would be inadequate; and (5)
special labeling, storage, packing, and transportation, even
for low concentration non-leachables.
The Navy has estimated that the 1994 proposed PCB rule
could have a significant compliance price tag. Labeling,
sampling, and air monitoring could cost $500.0 million the
first year and $100.0 million annually thereafter. Management
and disposal of PCB ``contaminated'' equipment and material
from vessel maintenance could cost $450.0 million per year.
Removal and disposal of concrete pads and other spill areas
could involve a one time cost of $200.0 million. The overall
projected Navy cost over ten years could be $5.7 billion.
Since 1994 the Navy has been working with the EPA to
address these concerns. The committee understands that a
substantially revised rule is due to be published later this
year. The committee directs the Navy to continue to work with
the EPA and has the expectation that the two agencies will
reach a reasonable resolution that satisfies concerns related
to human health, the environment, and cost. In the absence of
such a resolution, the committee is prepared to revisit this
issue in relation to the Department's fiscal year 1999 budget
request.
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS
The Congress, exercising its military manpower oversight
responsibilities, authorizes the end strengths of the active
and reserve forces annually. This year, in addition to the
Subcommittee on Personnel hearings to examine the force
structure plans of the Department of Defense and the military
services, the committee held a series of hearings to receive
testimony from the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Service Chiefs to review the
results of the Quadrennial Defense Review. Based on those
hearings, the administration's budget request, and other
information, the committee recommended end strength ceilings
for the active and reserve forces, including active component
support for the reserves. Additionally, the committee
recommended repeal of the endstrength floors in order to permit
the secretaries and chiefs of the military services to implement the
reductions in force structure recommended by the Quadrennial Defense
Review.
SUBTITLE A--ACTIVE FORCES
Section 401. End strengths for active forces.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
active duty end strengths for fiscal year 1998 as shown below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998
authorization 1998 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army:
Total.............................................. 495,000 495,000 485,000
Officers........................................... 80,300 ................. 80,300
Navy:
Total.............................................. 407,318 390,802 390,802
Officers........................................... 56,265 ................. 55,695
Marine Corps:
Total.............................................. 174,000 174,000 174,000
Officers........................................... 17,978 ................. 17,978
Air Force:
Total.............................................. 381,100 371,577 371,577
Officers........................................... 74,458 ................. 72,732
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee recommends an active Army end strength below
the 1998 request as a result of the Off-Site Review the Army
announced on June 5, 1997, in which the active Army, the Army
Reserve, and the Army National Guard agreed on personnel
reductions recommended by the Quadrennial Defense Review.
The committee notes that the Navy and the Air Force
requested end strengths below the permanent end strength levels
necessary to support two major regional contingencies. In
response to questions during committee hearings, both Navy and
Air Force witnesses testified that these reductions in end
strength are directly related to force structure changes.
Witnesses from both services testified that their services can
support two major regional contingencies at the requested lower
end strength levels.
Section 402. Permanent end strength levels to support two major
regional contingencies.
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 691 of title 10, United States Code, as amended by
section 402 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997. The committee believes that statutory end
strength ``floors'' are inappropriate at this time.
SUBTITLE B--RESERVE FORCES
Section 411. End strengths for Selected Reserve.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 1998 as shown
below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
--------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998
authorization 1998 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard of the United States........... 366,758 366,516 361,516
The Army Reserve....................................... 215,179 208,000 208,000
The Naval Reserve...................................... 96,304 94,294 94,294
The Marine Corps Reserve............................... 42,000 42,000 42,000
The Air National Guard of the United States............ 109,178 107,377 107,377
The Air Force Reserve.................................. 73,311 73,431 73,431
The Coast Guard Reserve................................ 8,000 8,000 8,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee recommends an Army National Guard end
strength below the 1998 request as a result of the Off-Site
Review the Army announced on June 5, 1997, in which the active
Army, the Army Reserve, and the Army National Guard agreed on
personnel reductions recommended by the Quadrennial Defense
Review.
The committee has become increasingly aware of the unique
capabilities of the Coast Guard Reserve and the value of the
Coast Guard Reserve as an augmentee to the Department of
Defense in times of national emergency.
In view of the foregoing, the committee is concerned that
the Coast Guard Reserve's end strength has fallen significantly
below the authorized and appropriated level for fiscal year
1996 and remains so for fiscal year 1997. It is apparent that
this end strength shortfall stems from difficulties in
recruiting Coast Guard reservists.
The committee recognizes that Team Coast Guard has, with
limited exceptions, seen the complete assimilation of Coast
Guard reservists into the active duty force. Prior to Team
Coast Guard, reserve unit commanding officers had specific
responsibilities for recruiting. In Team Coast Guard, these
recruiting responsibilities were not transferred to active duty
commanding officers. In addition, reserve recruiting quotas
have not been assigned to active duty Coast Guard recruiters.
Prior to fiscal year 1996, no active duty Coast Guard recruiter
in the system had ever recruited a reservist. Recruiting a
reservist is more difficult than recruiting a new entrant
because reservists must be recruited to a targeted billet at a
specific location.
Concomitantly, the Coast Guard has undertaken some effort
to recruit reservists, including development of a formalized
recruiting plan for reservists requiring Selected Reserve
participation for 59 days following release from active
duty;mailing out letters to over 6,000 members of the individual Ready
Reserve; creating a reserve-specific recruiting web page; and engaging
in limited advertising. Despite these efforts, while the active duty
Coast Guard exceeded 100 percent of their goals, only 65 percent of
those needed were recruited for the reserve force in fiscal year 1996
and through January 31, 1997, only 32 percent of the monthly goals.
Finally, the committee notes that the Coast Guard has not applied the
various bonus programs that currently exist in law to recruit
reservists up to authorized and appropriated end strengths.
Given the foregoing, the committee directs that a report on
the Coast Guard's reserve recruiting efforts be prepared. The
report should address the difficulties encountered in
recruiting reservists and recommend any additional initiatives
that may require congressional action in order to bring the
Coast Guard Reserve up to its authorized and appropriated end
strengths.
The committee urges the Coast Guard to focus its attention,
leadership, and resources to achieving the Coast Guard reserve
recruiting goals.
Section 412. End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of
the reserves.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
full-time support end strengths for fiscal year 1998 as shown
below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998
authorization 1998 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard of the United States........... 22,798 22,310 22,310
The Army Reserve....................................... 11,729 11,500 11,500
The Naval Reserve...................................... 16,603 16,136 16,136
The Marine Corps Reserve............................... 2,559 2,559 2,559
The Air National Guard of the United States............ 10,403 10,616 10,616
The Air Force Reserve.................................. 655 963 963
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTITLE C--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
Section 421. Authorization of appropriations for military personnel.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$69,265.0 million to be appropriated to the Department of
Defense for military personnel.
The committee notes that the fiscal year 1997 military
manpower programs are not being executed as planned, with the
services expected to be 10,000 work-years below previously
budgeted levels.
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 recommended a number of military
personnel policy changes that would improve management of
reserve component personnel. The committee recommended
termination of the Ready Reserve Mobilization Income Insurance
Program and would require that all benefits accrued be paid and
all premiums paid by reservists who do not receive any benefits
be refunded. The committee also included a provision that would
establish exemplary standards for commanders and others in
positions of authority and responsibility.
SUBTITLE A--PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
Section 501. Officers excluded from consideration by promotion board.
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
eligibility criteria for promotion so that an officer who is
currently on a promotion list is not simultaneously eligible
for promotion to the same grade while awaiting processing of
the current nomination. Under current statute an officer could
be on a promotion list which is being processed and has not
received the advice and consent of the Senate of the United
States and remain eligible for consideration for promotion to
the same grade by a subsequent promotion board. The recommended
provision corrects this situation by making the officer
ineligible for consideration by a subsequent selection board.
The recommended provision modifies in a similar manner the
eligibility criteria for a reserve component officer whose
nomination does not require the advice and consent of the
Senate of the United States but must be approved by the
President.
Section 502. Increase in the maximum number of officers allowed to be
frocked to the grade of O-6.
The committee recommends a provision that would increase
the number of officers who may wear the grade and insignia of
an O-6 (colonels in the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps and
captains in the Navy). While the committee supports limited
frocking to fill command, international, and some key joint
positions, it recognizes that the current limitation to one
percent of the officers serving as an O-6 is unnecessarily
restrictive.
Section 503. Availability of Navy chaplains on retired list or of
retirement age to serve as Chief or Deputy Chief of Chaplains
of the Navy.
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
theprohibition of Navy chaplains on the retired list from serving as
the Chief or Deputy Chief of Chaplains in the Navy. The recommended
provision would also increase the mandatory retirement age for the
Chief or Deputy Chief of Chaplains in the Navy from 62 to 68 years of
age.
Section 504. Period of recall service of certain retirees.
The committee recommends a provision that would clarify
that officers who are recalled from retirement and assigned to
the American Battle Monuments Commission, health care
professional, or chaplain billets are excluded from the 12-
month recall tenure limit.
SUBTITLE B--MATTERS RELATING TO RESERVE COMPONENTS
Section 511. Termination of ready reserve mobilization income insurance
program.
The committee recommends a provision that would terminate
the Ready Reserve Mobilization Income Insurance Program
effective upon enactment of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1998. The recommended provision requires
the Secretary of Defense to pay all benefits that may have
accrued before the termination date. It further requires the
Secretary of Defense to refund all premiums paid by reservists
who have not received benefits under the program.
The committee notes with concern the sequence of events
that has led to this recommendation. Congress authorized the
Reserve Mobilization Income Insurance Program at the specific
request of the Department of Defense in an effort to provide to
the Department a tool that, properly managed, would serve as a
valuable recruiting and retention incentive for reserve forces.
Now, less than one year after the Department implemented
this program, Congress is faced with another request from the
Department: this time, to terminate the program in light of its
$72.0 million of debt. The Department's handling of this matter
has: 1) cast doubt on the credibility of the Department to
manage major programs properly; 2) incurred a significant cost
to the American taxpayer at a time when such a cost can least
be afforded; and 3) brought into question the accountability
and the oversight role of those in positions of responsibility
in the Department of Defense.
The Secretary of Defense is required to perform a study to
determine the reasons the program required a $72.0 million
``bail-out'' in the supplemental appropriations bill; whether
there is a bonafide need for a mobilization income insurance
program; and, if so, to recommend a program which reflects
improvement from the current program. The results of the study
are to be submitted to Congress not later than June 1, 1998.
Section 512. Discharge or retirement of reserve officers in an inactive
status.
The committee recommends a provision that would permit the
President to discharge or retire a reserve commissioned officer
in an inactive status who cannot or will not retire. This
authority closes a loophole that permitted retention of non-
participating members in the Standby Reserve with no benefit to
the military department. This authority will eliminate the
administrative costs associated with convening an
Administrative Discharge Board to separate an inactive member.
Section 513. Retention of military technicians in grade of Brigadier
General after mandatory separation date.
The committee recommends a provision that would permit
brigadier general military technicians to serve up to the age
of 60, when they would be eligible for their civil service
retirement. This corrects an oversight in the development of
the Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act legislation.
Section 514. Federal status of service by National Guard members as
honor guards at funerals of veterans.
The committee recommends a provision that would permit
National Guard members who serve on funeral details for
veterans of the armed forces to receive credit as a period of
drill or training otherwise required. The recommended provision
would permit appropriated funds to be used to support National
Guard honor guard functions at funerals for veterans.
The committee notes that retired military personnel are
authorized military honors for their funeral on a space
available basis. The recommended provision will expand the
opportunity for veterans, otherwise eligible for military
honors, to receive those honors by authorizing National Guard
personnel to perform the honor ceremony mission in a Federal
status.
SUBTITLE C--EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAMS
Section 521. Service academies foreign exchange study program.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
service secretaries to enter into agreements with foreign
governments in order to carry out a military academy foreign
exchange program. The recommended provision limits the number
of cadets or midshipmen who may receive instruction at a
foreign military academy to 24 at any one time. The recommended
provision further requires that the number of foreign students
receiving instruction at a service academy be equal to the
number of cadets/midshipmen receiving instruction from the
military academy of that foreign government during an academic
year.
Section 522. Programs of higher education of the Community College of
the Air Force.
The committee recommends a provision that would permit
enlisted members of the Army, Navy, or Marine Corps who are
assigned as instructors in Air Force technical schools to
participate in and receive associate degrees through the
Community College of the Air Force.
The committee recommends this provision in order to ensure
that the Community College of the Air Force can maintain its
accreditation. The committee believes that students from other
services at Air Force technical schools should be able to
receive credit for their training through the American Council
on Education. The committee directs the Air Force to ensure its
technical schools are evaluated by the American Council on
Education to facilitate transfer of credit to other college and
university programs.
Section 523. Preservation of entitlement to educational assistance of
members of the Selected Reserve serving on active duty in
support of a contingency operation.
The committee recommends a provision that would ensure that
members of the Selected Reserve who are ordered to active duty
in support of a contingency operation and required to
discontinue a course of study under the GI Bill benefit would
not have those months charged against their GI Bill
entitlement. Previously, Congress protected those ordered to
active duty during the Persian Gulf War. The recommended
provision extends the same protection to all other contingency
operations.
Section 524. Repeal of certain staffing and safety requirements for the
Army Ranger Training Brigade.
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 4303 of title 10, United States Code, which specified
minimum manning levels for the Ranger Training Brigade and
required the establishment of training safety cells. This
requirement was enacted following the February 1995 training
accident at the Florida Ranger Training Camp.
The committee strongly supports adequate manning of the
Ranger Training Brigade and believes that training safety cells
may be prudent. The committee recognizes the inherent danger in
training activities such as ranger training, SEAL training, and
airborne training. While such training must be strenuous,
realistic, and challenging, the military services must ensure
that the students and cadre are safe during the training. The
committee also believes the Secretary of the Army and the Chief
of Staff of the Army should have the flexibility to establish
the manning levels of units and organizations within the Army
at the level they determine meets the requirements of the unit
or organization.
SUBTITLE D--DECORATIONS AND AWARDS
Section 531. Clarification of eligibility of members of Ready Reserve
for award of service Medal for Heroism.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
members of the Ready Reserve to be awarded the service medal
for heroism of their service on the same basis as active duty
service members. Current interpretations of existing statute
preclude members of the Ready Reserve not on active duty from
being awarded the medal for heroism of their service in
recognition of heroic acts. The recommended provision clarifies
the statute to permit the services to award the service medal
for heroism to members of the Ready Reserve.
Section 532. Waiver of time limitations for award of certain
decorations to specified persons.
The committee recommends a provision that would waive the
statutory time limitations for the award of military
decorations to provide for the award of the Silver Star Medal,
the Navy and Marine Corps Medal, and the Distinguished Flying
Cross to certain individuals who have been recommended by the
service secretaries for these awards.
Section 533. One-year extension of period for receipt of
recommendations for decorations and awards for certain military
intelligence personnel.
The committee recommends a provision that would extend, by
one year, the time in which military intelligence personnel
could apply for consideration of an award for service in the
Cold War era. The committee recommends the extension because
the services did not adequately publicize the authorization for
military intelligence personnel to apply for consideration of
awards for their service during the Cold War.
Section 534. Eligibility of certain World War II military organizations
for award of unit decorations.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the service secretaries to award a unit decoration to any unit
or other organization of the armed forces of the United States
that supported the planning or execution of combat operations
during World War II. This authority would permit organizations
such as the Military Intelligence Service of the Army to
receive a unit award. The authority to approve unit awards is
discretionary and requires that a recommendation be submitted
within two years of enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998.
SUBTITLE E--MILITARY PERSONNEL VOTING RIGHTS
The committee recommends a provision (Sections 541 through
543) that would address concerns related to absentee voting by
members of the armed forces. In the November 1996 election in
Val VerdeCounty, Texas, the site of Laughlin Air Force Base,
two retired Air Force noncommissioned officers were elected to the
offices of sheriff and county commissioner, in part due to absentee
ballots from military personnel. In December, Texas Rural Legal Aid
(TRLA) filed suit against Val Verde County in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas, claiming that 800
military absentee ballots were improperly counted in the election and
that this unlawfully ``diluted'' Hispanic voting strength. The suit
asked that the two successful candidates be prevented from taking
office and that a new election be held. On December 30, 1996, U.S.
District Judge H.F. Garcia issued a temporary restraining order
preventing them from taking office.
The committee is very concerned about these events. This
lawsuit is a serious threat to the most basic civil right--a
military member's right to vote. It could set a disturbing
precedent across this nation about the rights of the men and
women who serve in our armed forces. They deserve the same
basic rights of citizenship as their civilian counterparts.
In the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act
(P.L. 99-410, 42 U.S.C. 1973 ff et. seq.), Congress made it
clear that both the Federal Government and the States were to
take steps to maximize access to the polls by absentee voters
serving in the armed forces. The recommended provision is
consistent with that congressional intent.
SUBTITLE F--OTHER MATTERS
Section 551. Sense of Congress regarding study of matters relating to
gender equity in the Armed Forces.
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Congress that the Comptroller General of the
United States should conduct a study on any inequality, or
perception of inequality, in the treatment of men and women in
the armed forces and report to Congress within one year of
enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1998.
Section 552. Commission on Gender Integration in the Military.
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
an 11 member commission to study issues related to gender-
integration in the military services. Six members would be
recommended by the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services
of the Senate and five recommended by the ranking member. At
least two members will come from academia, at least four will
be former military members, and at least two will be members of
a reserve component. Duties of the commission include reviewing
current military practices, relevant studies, and private
sector training concepts pertaining to gender-integrated
training; reviewing laws, regulations, policy directives, and
practices which govern personal relationships between men and
women in the armed services and between members of the armed
services and non-military personnel; provide an assessment of
the extent to which the laws, regulations, policies and
directives have been applied consistently throughout the armed
services; provide an independent assessment of the reports of
the three efforts (the independent panel, a task force, and the
legal review of adultery) announced by the Secretary of Defense
in June 1997; and examine the experiences, policies, and
practices of the armed forces of other industrialized nations
regarding gender-integrated training.
The recommended provision would require an initial report
not later than April 15, 1998, and a final report would be due
not later than September 16, 1998. The commission would be
funded from funds appropriated for the Department of Defense.
Section 553. Sexual harassment investigations and reports.
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
rigorous reporting requirements and time lines for completing
investigations into allegations of sexual harassment within the
armed services. The secretaries of the military departments
would provide a report of the sexual harassment investigations
within their service each year for fiscal years 1998 and 1999.
Section 554. Requirement for exemplary conduct by commanding officers
and other authorities.
The committee recommends a provision that would establish,
in statute, exemplary standards for commanding officers and
others in positions of authority and responsibility. The
committee notes that these standards have applied to Naval and
Marine Corps officers since they were first set forth in
regulations drafted by John Adams and approved by the
Continental Congress in 1775. The standards were later enacted
by the United States Congress in 1799 and codified in title 10,
United States Code, in 1956. While the statute has not included
specific standards of conduct for Army and Air Force officers,
the military services have established very high standards of
conduct in internal regulations.
The committee is disappointed to note that, in the past
several years, some officers have shown reluctance to accept
responsibility and accountability for their actions and the
actions of their subordinates. This provision will not prevent
an officer from shunning responsibility or accountability for
an action or event. It does, however, establish a very clear
standard by which Congress and the nation can measure officers
of our military services. The committee holds military officers
to a higher standard than other members of society. The nation
entrusts its greatest resource, our young men and women, to our
military officers. In return, the nation deserves complete
integrity, moral courage, and the highest moral and ethical
conduct.
Section 555. Participation of Department of Defense personnel in
management of non-federal entities.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the service secretaries to permit officers to serve on the
boards of directors of certain military welfare societies. The
military welfare societies include the Navy-Marine Corps Relief
Society, the Air Force Aid Society, Army Emergency Relief, and
Coast Guard Mutual Assistance. The recommended provision
permits officers to serve in the management of other nonfederal
not-for-profit entities that regulate and support the athletic
programs of the service academies, regulate international
athletic competitions, accredit service academies and other
schools of the armed forces, and which regulate the military
health care system. Officers serving on the boards of these
organizations may not receive compensation for their service.
Section 556. Technical correction to cross reference in ROPMA provision
relating to position vacancy promotion.
The committee recommends a provision that would make a
technical correction to a cross-reference in section 14317(d)
of title 10, United States Code.
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
Findings related to the investigations of deaths of members of the
armed forces from self-inflicted causes
The Subcommittee on Personnel held a hearing on September
12, 1996, related to the practices and procedures of the
investigative services of the Department of Defense and the
military departments concerning the investigations into the
deaths of military personnel which may have resulted from self-
inflicted causes. This hearing was another phase in the
congressional review of the heart-wrenching issue of American
soldiers whose lives were lost through tragic circumstances.
Since 1982, over 3,000 military personnel died as a result
of what military investigators have classified as self-
inflicted causes. Over 50 families of those who died disagree
with the conclusions of the military services and how they were
reached. As a result of the reviews of the investigations by
the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, testimony
by the families and the chiefs of the military investigative
agencies, and the committee's analysis, the committee has
identified the following areas which deserve careful
consideration by the Department of Defense and the military
services:
(1) The cases are replete with accounts of
destruction and mishandling of potential evidence and
incomplete collection of evidence at the crime scenes
(fingerprints, photographs, basic procedures);
(2) Psychological autopsies are not performed or
reviewed in a consistent manner;
(3) Personal property of the deceased service members
has been subject to theft and loss and personal
property has been withheld, misplaced, stolen, or
destroyed;
(4) Families have experienced difficulty obtaining
information and medical documents related to the
service member's death. Many have been forced to
request information under the Freedom of Information
Act, which can be difficult. Some information is still
being denied to families (photographs). Due to the
various military investigations, each piece or report
must be requested separately (service, medical
examiner, investigating office);
(5) Deaths which occurred off-base are problematic
due to the lack of military jurisdiction. In most
cases, the military service offered to assist the local
law enforcement agency; however, the families expect
the military to take a more active role since the
deceased was an active duty service member;
(6) There are frequently several ongoing military
investigations with disparate purposes: line of duty,
administrative, criminal, etc. These investigations are
not coordinated, resulting in different, and sometimes
conflicting, information being released to the families
and the media without coordination with the other
investigative agencies;
(7) Autopsies are always conducted when a service
member dies. In some cases, certain organs are held for
a period of time for further testing; however, in many
of these cases, the families are not advised that the
organs were retained. In a few cases, the committee had
to insist that the military department return the
organs after the lab tests were complete. A military
pathologist should be available to assist when death
occurs in a civil jurisdiction, but this is not always
done;
(8) The committee found that casualty notification
and assistance procedures varied widely among the
services. It also found insensitivity to the emotions
and needs of the families, inadequate training of those
selected for military personnel assigned these duties,
and a reluctance to share information with family
members; and
(9) The chiefs of the military investigative services
testified that their investigators always investigate
the death as a potential homicide until evidence
establishes otherwise; however, some families pointed
to statements by investigators, commanders, and others
which indicate that this might not be the case.
The committee requested a follow-up report which includes
analysis of trends and shortcomings in investigative
procedures, systemic corrections which should be made, and
lessons learned after the Inspector General completes her
review of the cases. The subcommittee chairman sent a letter to
the service secretaries with the findings and recommendations
pertaining to their service and requested their personal
attention to ensuring appropriate corrective actions were
taken. He also wrote to the chief of the local law enforcement
agency of each case which occurred outside the jurisdiction of
the military services requesting a review of the original
investigation and a report of the findings. The local law
enforcement agencies are respondingto these letters.
The committee intends to continue to monitor the progress
of the Department of Defense and the military services as they
complete the reviews required by the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, implement the
recommendations of the Inspector General of the Department of
Defense, and respond to the families and the committee's
findings. The Department of Defense must ensure that every step
of the notification, investigation, and follow-on contacts with
the families is conducted properly, professionally, and with
sensitivity to the needs of the families.
Inspector general investigations of general and flag officers
A long standing priority of this committee has been the
integrity, professionalism and accuracy of investigations of
allegations made against general and flag officers. The
Congress and the American people hold military officers to a
higher standard than other members of society. The nation
entrusts its greatest resource, our young men and women, to our
military officers. In return, the nation deserves complete
integrity, moral courage, and the highest moral and ethical
conduct.
When a senior officer is alleged to have committed some
infraction of law or regulation or to have misused his or her
office, the service investigates the allegations under the
auspices of the Inspector General. The committee understands
that, in order to ensure complete, equitable, and legally
sufficient investigations, the investigators must be cautious
and thorough which takes time. However, it has been brought to
the committee's attention that investigations involving a
member of a reserve component seem to require more time to
complete than similar investigations for active component
officers. While there may be circumstances unique to cases
involving reserve component officers, the committee is
concerned about the perception that the Inspectors General are
giving active component investigations preferential treatment.
The committee directs the Department of Defense Inspector
General (DODIG) to review the procedures, case load, available
resources, and the actual performance of investigations of
senior active and reserve component officers of the military
departments and to report to Congress not later than February
2, 1998. The DODIG should determine whether the senior officer
investigation procedures in place in the military departments
discriminate against reserve component officers; whether the
military departments have sufficient personnel and resources in
place to complete accurate, professional investigations in a
timely manner; and, if appropriate, recommend any changes
required to correct deficiencies noted during the review.
Military leave for Federal employees who are members of a Reserve
component unit
The administration request included a legislative proposal
that would have denied military pay to Federal employees who
are members of a reserve component unit and elect to use the
military leave authority under civil service law to attend
annual training. The committee did not include this legislative
request in the bill recommended to the Senate.
Since Operation Desert Storm, the committee has been
concerned about reserve component recruiting and retention and
employer support as reserve components are called on more and
more to support deployments and to relieve excessive active
component PERSTEMPO. The administration's proposal to deny
Federal civilian employees their military pay when they attend
annual training sends precisely the wrong signal to reservists
and to the employers of reservists. As the numbers of
reservists on active duty continue to reach all time high
levels, the Federal Government must continue to be the beacon
by which other employers can guide their policies.
The committee recognizes that the reserve component
personnel accounts were debited by $85.0 million in
anticipation of congressional support for the administration's
legislative proposal. The committee does not intend that the
services or the reserve components be forced to repay the
reserve personnel accounts. The committee expects the
Department of Defense to restore the funds using defense-wide
operations and maintenance funds.
Revisions to missing persons authorities
The committee confirms its continued strong support for the
conference agreement contained in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 regarding U.S. military
personnel missing in action. This language is codified in
Chapter 76 of title 10, United States Code.
The committee notes that this issue has been exhaustively
debated in Congress for many years. The committee also
recognizes the continuing existence of differing views on the
appropriate approach to resolve issues involving missing
American service personnel from previous or future conflicts.
The committee views with grave concern proposals in
Congress to reopen the compromise reached less than a year ago.
The committee believes that further protracted and divisive
debate on this matter would not serve the best interests of the
families of the missing nor would it contribute to the fullest
possible accounting for all missing service personnel. The
committee firmly believes the compromise language in current
law should be preserved given the diversity of views and depth
of emotions on all sides of this matter.
Therefore, the committee restates its commitment to the
provisions within the National Defense Authorization Acts for
Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997 on this matter, and states clearly
that it rejects all modifications which would alter the
compromise already reached.
Sexual harassment
The committee is concerned by an increasing number of
reports that service members who refuse to participate in
improper sexual activities or who report improper sexual
activities by others are being labeled as being ``homosexual''
as a form of retaliation. Such labeling is especially insidious
in its secondary effects which frequently include additional
harassment, humiliation, ostracism, and, in extreme cases,
improper investigation for homosexuality.
The committee urges the Department of Defense and leaders
at all levels to ensure that no individual experience the need
to submit to unwanted sexual advances or harassment for any
reason, and that any individual may report inappropriate
activities without fear of retaliation in any of its many
forms. Additionally, the committee urges the Department of
Defense and leaders at all levels to ensure that the right to
investigate individual conduct is not used as a threat or
abused in any manner.
Virtual education approach to learning for employment
The committee notes that many military personnel reentering
civilian life experience unemployment or underemployment within
the first year out of the service. More than 50 percent either
change or lose their jobs in the first year after leaving the
military. Many military personnel lack civilian job readiness
and current workplace skills that match them with existing
business and industry jobs.
In Fall 1997, Clayton College and State University in
Georgia will establish a ``virtual education program,''
including a civilian job-readiness program. Participating
students would have readily available access to the Internet,
World Wide Web, and job-readiness training programs offered
through Clayton College and State University. In cooperation
with major transportation employers, the virtual education
program will: (1) identify categories of unfilled positions and
establish training curricula (cooperatively with prospective
employers) which will pre-qualify persons for employment; and
(2) offer those training curricula via the Internet/World Wide
Web, without regard to the student's geographic location or
time of day.
The committee directs the Department of Defense to review
the Clayton College and State University program to determine
the applicability of this approach to military personnel
reentering civilian life. Should the Secretary of Defense
desire, the Department of Defense is authorized to conduct a
three-year demonstration to determine the extent to which
information technology and public/private partnership can: (1)
enable service members, while still on active duty, to learn
job-readiness skills and work skills that will qualify them for
and help them retain productive employment; and (2) facilitate
the job placement of personnel upon separation or retirement
from the service.
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
The committee addressed a number of pay, allowances, and
other compensation issues. One of the committee's priorities
this year was to continue to improve the quality of life for
military personnel, their families, and retired service members
and their families. The committee recommended a number of
provisions that would significantly improve the quality of life
and living conditions, and provide equitable compensation for
military personnel to protect against inflation. Notably, the
committee recommends provisions that would reform the basic
allowance for subsistence and the basic allowance for quarters
with the reforms phased in over five years. The committee also
recommended several initiatives that address the Survivor
Benefit Plan. In general, the committee's recommendations
reflect a commitment to enhancing quality of life and a concern
for the welfare of military personnel and their families.
SUBTITLE A--PAY
Section 601. Military pay raise for fiscal year 1998.
The committee recommends a provision that would waive
section 1009 of title 37, United States Code, and increase the
rates of basic pay for members of the uniformed services by 2.8
percent. This increase would be effective January 1, 1998.
SUBTITLE B--SUBSISTENCE, HOUSING, AND OTHER ALLOWANCES
PART I--REFORM OF BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR SUBSISTENCE
The committee recommends a provision (Sections 611 through
613) that would reform the basic allowance for subsistence for
all members of the uniformed services. The recommended
legislation would link the basic allowance for subsistence for
officers and enlisted members to the Department of Agriculture
food plan indexes. The annual increase would be effective on
January 1 of each year.
Additionally, the recommended provision would provide a
transition period during which annual increases in the current
enlisted allowance would be limited to one percent until such
time as the transition period allowance equals the new
Department of Agriculture based allowance. At that time, the
shift to the new allowance would occur. The officer allowance,
which is currently well below the Department of Agriculture
based allowances, would increase annually by the same
percentage as the enlisted allowance.
The recommended provision also provides a new, partial
subsistence allowance for junior enlisted personnel who are not
currently eligible for any subsistence allowance.
PART II--REFORM OF HOUSING AND RELATED ALLOWANCES
The committee recommends a provision (Section 616 through
622)that would adopt a single, price-based housing allowance
based on a national index of housing costs. The recommended provision
would authorize a housing allowance that would vary with pay grade and
dependency status and would be based on local private sector housing
costs. The housing costs would be collected by a private contractor and
would be tailored to the neighborhoods and local housing conditions.
Service members located in areas where the housing rates are projected
to decline would be protected against receiving reduced allowances. The
recommended provision would permit the Secretary of Defense to
transition to the new allowance over a five year period.
The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to assess the
potential impact of the new rates on each area adjacent to a
military installation and to work with the local community to
mitigate any significant impact that might result from a sudden
reduction of housing allowances in that community.
PART III--OTHER AMENDMENTS RELATING TO ALLOWANCES
Section 626. Revision of authority to adjust compensation necessitated
by reform of subsistence and housing allowances.
The committee recommends a provision that would make
technical and conforming amendments related to the provisions
that would reform the basic allowance for quarters and the
basic allowance for housing within the uniformed services.
Section 627. Deadline for payment of Ready Reserve muster duty
allowance.
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the
requirement that members of the Ready Reserve be paid for
muster duty on or before the date on which they perform the
duty. The recommended provision would require that the
allowance be paid on or before, but not later than 30 days
following the date on which the duty is performed. Currently,
the services are required to prepare and issue checks for the
duty before it is performed. In a number of cases each month,
the checks must be canceled when reservists do not report for
the scheduled duty. The recommended provision will save
administrative processing time and money.
SUBTITLE C--BONUSES AND SPECIAL AND INCENTIVE PAYS
Section 631. One-year extension of certain bonuses and special pay
authorities for reserve forces.
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authority to pay the special pay for critically short wartime
health specialists in the Selected Reserve, the Selected
Reserve reenlistment bonuses, the Selected Reserve enlistment
bonuses, the special pay for enlisted members assigned to
certain high priority units in the Selected Reserve, the
Selected Reserve affiliation bonus, the Ready Reserve
enlistment and reenlistment bonus, the repayment of loans for
certain health professionals who serve in the Selected Reserve,
and the prior service enlistment bonus until September 30,
1999.
Section 632. One-year extension of certain bonuses and special pay
authorities for nurse officer candidates, registered nurses,
and nurse anesthetists.
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authority to pay certain bonuses and special pays for nurse
officer candidates, registered nurses, and nurse anesthetists
until September 30, 1999.
Section 633. One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of
other bonuses and special pays.
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authority to pay the aviation officer retention bonus, the
reenlistment bonus for active members, the enlistment bonuses
for critical skills, the special pay for nuclear qualified
officers extending the period of active service, the nuclear
career accession bonus, and the nuclear career annual incentive
bonus until September 30, 1999.
Section 634. Increased amounts for aviation career incentive pay.
The committee recommends a provision that would increase
the aviation career incentive pay for aviators with more than
14 years of service. The recommended provision would be
effective October 1, 1998.
Section 635. Aviation continuation pay.
The committee recommends a provision that would increase
the maximum amount of the aviation officer continuation pay
from $12,000 to $25,000. The aviation officer continuation pay
is approved by a service secretary as an incentive to aviation
career officers who agree to remain on active duty to complete
14 years of commissioned service.
The committee is concerned about the number of military
aviation officers and enlisted crewmembers who are leaving the
military services to accept positions with the commercial
aviation industry. The high personnel tempo for air crews and
the attractive salaries offered by the airlines combine to make
commercial aviation an attractive alternative to military
service.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review
the structure and validity of aviation career retention and
current aviation pay authorities and to provide the Congress a
report, with legislative recommendations if necessary,
concerning how to ensure the military services are able to
retain sufficient qualified aviation officers and enlisted
crewmembers to meetoperational and training requirements. The
report should be provided to the congressional oversight committees not
later than April 15, 1998. At a minimum the study should include an
examination of alternatives which directly contribute to readiness and
take into account total force requirements. Recommendations should be
responsive to changing external (commercial airlines) and internal
(force structure) pressures. Any recommendations must provide a cost-
effective approach to achieving an equitable return on the military
services' investments in developing aviation resources by attaining
greater retention of those resources at career decision points. The
committee expects the Secretary to address compensation programs, the
advisability of a separate career track for aviation officers and
enlisted crewmembers, the question of whether bonuses should be paid to
officers qualified to fly aircraft for which their service is not
experiencing a shortage of pilots, and cooperative programs with the
airline industry, such as the Phoenix program. The committee recognizes
that the results of the Quadrennial Defense Review may have an impact
on the aviation officer and enlisted crewmember requirements.
Section 636. Eligibility of dental officers for the multiyear retention
bonus provided for medical officers.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
multiyear retention bonuses for dental officers similar to
those authorized for medical officers. The recommended
provision is another initiative to enhance the ability of the
services to retain quality dental officers.
Section 637. Increased special pay for dental officers.
The committee recommends a provision that would increase
the amount of the special pay for dental officers of the armed
forces and modify the number of years of service required to
qualify for certain levels of the special pay. The committee
remains concerned with the decreased propensity for dentists to
enter and to remain in the military services. The National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 authorized a
number of incentives to recruit and retain dental officers. The
recommended provision builds on these incentives providing
additional tools for the services to use to retain quality
dental officers.
Section 638. Modification of Selected Reserve reenlistment bonus
authority.
The committee recommends a provision that would provide
service secretaries discretionary authority to determine the
annual payment amounts for reserve reenlistment bonuses. The
initial payment would be limited to not more than one-half of
the total bonus. The recommended provision would also permit a
member to receive a bonus when electing a three-year term of
reenlistment twice in lieu of a single six-year term. The
committee believes that this flexibility may assist the
military services in retaining quality personnel who possess
critical skills. A member opting for the three-year term would
have no assurance that his or her skill would qualify for the
bonus at the conclusion of the first three-year term. The total
value of the bonus for a member electing a six-year term would
be $5,000 and the combined value of two three-year terms,
assuming that the bonus is in effect for the second three-year
term, would be limited to $4,500. This continues the incentive
to select a six-year term. The recommended provision would also
extend the eligibility for receiving reenlistment bonuses from
10 years of service to 14 years of service.
Section 639. Modification of authority to pay bonuses for enlistments
by prior service personnel in critical skills in the Selected
Reserve.
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
Selected Reserve prior service enlistment bonus to permit a
member to receive a bonus for a three-year term of enlistment
and a subsequent three-year reenlistment in lieu of a single
six-year enlistment option. The committee believes that this
flexibility may assist the military services in recruiting
prior service personnel who possess critical skills to serve in
the Selected Reserve. The committee understands that a member
opting for a three-year term would have no assurance that his
or her skill would qualify for the bonus at the conclusion of
the three-year term. Additionally, the total value of the bonus
for a member electing a six-year term would be $5,000 and the
combined value of two three-year terms, assuming that the bonus
is in effect for the second three-year term, would be limited
to $4,500. This continues the incentive for an individual to
select a six-year term.
Section 640. Increased special pay and bonuses for nuclear qualified
officers.
The committee recommends a provision that would increase
the maximum authorized rate for three nuclear special pays and
bonuses for nuclear qualified officers of the Navy.
Section 641. Authority to pay bonuses in lieu of special pay for
enlisted members extending duty at designated locations
overseas.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the service secretaries to pay a lump sum payment of up to
$2,000 per year to qualified enlisted members who extend their
duty at designated overseas locations. The recommended
provision:
(1) authorizes the service secretaries to fix the
rate at which the date of the extension agreement is
accepted by the service;
(2) establishes the government's ability to
recoverpayments for which service agreements are not completed; and
(3) removes the entitlement to such payment for those
members who elect to receive government-funded rest and
recuperative absences or transportation.
SUBTITLE D--RETIRED PAY, SURVIVOR BENEFITS, AND RELATED MATTERS
Section 651. One-year opportunity to discontinue participation in
Survivor Benefit Plan.
The committee recommends a provision that would permit a
participant in the Survivor Benefit Plan to elect to
discontinue participation at any time during a one-year period
beginning on the second year anniversary of the date on which
the member retired. The participant may not elect to
discontinue participation without the written concurrence of
the spouse. The Secretary of Defense may prescribe regulations
requiring this written concurrence to be notarized.
Participants who elect to withdraw are not entitled to a refund
of premiums paid into the Survivor Benefit Plan.
Section 652. Time for changing survivor benefit coverage from former
spouse to spouse.
The committee recommends a provision that would permit a
military retiree to change the beneficiary of his or her
Survivor Benefit Plan from a former spouse to a current spouse
at any time after the retiree remarries. Currently, the change
of election is required to be made within one year of the date
of the marriage.
Section 653. Paid-up coverage under Survivor Benefit Plan.
The committee recommends a provision that would terminate
Survivor Benefit Plan payments following 30 years of payments
and attaining the age of 70. The committee believes that, once
a retiree has paid Survivor Benefit Plan premiums for a minimum
of thirty years and has reached 70 years of age, he or she has
met the actuarial obligation to support any benefit which may
accrue to his or her beneficiary. The recommended provision
returns the Survivor Benefit Plan subsidy to an appropriate
level without detracting from current efforts to balance the
budget by fiscal year 2002.
Section 654. Annuities for certain military surviving spouses.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
an annuity of $165 a month for surviving spouses of former
active duty service members who died before March 21, 1974, and
were retired from active duty. The recommended provision would
also apply to surviving spouses of service members retired from
the reserves between September 21, 1972, and October 1, 1978.
These surviving spouses, known as ``Forgotten Widows,'' are the
survivors of retired military personnel who died before any
survivor benefit program was enacted.
SUBTITLE E--OTHER MATTERS
Section 661. Eligibility of reserves for benefits for illness, injury,
or death incurred or aggravated in line of duty.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
medical and dental care for the family member of a reservist
who incurs or aggravates an injury or illness in the line of
duty while serving on active duty for a period of 30 days or
less and whose orders are subsequently modified to extend the
period of active duty. The National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1996 authorized medical and dental care for a
member of a reserve component who incurs or aggravates an
injury or illness in the line of duty while serving on active
duty for a period of 30 days or less. The recommended provision
extends the medical and dental benefit to the family members of
the member who remains on active duty due to his or her injury
or illness.
Section 662. Travel and transportation allowances for dependents before
approval of a member's court-martial sentence.
The committee recommends a provision that would permit the
service secretaries to move family members when a crime has
been committed by the military sponsor. Currently, family
members must remain on station until the court-martial sentence
is approved. This forces some families to endure ostracism and
criticism for the acts of the military sponsor. The recommended
provision permits the service secretary to move the family when
it is in the best interests of the family and the service.
Section 663. Eligibility of members of the uniformed services for
reimbursement of adoption expenses.
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorization for reimbursement of adoption expenses in effect
for the armed forces to the Public Health Service and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
Health Professions Scholarship Program
The committee notes that the Department of Defense
submitted two legislative proposals related to the Health
Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP). One legislative
proposal would have authorized the Secretary of Defense to
reimburse participants in the HPSP for Federal, State, or local
taxes paid based on thevalue of the scholarship. The other
legislative proposal would have permitted the Secretary of Defense to
pay participants in the HPSP a supplemental stipend to offset the tax
liability related to the scholarship.
The committee does not believe that the value of the HPSP
scholarship should be considered taxable income for the young
men and women who are committed to serve the armed forces as a
health care professional. The committee notes that the
administration can revise the Internal Revenue Code to make
tuition and expenses paid on behalf of the HPSP participants
excludable from taxable income without legislative authority.
The committee urges the Secretary of Defense and the
administration to exercise the discretion incumbent in the
Executive Branch to resolve this situation.
The Department budgeted a total of $87.6 million to support
the two legislative proposals. The committee has applied these
funds to quality of life improvements described in another
section of this report.
Review of the Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation
The committee notes that the Department of Defense is about
to conclude work on the 8th Quadrennial Review of Military
Compensation (QRMC). The committee also notes that, for the
most part, the recommendations of the previous seven QRMCs have
not been pursued either in policy or through legislative
requests. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to review the requirement for and necessity to conduct
a quadrennial review of military compensation and report the
results, conclusions, and recommendations of this study to the
congressional defense committees not later than March 16, 1998.
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
The committee addressed a number of health care issues. One
of the committee's priorities this year was to continue 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 included a provision that would provide
health care to military personnel assigned to duty in remote
locations. The committee continues to support and work with the
Committee on Finance of the Senate to 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 (DOD) 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.
Section 701. Waiver of deductibles, copayments, and annual fees for
members assigned to certain duty locations far from sources of
care.
The committee recommends a provision that would make active
duty service members assigned to certain remote duty locations
eligible for health care under the Civilian Health and Medical
Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) and directs the
secretaries of the military departments to waive the annual
fees, deductibles, and copayments associated with CHAMPUS.
The committee report accompanying S. 1026, the National
Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 1996, expressed the
committee's concern about the medical care for service members
stationed away from major military installations. Additionally,
the committee report encouraged the civilian and military
leaders of the Department of Defense to develop initiatives to
address this matter and other challenges faced by service
members on independent duty.
The committee commends the Secretary of Defense for the
Department's efforts to provide acceptable medical care to
individuals in remote locations through the TRICARE Remote
initiative. Although this program is operational in only one
region, the committee understands that the Department intends
to extend this program to other regions provided that it
remains cost effective. The committee encourages the Secretary
of Defense to continue to search for ways to provide medical
care to those service members and their families who are
stationed away from major military installations. In that
light, the Secretary should consider a number of options,
including the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, in an
effort to find the optimal means of providing care to these
individuals.
Section 702. Payment for emergency health care overseas for military
and civilian personnel of the On-Site Inspection Agency.
The committee recommends a provision that would provide
authority for the Secretary of Defense to pay for emergency
medical health care costs of military and civilian personnel
assigned to the On-Site Inspection Agency while participating
in arms control inspections overseas from funds available to
the On-Site Inspection Agency (OSIA).
The mission of the On-Site Inspection Agency requires the
frequent travel of military and civilian personnel assigned to
the agency to many countries in the area of the former Soviet
Union, including Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakstan, as
well as former Warsaw Pact nations. The agency has had
difficulties having health insurance accepted overseas for
medical assistance. Cash or credit card deposits for medical
services have been required prior to the receipt of medical
services. There have been instances where, in order to receive
medical assistance, military and civilian personnel
participating in the inspections conducted by OSIA have been
required to deposit as much as ten thousand dollars.
Section 703. Disclosures of cautionary information on prescription
medications.
The committee recommends a provision that would require
that each prescription dispensed from the Military Health Care
System, including the TRICARE and CHAMPUS programs, be
accompanied by information containing cautions about use,
possible side effects, and potential negative interaction with
food or beverages. This information is to be in a form which is
easy to read and understand.
Section 704. Health care services for certain Reserves who served in
Southwest Asia during the Persian Gulf War.
The committee recommends a provision that would entitle a
member of a reserve component who is a Persian Gulf War
veteran; registers a symptom or illness in the Persian Gulf War
Veterans Health Surveillance System of the Department of
Defense; and is not otherwise entitled to medical and dental
care from the Military Health Care System to medical and dental
care to the same extent and under the same conditions as a
member on active duty. The committee found that reservists who
served in the Persian Gulf War, returned, and were discharged
from active duty and now suffer from Persian Gulf Illness may
not be eligible for care within the Military Health Care
System. The recommended provision entitles these Persian Gulf
War veterans to medical and dental care for the symptoms or
illnesses that are presumed to be related to service in the
Persian Gulf War from the Military Health Care System free of
charge.
Section 705. Collection of dental insurance premiums.
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
premium collection method prescribed for the Selected Reserve
Dental Insurance Program and the Retiree Dental Insurance
Program.
The committee remains steadfast in its determination that
these dental insurance programs be implemented in the most
efficient and cost-effective manner possible. Commercial dental
insurance providers estimate that premium collection from
individual participants will increase the premium costs by 20
to 25 percent. If direct collection was possible, these savings
would be passed on to the selected reservist and retiree. The
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the
determination of the method in which premiums are collected not
unnecessarily inflate the amount of the premium. The committee
expects to be apprised of the Department's plans for premium
collection and the analysis upon which the decision was based
before the plans are implemented.
Section 706. Dental insurance plan coverage for retirees of uniformed
service in the Public Health Service and NOAA.
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
eligibility for the retiree dental plan of the Department of
Defense to retirees of the Public Health Service and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Section 707. Prosthetic devices for dependents.
The committee recommends a provision that would remove
prosthetic devices from the list of exclusions of care and
devices which may be provided under the Civilian Health and
Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS). The
recommended provision would permit certain prosthetic devices
to be provided in response to conditions determined by the
Secretary of Defense. Hearing aids, orthopedic footwear, and
spectacles are not included in this authority, except that
these items may be sold to family members at stations outside
the United States where adequate civilian facilities are not
available.
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
Continued operation of the Uniformed Services University of the Health
Sciences
The committee was disappointed to learn that, for the third
consecutive year, the Department of Defense proposed closing
the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
(USUHS). In fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997, the Congress
spoke, in the most direct terms possible, that it is the will
of the Congress that USUHS not be closed. Again this year, the
committee will not support the proposed request to close USUHS.
The Department of Defense decreased the Defense Health
Program in fiscal year 1998 and in the Future Years Defense
Plan to take projected savings, erroneously assuming USUHS
would be closed. The committee directs that reductions to the
Defense Health Program attributable to the projected closure of
USUHS be reinstated from defense-wide operations and
maintenance accounts. It is the intent of the committee that
neither the military services nor the Defense Health Account be
required to contribute to reinstating the USUHS closure
savings.
Dental research and development
It has come to the attention of the committee that, within
the medical research and development community, dental research
and development is compartmentalized. For instance, the Navy is
restricted to dental research on dental disease and
emergencies, and the Army is restricted to dental research on
maxillofacial trauma. While the committee agrees that research
and development must be coordinated to ensure that research
projects are complimentary and do not duplicate other efforts,
artificial restrictions by service do not appear to be the most
efficient use of resources and talent. The committee urges the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs and the
Surgeons Generalto review the current policies and practices
with regard to dental research and development to ensure that funds,
facilities, and other resources are being used effectively and
efficiently. If, upon completion of this review, the Assistant
Secretary of Defense determines that legislative changes are required,
these recommendations should be submitted to the congressional
oversight committees not later than March 16, 1998.
Graduate School of Nursing building at the Uniformed Services
University of the Health Sciences
The Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
(USUHS) facilities were constructed in 1976 as a four building
campus on the grounds of the National Naval Medical Center in
Bethesda, Maryland. The facility was not constructed to the
original design. Over 76,000 square feet of academic and
laboratory space were excluded.
The Graduate School of Nursing was initially funded in
1993, was accredited by the Council on Accreditation of Nurse
Anesthesia Educational Programs in 1994, and was fully
accredited by the National League of Nursing in 1996. The
Graduate School of Nursing programs are designed to relieve
nursing shortages in the uniformed services, to prepare
advanced practice nurses, and to address the special nursing
needs of Federal nursing chiefs.
The committee urges USUHS to submit a military construction
project to construct a fifth building within the USUHS campus
which will provide classrooms; administration, instructor, and
staff offices; and laboratories to support the Graduate School
of Nursing. This fifth building would support the additional
missions assigned to USUHS, alleviate the shortage of space
resulting from cuts to the initial design, and eliminate the
requirements for leased facilities in the local area.
Health care provisions
A longstanding priority of this committee has been the
improvement of the military health care system. Health care is
an important aspect of quality of life. The committee is
committed to ensuring the quality and availability of medical
care for all members of the military community including active
duty personnel and their dependents, retirees, and veterans.
However, the committee is concerned that the Department of
Defense (DOD) faces significant constraints on its ability to
meet the entire range of benefits expected by participants in
the Military Health Service System. As Congress continues its
efforts to balance the entire Federal budget, these constraints
are likely to become more severe. As the committee continues to
evaluate methods to improve the Military Health Service System
in an environment of constrained resources, it is committed to
the principle that in improving health care access to military
beneficiaries, it does not improve access to some at the
expense of others.
The issue of health care for military retirees over 65 is
of special concern to the committee. The nation has incurred a
moral obligation to attempt to provide health care to military
retirees who believed they were promised lifetime health care
in exchange for a lifetime of military service. The nation
fulfills its obligation through Medicare. However, under
present law, retirees over 65 are not eligible for
participation in Military Health Service System, except on a
space-available basis at military treatment facilities. The
Department of Defense is not reimbursed by Medicare for the
cost of care provided to Medicare-eligible retirees.
Several proposals have been offered to address this
problem: (1) Medicare Subvention; (2) Federal Employees Health
Benefit Program (FEHBP) Enrollment; and (3) TRICARE Enrollment.
The committee supports Medicare Subvention and believes it
would be fiscally beneficial to Medicare and would improve the
ability of the Department of Defense to provide health care to
military retirees over the age of 65. However, subvention has
at least two shortcomings. First, it does not meet the needs of
military retirees over 65 who do not live near military
treatment facilities. Second, while reimbursement from Medicare
accounts will partially alleviate fiscal pressures within the
Military Health Service System, as the Department of Defense
continues to reduce its health care infrastructure, maintaining
access will increase in difficulty.
Regarding enrollment in the FEHBP, the Congressional Budget
Office has estimated that the cost of enrolling Medicare-
eligible military retirees in the FEHBP is $900 million
annually. The primary advantage to FEHBP enrollment is the
ability of beneficiaries to seek and obtain health care
anywhere in the nation insurers in the FEHBP provide service.
However, the committee is greatly concerned by additional costs
this program would incur if offered in addition to the benefits
currently available to retirees over the age of 65.
Allowing military retirees over the age of 65 to enroll in
TRICARE would require that additional resources be made
available to military treatment facilities to ensure that all
TRICARE beneficiaries were guaranteed access. The committee
notes the estimated $274.0 million shortfall in the budget
request to fund the Military Health Service System. Without
corresponding changes in the TRICARE system, expanding
enrollment in TRICARE is likely to exacerbate the current
difficulties TRICARE faces in meeting all the needs of Military
Health Service System beneficiaries.
Despite the difficulties in choosing the optimal approach
to addressing military health care concerns, the committee
believes that a comprehensive approach to reforming the DOD
health care system is required. In addition to ensuring access
to health care coverage, it is also necessary to ensure that
health care is available to beneficiaries wherever they serve
or retire.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a
study of the cost and feasibility of authorizing the FEHBP for
all non-active duty beneficiaries, while maintaining a wartime
combat medicine capability for active duty personnel. The
studyshould include cost estimates for including all active duty
dependents and all retirees (both above and below the age of 65) and
their dependents. It should also include an assessment for what impact
this may have on the defense health care infrastructure. The Secretary
must report to Congress not later than March 1, 1998. The report of the
study should include a description of the assumptions used in the study
as well as a recommendation as to whether such a proposal should be
adopted.
One possible alternative to addressing the issue of access
to health care facilities is to enhance the growing cooperation
and coordination between the Department of Defense and Veterans
Administration (VA) health care systems. The committee supports
the growing relationship between the Eisenhower Army Medical
Center and the Veterans Administration Medical Center in
Augusta, Georgia. These facilities have established a sharing
agreement which allows each to provide certain health care
services to the beneficiaries of the other. This type of joint
approach has the potential to alleviate part of the
accessibility problem, especially given the reduction in
military medical treatment facilities.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Department of Veterans Affairs, to study
the cost and feasibility of integrating all or part of the DOD
and VA medical treatment provided. The study should include an
assessment of whether improved geographical access to
facilities would result in expanding the numbers of facilities
available to beneficiaries. It should also include an
assessment of the impact on utilization rates at all facilities
and what costs would be entailed or whether savings might
result from economies of scale. The study should address the
issue of reimbursement between the Department of Defense and
the Department of Veterans Affairs and how a Medicare
Subvention program would affect reimbursement among the
Departments of Health and Human Services, Defense, and Veterans
Affairs. The Secretary of Defense must report to Congress not
later than October 1, 1998.
Maintenance medication dispensing policy
It has come to the attention of the committee that the
Department of Defense (DOD) policy regarding dispensing of
maintenance medications permits military treatment facilities
to determine whether to dispense 30, 60, or 90 day supplies. As
such, actual practice varies widely among military treatment
facilities. The June 1995 DOD policy does direct military
treatment facilities to implement local dispensing policies
which provide that prescription quantities will be filled as
written for up to a 90-day supply for maintenance medications.
The committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Health Affairs, in conjunction with the Surgeons General,
to review the maintenance medication dispensing policy with a
view towards modifying the current policy to dispense
maintenance medications for a 90-day period unless specifically
determined by the local military treatment facility commander
to be inappropriate for medical reasons. The committee directs
the Assistant Secretary of Defense to report the results of the
review and the new maintenance medication dispensing policy, if
changed, to the congressional oversight committees not later
than March 16, 1998.
Programs related to breast and prostate cancer
The committee notes that the Department of Defense has been
a leader in the nation's efforts to understand the causes of
and to find cures for breast and prostate cancer. The Army's
Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program continues to
advance the cause against this deadly disease. The Navy's
Breast Care Center at the National Naval Medical Center has,
after only one year, dramatically increased the early detection
of cancer. The committee believes that there are additional
opportunities for the Department of Defense to further research
programs related to breast and prostate cancer, including the
potential to establish a Breast and Prostate Cancer Center of
Excellence. Such a center would use the latest diagnostic
equipment, improved protocols, and educational outreach
programs. The committee expects that such an activity could
continue to find methods to permit early detection, reduce
suffering and pain, reduce the necessity for complicated
surgeries, enhance patient and physician cancer education, and
reduce long-term health care costs for the Department of
Defense. The combined effect of these outcomes would contribute
to improved readiness and reduce service member man days lost
to these diseases. The committee authorizes the Department of
Defense to use such funds as may be appropriated for these
purposes.
Telemedicine in TRICARE Region 7
The committee is encouraged by the military services'
effective use of telemedicine to provide needed health care to
members serving in remote and rural areas. The committee
supports the expansion of telemedical services into broader
geographic areas. The committee authorizes the Department of
the Air Force medical authorities to examine the potential for
effective use of telemedicine in TRICARE Region 7 in
consultation with the Army's Center for Excellence located in
Augusta, Georgia. The committee directs the Secretary of the
Air Force to submit a report to the congressional oversight
committees by March 1, 1998, on its findings and
recommendations regarding the establishment of a telemedicine
program for Region 7.
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
The committee recommends a number of provisions to improve
the management of the process for acquiring goods and services
in the Department of Defense and other federal agencies.
Theseprovisions are a reflection of the committee's strong interest in
continued acquisition management reform.
On March 19, 1997, the Subcommittee on Acquisition and
Technology convened a hearing to review the status of
acquisition reform efforts in the Department of Defense. At the
hearing testimony was presented by Dr. Paul Kaminski, Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology as well as
representatives from the military services. The subcommittee
also received testimony from representatives of business
associations and the legal community. The witnesses generally
presented a positive picture of acquisition reform within the
Department of Defense (DOD). The benefits of these reforms are
evidenced by the improved DOD access to advanced commercial
technologies and to commercial products priced in the general
marketplace.
The committee believes that the next two years are a
critical period in which DOD managers should consolidate the
reforms that have been achieved and reengineer acquisition
business practices even further. Several negative factors could
undermine what has already been accomplished. Budget pressures
on the size of the professional acquisition workforce and the
funds available for training and education could leave the DOD
unable to implement systems that incorporate appropriate
business practices. Attempts by some in industry to use catalog
pricing mechanisms to justify unreasonable price increases for
spare parts or other items would invite a return to the mid-
1980's legislative climate of strict regulation.
The committee remains committed to a course of sustainable
reform as a primary means of ensuring an affordable, strong
defense as the Nation moves into the 21st century. It is the
committee's view that there are a number of features that
continuing reform must include:
Preservation of high-level commitment to reform as
the new management team is nominated and confirmed;
Management of the acquisition workforce to ensure
that further downsizing is carried out in a rational
manner: that education and training programs are
adequately funded and structured to prepare acquisition
professionals to work effectively in a less structured
business environment; that recruiting efforts are
sufficient to maintain the vitality of the workforce;
and that parity in promotion rates between acquisition
professionals and non-acquisition personnel is
considered to ensure retention of expertise in the
military services;
Maintenance of the substance and appearance of
integrity in the acquisition workforce and compliance
with essential safeguards in the acquisition process in
the face of continued pressures to reduce oversight,
downsize organizations and streamline procedures;
Preservation of robust competitive forces in light of
industry consolidation and focus on bringing greater
considerations of efficiency in acquisition decisions;
Responsible exercise of the new flexibility and
discretion granted to acquisition professionals to
obtain the best value in products and services in the
interest of the taxpayers and the national defense; and
Establishment of long-term funding stability for
major programs to make weapon systems more affordable
and to ensure that managers in government and industry
can be held more accountable for their individual
performance.
SUBTITLE A--AMENDMENTS TO GENERAL CONTRACTING AUTHORITIES, PROCEDURES,
AND LIMITATIONS
Section 801. Streamlined approval requirements for contracts under
international agreements.
The committee recommends a provision that would streamline
documentation requirements under section 2304(f) of title 10,
United States Code, in cases where the terms of an
international agreement, treaty, or written instructions from a
foreign government in connection with a foreign military sale
would have the effect of requiring the use of other than
competitive procedures. Under this provision, the head of the
contracting activity would be required to document the
circumstances compelling the use of non-competitive procedures,
but the approval of the agency competition advocate would not
be required.
Section 802. Restriction on undefinitized contract actions.
The committee recommends a provision that would permit the
head of a defense agency to waive the limitations on the use of
undefinitized contract actions when such a waiver would be
necessary to support contingency, peacekeeping, humanitarian
assistance, and disaster relief operations.
Section 803. Expansion of authority to cross fiscal years to all
severable service contracts not exceeding a year.
The committee recommends a provision that would broaden the
current limited authority of the Department of Defense to
expend appropriated funds for severable service contracts that
cross fiscal years. The committee notes that such authority was
provided to civilian agencies under the Federal Acquisition
Streamlining Act of 1994.
The committee directs that the Comptroller General review
the operation of this provision and report to Congress no later
than March 1, 2000. The report should address: (1) the total
amount and sources of funds obligated under the provision; (2)
the types of services procured under the provision; (3) the
fiscal years in which the services were ordered and provided;
(4) the reasons for which the provision was used; (5) any
abuses of the provision (such as efforts to avoid year-end
spending limitations); and (6) any recommendations for
legislative or administrative changesthat the Comptroller
General may believe to be appropriate.
Section 804. Limitation on allowability of compensation for certain
contractor personnel.
In the statement of managers accompanying Public Law 104-
201 (Report 104-724), the conferees directed the Administrator
for Federal Procurement Policy to develop and propose
legislation establishing a limitation on the reimbursement of
individual compensation on government contracts. The conferees
directed that the proposal clarify the definition of
compensation covered by such limitation. The administration has
developed and submitted a proposal to Congress, as directed.
The administration proposal would: 1) limit the reimbursement
of senior executive salaries to the median salary of executives
in companies of similar sizes; 2) define executive compensation
to include the total amount of wages, salary, bonuses, and
deferred compensation that is recorded in the contractor's cost
accounting records for the year; 3) apply the limitations
applicable to the five most highly-paid executives of a
contractor, or any division of the contractor; and 4) make the
limitations applicable to all cost-type contracts.
The committee has carefully reviewed this proposal as well
as a number of other approaches, such as a specified dollar
limitation for compensation, as was imposed by Congress on an
interim basis in the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997. The committee believes that a limitation
based on comparability with commercial industry practice is
preferable to a specific limitation based on an arbitrary
dollar amount. A comparability approach recognizes that defense
must compete with the commercial sector for the same pool of
experienced, skilled managers, scientists and engineers.
However, the committee believes that the approach proposed
by the administration is unsupportable because it would allow
individual compensation of up to $4.0 million for large
contractors. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision
that would adopt the framework of the administration proposal,
but would change the method of calculating the limitation on
individual compensation by using the median salary of senior
executives in all public corporations with annual sales in
excess of $50.0 million, regardless of the size of the company.
The Defense Contract Audit Agency has stated that the
compensation limitation imposed by this formula would be
$340,000 based on the most recently available data.
The committee believes that this approach will provide
appropriate flexibility for small and medium businesses that
rely primarily on contracts with the Department of Defense.
Section 805. Increased price limitation on purchases of right-hand
drive vehicles.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
requirement in section 2253 of title 10, United States Code, by
raising the limitation on the purchase price of right-hand
drive vehicles from $12,000 to $30,000. Given inflationary
trends and currency exchange rate fluctuations, the committee
believes that this change will allow the purchase of vehicles
that meet appropriate safety and other standards required under
Department of Defense acquisition laws.
Section 806. Conversion of defense capability preservation authority to
Navy shipbuilding capability preservation authority.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 808 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 to restrict its application to shipbuilding
and to vest the Secretary of the Navy with the authority to
enter into modified capability preservation agreements. The
provision would also limit applicability of the agreements to
costs incurred after the date of enactment of this Act for
commercial contracts that became effective on or after January
26, 1996.
Section 807. Elimination of certification requirement for grants.
The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate
the drug-free workplace certification requirements in relation
to federal grants in a similar manner provided for federal
contracts in section 4301(a)(3) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996. The committee strongly
supports the continued requirement that persons accept and
enforce the drug-free workplace laws as a condition for the
award of a contract or grant with a federal agency.
Section 808. Repeal of limitation on adjustment of shipbuilding
contracts.
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 2405 of title 10, United States Code, effective upon
the date of enactment of this Act. This provision would apply
the current six-year limitation for the submission of claims in
the Contract Disputes Act as the sole limitation on
shipbuilding claims.
SUBTITLE B--CONTRACT PROVISIONS
Section 811. Contractor guarantees of major systems.
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
requirements in section 2403 of title 10, United States Code,
to provide flexibility to the Secretary of Defense and the
secretaries of the military services to decide the appropriate
use of warranties in contracts for the production of major
weapon systems. The committee notes that a recent report issued
by the General Accounting Office documented that, because of
the restrictive requirements in statute, the benefits to the
Department of Defense (DOD) from major systems warranties are
far exceeded by the associated costs. The provision recommended
bythe committee is intended to allow the DOD and the military
services broad discretion to require major systems warranties only in
cases where it is determined to be appropriate and cost effective.
Section 812. Vesting of title in the United States under contracts paid
under progress payment arrangements or similar arrangements.
The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the
rights of a federal agency to title to contractor work-in-
process under contracts where the agency has provided financing
of the contract performance. The committee intends this
provision to clarify what has been the usual practice with
regard to federal agencies interpretation of rights under
current contract provisions.
SUBTITLE C--ACQUISITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
Section 821. Procurement technical assistance programs.
The committee recommends a provision that would provide
$12.0 million in fiscal year 1998 to continue the Procurement
Technical Assistance Center (PTAC) program administered by the
Defense Logistics Agency. The PTAC program is a cost-shared
venture supported by the Department of Defense (DOD) and
states, local entities, non-profit and tribal organizations to
assist predominantly small businesses interested in selling
goods or services to federal agencies. An increasing part of
the PTAC mission is to assist DOD in the deployment of
electronic commerce and electronic data interchange (EC/EDI)
networks.
The committee is concerned that there may be significant
duplication in these deployment efforts between the PTA centers
and the Electronic Commerce Resource Centers (ECRC) funded
elsewhere in this bill. The committee therefore directs the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report not later than February
1, 1998 on procedures to ensure the elimination of duplication
between the PTAC and the ECRC networks in EC/EDI deployment.
The report should also assess the feasibility and desirability
of consolidating the PTAC and ECRC programs into a single
network.
Section 822. One-year extension of Pilot Mentor-Protege Program.
The mentor-protege program provides incentives to major
Department of Defense prime contractors to assist small
disadvantaged businesses and qualified organizations employing
the severely disabled to enhance their capabilities as
contractors or subcontractors on Department of Defense
contracts. Under this program, more than 160 prime contractors
have assisted small disadvantaged businesses in developing
business processes and manufacturing capabilities.
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
period in which mentor firms may incur costs for furnishing
developmental assistance under the program until September 30,
2000. The provision would also extend the period during which
new agreements can be entered into until September 30, 1999.
The committee believes that the mentor-protege program
should be thoroughly evaluated before any further extensions of
the program are contemplated. Therefore, the committee directs
the General Accounting Office to review the implementation of
the program and evaluate the extent to which the program is
achieving the goals established by Congress in 1990. The report
should also describe the manner in which program funds have
been obligated, including a description of the average amount
spent by the Department of Defense on individual mentor-protege
agreements. The report should include a description of the
benefits of the program to the Department and industry.
Finally, the committee is interested in an evaluation of the
effectiveness of the incentives provided to mentor firms under
the program. The committee directs the report to be provided to
the congressional defense committees no later than March 31,
1998.
Section 823. Test program for negotiation of comprehensive
subcontracting plans.
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
current test program for negotiating comprehensive
subcontracting plans from September 30, 1998 to September 30,
2000. The provision would also address participating
contractors acting as subcontractors under a Department of
Defense (DOD) prime contract by allowing them to include their
major subcontracts within their comprehensive subcontracting
plans. The committee believes that the DOD should expand the
program in manner that would encourage prime contractors to
enter the program on a plant or facility basis.
Section 824. Price preference for small and disadvantaged businesses.
Section 2323 of title 10, United States Code, requires that
the Secretary of Defense to obligate five percent of the total
amount of funding for research and development, procurement,
operations and maintenance, and military construction for
contracts and subcontracts with small and disadvantaged
businesses, historically Black colleges and universities, and
minority institutions. Through its aggressive efforts, the
Department of Defense (DOD) has met or exceeded this goal each
year since fiscal year 1992. Preliminary figures for fiscal
year 1996 indicate that the combined percentages for prime and
subcontract awards are nearly nine percent of total prime and
subcontract expenditures for the DOD.
Among the tools available to the DOD within this program is
the authority to pay up to 10 percent above fair market cost
per contract for contractors or subcontractors who meet the
preference criteria. DOD expenditures for the cost of
preference payments are approximately $10.0 million per year.
The committeebelieves that such an expenditure is unnecessary
since the DOD appears to be awarding contracts far in excess of the
statutory objective. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision
that would condition the use of the section 2323 price preference
criteria on the failure of the DOD to meet the goal in the prior fiscal
year.
SUBTITLE D--ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 831. Retention of expired funds during the pendency of contract
litigation.
The committee recommends a provision that would permit
federal agencies to retain amounts collected pursuant to the
Contract Disputes Act of 1978 to satisfy a settlement reached
between parties or a judgment rendered in favor of a contractor
through the Federal Courts or the Armed Services Board of
Contract Appeals. The provision would also require the
Comptroller of the Department of Defense to provide an annual
report to Congress on the amounts available for obligation
under the authority of this provision.
Section 832. Protection of certain information from disclosure.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2371 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that
certain information submitted by outside parties in
transactions governed by the authority under that section is
protected from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United
States Code.
Section 833. Content of limited selected acquisition reports.
The committee recommends a provision that would remove an
unnecessary program completion status reporting requirement in
section 2432 of title 10, United States Code.
Section 834. Unit cost reports.
The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate
duplicative cost reporting of requirements on unit costs of
major weapon defense acquisition programs. The provision would
also eliminate an unnecessary internal reporting requirement
concerning contract cost growth. The committee notes that the
Department of Defense has other, more meaningful systems for
tracking cost and schedule variances in major programs.
Section 835. Central Department of Defense point of contact for
contracting information.
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Under Secretary of Defense to designate an official in his
office to serve as a central point of contact for persons
seeking information about how and where to submit unsolicited
proposals, how and where to respond to contract solicitations,
procedures for being included on approved suppliers lists, and
other contracting information.
SUBTITLE E--OTHER MATTERS
Section 841. Defense business combinations.
On April 15, 1997, the Subcommittee on Acquisition and
Technology conducted a hearing to examine a number of specific
issues with respect to current consolidation trends in the
national technology and industrial base supporting national
defense. The witnesses at the hearing included Representative
Chris Smith, representatives from the Department of Defense
(DOD), the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, and
representatives from the Wall Street investment community,
public interest organizations, and industry associations.
During the hearing, the subcommittee reviewed two issues in
the area of industrial consolidation. First, the subcommittee
considered the Executive Branch procedures for review of merger
proposals to ensure preservation of competition. Based on that
review, the committee determined that current procedures in the
DOD, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Department of
Justice appear to provide for a very detailed consideration of
competition issues. The committee urges the Department of
Defense and the antitrust agencies to maintain the current
rigorous scrutiny on competition issues as downsizing
continues. The committee believes that scrutiny of the vertical
effects of mergers is particularly important in the current
environment.
The second issue the subcommittee considered during the
hearing involved the DOD policy with respect to reimbursement
of restructuring costs associated with mergers and
acquisitions. After hearing the views of proponents and
opponents of the current DOD policy, the committee concluded
that the policy is sound and benefits the interests of the
taxpayer by maintaining a strong, responsive national defense
technology and industrial base through a process of rational
downsizing. The committee notes with approval the current
requirement that any reimbursement of restructuring costs
associated with acquisitions and mergers be offset by contract
savings at a rate of 2-1 from the industry and that these are
the only reimbursed contract costs for which offsetting savings
are required. The General Accounting Office raised a concern
about the lack of documentation related to savings on
individual weapon systems prices under the current DOD policy.
The committee believes that this area requires further
examination.
In order to address the issues raised at the subcommittee
hearing, the committee recommends a provision that would
require a number of actions to be taken. The provision would
extend for an additional two years the reporting requirement on
the payment of restructuring costs under section 818 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public
Law 103-337). The provision would also require a report on the
competitive effectof mergers and acquisitions approved in the
prior year and a series of reports by the General Accounting Office
(GAO) on any adverse effects of competition on major market areas of
business combinations as well as the beneficial effects of mergers and
acquisitions on contract weapon system prices. The committee recognizes
the potential difficulties associated with DOD audit of the beneficial
effects on weapon systems prices. As a result, the committee directs
the GAO to include in its report detailed comments by the Department on
the feasibility and desirability of devoting audit resources to develop
such information.
Section 842. Lease of nonexcess property of Defense Agencies.
The committee recommends a provision that would extend to
the directors of defense agencies authority currently granted
to the service secretaries to lease non-excess property under
certain circumstances.
Section 843. Promotion rate for officers in an Acquisition Corps.
The committee is concerned that promotion rates for members
of the acquisition corps in the military services may be
falling short of the goals Congress sought in the Defense
Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act of 1990. If such trends
go unchecked, the military services risk losing their most
skilled acquisition professionals in the grades of 0-5 and 0-6
as opportunities for further advancement are perceived to be
foreclosed. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision
that would require the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology to review reports of certain
selection boards to grades above 0-4, upon approval by the
President or his designee. The provision would also require the
Under Secretary to report to Congress annually on the extent to
which the military services are complying with section 1731(b)
of title 10, United States Code.
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
Multiple award task order and delivery order contracts
The Department of Defense recommended a provision that
would authorize the use of set-aside procedures in the
placement of orders under multiple award task order and
delivery order contracts. Such contracts, authorized in the
Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, are an innovative
means to enable agencies to award parallel contracts to
multiple bidders to preserve competition throughout the life of
the contract.
Federal agencies have used the new authority to issue
``government-wide acquisition contracts'' bundling together
large numbers of requirements into a single contract. The
administration believes that the use of set-asides under such
contracts will help provide small businesses with greater
opportunities under government-wide acquisition contracts while
preserving the economies and efficiencies of such vehicles.
The committee shares the concern that the greater use of
government-wide acquisition contracts may have the unintended
effect of reducing contracting opportunities for small
business. However, the committee notes that the General
Accounting Office is currently conducting a comprehensive
review of the legal and policy issues raised by multiple task
order and delivery order contracts. For this reason, the
committee believes that it would be premature to legislate on
this issue.
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
Section 901. Principal duty of Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict.
The committee has reviewed the original statutory scheme
relating to the establishment of the Special Operations Command
as a unified combatant command. That legislation established a
four-star Commander in chief with unique authorities that no
other combatant commander has. It also established an Assistant
Secretary of Defense in order to ensure that the unique
authorities of the combatant commander, which are akin to those
possessed by the civilian service secretaries, are subject to
civilian oversight and supervision. The original legislation,
however, inadvertently put an emphasis on the Assistant
Secretary's supervision on the operational rather than the
budgetary, development, and acquisition activities of the
combatant commander. The committee recommends a provision that
would put the emphasis on the Assistant Secretary's supervision
of the budgetary, development, and acquisition activities of
the combatant commander.
Section 902. Professional military education schools.
The committee recommends a provision that would designate
the Information Resources Management College as a component of
the National Defense University. The recommended provision
would also make a technical change to the name of the Institute
for National Strategic Study to read the Institute for National
Strategic Studies.
Section 903. Use of CINC Initiative Fund for force protection.
The committee is concerned with the information contained
in the report of the Downing Assessment Task Force of August
30, 1996, that inquired into the force protection of the U.S.
Central Command area of responsibility, in general, and Khobar
Towers, Saudi Arabia, in particular. That report revealed that
``items such as Mylar, a shatter resistant window film coating,
and surveillance systems for the fence line were deferred to
budgets in later years.''
Although the budget request for fiscal year 1998 identified
over $1.0 billion for force protection issues such as combating
terrorism, this is not sufficient to meet all of the needs of
the Department of Defense. This led the Air Force Chief of
Staff to identify force protection as his highest priority for
any additional funding. Although the committee has provided
these funds, we understand the difficulty in predicting all of
the force protection requirements that may emerge over the
course of the year. Therefore, the committee recommends a
provision that would provide the regional Commanders in chief
(CINCs) with the authority to utilize funding from the CINC
Initiative Fund to provide for any force protection
requirements which emerge in their respective areas of
operation.
Section 904. Transfer of TIARA programs.
The committee is concerned that the Tactical Intelligence
and Related Activities (TIARA) aggregation includes several
programs that are not intelligence programs and would be better
managed elsewhere in the military services. In particular, the
committee believes that targeting and target acquisition
programs, tactical warning and attack assessment programs, and
tactical communication programs do not belong in the TIARA
aggregation. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision
that would transfer such programs from the TIARA aggregation to
other accounts of the military services.
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
Department of Defense Inspector General staffing levels
In November 1994, the Deputy Secretary of Defense directed
a one-third reduction in Department of Defense (DOD) Inspector
General manpower and funding by fiscal year 2001. In August
1995, the Inspector General restructured the office and reduced
the number of assistant Inspectors General from eight to four
and eliminated 40 percent of the Defense Criminal Investigative
Service (DCIS) field offices. Based on the Secretary's
direction, the Inspector General expects to have eliminated 300
positions by the end of fiscal year 1998.
At the same time, Congress and the Department have
continued to add to the Inspector General's workload. The Chief
Financial Officers Act of 1990 and the Government Management
Reform Act of 1994 placed substantial new burdens on agency
Inspectors General in the area of financial management reform.
The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 and the
Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1996 significantly increased
the flexibility and discretion granted to acquisition
officials, which arguably increases the need for vigorous
oversight of the acquisition process. An additional round of
base closures would further add to the workload of the DOD
Inspector General's office.
According to the Inspector General, planned reductions for
fiscal years 1999 through 2001 could force the office to reduce
coverage of large dollar fiscal crime issues such as defective
pricing, cost mischarging, progress payment fraud and CHAMPUS
abuses. In addition, continued cuts could require the Inspector
General to reduce the DCIS personnel by 25 percent, reduce
resources for audit coverage of acquisition and contracts by 50
percent and reduce coverage of readiness issues by 50 percent.
While every defense agency must contribute to the continued
downsizing of the defense infrastructure, the committee is
concerned that continued cuts within this office could prove
more expensive for the Department in the long term. Therefore,
the committee directs the Department to reexamine programmed
reductions within the Inspector General's office and determine
if they are appropriate in light of that office's
responsibilities.
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SUBTITLE A--FINANCIAL MATTERS
Section 1003. Authorization of prior emergency supplemental
appropriations for fiscal year 1997.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the emergency supplemental appropriations enacted in the
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1997 (Public Law
105-18). This supplemental provided funding for fiscal year
1997 expenses related to military operations in Southwest Asia
and Bosnia.
Section 1004. Increased transfer authority for fiscal year 1996
authorizations.
The provision would provide an increase in authorization
transfer authority provided by section 1001 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996. This increased
transfer authority is necessary because of the substantial
reprogramming requirements necessary for military operations in
Bosnia during that fiscal year and to coincide with the
appropriations transfer authority granted in the Defense
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996.
Section 1005. Biennial financial management strategic plan.
The committee recommends a provision that would require a
strategic financial management plan within the Department of
Defense. While many improvements have been made in the
financial management system within the Department of Defense, a
multilevel strategic plan is critical to ensuring continued
improvement in this area. The strategic plan should include
goals, measurable performance measures, milestones, and
accountable organizations and individuals.
The strategic plan will be required on a biennial basis
with the initial report submitted to the congressional defense
committees by September 30, 1998.
Section 1006. Revision of authority for Fisher House Trust Funds.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 914 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (public law 104-106) to require the Secretary
of the Air Force to deposit an appropriate amount of funds to
establish the corpus on the Fisher House Trust Fund, Department
of the Air Force.
The committee was disappointed to learn that the Air Force
had not deposited funds to establish the corpus of the Fisher
House Trust Fund, Department of the Air Force, as required by
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996.
The committee directs that the Secretary of the Air Force
continue to ensure that the Air Force Fisher Houses have
sufficient operating funds during the period in which the
corpus of the trust fund is being established and begins to
earn interest. The committee expects that the Air Force will be
able to use the earnings from the trust fund to operate the Air
Force Fisher Houses beginning in Fiscal Year 2000.
Section 1007. Availability of certain fiscal year 1991 funds for
payment of contract claim.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Army to use certain fiscal year 1991
procurement funds authorized in the Classified Annex to the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991,
subject to notification of the congressional defense
committees, to reimburse the judgment fund established under 31
U.S.C. 1304 for a potential judgment in a contract dispute.
Section 1008. Estimates and requests for procurement and military
construction for the reserve components.
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department of Defense to specify estimated expenditures and
proposed appropriations for reserve component modernization in
the annexes provided with the Future Years Defense Program
(FYDP). For the last several years, the Congress has been faced
with tough choices regarding the funding levels for inadequate
budget requests from the Department. The provision will serve
to provide the information necessary to fully understand
Department modernization plans and to facilitate the decision
making process for both the executive and legislative branches.
Specifically, the provision directs that the annexes separately
display reserve component modernization funding commensurate
with the level of detail of the active component. Moreover, the
committee has included in this provision language prohibiting
the Secretary of Defense from providing less detail in any
category in the FYDP for fiscal years 1999 and thereafter than
that provided in the FYDP for fiscal year 1998.
The committee has noted that the Department continues to
emphasize the importance of the reserve components in
fulfilling national security strategy requirements, but fails
to program adequate funds to sustain necessary reserve
component modernization. Over the last several years, the
committee has urged the Department to correct this problem and
every year there is resistance. The committee is very concerned
about the Department's management of the modernization process
for the reserve components. The lack of detailed information in
the FYDP on proposed funding for reserve component
modernization leads senior managers in the administration and
Members of Congress to make suboptimal decisions.
SUBTITLE B--NAVAL VESSELS AND SHIPYARDS
Section 1011. Long-term charter of vessel for surveillance towed array
sensor program.
The Navy has been conducting ocean surveillance research
through use of a privately owned United States flag vessel that
has been on time charter since 1991. The vessel has been
extensively modified and is currently fitted with about $20.0
million of government equipment. The cost to transfer this
equipment to another vessel would be about $6.9 million. The
Navy will need to continue using a commercial charter for ocean
surveillance research until fiscal year 2004 when TAGOS-23, now
under construction, will become fully operational.
Section 2401 of title 10, United States Code, prohibits the
Secretary of the Navy from entering into a contract for the
charter or lease of a vessel of longer than five years without
statutory authority. The Navy's previous long-term lease for
the ocean surveillance research ship expired in 1996. An
interim short-term lease of 15 months is now in effect.
Given the significant cost to modify another ship to carry
out ocean surveillance research and the continuing need for the
ship currently in service, the committee recommends a provision
that would permit the Navy to enter into a long-term lease for
a vessel to support the surveillance towed array sensor and low
frequency active programs through fiscal year 2004.
Section 1012. Procedures for sale of vessels stricken from the Naval
Vessel Register.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the sale of vessels stricken from the naval register using
negotiation as an alternative to the sealed-bid process. This
authority would allow such issues as environmental concerns to
be addressed more effectively in the process of the sale.
Section 1013. Transfers of naval vessels to certain foreign countries.
The committee recommends a provision that would transfer on
a sale basis one Hunley class submarine tender, one Kaiser
class
(@) @oiler, six Knox class frigates, two Oliver Hazard
Perry class guided missile frigates, and three Newport class tank
landing ships to various countries. The Chief of Naval Operations has
certified that these naval vessels are not essential to the defense of
the United States. Any expense incurred by the United States in
connection with these transfers would be charged to the recipient. The
provision would also:
(1) direct that, to the maximum extent possible, the
Secretary of the Navy shall require, as a condition of
transfer, that repair and refurbishment associated with
the transfer be accomplished in a shipyard located in
the United States; and
(2) stipulate that the authority to transfer these
vessels will expire at the end of a two year period
that begins on the date of enactment of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998.
SUBTITLE C--COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES
The budget request for drug interdiction and other counter-
drug activities of the Department of Defense totals $808.6
million. This includes the $652.6 million drug interdiction
account and $156.0 million in the operating budgets of the
military services for authorized counter-drug operations. This
compares with a total of $957.4 million for these activities
during fiscal year 1997, including $796.5 million for the drug
interdiction account and $160.9 million in the services,
operating budgets. This reduction of $148.8 million equates to
a real decline of 17.5 percent after accounting for inflation.
The committee recommends an additional $8.34 million for the
counter-drug activities of the Department of Defense.
Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug Activities, Operations and
Maintenance
[In thousands of dollars; may not add due to rounding]
Amount
Fiscal Year 1998 Drug and Counterdrug Request................. 808,588
Source Nation Support..................................... 183,031
Detection and Monitoring.................................. 238,149
Disruption of Drug Mafia Organizations.................... 54,306
Law Enforcement Agency.................................... 249,864
Demand Reduction.......................................... 83,238
Increases:
Riverine Interdiction Initiative.......................... 4,200
Gulf States Counter-drug Initiative....................... 4,140
Recommendation................................................ 816,928
Ongoing Initiatives
In fiscal year 1997, the Congress authorized additional
funding for three counter-drug initiatives: the Mexico-
Southwest Border Initiative; the Caribbean and South American
Initiative; and the Domestic Counter-Narcotics Initiative.
These were intended to provide enhanced capabilities to stem
the flow of drugs into the United States and disrupt narcotics
operations within our own borders.
Although, the committee is pleased with the initial
progress which has been made with these initiatives, the
committee is concerned about the early difficulties in
fulfilling some of the goals of the Mexico-Southwest Border
Initiative. Due to the delay caused by these difficulties, the
administration has requested an extension of the authority to
provide assistance to the Government of Mexico. This was
originally intended as a single year authority with the
understanding that future support would be provided from funds
available to the Department of State. Unfortunately, the
administration failed to provide the necessary funds within the
fiscal year 1998 budget request of the Department of State. If
it is the intent of the administration to turn such
international counter-drug activities of the United States over
to the Department of Defense for execution, the committee
believes that this intent should be demonstrated within the
budget request. However, because the committee understands the
value of this particular assistance and the need to explore all
available options to stem the flow of drugs across the
Southwest border, the committee recommends a provision (Section
1021) that would extend for one year the authority to provide
additional support for counter-drug activities of the
government of Mexico.
The committee continues to support the Gulf States Counter-
drug Initiative (GSCI) and is pleased to note that the budget
request contains $3.4 million for this program. However, the
committee is concerned that this funding level does not
adequately cover the costs for required software maintenance,
training, and network support. Therefore, the committee
recommends an increase of $4.1 million over the requested
amount to fund these activities.
Riverine Interdiction Initiative
The committee is impressed with the effectiveness which has
been demonstrated by the source nation governments in the
interdiction of airplanes being used to transport narcotics and
precursor materials. This has made a significant impact on the
ability of the narcotraffickers to transport their goods from
the fields of Peru to the processing labs in Colombia. However,
the narcotraffickers have demonstrated an amazing capability to
adapt to the closing of the airbridge by shifting their
logistics operations to the vast Andean River network. Due to
the increasing success of the Peruvian and Colombian
governments in shutting down the airbridge during the past two
years, the narcotraffickers have started to transport
significant quantities of narcotics and precursor materials
using these rivers.
Unfortunately, these governments are ill-equipped and ill-
trained to interdict drug trafficking on their rivers and other
waterways. If the United States and the source nation
governments are going to continue to pursue their initial
effortsto end, or at least greatly reduce, the trafficking of
narcotics, they will be required to dedicate resources, including the
creation of a number of Riverine Interdiction Units, to counter this
new threat. Recognizing the important contribution the Department of
Defense can make to this effort, the committee recommends an increase
of $4.2 million to the Department's counterdrug program for Riverine
operations and a provision (Section 1022) which would grant a five year
authorization to the Department of Defense to assist the Peruvian and
Colombian governments with the acquisition of the requisite equipment
to actively engage in these activities. The committee directs the
Department of Defense, in coordination with other Federal agencies
involved in counter-narcotic activities, to develop an integrated
regional plan to establish a Riverine program that can be sustained by
the source nations at the end of the five-year period. The Department
should provide the details of this plan to the Committees on Armed
Services and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committees on
National Security and International Relations of the House of
Representatives before any assistance is provided pursuant to this
authority. This plan should provide details as to how the Riverine
program fits into the overall national drug strategy.
Although the Government of Colombia was recently
decertified by the United States, the committee notes that this
equipment will be used for counter-narcotics purposes and is
therefore exempt from the decertification requirements.
However, the committee directs that 30 days prior to the
provision of any assistance pursuant to this authority to the
Government of Colombia, the Department of Defense notify the
Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Relations of the
Senate and the Committees on National Security and
International Relations of the House of the measures to be
taken to ensure that the equipment provided will be used for
counter-narcotics purposes.
Furthermore, the committee recognizes the valuable Riverine
training that can be provided by the United States Marine Corps
and the Special Operations Command to the military forces of
the source nations. However, the committee is concerned that
some of the personnel assigned to the Mobile Training Teams of
the Marine Corps are not sufficiently proficient in the
language skills necessary to provide the most effective
training to foreign nationals. Therefore, if it is the intent
of the Department of Defense to continue utilizing Marines in
this capacity, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to provide the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and
the Committee on National Security of the House with a report
outlining the measures which the Secretary intends to take to
ensure that Marines assigned to these Teams have the
appropriate language skills to train and operate with foreign
nationals. This report should be provided no later than January
31, 1998.
SUBTITLE D--REPORTS AND STUDIES
Section 1031. Repeal of reporting requirements.
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
certain obsolete or superseded reporting requirements presently
imposed by statute upon the Department of Defense.
Section 1032. Common measurement of operations and personnel tempo.
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop, to the
maximum extent practicable, a common measurement of operations
tempo (OPTEMPO) and personnel tempo (PERSTEMPO).
Service witnesses testified before the Subcommittee on
Readiness that the services do not now employ common
definitions of these terms, which are central to understanding
the extent to which service members are required to spend time
away from their families, and to determine whether the demands
placed on service members are increasing or decreasing over
time.
The committee notes that the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness recommended earlier this year that the
services adopt a single measure of PERSTEMPO, which would count
each day away from home station as one day away. The committee
believes that a common definition that would allow interservice
comparisons of unit deployments is also a desirable goal, if an
accurate common definition is possible given the inherent
differences in the way the services operate.
Section 1033. Report on overseas deployment.
In order to better determine the extent to which U.S.
military operational demands are caused by overseas training
requirements and the extent to which they are a result of
contingency operations, the committee recommends a provision
that would require the Department of Defense to report on the
number of personnel deployed overseas as of June 30, 1996 and
June 30, 1997. The report would distinguish between personnel
who are forward deployed as their permanent duty station and
those deployed overseas for temporary duty such as service-
specific exercises, joint exercises, exercises with allies, and
deployments for contingency operations.
Section 1034. Report on military readiness requirements of the Armed
Forces.
During its hearings over the past two years, the committee
has heard repeated testimony from the service chiefs and
service secretaries that the future readiness of our armed
forces is jeopardized by a shortfall in modernization funding.
Because of our failure to adequately fund the investment
accounts, our forces today face a future armed with rapidly
aging equipment which will be difficult and expensive to
maintain and operate.
To find the funds to develop weapons systems for the force
structure of the next century, we must look for efficiency in
thearmed forces of today. There are many approaches to
streamlining defense operations and activities that could result in
cost savings and which should be done to ensure the best value for the
American taxpayer. Another approach which would save scarce defense
resources and make available needed funding for critical modernization
programs would be to reevaluate the readiness requirements of our
military forces.
Therefore, last year the committee recommended a provision
which required the Department of Defense to report on the
potential of ``tiered readiness'' as a means of redirecting
scarce defense dollars from the operations and maintenance
accounts to the modernization accounts. This provision
established a requirement for a one-time report from the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) on the military
readiness requirements of all U.S. armed forces, including
active and reserve components as well as support units, using a
tiered readiness system. The provision also directed the
service chiefs and the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Special
Operations Command to prepare the report for the Chairman of
the JCS.
The report that they prepared assigned each force unit,
described by type rather than unit name, to one of three tiers
of combat readiness, which were defined in the provision, and
listed all forces not assigned to one of the three readiness
tiers.
This report was provided to the Congress earlier this year,
and, while making some significant progress in identifying the
potential of tiered readiness, it left a number of issues
unresolved. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision
which would direct the Department to further explore the
potential of tiered readiness. This provision would require the
Chairman and the service chiefs, together with the Commander in
Chief of the Special Operations Command and the commanders of
the other unified commands, to prepare a second report that
would examine the extent to which the readiness of the military
forces could be tiered. Rather than looking at a generic major
regional conflict, this report would require an examination of
the tiered readiness concept within the force structure
advocated by the Quadrennial Defense Review, including the
forces required to deter or defeat a strategic attack upon the
United States. The report should include an examination of the
tiering of the forces (focusing on the brigade, battalion, and
squadron levels), on a rotational basis within the Army and
Marine Corps Divisions, the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps
Wings, and the Navy Fleets. In determining what lift would be
available each year for the deployment of forces, the Joint
Chiefs and the unified commanders should assume that the lift
capacity is limited to that which is assumed to be available in
each year of the Future Years Defense Program.
Furthermore, the provision requires the Department to
identify the total resources currently within the operations
and maintenance accounts that would be available for
modernization if a tiered system were adopted. The committee
believes that the funding saved by a particular military
service through the implementation of tiered readiness should
be made available for the modernization activities of that
service.
The Chairman shall provide the report to the congressional
defense committees no later than January 31, 1998.
Section 1035. Assessment of cyclical readiness posture of the Armed
Forces.
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to report on the impact of moving to a
cyclical readiness approach for major warfighting units. Under
this approach, a high state of readiness alternates from one
unit to another, as is already done with the blue and gold
crews on ballistic missile submarines. The report should
identify the savings and risks associated with cyclical
readiness.
Section 1036. Overseas infrastructure requirements.
The committee is concerned with the lack of planning on the
part of the Department of Defense for overseas basing
facilities. The national military strategy requires U.S.
military forces to remain deployed in order to carry out the
policy of deterrence and engagement.
U.S. forces have departed from the Philippines, are
scheduled to depart from Panama, and may be forced to depart
from Okinawa, Japan. In fact, both the Department of Defense
and the National Defense Panel recognize that we cannot assume
access to our current overseas facilities. However, the
Department has not performed any analysis to identify
alternative basing solutions.
Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would
require the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the National
Security Committee of the House of Representatives outlining
the current and future forward-basing requirements of the
Department of Defense along with the international agreements
necessary to provide these facilities.
Section 1037. Report on aircraft inventory.
In the statement of managers accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (S. Rept. 104-
267), the committee noted the efforts of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff to bring order to the terminology of aircraft inventory
management, and encouraged the long overdue standardization of
reporting.
The committee believes that such changes could ultimately
result in a streamlined budget review process, both for the
administration and the Congress. Accordingly, the committee
recommends a provision to implement new aircraft budget
exhibits.
Section 1038. Disposal of excess materials.
The committee is concerned with the recent reports
identifying problems within the Department of Defense system to
sell or otherwise dispose of excess materials. These reports
outline aprocess that fails to properly demilitarize weapons
before selling them to the public, adequately safeguard classified
material, and prevent the theft of valuable equipment. Therefore, the
committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report to the Congress outlining the actions
required to ensure that the Department better manages the disposal
system so as to eliminate, or at least minimize, the problems.
Section 1039. Review of former spouse protections.
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review of the
Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act. The review
must include other laws affecting Federal civil service
retirement and current civil practices regarding division of
retirement or pensions in order to access whether the Uniformed
Services Former Spouse Protection Act should be amended. The
recommended provision requires the report to be provided to
Congress by September 30, 1998.
Section 1040. Completion of GAO reports for Congress.
The committee is disappointed by the way the General
Accounting Office (GAO) prioritizes its work, which indicates a
lack of responsiveness to the concerns of Congress. Over the
past year, the GAO has performed numerous self-initiated audits
while seemingly relegating those requested by members of
Congress to a lower priority. Therefore, the committee
recommends a provision that would require the Comptroller
General of the United States to certify to Congress that all
audits, evaluations, other reviews, and reports requested by
Congress or required by law are complete prior to the
initiation of any audits, evaluations, other reviews, and
reports that were not required by Congress.
SUBTITLE E--OTHER MATTERS
Section 1051. Psychotherapist-patient privilege in the Military Rules
of Evidence.
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the President an amendment to
the Military Rules of Evidence recognizing the evidentiary
privilege regarding disclosure by a psychotherapist of
confidential communications between a patient and the
psychotherapist. The Secretary of Defense must submit such an
amendment within 90 days of enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 or by January 1, 1998,
whichever is later. The committee expects that, in general, the
evidentiary privilege will be limited to family members. The
Secretary may prescribe circumstances under which the privilege
may be waived for any beneficiary of the Military Health Care
System.
Section 1052. National Guard Civilian Youth Opportunities Pilot
Program.
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorization for the National Guard Civilian Youth
Opportunities Pilot Program until September 30, 1998. The
recommended provision limits the number of programs to 15,
limits the amount which may be obligated in support of the
program during fiscal year 1998 to $20.0 million, and requires
non-Federal funding to match the Federal Government
contribution to the program in each state.
The statement of managers accompanying the conference
report on S. 1124 (H. Report 104-450) made it very clear that
the 18-month extension of the authority to conduct the National
Guard Youth Opportunities Pilot Program was to be used to
develop non-Department of Defense sources of funding to
continue operation after August 1997. The Department of
Defense, the National Guard Bureau, nor the states which desire
to maintain this program have developed non-Department of
Defense sources of funding. The committee intends, by
authorizing an additional year, that the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Reserve Affairs and the National Guard Bureau
notify the participating states of the committee's intent and
to assist, as appropriate, in transitioning this program from
Department of Defense funding.
Section 1053. Protection of Armed Forces personnel during peace
operations.
As a result of problems experienced in fielding adequate
troop protection equipment during Operation Joint Endeavor and
other contingencies, the committee recommends a provision that
would require the Secretary of Defense to identify troop
protection equipment that would be specifically useful for
peace operations, to identify shortfalls in such equipment, to
establish procedures for the services to more readily share
such equipment, and to establish a single point of contact
within DOD to monitor and ensure proper allocation of this
equipment.
Section 1054. Limitation on retirement or dismantlement of strategic
nuclear delivery systems.
The committee continues to support the Department of
Defense policy of remaining at Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty
(START I) levels of strategic forces until START II enters into
force. Therefore the committee recommends a provision that
would preclude the unilateral reduction of certain strategic
delivery systems. The provision also prohibits early
deactivation measures, such as warhead removal, unless the
Secretary of Defense meets certain requirements as specified in
the provision. Finally, the provision includes a requirement
for the Secretary of Defense to prepare a plan for the
contingency sustainment of a START I force beyond 1998, should
START II not enter into force by 2004.
Section 1055. Acceptance and use of landing fees for use of overseas
military airfields by civil aircraft.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
military service to accept payments for the use of foreign-
based military airfields by civil aircraft and to use those
payments for the operation and maintenance of the airfield.
Section 1056. One-year extension of international nonproliferation
initiative.
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authority of the Department of Defense to provide support to
the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) on Iraq through
the end of fiscal year 1998 and would provide the Department
with authority to exceed the levels authorized in fiscal year
1998 for DOD support to UNSCOM in the event of a significant
unforeseen development. In that event, the Secretary of Defense
would be required to notify the congressional defense
committees in writing, prior to providing assistance that would
exceed the levels authorized for DOD support. However, if the
Secretary of Defense determines that prior notification of such
action is not possible, the Secretary must notify the
congressional defense committees of his actions no later than
15 days after the date the additional assistance was provided.
Section 1057. Assistance for facilities subject to inspection under the
Chemical Weapons Convention.
The budget request included $315.0 million in the
procurement, operations and maintenance, and research and
development accounts for the Department of Defense and the
military services for implementation of arms control
agreements. The budget request for these accounts is based on
anticipated dates of implementation of the various arms control
treaties.
The committee recommends a reduction of $10.0 million of
the budget request in the operations and maintenance account
for the On-Site Inspection Agency and a $10.0 million reduction
of the budget request for the Defense Special Weapons Agency
(DSWA) for the verification demonstration technology program
(PE63711H). Due to possible changes in the assumptions on the
dates of entry into force of the arms control treaties, it is
the intention of the committee to review the budget request
during the conference between the House of Representatives and
the Senate.
Chemical Weapons Convention
On April 24, 1997, the Senate provided its consent to
ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), and the
Convention entered into force on April 29, 1997. Condition 21
of Senate Executive Resolution 75, the CWC resolution of
ratification, expressed the sense of the Senate that the
Department of Defense should have authority to provide
assistance to any facility in the United States that is subject
to a routine inspection, or the object of a challenge
inspection, under the CWC.
The committee recommends a provision that would require
reimbursement by the National Authority to the On-Site
Inspection Agency (OSIA) for assistance it provides to
facilities in the United States (for which it has no funds)
that are the object of routine or challenge inspections under
the CWC.
Article X of the CWC requires each State Party to the
Convention to provide assistance through the Organization for
the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). That assistance can
be provided in one or more of three ways: a State Party may
contribute to a voluntary fund; a State Party may reach
agreement with the OPCW on specific assistance that it would
provide; or a State Party may declare the kind of assistance it
might provide, in the event assistance is requested against a
chemical weapons use or threat. The declaration of which type
of assistance a State Party intends to provide must be made
within 180 days after the CWC enters into force.
Prior to the Senate providing its consent to ratification
of the CWC, agreement was reached on Condition 15 which would
prohibit the United States from contributing to the voluntary
fund or providing any assistance to any State Party which is
not eligible for assistance under chapters 2 and 4 of part II
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, other than medical
treatment and antidotes.
The committee requests the President to provide it with a
copy of the declaration the U.S. submits pursuant to Article X,
paragraph 7(c). Additionally, the committee directs that it be
notified in writing whenever assistance is provided pursuant to
Article X. The notification should include information on the
specific incident which required the provision of assistance
the cost of the assistance provided, the source of the funds
and the impact on resources available to U.S. military forces
for defense against the use of chemical weapons or agents.
Emergency health care for OSIA inspectors
The committee has learned of cases where cash or credit
card deposits for medical services have been required of
military and civilian personnel assigned to OSIA participating
in arms control inspections overseas, prior to the receipt of
medical services. The mission of the On-Site Inspection Agency
requires the frequent travel of military and civilian personnel
assigned to the agency to many countries in the area of the
former Soviet Union, including Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and
Kazakstan, as well as former Warsaw Pact nations. In an earlier
section of the committee's report, the committee recommends a
provision that would provide the Secretary of Defense authority
to pay out of funds available to the OSIA for emergency medical
health care costs of military and civilian personnel assigned
to the On-Site Inspection Agency while participating in arms
control inspections overseas.
Section 1058. Sense of Senate regarding the relationship between
environmental laws and United States' obligations under the
Chemical Weapons Convention.
(See report language in Section 107.)
Section 1059. Sense of Congress regarding funding for reserve component
modernization not requested in the annual budget request.
The committee recommends a provision that would require, to
the maximum extent practicable, the Congress to consider
authorization for the appropriation of funds for reserve
component modernization activities not in the budget request,
only if:
(1) there is a Joint Requirements Oversight Council
(JROC) validated requirement for the equipment;
(2) the equipment is included in the modernization
plan of the military reserve component department
concerned and is incorporated into the Future Years
Defense Program (FYDP);
(3) the equipment is consistent with employment and
use of reserve component forces;
(4) the equipment is necessary for reasons of U.S.
national security; and
(5) the funds can be obligated in that fiscal year.
It is also important that the Congress consider the views
of the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, on whether the proposed
procurement is necessary for U.S. warfighting plans. The
provision will ensure that the Congress considers all relevant
factors in deciding how to allocate available resources.
Section 1060. Authority of Secretary of Defense to settle claims
relating to pay, allowances, and other benefits.
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
Secretary of Defense authority, upon request of a service
secretary, to waive the time limits in the case of a claim for
pay and allowances up to a maximum of $25,000. The recommended
provision modifies the authority granted by section 607 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997. The
recommended provision clarifies the fiscal year 1997 provision
to ensure that the Department of Defense has adequate authority
to address these claims. The committee strongly urges the
Secretary of Defense, upon enactment, to pay the claims
expeditiously.
Section 1061. Coordination of access of commanders and deployed units
to intelligence collected and analyzed by the intelligence
community.
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense report to the Congress regarding the
specific steps taken to enhance the coordination of operation
intelligence for combattant commanders and deployed units.
The committee believes that appointment of a Special
Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Gulf War
Illnesses and the appointment of a Special Assistant the
Director of Central Intelligence will result in significant
contributions to the government's efforts to address the
medical condition of our suffering Persian Gulf veterans as
well as the numerous questions surrounding the possible causes
of Gulf War illnesses. Although the committee remains concerned
that these appointments have taken place over five years after
the end of the war and the initial complaints by Persian Gulf
veterans, the committee looks forward to working with these
representatives of the executive branch in the pursuit of the
truth regarding this difficult issue.
In hindsight, it has become increasingly clear that
coordination within the intelligence community, within the
Department of Defense, and between the intelligence community
and the Department of Defense during and after the Persian Gulf
War was inadequate. As a result, intelligence regarding
chemical weapons that should have been available was not
available to operational units that would have benefitted from
that information during the conduct of operations and after the
cease-fire.
Section 1062. Protection of imagery, imagery intelligence, and
geospatial information and data.
The committee is concerned about the possibility that
adversaries or others hostile to the United States could
potentially convert certain forms of unclassified imagery data
to uses that threaten U.S. national security. The committee
recommends a provision that would amend sections 455 and 457 of
title 10, United States Code, to clarify the authority of the
Secretary of Defense to permit selective releases of geospatial
information representing little military value while protecting
the most sensitive information.
Section 1063. Protection of air safety information voluntarily provided
by a charter air carrier.
The committee recommends a provision that would exempt from
disclosure under any other provision of law safety information
voluntarily provided by an air carrier under contract with the
Department of Defense for the charter air transportation of
members of the armed forces. Section 2640 of title 10, United
States Code, imposes detailed requirements upon such air
carriers. Among other things, they must pass initial and
recurring technical evaluations in order to become and remain
eligible for Department of Defense contracts. The purpose is to
ensure carriers have the programs and capabilities in place to
provide safe and reliable airlift services to the Department of
Defense. This requires access to a carrier's internal records,
information, and data that are essential to determining whether
the carrier meets safety and quality standards. Unfortunately,
carriers have been increasingly reluctant to provide more
thanthe minimum amount of information required for regulatory
compliance based on concerns regarding third party access under the
Freedom of Information Act. Similar ability to protect voluntarily
provided safety data was given to the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in 1996. The
lack of such express statutory authority in the Department of Defense
threatens the continuation of essential information-sharing
arrangements with the FAA and the NTSB. For the Department of Defense
to effectively carry out its responsibilities under the statute, the
Secretary of Defense must have the authority to protect such
voluntarily provided safety related information.
Section 1064. Sustainment and operation of Global Positioning System.
On March 29, 1996, the President approved a comprehensive
national policy on the future management and use of the Global
Positioning System (GPS) and related U.S. Government
augmentations. The new GPS policy includes the following policy
guidelines:
(1) The United States will continue to provide GPS
standard positioning service for peaceful civil,
commercial and scientific use on a continuous,
worldwide basis, free of direct user fees.
(2) The United States will discontinue the use of GPS
Selective Availability (SA) within a decade in a manner
that allows adequate time and resources for U.S.
military forces to prepare fully for operations without
SA.
(3) The GPS and U.S. Government augmentations will
remain responsive to the National Command Authorities.
(4) The United States will cooperate with other
governments and international organizations to ensure
an appropriate balance between the requirements of
international civil, commercial and scientific users
and international security interests.
(5) The United States will advocate acceptance of GPS
and U.S. Government augmentations as standards for
international use.
(6) To the fullest extent possible, the United States
will purchase commercially available GPS products and
services that meet U.S. Government requirements and
will not conduct activities that preclude or deter
commercial GPS activities, except for national security
or public safety reasons.
(7) A permanent interagency GPS Executive Board,
jointly chaired by the Departments of Defense and
Transportation, will manage the GPS and U.S. Government
augmentations. Other departments and agencies will
participate as appropriate.
The committee endorses these policy guidelines. The
committee believes that the new policy appropriately balances
the needs of U.S. national security with civil and commercial
interests. The committee has consistently urged the Department
of Defense to develop a plan for the eventual discontinuation
of Selective Availability while developing capabilities to
counter hostile exploitation of GPS and assure U.S. military
access. As such, the committee applauds the requirement in the
new GPS policy for the Department of Defense to develop such
capabilities.
The committee believes that such national security
protections are possible within a framework that allows
significantly expanded civil and commercial exploitation of
GPS. The United States has a unique opportunity to establish an
international framework that furthers U.S. national goals to
promote national security, public safety, and ultimately to
ensure a level playing field for fair market competition
worldwide. In order to satisfy these goals, a long-term, stable
and predictable commitment to the U.S. GPS is essential. In
order to secure long-range U.S. leadership in the GPS
marketplace, it is critical to promote international acceptance
of GPS and GPS-related regional augmentations, as global
standards. This will mitigate the proliferation of multiple
technical standards that can be used as non-tariff barriers to
U.S. exports.
The committee recommends a provision that would place in
statute the March 1996 presidential policy on GPS. This
provision represents a clear endorsement of U.S. policy and
strengthens the U.S. Government's ability to negotiate
favorable agreements regarding GPS standards and related
matters.
Section 1065. Law enforcement authority for special agents of the
Defense Criminal Investigative Service.
The committee recommends a provision that would codify and
assimilate existing statutory and regulatory law enforcement
authority for special agents of the Defense Criminal
Investigative Service (DCIS). This authority includes: the
carrying of firearms; the execution and service of warrants or
other process issued under Federal authority; and warrantless
arrests for Federal felony offenses. These agents presently
have statutory authority to carry firearms under delegation
from the Secretary of Defense. (10 U.S.C. 1585). Under the
Uniform Code of Military Justice, they may apprehend personnel
of the armed forces. Under regulations issued by the Attorney
General, and the Military Rules of Evidence, they may apply for
and execute search warrants. While they presently have no
statutory authority to make civilian arrests, they have done so
since 1991 under annual blanket designation as Special Deputy
U.S. Marshals by the Attorney General.
The committee intends that the authorities codified in this
provision be exercised in accordance with applicable
regulations and guidance issued by the Secretary of Defense and
by the Attorney General. If this provision is enacted, proposed
guidelines should be submitted by the Department of Defense
Inspector General (DOD/IG) to the Attorney General for approval
in accordance with the provision as expeditiously as possible.
DCIS is the criminal investigative arm of the DOD/IG. As
the DOD/IG has broad authority under the Inspector General Act
of 1978 to investigate matters related to DOD programs
andoperations, DCIS has correspondingly broad criminal investigative
responsibilities. While the bulk of its work has been in the area of
procurement fraud, it often conducts joint investigations with non-
Defense agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug
Enforcement Administration, and the Customs Service. The committee
recognizes that DCIS should have clear statutory law enforcement
authority commensurate with its broad investigative authority, and
accordingly recommends such a provision.
Section 1066. Repeal of requirement for continued operation of the
Naval Academy dairy farm.
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
subsection (a) of section 810 of the Military Construction Act
of 1968 (Public Law 90-110) which required the Naval Academy to
operate a dairy farm. Subsection (b), which prohibits the Naval
Academy from declaring the land excess or selling the property,
remains in effect. The recommended provision repeals the
requirement to operate a dairy; however, the Naval Academy may
continue to operate the dairy farm.
Section 1067. POW/MIA intelligence analysis cell.
The committee welcomes the decision by the President to
require the preparation of a Special National Intelligence
Estimate (SNIE) on the Vietnam POW/MIA issue, and to ensure
that collection requirements pertaining to the POW/MIA issue
remain a high priority for the U.S. intelligence community. The
committee is troubled, however, by the lack of a qualified
cadre of intelligence analysts in the intelligence community
capable of supporting the preparation of this SNIE. Since a
National Intelligence Estimate, by definition, cannot be
prepared by any single federal agency, it is incumbent upon the
Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) to assemble the
requisite expertise to support this effort and to provide
intelligence analysis support to all affected federal agencies.
The committee is concerned that if the Department of Defense
appears to be preparing its own SNIE, the Department may be
viewed as politicizing the intelligence process. Therefore, the
committee recommends a provision that would require the DCI to
establish a POW/MIA Intelligence Analysis Cell to support the
preparation of the SNIE and to provide intelligence support to
all affected federal agencies. The committee does not intend
that functions of the Department of Defense POW/MIA Office be
transferred to this new organization. The committee does,
however, encourage any cooperative efforts between the
intelligence analysis cell and the Department of Defense POW/
MIA Office that might be agreed upon between the Secretary of
Defense and the DCI.
Section 1068. Protection of employees from retaliation for certain
disclosures of classified information.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (WPA) to provide a
balanced, limited protection to Executive Branch employees who
disclose classified information to the Congress in the course
of informing Congress of violations of law or policy, or
mismanagement, waste, danger to public health, or one of the
other factors listed in 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)(A). Under this
provision, the employee must reasonably believe that the
information provided ``direct and specific evidence'' of a
violation of law or one of the other listed factors. Moreover,
the permissible disclosure to Congress would be limited to
members of the committee having primary oversight over the
agency to which the information related, a member authorized to
receive information of the type disclosed, or an employee of
Congress or the executive branch who holds the proper clearance
for access to the information disclosed.
In the WPA, Congress attempted to protect government
employees from reprisal for disclosing information concerning
violations of law, rule, regulation, gross mismanagement, gross
waste of funds, abuse of authority, or substantial and specific
danger to public health or safety. The WPA largely exempts from
its protection the disclosure of classified information. The
WPA does make an exception for disclosures of such information
to an agency inspector general or to the Special Counsel, the
official charged with the responsibility for protecting the
civil service merit system. The committee believes that changes
made by this provision strike the proper balance.
Section 1069. Applicability of certain pay authorities to members of
the Commission on Service Members and Veterans Transition
Assistance.
The committee recommends a provision that would exempt
retired federal employees and retired military personnel who
have been appointed as members of the Commission on
Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance from
limitations pertaining to receiving Federal pay while
concurrently receiving a Federal retirement annuity.
Section 1070. Transfer of B-17 aircraft to museum.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Air Force to transfer the B-17 aircraft
known as Picadilly Lilly to the Planes of Fame Museum in Chino,
California. The provision would further require that before the
aircraft can be transferred, the Air Force must ensure that it
is properly demilitarized, the museum agrees it will not
transfer the aircraft to a third party without the approval of
the Air Force, and the museum would fully indemnify the United
States from any liabilities connected to the conveyance of the
aircraft. The Picadilly Lilly, which has been in the possession
of the museum since 1959, is in need of repairs. During this
period of constrained budgets, the Air Force does not have
sufficient funding to provide the needed maintenance.
Furthermore, before the museum can expend the resources to
repair the aircraft, it must have clear title. Therefore, the
committee believes that the most appropriate course of action
is to transfer ownership of the aircraft to the museum, so that
it can receive the necessary repairs in order to ensure that
future generations have access to observe this valuable piece
of military history.
Section 1071. Five-year extension of Aviation Insurance Program.
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
a period of five years the authority of the Secretary of
Transportation to provide insurance and reinsurance to
commercial air carriers when necessary to carry out the foreign
policy of the United States. This extension is intended to
maintain stability for the Civil Reserve Air Fleet program.
Section 1072. Treatment of military flight operations.
The Department of the Air Force experienced a significant
delay in obtaining the Military Operational Airspace (MOA)
sought for conducting military flights and training in Alaska.
Some of the delay was the result of an unprecedented assertion
by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that section 4(f)
of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C.
303(c)) applies to military airspace proposals. The Department
of the Air Force has maintained that section 4(f) does not
apply to military airspace actions.
Specifically, section 4(f) requires the Department of
Transportation to review transportation programs or projects
that use parks, refuges, or historic sites and to determine
that no alternative to the public land use is available and
that harm to the public land is minimized. Review under section
4(f) is similar to the analysis conducted under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321). The
difference between section 4(f) and NEPA is one of statutory
scope. NEPA requires the examination of the full range of
environmental impacts related to major federal actions. Section
4(f) analysis is triggered by use of certain lands, without
regard to impact. The application of NEPA and section 4(f)
results in unnecessary overlap.
In relation to the Alaska MOA, the Department of the Air
Force expended significant effort and funds over a three year
period to comply with the NEPA. Before the airspace proposal
could go forward, the NEPA process had to address the concerns
of many environmental interest groups and ``stakeholders'' in
Alaska, which resulted in the crafting of a delicate
compromise.
Recently, the Secretary of the Air Force signed the Record
of Decision (ROD) for the Alaska MOA, the FAA concurred with
the ROD, and the proposal was approved. However, the FAA
approved the proposal based on its conclusion that the detailed
NEPA analysis of the Alaska proposal met section 4(f)
requirements. The FAA continues to maintain that, in addition
to NEPA, section 4(f) analysis would be required for all future
military airspace proposals.
The FAA application of section 4(f) to military airspace
proposals is not consistent with the congressional intent
associated with the enactment of the Transportation Act of
1966. It is this committee's view that military airspace
proposals for national security-related activities are not a
``transportation program or project'' to which section 4(f)
applies. In addition, there is no basis for concluding that
military overflights amount to a use of the types of public
land that section 4(f) was intended to protect. Finally, NEPA
analysis ensures consideration of environmental impacts of
military airspace actions, and it is neither reasonable or cost
effective to require section 4(f) analysis when there is no
factual, legal, or historical basis for its application to such
actions.
Section 1073. Naturalization of foreign nationals who served honorably
in the Armed Forces of the United States.
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
Immigration and Naturalization Act, title 8, United States
Code, to permit foreign national service members who reenlist
on board U.S. public vessels to qualify for naturalization
without regard to the location of the vessel. The current
Immigration and Naturalization Service practice is to recognize
only those reenlistments which occur on board U.S. vessels
located in the territorial waters of the United States as
qualifying for naturalization under section 1440 of title 8,
United States Code. The recommended provision would be
retroactive to cover those foreign nationals who reenlisted on
board U.S. vessels since January 1, 1990.
Section 1074. Designation of Bob Hope as honorary veteran.
The committee recommends a provision that would designate
Mr. Bob Hope as an honorary veteran of the Armed Forces of the
United States. The committee recognizes that Bob Hope has
contributed many years of service to enhancing the morale and
welfare of members of the armed forces of the United States. He
has traveled to virtually every post, camp, and station where
military personnel are assigned overseas, including those in
war zones, bringing entertainment, laughter, cheer, and a touch
of home, sometimes at great personal risk.
Thanks for the memories, Bob.
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
Airborne strategic command and control
Given the downsizing of the U.S. strategic command and
control system, the Navy's E-6 aircraft are an increasingly
vital asset. E-6A/B will become even more critical as these
aircraft take on additional missions. The committee believes
that it is essential that attention to the E-6 system,
operations, and infrastructure be assiduous to ensure this
critical asset does not become less ready or capable. The
committee expects that the Secretary of Defense will ensure
continued well-coordinated programmatic and high-priority
operations and infrastructure support to the Navy's E-6 force
to ensure the survivability and robustness of the U.S. nuclear
command and control system.
Commercial satellite communications
The committee has consistently urged the Department of
Defense to leverage the commercial satellite communications
(SATCOM) market to help reduce the cost of satellite
communications. The committee recognizes that the uses to which
DOD may put the commercial market are limited (due to landing
rights, protection, and survivability issues) if DOD is
relegated to the role of simply executing short-term leases for
existing services. At the same time, the committee believes
that the substantial investments being made by the private
sector in new commercial SATCOM services offer tremendous
potential for satisfying certain DOD SATCOM requirements. The
Department's recent effort under the Defense Information
Systems Agency to modify an emerging mobile satellite service
to leverage it to better support the Department's high priority
point-to-point communications needs represents progress toward
greater military-commercial cooperation. Over the next several
years, the commercial sector will launch and deploy several new
and innovative low, medium, and geostationary earth orbiting
SATCOM systems. In addition, there are several new high data
rate global SATCOM systems that have been filed with the
Federal Communications Commission. It is imperative that DOD
consider all these options as candidates for satisfying a
number of SATCOM requirements.
Given the limited funding available in the future for
satisfying the Department's SATCOM requirements, the Department
must consider new and innovative ways of acquiring these
systems. DOD should consider not only direct acquisitions, but
also investment strategies that the commercial world finds so
cost effective, such as approaches where DOD forms joint
ownership with the commercial sector.
Several of the SATCOM services that DOD is considering,
such as Global Broadcast, mobile wide-band, paging, and hand-
held point-to-point, are similar to emerging services offered
in the commercial sector. But without some modifications to
these commercial services and a long-term government
commitment, it is unlikely that DOD will be able to leverage
effectively this capability. At the same time, the committee is
aware that there may be statutory, policy, and regulatory
impediments to the Department's use of these commercial systems
to meet military needs. The committee believes that DOD should
move expeditiously to implement strategies to exploit
commercial business practices. The committee directs the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees by February 15,
1998, identifying any such impediments and recommending needed
changesto remove these obstacles. If opportunities to exploit
such commercial practices arise prior to submittal of the fiscal year
1999 budget request, the committee would consider a reprogramming to
cover unbudgeted costs.
Department of Defense Education Technology Initiative (DoDETI)
The committee believes the Department of Defense Education
Activity (DoDEA) has the potential to make DOD schools a
national model of excellence in the use of technology in K-12
education. This initiative would require the integration of
national education standards, including tests for 4th and 8th
grades, in all classrooms and should capitalize on the use of
instructional products that are or will become available in the
commercial marketplace.
The Secretary of Defense is authorized to establish an
Education Technology Office with its own program element, to
direct and coordinate the integration of technology in the
classroom. The committee expects that this office would
oversee: (1) the development of plans for the use of
instructional software and for a comprehensive and integrated
instructional information system; (2) the establishment of
criteria for evaluating instructional software based on
national education standards; (3) the development of procedures
for evaluating commercially available software; (4) the
training of teachers to evaluate, select, and use instructional
software; and (5) the expansion of computer access to all
schools and classrooms.
Of funds authorized for appropriation under Operations and
Maintenance, Defense Wide (0100D 150), $10.0 million is
authorized for this program.
Department of Defense space management
The committee continues to support Department of Defense
efforts to consolidate Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)
policy and acquisition oversight functions. The Office of the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (DUSD) for Space, the Joint
Space Management Board (JSMB), and the DOD Space Architect have
each played a significant role in ensuring a sharper focus on
our national security space programs. The committee has become
concerned, however, that this new organizational structure has
begun to duplicate functions performed by the military services
and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). The committee has
always supported the concept of a single focal point for space
policy in OSD, but does not believe that this is a mandate for
replicating functions properly performed by the services and
the NRO's research, development, and acquisition authorities.
The committee is concerned that the Office of the DUSD (Space)
may have grown beyond what is required for an office engaged
merely in oversight activities.
The committee encourages the Task Force on Defense Reform,
commissioned by the Secretary of Defense, to evaluate the
current space oversight structure in the Office of the
Secretary of Defense and propose ways of improving space
management. Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary
of Defense to conduct a study of this issue and submit a report
to the congressional defense committees by February 15, 1998.
If the Task Force on Defense Reform provides recommendations on
this topic to the Secretary in time, the Secretary shall
include a response to these recommendations in the report.
Department of Defense strategy for curtailing spousal abuse involving
members of the Armed Forces
The committee has noted with interest the ``Study of
Spousal Abuse in the Armed Forces'' conducted pursuant to the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 and
completed in September 1996. The committee recognizes the
existence of spousal abuse in the armed forces, and thus
directs the Department of Defense to fully implement the
strategy as described in the study and to submit this report to
the congressional oversight committees not later than June 1,
1998.
Global Positioning System alternate master control station
The Global Positioning System (GPS) has become or soon will
be fully integrated into most facets of U.S. military planning
and operational capabilities. GPS has also been integrated
significantly into civil and commercial navigation planning. As
such, the committee recognizes the expanding importance of GPS
as a national asset, one that is critical to U.S. national
security and economic interests. However, the committee is
aware of potential command and control vulnerabilities
associated with the GPS master control station at Falcon Air
Force Base, Colorado. The committee understands that GPS is the
only critical national satellite system that does not have an
adequate separate and secure backup control station. The
committee believes that the Department of Defense and the Air
Force should pursue, as an urgent priority, a secure backup GPS
system operations facility that is geographically separate from
the existing facility. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Air Force to proceed in fiscal year 1998 with
the development of an alternate master control station at a
location outside the Colorado Springs area. The committee
expects this new alternate master control station to be
operational by fiscal year 2001. The committee further directs
the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees on this issue not later than
February 15, 1998.
International border security
The Congress provided authority in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 for the Department of
Defense, in consultation with the Customs Service, to carry out
a program to assist customs and border guard officials in the
independent states of the former Soviet Union, the Baltic
statesand other Eastern European countries in preventing the
unauthorized transfer and transportation of nuclear, chemical,
biological and chemical weapons, and related material. The committee
understands that to date, no funds have been expended, nor has a plan
been developed or implemented. The committee requests the Secretary of
Defense to provide a report to Congress within 30 days after enactment
of this Act on the Department's plan, on a country-by-country basis, to
implement this program and the initiatives to be carried out in this
program. In addition, the committee requests the Secretary of Defense
to include in the report, the necessary certification required by
section 1424 <SUP>/</SUP> of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997.
Orbital debris and the environmental restoration of space
Throughout the space age, debris from space launches has
been accumulating in low earth orbit. This debris can be as
small as a fleck of paint or as large as a spent rocket motor.
Since debris can impact spacecraft at speeds up to 17,000 miles
per hour, there is a growing threat to U.S. military, civil,
and commercial space systems.
The committee finds that there is very little quantitative
understanding of how much risk is posed by this growing debris
field. Fragments larger than about 150 centimeters can be
tracked by radar. U.S. Space Command maintains orbital tracks
on about 7,000 of these objects. But small particles cannot be
tracked practically by radars. The committee also finds that
there are no government programs to address the potentially
serious problem posed by small debris fragments. Although
modern optical detectors, aided with laser radar, could
undertake to catalogue this debris, neither the civil nor the
military sectors propose to do so. In order to ensure that the
U.S. has data sufficient to understand the scale of this
problem, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force
to undertake a design study of a system that could catalogue
and track debris down to 1 centimeter in size out to 1,000
kilometers in altitude. The committee understands that
preliminary work on such a system by Phillips Laboratory, Los
Alamos National Laboratory, and Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory indicates that such a system would cost less than a
few million dollars. The committee expects the design study to
be coordinated among these laboratories, and to include a
detailed cost estimate. The committee directs the Secretary of
the Air Force to submit the design study to the congressional
defense committees by February 15, 1998.
Safety of strategic nuclear forces
The committee is concerned by recent reports regarding the
safety of strategic nuclear forces. Reports regarding safety
and control of Russia's strategic command and control are
particularly troubling. Additionally, the committee is aware
that a number of non-governmental organizations and individuals
have asserted that the alert posture of U.S. strategic nuclear
forces poses certain risks. Therefore, the committee directs
the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of
Central Intelligence, to submit a report on these matters to
the congressional defense committees by February 15, 1998. The
report should include an assessment of the safety and control
of the strategic nuclear forces of all countries possessing
such forces. The report should also include a description of
measures that the Secretary intends to pursue to address safety
problems identified with regard to U.S. strategic forces. The
report should be submitted in both unclassified and classified
forms, as necessary.
TITLE XI--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL
Section 1101. Use of prohibited constraints to manage Department of
Defense personnel.
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
secretaries of the military departments and heads of defense
agencies to certify directly to the Committee on Armed Services
of the Senate and the National Security Committee of the House
of Representatives that the civilian workforce under their
jurisdiction is not and has not during the preceding six months
been the subject of any constraint or limitation in terms of
man years, full-time equivalent positions, or maximum number of
employees.
Section 129 of title 10, United States Code, provides that
the management of civilian employees in the Department of
Defense shall not be the subject of any constraint or
limitation in terms of man years, full-time equivalent
positions (FTEs), or maximum number of employees. The statement
of managers accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1996 provided specific rationale for Congress'
decision that Department of Defense civilian employees should
not be managed by full-time equivalents or any other euphemism
for full-time equivalents.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense has continued,
during 1997, to ignore the direction of the Congress and, in
continuing to manage by FTEs, has chosen to maintain that the
Department's FTE ceilings are somehow correlated with the
workload of the military departments and defense agencies. The
committee believes that this reliance on management by FTEs is
an unwise effort to harvest near-term savings from the civilian
personnel accounts while obscuring the fact that the Department
of Defense has no means to measure workload or civilian
personnel requirements. Additionally, such outdated management
techniques destroy initiative, eliminate managerial
flexibility, and result in activities turning away or
outsourcing work for which funds are available, but for which
sufficient FTEs have not been allocated.
The required certification is due February 1, 1998, and
every six months thereafter, and shall include a description of
how the civilian work force is managed as well as a detailed
description of the analytical tools used to determine civilian
work force requirements during the preceding six months.
Section 1102. Employment of civilian faculty at the Marine Corps
University.
The committee recommends a provision that would permit the
``Marine Corps Command and Staff College'' to be referred to as
a school of the Marine Corps University. This designation would
permit the assignment of civilian faculty to the Marine Corps
Command and Staff College.
Section 1103. Extension and revision of voluntary separation incentive
pay authority.
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authority for the Voluntary Separation Incentive Pay Program
for the Department of Defense until January 1, 2002. The
committee believes that the judicious use of this authority can
be an important part of the Department of Defense's continuing
efforts to reduce the size of the workforce without resorting
to involuntary separation.
Section 1104. Repeal of deadline for placement consideration of
involuntarily separated military reserve technicians.
The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate
the time limitation within which involuntarily separated
military reserve technicians would be given priority placement
consideration. Therefore, this provision would eliminate the
requirement to artificially create positions for separated
military reserve technicians, and clarify a change to the law
provided by section 1037 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1996.
Section 1105. Rate of pay of Department of Defense overseas teacher
upon transfer to General Schedule position.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations to control
the amount of salary increase awarded to certain overseas
professional educators who transfer from positions compensated
under the ``Teaching Pay'' system to positions compensated
under the ``General Schedule'' pay system.
Section 1106. Naturalization of employees of the George C. Marshall
European Center for Security Studies.
The committee recommends a provision that would permit
employees of the George C. Marshall European Center for
Security Studies to qualify for naturalization by waiving the
permanent residency requirements. This authority previously
existed for the U.S. Army Russian Institute, which was absorbed
when theMarshall Center was established in 1994.
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
Health plan for nonappropriated fund employees
The committee supports the efforts of the Department of
Defense to combine the health plans currently offered by the
military services to nonappropriated fund employees into one
uniform plan. The committee is concerned, however, that the
Department of Defense may be planning to award the initial
contract for the uniform health plan on a sole-source, non-
competitive basis. In this regard, the committee directs the
Department to initiate a competitive bidding process for this
contract.
Leadership
The committee believes that effective leadership is one of
the most fundamental keys to success in any professional
organization. History has shown that the quality of a nation's
military and civilian leaders can often determine the outcome
of battle and other critical undertakings.
Over the past several years, various events in each of the
four armed services have caused elements of our society to call
into question, to criticize, and to challenge the basic quality
of military and civilian leadership in today's armed forces.
While the committee remains strong in its belief that
leadership in the American military is second-to-none, the
committee also realizes that, both on an individual basis and
at the organizational level, there is always room for
improvement.
With that in mind, the committee commends the Department of
the Navy and, specifically, the Naval Sea Systems Command for
their efforts to institute ``Principle Centered Leadership''
training for senior officers and civilian officials and
managers. This initiative, which originated in and was
coordinated by the Human Resources Center of the Naval Sea
Systems Command (NAVSEA), is an excellent example of the type
of innovative approach to leadership and management that is so
important in today's challenging, multi-dimensional work
environment. This initiative reflects an understanding that
effective leadership training should be continuous, regardless
of the grade and position one achieves. This initiative also
reflects a willingness within the corporate leadership of
NAVSEA to look beyond the traditional approaches to leadership
and management in order to find something new, something better
suited to the talents of today's leaders and the challenges of
the next century.
The committee encourages the military and civilian
leadership of every part of the Department of Defense to take a
fresh look at the training and development of senior military
and civilian leaders. Where appropriate, the committee
encourages the services to reject the status quo in favor of
innovative, challenging leader development programs that are
tailored to the specific needs of each individual service and
service culture and that will help military and civilian
leaders and managers to develop and to practice the most
effective leadership skills possible.
Modernization and regionalization of civilian personnel management
functions
In the committee report accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 1996 (H. Rept. 104-112), the
committee expressed its concern that the consolidation of
personnel servicing before a modern, standard personnel data
system and its supporting communications network were in place
would not result in substantial cost savings without an
unacceptable degradation in customer service. Additionally, the
committee expressed its concern that reductions in civilian
personnel specialists coincided with efforts to modernize and
regionalize would render the degradation in customer service
even more probable.
Information reaching the committee about the implementation
of the modernization and regionalization programs in 1995 and
1996 has done little to allay the concerns of the committee.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense appears to be unwilling
to describe the status and future of these programs in clear,
unequivocal terms that facilitate understanding. An example
would be the term ``Fully Operational Capable'' which is used
to describe regional service centers that are clearly incapable
of providing a complete range of intended services to their
intended customers. In Office of the Secretary of Defense
parlance, ``Fully Operational Capable'' means providing at
least some service to all units. Meanwhile, field offices and
customers report dissatisfaction with the level of customer
service available.
The committee is also concerned about the direction, cost,
and duration of ongoing efforts at San Antonio, Texas, to
develop and deploy an improved civilian personnel information
system--that is, the modern, standard personnel data system
integral to the success of the ongoing regionalization effort.
The committee was advised that, to save developmental time, the
new system would be based around commercial off the shelf
(COTS) software applications. However, it appears that the
Office of the Secretary of Defense is using over 175
personnel--many in a costly temporary duty status--to modify
over 60 percent of the COTS applications. The committee
questions the choice of COTS applications that require 60-
percent modification if the focus of this effort is to use the
best business practices of the private sector.
Finally, the committee is concerned about the number and
location of regional service centers. Given the relative size
of the civilian workforce in each if the military departments,
it is unclear why the Army and Navy require eight and six CONUS
regional service centers, respectively, while the Air Force
only requires one.
The committee recognized early on the tremendous potential
benefits that could be realized through a rational,
requirements-driven approach to regionalization and
modernization free of parochialism and bureaucratic
aggrandizement. The committee believes that these benefits may
still be salvageable and urges the leadership of the military
departments to review their individual departmental efforts and
to ensure that they are consistent with sound business
practices and the goal of managing the Department of Defense's
civilian workforce in the most effective and efficient manner
possible.
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
1998. The administration's budget request is reflected in S.
451, the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1998, as introduced by request. The military construction
division of this bill, as recommended by the committee, totals
$9.1 billion in authorization for appropriations for fiscal
year 1998.
This authorization provides funding for construction and
military family housing operations for the military services,
the Reserve components, the defense agencies, and the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment program. It
also provides authorization for the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment account that funds activities associated with the
1991, 1993, and 1995 base closure recommendations.
Committee Action
The committee recommends an overall authorization for the
De partment of Defense military construction program that is
above the administration's request for fiscal year 1998. For
fiscal year 1998, the Department of Defense requested
authorization of appropriations of $4.7 billion for military
construction and $3.6 billion for family housing construction
and support. These funding levels represent a reduction of
approximately $700.0 million from the fiscal year 1997 request.
The committee recommends $5.3 billion for military construction
and $3.8 billion for family housing construction and support
for fiscal year 1998.
The committee reaffirms its support of the military
services' efforts to modernize, renovate, and improve aging
defense facilities and focuses its funding priorities on
improving quality of life and readiness-related projects for
the active and Reserve components. Of the $700.0 million added
to the construction program, more than $218.0 million will fund
unaccompanied personnel quarters, child development centers,
dining facilities, education centers and military family
housing. The funding increase also provides approximately
$189.0 million for high priority projects submitted by the
military services that could not be funded in the Department's
budget request.
The committee members are hopeful that the increased
attention to funding for quality of life construction projects
will enable the military services to expedite the replacement
and modernization of these antiquated facilities, many of which
are more than 40 years old and need to be refurbished to meet
modern standards. The improvement of quality of life is
essential to the morale of our service members as they endure
deployment frequencies that exceed those during the height of
the Cold War.
The committee notes that the Department is relying on prior
year savings to fund military construction projects rather than
including the full funding in the budget request. This trend
started in the fiscal year 1997 request with $12.0 million and
has escalated in fiscal year 1998 to over $55.0 million. The
use of prior year savings denies the services the flexibility
to fund necessary cost variations and complete projects that
have justifiable cost increases. The committee denied the use
of prior year funds and expects the Department to fully fund
the military construction requests in future budget requests.
The following table identifies the committee's
recommendations for fiscal year 1998 military construction and
family housing construction projects.
Offset Folios 1110 to 1121 Insert here
<SKIP PAGES = 012>
Base closure and realignment accounts
The committee recommends authorization of $2.1 billion in
fiscal year 1998 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 1998 that it plans to fund from these accounts.
Offset Folios 1123 to 1128 Insert here
<SKIP PAGES = 006>
TITLE XXI--ARMY
SUMMARY
The Army requested authorization of $592,277,000 for
military construction and $1,291,937,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 1998. The committee recommends authorization of
$631,277,000 for military construction and $1,325,852,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 1998.
Section 2101. Authorized Army construction and land acquisition
projects.
This section contains the list of authorized Army
construction projects for fiscal year 1998. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Section 2102. Family housing.
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year
1998.
Section 2103. Improvements to military family housing units.
This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing units for fiscal year 1998.
Section 2104. Authorization of appropriations, Army.
This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item contained in the Army's budget for fiscal year
1998. This section also provides an overall limit on the amount
the Army may spend on military construction projects.
Section 2105. Authority to use certain prior year funds to construct a
heliport at Fort Irwin, California.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Army to construct a heliport at Fort
Irwin, California, using funds authorized and appropriated in
fiscal years 1995 and 1996 for construction of the National
Training Center Airfield, Fort Irwin, California. The provision
would make available $20.0 million for the construction of the
heliport.
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
Funding for restoration of Forest Glen Annex, Walter Reed Army Medical
Center
The committee urges the Secretary of the Army to identify
$9.8 million in fiscal year 1998 for the immediate repair and
stabilization measures needed at the Forest Glen Annex of
Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The committee remains
concerned with the poor and unstable condition of some of the
buildings at the Forest Glen Annex. The committee urges the
Secretary to include funding in future budget requests for the
continued maintenance of this property and ensure that no
further deterioration occur to this historic facility.
Planning and design, Army
The committee directs that, of the amount authorized for
appropriations for Army planning and design, not more than the
amount indicated for each respective project be directed toward
the design of: HI: Pohakuloa Training Range, Saddle Road
Improvement--$2,000,000 and NY: West Point, Gymnasium--
$1,000,000.
TITLE XXII--NAVY
SUMMARY
The Navy requested authorization of $540,106,000 for
military construction and $1,255,437,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 1998. The committee recommends authorization of
$610,614,000 for military construction and $1,297,810,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 1998.
Section 2201. Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition
projects.
This section contains the list of authorized Navy
construction projects for fiscal year 1998. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Section 2202. Family housing.
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Navy for fiscal year
1998.
Section 2203. Improvements to military family housing units.
This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 1998.
Section 2204. Authorization of appropriations, Navy.
This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item in the Navy's budget for fiscal year 1998. This
section also provides an overall limit on the amount the Navy
may spend on military construction projects.
Section 2205. Authorization of military construction project at
Pascagoula Naval Station, Mississippi, for which funds have
been appropriated.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Navy, with amounts previously
appropriated, to construct the West Quaywall Extension at the
Pascagoula Naval Station, Mississippi, in the total amount of
$4.9 million.
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
Planning and design, Navy
The committee directs that of the amount authorized for
appropriations for Navy planning and design not more than the
amount indicated for each respective project be directed toward
the design of: MS: Stennis Space Center, War Fighting Center--
$437,000.
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE
SUMMARY
The Air Force requested authorization of $495,782,000 for
military construction and $1,083,362,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 1998. The committee recommends authorization of
$666,032,000 for military construction and $1,127,917,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 1998.
The committee recommends a general reduction of $23,858,000
in the authorization of appropriations for the Air Force
military construction account. The general reduction is to be
offset by management efficiencies and by savings from favorable
bids, and cancellations of projects due to force structure
changes. The general reduction shall not cancel any military
construction authorized by title XXIII of this bill.
Section 2301. Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition
projects.
This section contains the list of authorized Air Force
construction projects for fiscal year 1998. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Section 2302. Family housing.
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Air Force for fiscal
year 1998.
Section 2303. Improvements to military family housing units.
This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 1998.
Section 2304. Authorization of appropriations, Air Force.
This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item in the Air Force's budget for fiscal year 1998.
This section also would provide an overall limit on the amount
the Air Force may spend on military construction projects.
Section 2305. Authorization of military construction project at
McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas, for which funds have been
appropriated.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Air Force, with amounts previously
appropriated, to construct the Consolidated Education Center at
McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas, with a total amount of $6.7
million.
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES
SUMMARY
The Defense Agencies requested authorization of
$673,633,000 for military construction and $37,674,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 1998. The committee recommends
authorization of $680,003,000 for military construction and
$37,674,000 for family housing.
Section 2401. Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land
acquisition projects.
This section contains the list of authorized Defense
Agencies construction projects for fiscal year 1998. The
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this report is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
Section 2402. Military housing planning and design.
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
carry out planning and design activities with respect to the
construction or improvement of military family housing units in
the amount of $50,000.
Section 2403. Improvements to military family housing units.
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
make improvements to existing units of family housing for
fiscal year 1998 in an amount not to exceed $4,950,000.
Section 2404. Energy conservation projects.
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
carry out energy conservation projects.
Section 2405. Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies.
This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item in the Defense Agencies budget for fiscal year
1998. This section also would provide an overall limit on the
amount the Defense Agencies may spend on military construction
projects.
Section 2406. Clarification of authority relating to fiscal year 1997
project at Naval Station, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
table in section 2401 (a) of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, to change the location
of the Special Operations Command construction project from
Ford Island, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, to Naval Station, Pearl City
Peninsula, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.
Section 2407. Authority to use prior year funds to carry out certain
Defense Agency military construction projects.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to use funds appropriated and
authorized in fiscal year 1995 for life saving improvements at
McClellan Air Force Base Hospital for the following purposes:
(1) $3.7 million for the construction of an addition
to the Aeromedical Clinic, Anderson Air Force Base,
Guam; and
(2) $6.5 million for the construction of an
occupational health clinic, Tinker Air Force Base,
Oklahoma.
The provision would make these funds available until October 1,
2000, or the date for the enactment of an Act authorizing funds
for military construction for fiscal year 2000, whichever
occurs later.
Section 2408. Modification of authority to carry out fiscal year 1995
projects.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1995, as amended. The provision would authorize an
increase of funding for the construction of the Chemical
Demilitarization Facilities at Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas,
from $115.0 million to $134.0 million, and at Umatilla Army
Depot, from $186.0 million to $187.0 million, due to cost
increases resulting from a delay in receiving the appropriate
permits.
Section 2409. Availability of funds for fiscal year 1995 project
relating to relocatable over-the-horizon radar, Naval Station
Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
and extend the funds appropriated by the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1995, for the construction
of a relocatable over-the-horizon-radar at Naval Station
Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico. The funds would be available
until October 1, 1998, or the date of enactment of an Act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
1999, whichever is later.
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
PROGRAM
SUMMARY
The Department of Defense requested authorization of
$176,300,000 for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Security Investment Program for fiscal year 1998. The committee
recommends $152,600,000.
Section 2501. Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition
projects.
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
make contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) security investment program in an amount equal to the
sum of the amount specifically authorized in section 2502 of
this bill and the amount of recoupment due to the United States
for construction previously financed by the United States.
Section 2502. Authorization of appropriations, NATO.
This section would authorize appropriations of $152,600,000
as the contribution of the United States to the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) security investment program. The
committee recommends a reduction of $23,600,000 in budget
authority based on the anticipated prior year savings and
recoupments from the NATO Security Investment Program.
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES
SUMMARY
The Department of Defense requested a military construction
authorization of $172,886,000 for fiscal year 1998 for National
Guard and Reserve facilities. The committee recommends
authorization for fiscal year 1998 of $492,118,000 to be
distributed as follows:
Army National Guard................................... $155,416,000
Air National Guard.................................... 193,269,000
Army Reserve.......................................... 87,640,000
Air Force Reserve..................................... 34,580,000
Naval and Marine Corps Reserve........................ 21,213,000
-----------------
Total........................................... 492,118,000
Section 2601. Authorized Guard and Reserve construction and land
acquisition projects.
This section would authorize appropriations for military
construction for the National Guard and Reserve by service
component for fiscal year 1998. The state list contained in
this report is intended to be the binding list of the specific
projects authorized at each location.
Section 2602. Authorization of Army National Guard construction
project, aviation support facility, Hilo, Hawaii, for which
funds have been appropriated.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Army, with amounts previously
appropriated, to add/alter the Army Aviation Support Facility
at Hilo, Hawaii, in the total amount of $5.9 million.
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
Army aviation operating facility, Bethel, Alaska
The Military Construction Act for Fiscal Year 1995
authorized for appropriation $6.4 million for the construction
of an Army aviation operating facility at Bethel, Alaska. The
committee understands that due to recent deployment of new
aircraft, changes in building codes and fire suppression
requirements this project requires additional funding in the
amount of $4.6 million. Since this additional funding is due in
part to new mission requirements, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Army to submit a cost variation report and
reprogramming request to the congressional defense committees
to fund the completion of the facility.
Planning and design, Guard and Reserve Forces facilities
The committee directs that, of the amount authorized for
appropriations for Army National Guard, Army Reserve, Naval
Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, Air National Guard and Air Force
Reserve construction and land acquisition projects, not more
than the amount indicated for each respective project be
directed toward the design of:
Air National Guard:
OK: Will Rogers ANG Base, Base Supply Complex......... $350,000
OK: Oklahoma City, Readiness Center................... 497,000
VT: Burlington IAP, Base Supply Complex............... 550,000
Army Reserve:
AS: Tafuna, Add/Alt Reserve Center.................... $2,000,000
TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS
Section 2701. Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be
specified by law.
This section would provide that authorizations for military
construction projects, repair of real property, land
acquisition, family housing projects and facilities,
contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
infrastructure program, and National Guard and Reserve projects
will expire on October 1, 2000 or the date of enactment of an
Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2001, whichever is later. This expiration would not apply to
authorizations for which appropriated funds have been obligated
before October 1, 2000 or the date of enactment of an Act
authorizing funds for these projects, whichever is later.
Section 2702. Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 1995
projects.
This section would provide for selected extension of
certain fiscal year 1995 military construction authorizations
until October 1, 1998, or the date of the enactment of an Act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
1999, whichever is later.
Section 2703. Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 1994
projects.
This section would provide for selected extension of
certain fiscal year 1994 military construction authorizations
until October 1, 1998, or the date of the enactment of the Act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
1998, whichever is later.
Section 2704. Extension of authorization of fiscal year 1993 projects.
This section would provide for selected extension of
certain fiscal year 1993 military construction authorizations
until October 1, 1998, or the date of the enactment of the Act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
1999, whichever is later.
Section 2705. Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 1992
projects.
This section would provide for selected extension of
certain fiscal year 1992 military construction authorizations
until October 1, 1998, or the date of the enactment of the Act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
1999, whichever is later.
Section 2706. Effective date.
This section would provide that titles XXI, XXII, XXIII,
XXIV, and XXVI of this bill shall take effect on October 1,
1997, or the date of the enactment of this Act, whichever is
later.
TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SUBTITLE A--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM AND MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING
CHANGES
Section 2801. Increase in ceiling for minor land acquisition projects.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2672 of title 10, United States Code, to increase the
ceiling for minor land acquisitions from $200,000 to $500,000.
Section 2802. Sale of utility systems of the military departments.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the service secretaries to convey all or part of government
utility systems located on military installations to commercial
or public utilities. The utilities that may be conveyed
include, but are not limited to: electrical generation and
supply; water treatment; water supply; wastewater collection
and treatment; steam, hot, chilled water generation and supply,
and natural gas supply. The conveyance would be for fair market
value, either as a lump-sum payment or as a reduction in
utility charges, consistent with applicable Federal and State
laws or regulations, for a period sufficient to amortize the
monetary value of the utility system, including any conveyed
real property. Any lump sum payment received would be credited
to an appropriation available for the purchase of like utility
services or to an appropriation for the construction of energy
and water conservation projects or improvements to other
utility systems at the installation. The provision would waive
the cost comparison study between civilian and government
workers required by chapter 146 of title 10, United States
Code. The secretaries would not be authorized to enter an
agreement to convey until 21 days after the service secretaries
submit an economic analysis to the congressional defense
committees. The committee directs that prior to submission of
the economic analysis, it be reviewed by the appropriate office
within the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Section 2803. Administrative expenses for certain real property
transactions.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 159 of title 10, United States Code, to permit the
military departments to accept reimbursement for administrative
expenses incurred in real estate transactions at the request
and benefit for non-Federal entities. The provision would apply
to expensesincurred by the exchange of real property, granting
of easements, and the leasing of government real property. The funds
received from these transactions would be credited to the
appropriation, fund, or account from which such expenses were paid. The
provision would also make a conforming amendment to section 2667(d)(4)
of title 10, United States Code.
Section 2804. Use of financial incentives for energy savings and water
cost savings.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2865 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
Secretary of Defense to credit financial incentives received
from gas or electric utilities to an appropriation designated
by the Secretary. The impact of this authority would be
reflected in the Secretary's annual energy report. The
provision would also include a conforming amendment.
SUBTITLE B--LAND CONVEYANCES
Section 2811. Modification of authority for disposal of certain real
property, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 2821 of the Military Construction Act for Fiscal Years
1990 and 1991 as amended by section 2854 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996. These
provisions would have authorized the conveyance of the parcel
of real property, including improvements thereon, at Fort
Belvoir, Virginia, consisting of approximately 820 acres known
as the Engineer Proving Ground. The committee is dismayed that
the Army has not reached an agreement on the conveyance of this
valuable piece of property. The committee directs the Secretary
of the Army to expeditiously excess this property and dispose
of it in accordance with the Federal Property and
Administration Services Act of 1949.
Section 2812. Correction of land conveyance authority, Army Reserve
Center, Anderson, South Carolina.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2824 of the Military Construction Authorization Bill
for Fiscal Year 1997, which authorizes the conveyance of the
Army Reserve Center, Anderson, South Carolina, to the County of
Anderson, South Carolina, for educational purposes. The
provision would make a technical correction to change the
recipient of the property from the County of Anderson to the
Board of Education, Anderson County, South Carolina.
Section 2813. Land conveyance, Hawthorne Army Ammunition Depot, Mineral
County, Nevada.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Army to convey, without reimbursement, to
Mineral County, Nevada, approximately 33.1 acres of real
property and improvements that constitute the Schweer Drive
Housing Area. The conveyance would be contingent upon the
County's acceptance of the property subject to such easements
or rights of way as the Secretary considers appropriate. The
provision would also require the County to reimburse the United
States in the event the property is sold within 10 years. The
reimbursement would be equal to the lesser of:
(1) the amount of the sale of the property sold; or
(2) the fair market value of the property sold,
excluding the value of any improvements made by the
County.
Section 2814. Long-term lease of property, Naples, Italy.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Navy to lease a regional hospital complex
in Naples, Italy, for no more than 20 years. The authority
would expire on September 30, 2002.
Section 2815. Land conveyance, Topsham Annex, Naval Air Station,
Brunswick, Maine.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Navy to convey, without consideration, to
the Maine School Administrative District No. 75, Topsham,
Maine, a parcel of real property, consisting of approximately
40 acres located at the Topsham Annex, Navy Air Station,
Brunswick, Maine. The provision would require the district to
use the conveyed property for educational purposes. It would
further provide for an interim lease of the property until the
property is conveyed. As compensation for the lease, the
district would provide security and maintenance. The provision
would include a reversion clause in the event that the
Secretary determines that the conveyed property is not being
used for educational purposes.
Section 2816. Land conveyance, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
No. 464, Oyster Bay, New York.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Navy to convey, without consideration, to
the County of Nassau, New York, all right, title, and interest
of the United States in and to a parcel of real property
consisting of approximately 110 acres and improvements
comprising the Naval Weapons, Industrial Reserve Plant No. 464,
Oyster Bay, New York. The purpose of the conveyance would be
for economic development and would include equipment, fixtures,
and other personal property located on the parcel as the
Secretary determines not to be required by the Navy. The
provision would authorize the Navy to enter into an interim
lease with the County. The County would provide security
services, fire protection, and maintenance work, as specified
by the Secretary. The provision would specify that, if the
Secretary determines within a 5-year period after the
conveyance that the property is not used in accordance with the
condition of the conveyance, the property would revert to the
United States.
Section 2817. Land conveyance, Charleston Family Housing Complex,
Bangor, Maine.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Air Force to convey, without
consideration, to the City of Bangor, Maine, a parcel of real
property consisting of approximately 19 acres and improvements
located in Bangor, Maine and known as the Charleston Family
Housing Complex. The purpose of the conveyance would be for
economic development. The provision would require the city to
reimburse the United States in the event the property is sold
within 10 years. The reimbursement would be equal to the lesser
of:
(1) the amount of the sale of the property sold; or
(2) the fair market value of the property sold,
excluding the value of any improvements made by the
city.
Section 2818. Land conveyance, Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Air Force to convey, without
consideration, to the Greater Box Elder Area Economic
Development Corporation, Box Elder, South Dakota, all right,
title and interest of the United States in five parcels of real
property consisting of approximately 234 acres and
improvements. The parcels included in the conveyance are: the
Skyway Military Family Housing Area; the Renal Heights Military
Family Housing Area; the East Nike Military Family Housing
Area; the South Nike Military Family Housing Area; and the West
Nice Military Family Housing Area. In regard to the conveyance
of the Renal Heights Military Housing Area, the Secretary would
retain that portion of the property for the construction of an
access road between Ellsworth Air Force Base and an interchange
on Interstate Route 90.
The conveyance of these properties would be contingent on:
(1) that the use of the property comply with the applicable
provisions of the Ellsworth Air Force Base Air Installation
Compatible Use Zone Study; and (2) that approximately 20 acres
and improvement of the Skyway Military Housing Area be conveyed
to the Douglas School District, South Dakota, for educational
purposes.
The provision would include a reversion clause in the event
the that the Secretary determines that the conveyed property is
not being utilized in accordance with the conditions and
purposes of the conveyance.
SUBTITLE C--OTHER MATTERS
Section 2831. Disposition of proceeds of sale of Air Force Plant No.
78, Brigham City, Utah.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Air Force to use the funds deposited by
the Administrator of General Services in the account
established under section 204(h)(2)(A) of the Federal Property
and Administrative Services Act of 1949 from the sale of Air
Force Plant 78, Brigham City, Utah, for maintenance and repair
of facilities, or environmental restoration, at other
industrial plants of the Air Force. The committee understands
that these funds are not required for the purpose intended at
Air Force Plant 78. The committee expects the Secretary of the
Air Force, as part of the annual request for authorization of
appropriation, to notify the congressional defense committees
of the purposes for and locations where these funds were used.
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
Report on land use, Navy Air Station, Brunswick, Maine
The committee recognizes there are initiatives by Federal
and local agencies for dual commercial and military use of
Federal property. Dual-use initiatives can be beneficial for
both the Federal Government and local municipalities by
maximizing land use at existing military installations. The
committee believes a dual-use opportunity is feasible at Naval
Air Station, Brunswick, Maine, and directs the Secretary of the
Navy to evaluate the feasibility for dual military-civilian use
and/or conveyance of real property at the Navy Air Station,
Maine. The evaluation will include the operational impacts,
financial factors, environmental issues, real estate
requirements, and budget impacts of dual use or conveyance.
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
Insert offset folio 1149 here
Offset Folios 1150 to 1170 Insert Here
<SKIP PAGES = 022>
SUBTITLE A--NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS AUTHORIZATIONS
Section 3101. Weapons activities.
The fiscal year 1998 budget request included $3.6 billion,
excluding funding for construction projects, for atomic energy
defense weapons activities, which included $1.4 billion for
stockpile stewardship activities; $1.8 billion for stockpile
management activities; and $303.5 million for program
direction.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$4.0 billion, including funding for construction projects, for
atomic energy defense weapons activities of the Department of
Energy, which includes $1.7 billion for stockpile stewardship
activities; $2.0 billion for stockpile management activities;
and $268.5 million for program direction. The committee
recommends a general reduction of $10.0 million that would be
offset by prior year balances.
Stockpile stewardship programs
The committee continues to be concerned that the Department
is relying on the unproven science-based stockpile stewardship
program at the expense of modernizing the proven, hands-on
production engineering and surveillance approaches needed to
maintain stockpile safety and reliability over the next 10 to
15 years. The committee is pleased, however, that the
Departments of Defense and Energy completed the first annual
review of the stockpile and have certified to the President its
safety and reliability. The committee is encouraged by the
Department's progress in initiating subcritical experiments.
These experiments are essential to maintaining the enduring
stockpile in a safe and reliable condition.
The ``science-based'' stockpile stewardship program is
essential to maintain the U.S. nuclear stockpile in the absence
of underground nuclear testing. This ``science-based''
approach, however, will not replace the need to maintain proven
stockpile management capabilities. The committee directs the
Department to seek a reasonable balance between new ``science-
based'' stockpile stewardship and management approaches and
those proven approaches that will be carried out at DOE
production sites. This balanced approach will ensure that the
United States can maintain the safety and reliability of the
nuclear weapons stockpile, as required by the Nuclear Weapons
Stockpile Memorandum and the Nuclear Posture Review.
The committee recommends a reduction of $14.0 million to
the Advanced Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI) program. The
committee supports the objectives of the ASCI program and
compliments the Department for its numerous successes in the
area of supercomputing. The committee notes, however, that a
principal objective of the ASCI program is to process and
assimilate data to be obtained from new facilities that are not
currently operational. The committee believes that the proposed
reduction in this account will not adversely impact the
Department's supercomputing needs and allows a significant
growth in this program over fiscal year 1997 funding levels.
Stockpile management programs
The committee believes that the United States must maintain
viable weapons manufacturing capabilities and capacities to
rebuild aging weapons and to retain the ability to reconstitute
its nuclear forces, if necessary. The committee is concerned
that the decisions resulting from the Department's Final
Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement might negatively impact production
capabilities and capacities by downsizing the Department's
existing production plants too rapidly. The committee believes
that it is essential to maintain these vital capabilities to
maintain the requirements of a START I or START II stockpile.
The committee encourages the Department to maximize the use of
existing capabilities and to give priority to maintaining those
capabilities rather than unnecessarily recreating such
capabilities at other sites.
The committee notes that the average age of the DOE weapons
complex workforce continues to be well above the national
workforce average age. The committee is concerned that the
Department has not taken all the steps necessary to ensure that
critical knowledge and skills are maintained. Unless the
effects of this trend are addressed, the weapons complex
workforce may be unable to meet required deliverables in the
near future. The committee is aware that the Department and its
plant and laboratory managers share this concern and have taken
preliminary steps to address this problem. The Department has
not, however, fully implemented the Lab and Plant Fellowship
programs authorized in fiscal years 1996 and 1997. The
committee encourages the Department to fully implement these
programs during fiscal year 1998.
The committee recommends a $33.0 million increase to this
account, which includes $15.0 million for the four traditional
weapons production plants; $10.0 million for a surety program
to improve waste minimization efforts related to the
Department's stockpile management modernization program; and
$8.0 million to continue tritium facility upgrades initiated in
fiscal year 1997. Limitations on funds provided to the four
traditional production plants are discussed in a separate
section of this Act.
Of the amount made available for technology transfer and
education, the committee recommends $10.0 million for the
American Textiles Partnership project. The committee is
concerned that the Department is initiating a number of new,
cooperative activities within the technology transfer and
education account. The committee directs the Secretary to give
first priority to completing those projects that were initiated
prior to fiscal year 1996, before supporting or initiating
additional cooperative research and development agreements.
Program Direction
The committee recommends a reduction of $35.0 million to
thebudget request for this account. The committee notes that
recent independent assessments from the Institute for Defense Analysis
and General Accounting Office have identified a number of
recommendations regarding how best to streamline the management
structure within the Office of Defense Programs. The committee believes
that implementing such recommendations would reduce management costs
and increase the effectiveness of the Department's weapons programs.
Section 3102. Environmental restoration and waste management.
The fiscal year 1998 budget request included $5.0 billion,
excluding funding for construction projects, for defense
environmental restoration and waste management activities (the
Environmental Management program), which included $1.7 billion
for Environmental Restoration; $1.5 billion for Waste
Management; $257.8 million for Technology Development; $1.1
billion for Nuclear Material and Facility Stabilization; $23.1
million for Policy and Management; $50.0 million for the
Environmental Management Science Program; and $388.2 million
for Program Direction.
The Committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$5.1 billion, including funding for construction projects, for
defense environmental restoration and waste management
activities of the Department of Energy (DOE). The amount
recommended is for the following activities: $1.7 billion for
Environmental Restoration; $1.6 billion for Waste Management;
$252.8 million for Technology Development; $1.3 billion for
Nuclear Material and Facility Stabilization; $18.1 million for
Policy and Management; $40.0 million for the Environmental
Management Science program; and $373.2 million for Program
Direction. The committee recommends a general reduction of
$109.0 million that would be offset by prior year balances.
Environmental Restoration
The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million to be
utilized to meet commitments at the Fernald, Ohio site.
Waste Management
The committee recommends an increase of $23.3 million to
this account as follows: $8.3 million to support high-level
waste research and development work at the Idaho National
Engineering and Engineering Laboratory and $15.0 million to
increase production rates at the Defense Waste Processing
Facility, the Consolidated Incineration Facility, and the West
Valley Site high-level waste vitrification plant.
Nuclear Material and Facility Stabilization
The committee recommends an increase of $63.0 million to
this account as follows: $48.0 million for nuclear material
stabilization operations at the F- and H-canyon facilities and
$15.0 million for the National Spent Fuel program.
Technology Development
The committee recommends a reduction of $5.0 million to
this account. This represents a 10 percent reduction to the
requested Technology Deployment Initiative. The committee
believes this reduction should be offset by greater
contributions from technology user organizations within DOE.
The committee is supportive of the Office of Science and
Technology's efforts to move technologies from the late stages
of research and development into use. The committee believes
that the success of this effort depends on greater cooperation
and cost sharing between technology developers and users.
Environmental Management Science Program
The committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million to
this account. It is expected that this reduction will be offset
by matching funds from the Office of Energy Research. The
committee notes that one of the stated objectives of the Office
of Energy Research is to carry out basic research in
environmental restoration and waste management. Accordingly,
the committee believes that the most effective method of
integrating basic research carried out under the Environmental
Management Science program with the research program in the
Office of Energy Research is to require a small level of co-
funding from the Office of Energy Research.
Program Direction
The committee recommends a decrease of $15.0 million to the
budget request for this account.
Policy Office
The committee recommends a reduction of $5.0 million to
this account. The committee continues to believe that there is
a considerable overlap in responsibility between the Policy
Office and other Environmental Management organizations. The
committee expects this reduction to be achieved through
consolidation of overlapping programmatic responsibilities.
Project Closure Account
The committee recommends no funds for the Project Closure
account. The committee remains skeptical that this set-aside
account can achieve real cost savings or significantly
accelerate site closures. The committee notes that the
Department has not identified appropriate performance measures
for projects and is utilizing vague and unquantifiable criteria
to select the closure projects. Further, the Department's Ten-
year Plan requires the environmental management program to
focus cleanup activities on those projects that will result in
near-term closure and mortgagereduction activities, making the
usefulness of this account unclear.
The committee believes that the amount of funding requested
by DOE for this account ($15.0 million) will not appreciably
reduce long-term cleanup costs at DOE facilities and encourages
the Department to continue to focus the entire Environmental
Management program on those projects and activities that will
accomplish the closure goals identified in section 3143 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997.
Privatization
The committee recommends $215.0 million for the
environmental management privatization account. The committee
notes that the Department's new policy of privatizing the
capital cost of large Environmental Management construction
projects has the potential to save scarce cleanup funds over
the long-term. The committee notes that the new concept's
effectiveness has yet to be demonstrated. Consequently, the
committee does not believe that a $1.0 billion investment in
this new approach is justified at this time.
Section 3103. Other defense activities.
The fiscal year 1998 budget request includes $1.6 billion,
excluding funding for construction projects, for other defense
activities in the Department of Energy (DOE), which includes
$668.0 million for nonproliferation and national security;
$103.8 million for fissile materials control and disposition;
$81.0 million for nuclear energy; $70.5 million for worker
community transition; $54.0 million for environment, safety and
health; $2.6 million for hearings and appeals; and $626.0
million for naval reactors.
The committee recommends a $30.0 million reduction to other
defense activities for arms control and nonproliferation and
national security program direction and $50.0 million for
nuclear energy. The committee recommends an increase of $43.0
million for naval reactors and $5.0 million for nuclear
smuggling and forensic analytical capability and domestic
emergency preparedness exercises.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$1.6 billion, including funding for construction projects, for
other defense activities as follows:
Verification and control technology..................... $458,200,000
Nuclear safeguards and security......................... 47,200,000
Security investigations................................. 20,000,000
Emergency management.................................... 27,700,000
Program direction (Nonproliferation & National Security) 84,900,000
Office of Hearings and Appeals.......................... 2,685,000
Environment, safety, and health......................... 54,000,000
Worker and community transition assistance.............. 65,800,000
Program direction (worker transition)................... 4,700,000
Fissile materials....................................... 99,451,000
Program Direction (Fissile Materials)................... 4,345,000
Nuclear Technology research and development............. 25,000,000
Nuclear security........................................ 4,000,000
Chernoybyl Shutdown Initiative.......................... 2,000,000
Naval reactors.......................................... 683,000,000
Nonproliferation and verification research and development
The committee continues to believe that this program would
benefit from broader participation by the Department of
Energy's national laboratories. The Congress directed the
Department, in the National Defense Authorization Acts for
Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997, to include the entire laboratory
and production complex, include production sites such as
Savannah River, in this program, and, industry, where
appropriate. The committee notes that the Department has failed
to take this action.
Russian Reactor Core Conversion Program
The Congress provided the Department of Energy authority in
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 to
include a program to develop, in conjunction with the
Department of Defense (DOD), a cooperative program with Russia
and Ukraine to modify or replace the nuclear reactor cores at
two plutonium production facilities. The DOD Cooperative Threat
Reduction (CTR) program included $10.0 million in fiscal year
1997 for core conversion. The fiscal year 1998 budget request
for this activity in the CTR program includes $41.0 million.
The objective of U.S. assistance to Russia and Ukraine in
its safety assistance program is to reduce the risk of
operating old, unsafe reactors until economic conditions allow
them to be shut down, or alternative sources of power can be
provided. The objective of the core conversion program is to
close plutonium producing nuclear power reactors. The goal of
this long-term program is to further U.S. international
nonproliferation policy. Concerns have been raised in
Government Accounting Office reports on nuclear safety that
modifying or replacing the reactor cores will result in
extending continued operations at these plants, rather than
resulting in closure. The immediate goal of the core conversion
program is to modify or replace the reactor cores, allowing the
reactors to continue to operate, while preventing the reactors
from producing weapons grade plutonium. The committee
understands that the three reactors located at the Tomsk
facility near the city of Seversk and one at the Krasnoyarsk
facility near the city of Zheleznorgorsk, both in Russia,
supply heat and electrical power to the nearby cities. A joint
feasibility report was prepared by the United States and
Russia, concluding that core conversion was the only feasible
alternative to solve the problem of finding an alternative
source of energy to provide heat and electricity to Seversk and
Zheleznorgorsk and to stop production of weapons-grade
plutonium.The committee understands that no agreement has been
reached yet between the United States and Russia on the Reactor
Shutdown Agreement.
The committee directs the DOD and DOE to keep the committee
informed on the status of the Reactor Shutdown Agreement with
the Russian Federation Ministry of Atomic Energy and to submit
a joint report to the committee on the agreement sixty days
after agreement is reached. The report should include a status
report on the project, as well as detailed information on the
estimated cost to complete the program, the design of the core
and program plan to complete the conversion. The information on
Russia's specific contribution to the reactor core conversion
program should also be included in the report submitted to the
committee.
Lastly, the committee understands that the program decision
document will serve as the basis upon which a decision will be
made by the United States on whether to continue and complete
the remaining core conversion activities. The committee wants
to ensure that it is kept informed on a regular basis on this
program and that no actions be taken that would result in an
expenditure of funds for activities that might be affected by a
decision not to complete the core conversion activities.
Chemical and Biological Research and Development Activities
The Congress provided authority in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201) for
DOE to conduct a research and development program on chemical
and biological agent detection programs. In order to leverage
Federal Government expertise resident at all the DOE national
laboratories and throughout the DOD and the military services,
the committee directs the DOE to consult and coordinate all its
research and development activities related to chemical and
biological defenses with the DOD. The committee understands
that a number of the multipurpose national laboratories have
expertise in the biological and effluent detection areas and
directs DOE to utilize fully this expertise and to encourage
and give equal consideration to their participation in the DOE
chemical and biological defense research and development
effort.
International Nuclear Safety Program
The budget request for fiscal year 1998 includes $81.0
million for nuclear energy activities. The committee recommends
a reduction of $50.0 million to the budget request for the
international nuclear safety program.
The goals and objectives of the international nuclear
safety program are laudable. However, the committee questions
how extending the lives of the riskiest nuclear plants in
Russia and other countries furthers U.S. nonproliferation
goals. The committee believes making safety improvements to
Soviet-designed nuclear power plants around the world are more
appropriately funded in the non-defense portion of the
Department of Energy budget and the foreign affairs budget.
The committee continues to believe that this program is a
foreign assistance program and, as such, should be conducted
and funded under the auspices of such appropriations and
authorization. This belief has been expressed in past National
Defense Authorization Acts.
Nuclear smuggling and counterterrorism
Countering or responding to the domestic terrorist use of
weapons of mass destruction has been of great interest to this
committee for many years. The budget request for fiscal year
1998 includes a $12.6 million increase over the fiscal year
1997 budget request to close gaps identified in the Department
of Energy's nuclear smuggling program. The committee recommends
a $3.0 million increase to enhance further and accelerate the
Department's nuclear forensic analytical capability. In
addition to training activities already planned by DOE to
respond to domestic incidents involving nuclear material, the
committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million to plan and
conduct realistic exercises to prepare Federal, State, and
local organizations to work effectively in response to domestic
terrorist use of nuclear weapons or materials. The committee
supports the use of existing national assets such as the Nevada
Test Site (NTS) to train Federal, State and local first
responders as part of the domestic emergency response program.
The committee recommends that training exercises hosted at the
Nevada Test Site use the most realistic scenarios possible. The
DOE should coordinate the activities of these exercises with
the executive agent and program manager for the Department of
Defense domestic emergency preparedness program in order to
integrate scenarios related to chemical and biological
incidents in the exercises and take advantage of cost savings.
Scientific exchanges between the United States and China and
Russia
The descriptive summary of the fiscal year 1998 budget
request for arms control activities includes funds for
cooperative scientific programs with Russian and Chinese
counterparts. The committee is concerned about the use of
defense funds in furthering cooperative scientific efforts with
foreign entities who do not comply with international arms
control agreement obligations. According to press reports, the
DOE recently conducted a scientific exchange in nuclear reactor
research and other areas with nuclear engineers from the
government of the People's Republic of China. As the committee
understands it, these engineers are from the China Nuclear
Industry Corporation--a government entity accused of selling
ring magnets to Pakistan, in violation of the Missile
Technology Control Regime (MTCR).
In October 1995, export controls on U.S. high-performance
computers were loosened. The decision to relax export controls
on these supercomputers was based on a DOD contracted study
that determined that certain high-performance computing
capabilitieswould be widely available overseas in the next two
years. The study concluded that these capabilities were
``uncontrollable'' and that efforts to control their export would be
ineffective and damage global competitiveness.
The conference report accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 expressed concerns about
the potential impact of this decision on the United States'
nonproliferation efforts and the ability of the United States
to maintain its military technological edge. DOD was directed
to submit a report to Congress describing the impact of the
decision to relax export controls on supercomputing technology
on the ability of nations to acquire and use high-performance
computing capabilities to develop conventional weaponry and how
this technology might enhance a nation's capability to develop
weapons of mass destruction.
The committee believes the report delivered to Congress in
December 1996 did not satisfactorily address congressional
concerns about relaxing export controls which enhance a
nation's ability to acquire sophisticated weaponry, weapons of
mass destruction, or delivery systems. The committee is
concerned that deregulating exports of sensitive technologies,
such as supercomputers, on the basis of economic considerations
or arbitrary projections of future availability could unduly
facilitate the spread of capabilities that could lead to the
acquisition by others of dangerous weapons. It could also
undermine U.S. nonproliferation policy by signaling that U.S.
national security considerations take a back seat to
international trade.
With this in mind, the committee raises concerns about
recent press reports that supercomputers were sold by a U.S.
firm to nuclear weapons institutes in Russia and China. The
committee directs the Department of Energy to provide it with a
report on these two incidents, to include the rationale for
continued cooperative scientific exchanges with entities of
governments who do not comply with its arms control
obligations; the status of the investigation into the sale of
supercomputers to Russia and China, the impact of this sale on
U.S. national security, and the ability of the United States to
maintain a qualitative technological edge over possible
adversaries; how these supercomputers may aid in the
development of advanced conventional weapons, weapons of mass
destruction, or delivery systems; that describes the steps
being taken to place the supercomputers under safeguards to
ensure that advanced computing capabilities are not used to
enhance or accelerate the weapons development capabilities of
these countries; and steps to ensure that these advanced
computing capabilities are not passed on to other states.
Materials, Protection, Control and Accountability
Prepared under the guidance of Presidential Directive 13
and Presidential Directive 41, the budget request for fiscal
year 1998 for nonproliferation and national security includes a
$25.0 million increase for materials, protection, controls, and
accountability (MPC&A) activities above the fiscal year 1997
request. The purpose of the MPC&A program is to assist Russia,
the Newly Independent States (NIS), and the Baltic States in
strengthening their nuclear material protection, control, and
accountability of materials that are directly usable in nuclear
weapons. The program is implemented through government-to-
government and laboratory-to-laboratory activities related to
technical collaboration with research institutes, development
of regulatory activities, development of licensing and
inspection programs, training, and implementation of modern
safeguards at state facilities.
The MPC&A program has increased dramatically since its
inception, rapidly expanding the areas of nuclear material
protection, control, and accounting activities in the former
Soviet Union. In fiscal year 1995, the scope of the Department
of Energy's activities included seven locations where MPC&A
activities were taking place in Russia. By the end of fiscal
year 1996, the DOE had added twenty more locations at which
MPC&A activities would take place. As of January 16, 1997, the
DOE has undertaken cooperative MPC&A activities at over forty
locations in Russia, the NIS, and the Baltic States. The
committee understands from the Department of Energy that of the
$100.0 million allocated to the DOE in fiscal year 1996 for
MPC&A activities, only $60.37 million has been spent.
Additionally, of the $112.6 million authorized in fiscal year
1997 funds for this activity, only 43.1 million had been spent
as of March 30, 1997.
The committee believes that activities in this area should
remain funded at the fiscal year 1997 level and therefore
recommends a $25.0 million reduction to the budget request for
MPC&A.
Naval Reactors
The committee recommends an increase of $43.0 million to
the budget request for naval reactors to expedite
decommissioning and decontamination activities at surplus
training facilities. The recommended increase for this activity
is offset by a reduction to the Nuclear Energy account.
The committee considers the naval reactors program to be a
critical defense activity. The committee is concerned that the
Department of Energy has a demonstrated pattern of consistently
underestimating funding requirements for this program in budget
requests. The committee strongly encourages the Department to
seek adequate authorization levels for this program in future
fiscal years to allow this program to accomplish its stated
objectives in an efficient manner.
Declassification Productivity Initiative
The committee continues to support the Declassification
Productivity Initiative. However, the committee is concerned
that the Department of Energy lacks the technical staff and
integrating components necessary to carry out successfully this
program. Recognizing the complexities surrounding
thedevelopment of a computer-aided system to improve the efficiency and
security of the declassification process, the committee is concerned
that the limited funds provided to this program are being allocated
among numerous laboratories, universities, and industry without clear
technical direction or coordination by the Department.
The committee strongly recommends that the Director of the
Office of Declassification begin development of a management
and integration strategy to coordinate and streamline the
various initiatives carried out within the Declassification
Productivity Initiative. In addition, the committee strongly
discourages any shift of funds from the Declassification
Productivity Initiative to other declassification activities.
Section 3104. Defense environmental management privatization.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$215.0 million for the Defense Environmental Management
Privatization program. The funds shall be allocated as follows:
$109.0 million for the tank waste remediation system project
(Richland); $29.0 million for contact handled transuranic waste
transportation (Carlsbad); $27.0 million for spent nuclear fuel
dry storage (Idaho); $25.0 million for waste pits remedial
action (Fernald); and $25.0 million for spent nuclear fuel
transfer and storage (Savannah River).
It is essential for the Department of Energy to pursue new
ways of doing business, such as privatization, to improve its
efficiency and effectiveness. Privatization, through the use of
competitive, fixed price contracts and private financing, is
expected to lead to significant cost savings when compared to
the traditional, cost plus management and operating contractor
approaches. By conveying to the contractor more control over
day-to-day operations and increased financial incentives for
successful completion of projects, privatization can be
expected to lead to innovative cleanup approaches as well as
improved technical and schedule performance.
The committee supports the exploration and application of
innovative contracting and financing mechanisms for Department
of Energy capital projects. The committee supports the
financing approach inherent in the Environmental Management
Privatization request and commends the Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Management for his efforts to meet the
Department's cleanup obligations while maximizing the use of
appropriated funds. The committee believes, however, that the
proposed growth rate for the Environmental Management
Privatization program is too high given the absence of
empirical data regarding how the new approach might impact
cleanup costs, program efficiencies, and compliance agreement
schedules.
Section 3105. Defense nuclear waste disposal.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$190.0 million as the fiscal year 1998 defense contribution to
the defense nuclear waste fund.
SUBTITLE B--RECURRING GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 3121. Reprogramming.
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the reprogramming of funds in excess of 110 percent of the
amount authorized for any program, or in excess of $1.0 million
above the amount authorized for the program, until the
Secretary of Energy has notified the congressional defense
committees and a period of 30 days has elapsed after the date
on which the report is received.
Section 3122. Limits on general plant projects.
The committee recommends a provision that would limit the
initiation of a ``general plant project'' if the current
estimated cost for that project exceeds $2.0 million. If the
Secretary of Energy finds that the estimated cost of any
project will exceed $2.0 million, the appropriate committees of
Congress would have to be notified of the reasons for the cost
variation.
Section 3123. Limits on construction projects.
The committee recommends a provision that would permit any
construction project to be initiated and continued only if the
estimated cost for the project does not exceed 125 percent of
the higher of: (1) the amount authorized for the project; or
(2) the most recent total estimated cost presented to the
Congress as justification for such project. To exceed such
limits, the Secretary of Energy must submit a detailed report
to the appropriate committees of Congress 30 days before any
additional funds are obligated. This provision would specify
that the 125 percent limitation does not apply to projects
estimated to cost under $5.0 million.
Section 3124. Fund transfer authority.
The committee recommends a provision that would permit the
transfer of authorized funds from the Department of Energy to
other agencies of the government for performance of work for
which the funds were authorized. The provision would allow the
transferred funds to be merged with the authorizations of the
receiving agency. The provision would limit the transfer
authority to five percent of amount authorized to be
appropriated.
Section 3125. Authority for conceptual and construction design.
The committee recommends a provision that would limit the
Secretary of Energy's authority to request construction funding
until the Secretary has completed a conceptual design of the
project. This limitation would apply to construction projects
with a total estimated cost in excess of $2.0 million. If the
estimated cost of the design exceeds $3.0 million, the
Secretarywould have to request funds for the design before
requesting funds for the construction project. The provision would
provide an exception in the case of emergencies.
Section 3126. Authority for emergency planning, design, and
construction activities.
The committee recommends a provision that would permit the
Secretary of Energy to perform planning and design with funds
available for any Department of Energy national security
program construction project, in addition to any funds
authorized for advance planning and design, whenever the
Secretary determines that the design must proceed expeditiously
to protect the public health and safety, meet the national
defense needs, or protect property.
Section 3127. Funds available for all national security programs of the
Department of Energy.
The committee recommends a provision that would allow
amounts appropriated for management and support activities and
for general plant projects to be used, when necessary, in
connection with all national security programs of the
Department of Energy.
Section 3128. Availability of funds.
The Committee recommends a provision that would authorize
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. Defense environmental management privatization projects.
The committee recommends a provision that would limit
execution of Department of Energy Defense Environmental
Management Privatization contracts.
This provision would prohibit the Department from incurring
any contractual obligations for a privatization contract until
30 days after the date on which the Department submits to the
congressional defense committees a report on that privatization
project that describes the Department's anticipated contractual
commitments for such project. The reports should identify: (1)
contract costs and fees, contractual milestones and other
obligations, performance requirements, deliverable dates,
liability provisions under the contract, and any planned or
anticipated follow-on activities; (2) an estimate of the
baseline project schedules and costs that would be incurred if
the Department had not used privatization contracting
practices; (3) an estimate and explanation of any cost savings
that might be realized using the privatization approach; (4)
assumptions underlying cost savings estimates; (5) schedule
impacts arising from privatization projects, including
adherence to agreed to milestones in compliance site
agreements; and (6) a discussion of the Department's plans to
maintain financial and programmatic accountability under the
new contracting approach.
This provision would direct the Department to examine and
report to the congressional defense committees on the
Department's authority to create an escrow account to set aside
sufficient funds to offset any reasonably foreseeable costs to
the Government that may arise if any privatization contracts
are canceled or terminated for the convenience of the
Government. The report should recommend any legislation needed
to eliminate any potential conflicts arising from the anti-
deficiency provisions found in section 3191 of title 31, United
States Code. Further, this provision would direct the
Department to submit to the congressional defense committees an
annual report, beginning on February 28, 1998, describing the
status of each ongoing privatization project for which funds
have been authorized.
Section 3132. International cooperative stockpile stewardship programs.
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Department of Energy from pursuing cooperative stockpile
stewardship and management activities with certain nations.
The committee remains concerned that an international
cooperative stockpile stewardship and management program could
have unintended detrimental effects on U.S. national security
interests. This provision would extend the prohibition
established by section 3138 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 to funds authorized to
be appropriated or available to DOE for fiscal year 1998 and
prevent international activities associated with cooperative
stockpile stewardship, with the exception of such activities
conducted with the United Kingdom and France or the activities
carried out by DOE under cooperative threat reduction programs
with nations of the Former Soviet Union. This prohibition would
apply to all DOE activities, including but not limited to
laboratory directed research and development funded studies.
The committee remains strongly opposed to any programs
intended to assist existing and threshold nuclear weapons
nations in areas relating to nuclear weapons safety,
reliability and effectiveness.
Section 3133. Modernization of enduring nuclear weapons complex.
The committee recommends a provision that would make
available an additional $15.0 million to support modernization
efforts being carried out at the Department of Energy's four
dedicated nuclear weapon production plants (Pantex, Kansas
City, Y-12, and Savannah River). The provision would require
the Department to submit, not later than 30 days after
enactment of this provision, a report describing the
Department's plans to allocate the funds authorized by this
section and the relevance of each allocation to implementing
the decisions in the Final ProgrammaticEnvironmental Impact
Statement for Stockpile Stewardship and Management. The funds
authorized for this activity could not be obligated until 30 days after
the congressional defense committees receive the Department's proposed
allocation report as required by of this provision.
The committee concurs with the Department's goal to
implement advanced manufacturing technology at DOE plants and
laboratories to improve production efficiencies and maintain
core competencies within the DOE nuclear weapons production
complex. The committee understands that such modernization
upgrades will require coordination among the four production
plants and the three design laboratories.
The committee remains concerned with the Department's plans
to maintain the capability and capacity to refurbish and, when
necessary, remanufacture nuclear weapons components in the
Nation's enduring nuclear weapons stockpile. The committee is
concerned that the Department may be over relying on new,
unproven ``science-based'' stockpile stewardship and management
approaches at risk of losing manufacturing capabilities and
expertise.
The committee is deeply troubled that the Department has
failed to comply with congressional direction included in
section 3137 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 and section 3132 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 calling for
modernization of the four nuclear weapons production plants.
The committee believes that the Department has not fully met
the requirements or intent of these sections and related
guidance provided in conference reports accompanying the Energy
and Water Appropriations Acts. The committee notes that the
General Accounting Office has identified certain Nuclear
Weapons Stockpile Memorandum requirements that may not be met
by the Department due to insufficient resources being provided
to the production plants. The committee believes that the
manufacturing facilities must be modernized as directed in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 and the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, or
these problems will continue.
Section 3134. Tritium production.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
funding for the tritium production program at the level
requested. The provision would require the Department of Energy
to select a tritium production technology not later than June
30, 1998. It would prohibit the Department from obligating
funds appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this
Act for exploration of any additional tritium production
options until July 30, 1998 or 30 days after such time that the
Department selects a preferred technology option under its
``dual path'' approach, whichever comes later.
The committee continues to believe that the tritium
production program must be accelerated to meet the requirements
of the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Memorandum, which identified a
new tritium production date in the year 2005. While the
committee recognizes that future tritium requirements could
change if the United States enters into treaties that reduce
the numbers of nuclear strategic and tactical weapons, the
production capacity that the United States will need to
maintain will remain constant.
The Congress provided an increase of $60.0 million to the
Department of Energy's fiscal year 1997 budget request to
accelerate the Department's phased approach to restoring
tritium production. This increase was intended to be used for:
site preparation for a new tritium production accelerator,
enhancement of ongoing accelerator research and development at
the Los Alamos National Laboratory in conjunction with the
Savannah River Site, expediting demonstration of accelerator
technology, and to advance target development and other
programmatic milestones in the commercial light water reactor
program. The committee is concerned that despite this
additional funding and enhanced research activities, the
Department has failed to accelerate the decision date for
selecting a preferred tritium production technology.
Section 3135. Processing, treatment, and disposition of spent nuclear
fuel rods and other legacy nuclear materials at the Savannah
River Site.
The committee recommends a provision that would make
available an additional $47.0 million above the budget request
for the F- canyon and H-canyon facilities at the Savannah River
Site to accelerate the stabilization of legacy materials at the
Savannah River Site. The committee is concerned that the
Department of Energy's fiscal year 1998 budget request did not
include adequate funds to operate both the F-canyon and H-
canyon facilities. The provision would further require that the
Secretary of Energy maintain a high state of readiness of the
F-canyon and H-canyon facilities, as recommended by the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB).
The committee continues to be concerned that the safety-
related issues raised by the DNFSB in its ``Recommendation 94-
1'' have not been fully addressed by the Department and
believes that the Nation's last remaining large-scale chemical
processing facilities should operate until the Department has
presented a complex-wide plan to convert excess nuclear
materials into stable, non-proliferable forms and to prepare
them for final disposition in a national repository.
The committee notes that the Department is exploring many
new missions which could use the Savannah River chemical
processing capabilities. The committee notes that the DOE
program for disposition of surplus fissile nuclear material
could use the capabilities of the canyons regardless of whether
the national program calls for disposition of plutonium through
immobilization or production of mixed oxide (also known as
``MOX'') fuel.
The committee notes that the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1997 required the Department to prepare a
multi-year program plan regarding the Department's plan to use
the F-canyon and H-canyon facilities for the efficient
managementstabilization, and disposition of nuclear materials,
such as surplus uranium and plutonium, domestic and foreign research
reactor spent fuel, and any other nuclear materials that may
potentially be received at the Savannah River Site. The plan was to
provide options for chemical processing, reduction and isolation of
nuclear materials. The Department recently informed Congress that the
report will be late. The committee believes that maximizing the use of
both the F-canyon and H-canyon facilities could reduce outyear costs by
accelerating the closeout of facilities with no remaining mission and
by reducing the volume of waste currently planned to be shipped to
permanent repositories. The committee directs DOE to complete the
report on canyon utilization as quickly as possible to provide an
opportunity for the committee to review the report prior to any
decision which might foreclose continued use of the F-canyon and H-
canyon facilities.
The committee believes that the long-term storage and
direct disposal of spent nuclear fuel, currently in wet storage
or being shipped to the Savannah River Site, as proposed by
DOE's current plan presents significant risks and costs. The
committee believes that these materials can be better addressed
through chemical processing and stabilization at the canyon
facilities. The committee notes that use of the canyons reduces
the volume of high level waste sent to the national repository,
thereby reducing costs, and produces stable waste forms that
are suitable for permanent disposal. In addition, the committee
is encouraged by the positive anti-proliferation feature of
blending down the resulting highly enriched uranium to render
it no longer suitable for weapons.
Section 3136. Limitations on use of funds for laboratory directed
research and development purposes.
The Committee recommends a provision that would modify
section 3136 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997 by requiring the annual report on uses of
Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) funds be
provided to the congressional defense committees not later than
February 1 of each year. The provision would also prohibit the
Department of Energy from obligating more than 30 percent of
the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the
Department of Energy in fiscal year 1998 for LDRD programs
until the Department submits the annual report.
The provision would limit the use of funds appropriated or
otherwise made available to the Department of Energy under
section 3101 of this Act to LDRD and technology transfer
activities that support the weapons activities of the
Department. The provision would similarly limit use of funds
appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of
Energy under section 3102 of this Act to those activities that
support the environmental restoration, waste management, or
materials stabilization activities of the Department.
The provision would require the Department to include in
the fiscal year 1998 annual report an assessment of the funding
required to carry out a vigorous LDRD program, including any
recommendations for the percentage of funds that should be
provided to the National Laboratories by the Federal
Government.
The committee recognizes that programs such as the LDRD
program are essential to maintaining the core competencies of
the National Laboratories. The committee continues to support a
robust, multi-disciplinary research agenda for the National
Laboratories. It is the committee's intent that the LDRD and
technology transfer program continue to focus the talent and
intellectual curiosity of the National Laboratories toward
activities that address the challenges that face the
Department's weapons and environmental management programs.
Section 3137. Permanent authority for transfers of Defense
environmental management funds.
The Committee recommends a provision that would extend and
make permanent law the one time authority to transfer defense
environmental management funds originally authorized in section
3139 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1997. This provision would direct the Secretary of Energy to
grant authority to Department of Energy site managers to make
one annual transfer of up to $5.0 million between environmental
program functions within the jurisdiction of that site manager.
Section 3138. Prohibition on recovery of certain additional costs for
environmental response actions associated with the Formerly
Utilized Site Remedial Action Project program.
The committee recommends a provision that would limit the
Department of Energy's ability to seek recovery from third
parties for environmental cleanup costs at sites authorized
under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
(FUSRAP). This limitation would apply only to those FUSRAP
sites where the Federal Government and a private party have
reached a binding agreement that apportions liability for
response costs.
SUBTITLE D--OTHER MATTERS
Section 3151. Administration of certain Department of Energy
Activities.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 501 and 624 the Department of Energy Organization Act
and repeal section 17 of the Federal Energy Act. This provision
would bring the Department of Energy (DOE) under the full scope
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and would bring DOE under
the full scope of the Administrative Procedure Act when issuing
regulations dealing with public property, loans, grants, or
contracts.
Section 3152. Modification and extension of authority relating to
appointment of certain scientific, engineering, and technical
personnel.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 by
extending the authority to appoint excepted personnel for
certain scientific, engineering, and technical positions
through the end of fiscal year 1999. This provision would also
strike the requirement for the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to submit a report to Congress
on the effects of this hiring authority on the cleanup carried
out at sites listed on the National Priorities List (also known
as ``Superfund'' sites).
Section 3153. Annual report on plan and program for stewardship,
management, and certification of warheads in the nuclear
weapons stockpile.
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Energy to submit an annual report to the
congressional defense committees detailing the status and
condition of the enduring U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile, based
on the requirements set forth in the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
Memorandum. Such annual report would include relevant
information, that was previously required to be included in any
reports that would be repealed by provisions elsewhere in this
title. The report would be submitted in both classified and
unclassified form.
Section 3154. Submittal of biennial waste management reports.
The committee would amend section 3153 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 104-
360) by changing the future date for the biennial Baseline
Environmental Management Report to fiscal year 1999, rather
than fiscal year 1997.
Section 3155. Repeal of obsolete reporting requirements.
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
requirements for the Department of Energy to submit to the
Congress certain annual and other reports.
The committee believes the Department of Energy's annual
stockpile stewardship and management plan (also known as ``The
Green Book'') has superseded the following reports and they are
not longer necessary:
(1) the annual report on the reliability of existing
nuclear weapons required by section 3138(d) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994
(Public Law 103-160);
(2) the master plan on the certification,
stewardship, and management of warheads as required by
section 3153 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106);
(3) an annual report on long-term and near-term
program plan for certification and stewardship of
nuclear weapons stockpile required by section 3159 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996 (Public Law 104-106;
(4) an annual report on long-term and near-term
program plan for certification and stewardship of
nuclear weapons stockpile required by section 3156 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1997 (Public Law 104-201;
(5) a report on activities of the Atomic Energy
Commission as required by section 251 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 (Public Law 83-703, as amended by
section 1 of Public Law 86-43);
(6) a report on the test ban readiness program as
required by section 1436(e) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1989 (Public Law 100-
456);
(7) a quarterly budget report on all DOE ``major
national security programs.'' as required by section
3143 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 101-189); and
(8) a report on progress associated with a New
Production Reactor for tritium production. This program
was canceled in November 1992 as required by section
3134 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484).
The report on research activities of the Department of
Energy relating to environmental restoration and waste
management technology development required by section 3141(c)
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990
and 1991 (Public Law 101-189) would be addressed by the
Department of Energy ``Annual Environmental Management Ten-year
Plan'' report.
Section 3156. Commission on safeguarding and security of nuclear
weapons and materials at Department of Energy facilities.
The committee recommends a provision that would establish a
commission to review the sufficiency of Department of Energy
(DOE) nuclear weapons and materials safeguards and security
programs. The Commission on safeguards and security at
Department of Energy facilities will review threat
determinations and assumptions, relevant Department of Energy
orders, and other requirements governing Safeguards and
Security of nuclear weapons, weapons components, nuclear
materials, and sensitive nuclear weapons information at DOE
facilities. The Commission would make recommendations regarding
any changes in security policy and procedures necessary to
detect, deter and react to credible threats.
The provision would require the Commission to provide its
findings and any recommendations to the Secretary of Energy and
congressional defense committees not later than February 15,
1998.
Section 3157. Modification of authority on commission on maintaining
United States nuclear weapons expertise.
The committee recommends a provision that would extend by
one year the due date for the report to be prepared by the
Commission on Maintaining United States Nuclear Weapons
Expertise. Theprovision would amend section 3162 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, which
established the Commission.
This provision would direct the Senate Majority Leader to
designate a chairman of the Commission after consultation with
the Speaker of the House of Representatives upon appointment of
the fifth member of the Commission. The provision would further
direct the Commission to begin deliberations upon appointment
of the fifth member.
Section 3158. Land transfer, Bandelier National Monument.
The committee recommends a provision that would transfer
ownership of approximately 4.5 acres from the Department of
Energy's Los Alamos National Laboratory site in Los Alamos
County, New Mexico, to the Department of the Interior. The
Department of Interior constructed and manages sewage lagoons
on this parcel of land. The transfer would allow the Department
of the Interior to manage the lagoons in a more efficient
manner.
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
Asset disposition
The committee supports the Department of Energy's efforts
to identify surplus assets or real property that are excess to
the needs of the Federal Government. In order to explore
options for a potential pilot program, the committee requests
that the Department initiate a pilot program to dispose of
excess Department assets and utilize the proceeds from the sale
of these assets to reduce the Federal deficit and conduct
decontamination, decommissioning, and closure activities at
Department of Energy-owned clean-up sites.
The Department is directed to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees identifying, to the extent
possible, the following: (1) the assets and real property that
are in excess of the needs of the Federal Government; (2) sites
or asset categories that could be included in a pilot asset
sales program; (3) a plan describing how revenues from surplus
asset sales might be used for specified purposes, such as
deficit reduction, decommissioning and deactivation of DOE
facilities, or other activities with the potential to reduce
outyear Departmental costs; (4) existing Departmental
authorities to carry out the pilot program; and (5) any
regulatory changes needed to accelerate and streamline disposal
of surplus assets.
The Department is directed to recommend any proposed pilot
programs and legislative initiatives within six months of
enactment of this section. Proposed pilot programs must be
integrated with and support existing Departmental missions.
Implementation of this initiative should be carried out through
existing line organizations within the Department. It is not
intended that new DOE organizations would be created as a
result of this initiative.
Cuban nuclear reactors
The committee is concerned about the construction of two
Soviet-designed reactors in Cuba. Despite objections and
concerns raised about the operational safety of the these
reactors, the committee understands that the Cuban government
intends to operate these plants. The potential for accidental
release of radioactive material reaching south Florida and the
Gulf States is of great concern. The committee urges the
Department of Energy to evaluate the ability of existing early-
warning systems capable of detecting low levels of radioactive
material, and to determine their usefulness in responding to
potential dangers posed by operating these reactors. The
committee further urges the administration to take appropriate
steps to ensure the safety of American citizens who live in
regions that might be exposed to accidental release of
radioactive material from these reactors.
Environmental Science Program
The committee is pleased with the cooperative efforts being
carried out by technical staff in the Department of Energy's
Office of Environmental Management (EM) and the Office of
Energy Research (ER). The committee continues to support the
goals of this program and compliments the responsible EM and ER
managers and staff for creating a cooperative approach in
carrying out this program.
The committee agrees with the recent National Research
Council finding that this program would benefit from a plan to
apply the basic research results from this program to the DOE
clean-up and waste management programs. The committee directs
the Offices of Environmental Management and Energy Research to
prepare jointly such a plan. The plan should include: a
comprehensive list of cleanup needs by EM technology focus
area, the basic research requirements associated with each of
these needs, a near- and long-term strategy for the program,
and a clear articulation of criteria to select projects for
funding.
The committee remains concerned that funds authorized for
the EM Science program are not being fully applied to defense
environmental cleanup priorities. To address this concern, the
committee directs that management and implementation
responsibility for this program reside within the Office of
Environmental Management. The committee directs the Assistant
Secretary for Environmental Management to establish project
selection criteria, prioritize DOE defense clean up needs, and
implement selected research projects. The Office of Energy
Research should peer review proposed projects and integrate
selected projects with other ongoing basic research activities
carried out by the Department.
The committee respectfully disagrees with the findings of
the National Research Council that the Office of Energy
Research not be required to co-fund projects carried out under
this program. The committee believes that this program would
benefit from more cooperative funding approaches to selected
projects. A statedobjective of the Office of Energy Research is
to ``conduct fundamental research'' necessary ``to support the mission
of DOE's Environmental Management program.'' The committee believes
that the Office of Energy Research should subject its environmental
clean-up and waste management research projects to the same peer review
and technology selection process utilized by the EM Science Program.
The committee believes that this process would ensure all DOE-supported
environmental restoration and waste management basic research
activities are selected according to the same criteria and that those
activities will fully support EM mission needs.
The committee recommends a reduction of $10.0 million in
this program. The committee believes that this reduction should
be offset by fiscal year 1998 funds appropriated to the Office
of Energy Research.
The Department is directed to report within 90 days of
enactment of this section on those programs and activities
carried out within the Office of Energy Research which have
application to the Office of Environmental Management mission
requirements.
Federally funded research and development centers
The committee is concerned that the Department of Energy
(DOE) may unnecessarily eliminate Federally Funded Research and
Development Center (FFRDC) designation for several DOE
facilities. The committee strongly encourages the Department to
maintain the FFRDC status of all DOE facilities until the
Department provides the congressional defense committees a
justification for taking such action. This justification should
include a discussion of potential cost savings from such
action.
Fissile materials disposition
The committee is encouraged by the Department of Energy
(DOE) program to develop a credible fissile materials
disposition strategy to make inaccessible for future use those
quantities of plutonium and highly enriched uranium declared
excess to U.S. weapons production needs. The committee endorses
the Department's ``dual track'' strategy to explore both
immobilization and mixed oxide fuel (MOX) fabrication options.
The United States must take a strong leadership role in
developing and implementing a viable program to ensure that
surplus fissile materials are no longer available for use in
nuclear weapons activities. A viable, cost effective U.S.
fissile materials disposition program is essential to ensure a
timely drawdown of Russian plutonium stockpiles.
The committee directs the Secretary of Energy to implement
both the mixed oxide fuel and immobilization approaches for the
disposition of surplus plutonium. In so doing, the committee
recognizes that the extent to which these approaches are
implemented will be determined by technical, institutional, and
international considerations.
In selecting final technical approaches, the Secretary
should apply, to the greatest extent practicable, existing
commercial technology to minimize the overall costs and risks.
The committee urges the DOE to allow maximum flexibility to
potential bidders regarding how consortia are formed in
response to Department of Energy contract solicitations for
materials disposition. The Department is encouraged to give
preference to those sites with existing infrastructure and
capabilities to support either a MOX fabrication or plutonium
immobilization mission or both in making final decisions
regarding disposition of surplus fissile materials.
Funding for Greenville Road Improvement Project, Livermore, California
The committee did not adopt the Department of Energy's
request for a provision that would authorize funds for
improvements to Greenville Road in Livermore, California. The
committee believes the Department may not have fully adhered to
its own policy directive entitled ``Department of Energy Policy
for Funding Public Road Work Off DOE-owned Sites'' in
developing this request. Further, the committee is concerned
that by authorizing the funds requested a precedent may be set
for other communities to seek additional funds, not consistent
with DOE policy, from the Department to meet local
infrastructure needs.
Improving collaboration between the Department of Defense and
Department of Energy laboratories
The committee notes that the United States continues to
face major defense challenges whose solutions require long-term
programs for the development and integration of technology. New
forms of collaboration that cross traditional dividing lines
between government departments, laboratories, and industry are
essential, if we are effectively to use the resources of our
reduced defense scientific, technological and industrial base
to meet these challenges.
The committee believes that the Department of Energy (DOE)
National Laboratories and DOE sites have a significant role to
play in meeting the threats posed by these challenges. In
fulfilling their responsibility for science-based stockpile
stewardship, Stockpile Life Extension and related programs, the
laboratories have developed impressive capabilities in
simulation and modeling; advanced munitions, warhead design and
development; and an experienced-based understanding of the
process of cradle to grave systems design, development and
maintenance. These capabilities can make a central contribution
to the design, development, testing, deployment, and operation
of systems needed to master dynamic complex threats.
The defeat of hard and deeply buried targets is one such
emerging complex challenge. These targets are designed to
shelter the war-making capabilities, including weapons of mass
destruction, of the world's rogue states. There are a number of
identified barriers to more DOE laboratory participation in
Department of Defense programs to address the problem
ofdefeating these targets. They include interagency procurement
uncertainties and the potential charging of administrative fees that
may exceed actual cost incurred.
The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology, working in consultation with the
Assistant Secretary of Energy for Defense Programs and the
Director of the Office of Energy Research, to prepare a pilot
program proposal to allow for more direct collaboration between
the Department of Defense and the DOE laboratories and sites.
The pilot program proposal should include such objectives as
the development of enabling technologies, risk reduction,
precompetitive teaming with the DOD research, development, test
and evaluation facilities and industry to maximize the
expertise that can be brought to bear on this challenging
problem. The proposal should also address the current
regulatory and legislative barriers to effective collaboration
under the pilot. The proposal should be submitted to the
congressional defense committees no later than March 1, 1998.
The committee intends this pilot to serve as a means of
addressing the barriers to effective DOD-DOE partnership on a
broader, more systemic basis.
Interagency acquisitions done under the Economy Act
The committee encourages the Department of Defense (DOD) to
utilize the resources of the Department of Energy (DOE)
National Laboratories and facilities to fulfill DOD missions.
The committee is aware that section 844 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160) and
section 1074 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act
provided for a revised process within the Department of Defense
for interagency acquisitions under the Economy Act. Regulations
implementing these provisions require a contracting officer
determination prior to the decision of one agency to purchase
goods and services under contracts entered into or administered
by another agency.
The committee wishes to clarify that it is not the intent
of Congress to restrict the use of the DOE National
Laboratories and facilities where such use enhances program
objectives and meets technical needs that cannot be met
effectively through contracts with private industry. In
particular, the committee does not interpret the legislation to
require a contracting officer determination prior to making an
acquisition under the authority provided by the Economy Act
from a DOE National Laboratory or facility, unless that
acquisition would require subcontracting by the National
Laboratory for goods or services, other than purchases of
products incidental to the purposes of the contract.
The committee expects the Department to comply with
provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation that limit the
National Laboratories to performing work that: (1) is within
the DOE Laboratory or plant missions (or derived areas of
expertise); and (2) cannot be effectively provided by the
private sector. The Department should take particular care to
ensure the appropriate administration and use of interagency
cost reimbursement orders.
National Defense Fixed Assets Acquisition
The committee did not adopt the Department of Energy's
(DOE) request for full, up-front funding of its capital
projects. While the committee supports efforts to reduce
overall capital costs associated with DOE construction
projects, this new funding approach has been applied
inconsistently both within DOE and within other Federal
agencies. The Department has not demonstrated that application
of this new approach would result in reduced costs over the
long-term. Until these concerns are addressed, the committee
will authorize capital projects in accordance with procedures
followed in previous years.
Reports on alternative fuel and renewable energy technologies for
military applications
The committee notes that the Department of Defense could
benefit greatly from the application of alternative fuel and
renewable energy technology options. Accordingly, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
Secretary of Energy, the director of the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, the director of Sandia National
Laboratories, and the directors of other laboratories as the
Secretary of Defense determines appropriate, to submit a report
to the congressional defense committees on: (1) the potential
for the use of renewable energy technologies for military
applications, including reducing energy-related logistical
requirements for long-term deployments to remote areas; and (2)
the current level of funding by the Department of Defense on
such technologies and their potential military uses. The report
shall be due not later than February 1, 1998.
Further, the Secretary of Defense is directed to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees on programs
within the Department of Defense to train personnel to maintain
and repair alternative-fuel vehicles, fuel cells, and renewable
energy technologies being used by the Department of Defense.
The report should also contain a description of any such
programs, including their location, cost, and the number of
personnel trained in fiscal year 1997 and the preceding two
fiscal years. The report shall be due not later than February
1, 1998.
Report on Idaho Radioactive Waste Management Complex cleanup
Not later than March 31, 1999, the Department of Energy
shall deliver a report to the congressional defense committees
on remediation plans for the Radioactive Waste Management
Complex at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory. The report shall include analysis of proposed waste
treatment options and disposal plans. The report shall also
determine the threat of migration of radionuclides and any
potential threat to ground water. The report will assess the
suitability of a privatization program to treat waste at the
site. The report shall also include an assessment of how the
Pit Nine project has impacted plans to remediate the
Radioactive Waste Management Complex.
Report on incentives for highly creative and innovative laboratory
scientists and engineers
Not later than February 1, 1998, the Secretary of Energy,
after consultation with the directors of the Los Alamos
National Laboratory, the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratories, and after review
by the Department of Energy Laboratory Operations Board, shall
submit a report to the congressional defense committees with an
analysis of, and recommendations on, the desirability of a
program that would reward the most innovative and creative
scientists and engineers in the Department of Energy
laboratories with a limited period of funding to pursue
research and development topics chosen at the sole discretion
of the scientist or engineer receiving the reward. In carrying
out the analysis and formulating recommendations under this
provision, the Secretary shall study the success of similar
programs in industrial research and development organizations,
including the IBM Fellows program.
Robotics and intelligent machines initiative
The committee notes that the Department of Energy (DOE) is
the leading source of support within the Federal Government for
the development of robotics and intelligent machines, but notes
that this support is fragmented across a number of DOE
organizations and is largely focused on niche applications.
Fundamental and more broad-range advances in robotics and
intelligent machines are vital to accomplish such DOE atomic
energy defense missions as development of cost-effective and
agile manufacturing techniques for stockpile management and
remote sensing and handling techniques for radioactive waste
management and site cleanup. Development of such robotic and
intelligent machine technologies would benefit many other
defense applications as well, such as the development of small,
``smart'' robots for battlefield applications and advanced
material handling systems for improved defense logistics
support.
The committee directs the Secretary of Energy to develop a
comprehensive Robotics and Intelligent Machines Initiative that
would integrate existing Departmental programs; develop a
better underpinning of theory, generic software, and generic
hardware; and stimulate the development of applications
combining multiple concepts and advances in robotics and
intelligent machines. In developing this initiative, the
committee encourages the Department to work with the broad-
based Intelligent Machines Cooperative Consortium formed at the
joint Department of Energy/National Science Foundation Workshop
on Research Needs in Robotics and Intelligent Machines for
Emerging Industrial and Service Applications in October 1996.
Supply of radiation-hardened microelectronics
The committee is concerned about the Department of Energy's
ability to ensure an adequate supply of radiation-hardened
microelectronics for nuclear and non-nuclear weapon systems.
The committee notes that radiation-hardened microelectronic
components are critical elements in nuclear weapons and other
defense systems. The committee further notes that many
radiation-hardened microelectronic parts in current weapon
systems were made by suppliers that are no longer in the
business. At the present time, only two vendors are available
to bid on production of new radiation-hardened circuits
required for DOE's stockpile life extension program. In many
cases, there may be as long as a three-year lead time to obtain
replacement parts.
To address this problem, the committee believes the
Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Defense should enter
into an agreement to form a national defense electronics
partnership to focus on those measures necessary to maintain a
supply of radiation-hardened microelectronic components for
current and future defense uses. The program should include an
effort to develop technologies that can be transferred to
private industry as a way of easing the entry of new suppliers
into this specialized market. In addition, the Departments of
Defense and Energy should initiate a program to maintain a
limited in-house production capacity to fill near-term critical
needs, should they arise. The joint program should use the
Department of Energy's existing facilities and should maximize
use of existing fabrication facilities.
Technical exchange on defense-related transportation technologies
The committee notes that the National Transportation
Program within the Department of Energy's Office of
Environmental Management has developed a number of innovations
in the transportation of hazardous materials that could be of
broader benefit to the U.S. transportation industry. At the
same time, the commercial U.S. transportation industry has
expertise in areas such as logistical planning that could be of
benefit to this program.
The committee directs the Secretary of Energy to develop a
program of technical exchange and cooperative research and
development to facilitate information sharing on DOE best
practices in areas such as safety and information systems and
industry best practices in areas such as logistics. The program
should seek to use existing forums for technological
interchange in the transportation research and development
community to the extent appropriate. The Department of Energy
should submit a report to the congressional defense committees
on this technical exchange program, including a list of
potential pilot projects in this area, by April 1, 1998. The
report should also include an estimate of potential benefits of
each project to the Department and to private industry.
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
Section 3201. Authorization.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the budget request of $17.5 million for the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) for fiscal year 1998.
The committee remains supportive of the DNFSB role in
assessing and overseeing the Department of Energy's (DOE)
defense-related activities and believes this role should
continue. The committee is concerned with recently announced
plans by the Secretary of Energy to bring the Department's
national security programs under the jurisdiction of external
regulatory organizations with no technical expertise or
organizational capability to effectively oversee these critical
defense activities. The Department has not adequately
demonstrated the advantages of altering the legal framework
initially established by the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 and
continued in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, in
order to permit external regulation.
The committee will carefully examine any proposed
legislation that may be forthcoming from the Department to
ensure that any new external regulation regime would not have
adverse consequences on the Department's ability to carry out
its vital national security missions. The committee will also
examine closely any claimed advantages and likely ramifications
of licensing or regulation together with the total costs
involved, and will weigh these factors against the demonstrated
advantages of non-punitive, low-cost external review entailed
in the DNFSB's current approach. The responsibilities and
obligations of the Secretary and those of the Department's
contractors under any proposed regulatory regime must also be
spelled out clearly.
The committee notes that the DNFSB has successfully pushed
the Department to improve nuclear safety and that the DNFSB's
non-punitive review process has successfully created an
improved safety culture at Department of Energy facilities. The
committee believes the DNFSB serves an essential role in
improving and making accountable DOE operations and should
continue in its current capacity.
TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE
Secs. 3301-3304.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Stockpile Manager to obligate $60.0 million from the
National Defense Stockpile Transfer Fund during fiscal year
1998 for the authorized uses of funds under section 9(b)(2) of
the Strategic and Critical Materials Stockpiling Act.
The committee also recommends a provision that would
authorize the 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.
In addition, the committee recommends a provision that
would require any platinum contained within the National
Defense Stockpile and loaned by the Department of Defense to
the Department of Treasury to be made available to the
Department of Defense upon request of the Secretary of Defense.
TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES
The budget request included $117.0 million for operation of
the naval petroleum reserves in fiscal year 1998. The committee
recommends a provision that would authorize the full $117.0
million for the operation of the naval petroleum reserves in
fiscal year 1998.
The committee also recommends a provision (Section 3402)
that would authorize the Department of Energy to lease to
commercial entities the United States interests in the Naval
Oil Shale Reserves. The committee believes that the exploration
and production of petroleum and natural gas in these reserves
would achieve the maximum practicable financial return to the
United States.
Furthermore, the committee recommends a provision (Section
3403) that would repeal the requirement for commissioned
officers of the Navy to be assigned to key management
positions, including the position of Director, within the
Office of Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves in the
Department of Energy.
TITLE XXXV--PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION
SUBTITLE A--AUTHORIZATION OF EXPENDITURES FROM REVOLVING FUND
The committee recommends provisions (Sections 3501 through
3504) that would grant the Panama Canal Commission (the
Commission) authority to make expenditures from the Panama
Canal Commission Revolving Fund within existing statutory
limits. The Commission operates as a wholly-owned U.S.
Government corporation and is supervised by a nine member
supervisory board, commonly referred to as the Panama Canal
Commission Board of Directors. The Commission does not draw
from U.S. taxpayer funds for the operation of the Canal, but
receives funding to cover its operating, administrative, and
capital improvement expenses from tolls and other revenues
collected from its operations. The Commission's total operating
costs including depreciation and interest payments for fiscal
year 1998 are estimated at $673.8 million.
SUBTITLE B--FACILITATION OF PANAMA CANAL TRANSITION
Section 3511. Short title; references.
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
the Act as the ``Panama Canal Transition Facilitation Act of
1997''.
Section 3512. Definitions relating to Canal transition.
The committee recommends a provision that would define
terms used throughout the Panama Canal Transition Facilitation
Act of 1997 that are related to the transfer of the Panama
Canal under the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 and related
agreements.
PART I--TRANSITION MATTERS RELATING TO COMMISSION OFFICERS AND
EMPLOYEES
Section 3521. Authority for the Administrator of the Commission to
accept appointment as the Administrator of the Panama Canal
Authority.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Administrator of the Panama Canal Commission to serve
simultaneously as the Administrator of the Panama Canal
Authority (PCA), which is the body expected to be created this
year under Panamanian law to operate the Canal after December
31, 1999. The PCA is expected to be active before the 1999
transfer in drafting, reviewing and adopting regulations that
will be put in place at the time of transfer, as well as
performing other important administrative functions. Allowing
the Administrator of the Commission to also serve as
Administrator of the PCA will greatly facilitate the smooth
coordination and continuation of the Canal's administrative and
operating systems by Panama well into the next century. This
provision would also exempt the Administrator from selected
ethics provisions that could interfere with his expected
functions over the transition, given the special circumstances
of the transfer of the Panama Canal on December 31, 1999.
Section 3522. Post-Canal transfer personnel authorities.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
exemptions to post-employment ethics rules for Panama Canal
Commission employees who continue their Canal employment with
the Panama Canal Authority (PCA) after December 31, 1999.
Without these exemptions, these employees would be prohibited
from direct contact with the U.S. Government on Canal-related
matters, which would needlessly hinder any working
relationships between Federal agencies and the PCA.
The provision would also provide congressional consent for
current Panama Canal employees who are military retirees,
members of the reserve components of the U.S. armed forces, or
members of the Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service
to continue employment after December 31, 1999 with the PCA.
Otherwise, each employee so situated would individually have to
gain consent by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the
concerned executive department. Comprehensive authority is
appropriate to allow these employees to continue in their jobs
if they have the opportunity to do so.
Section 3523. Enhanced authority of Commission to establish
compensation of Commission officers and employees.
The committee recommends a provision that would revise the
Panama Canal Commission's compensation authorities to no longer
mandate a minimum two percent annual pay adjustment under
certain circumstances. It would also, through a savings
provision, maintain current levels of basic pay.
Section 3524. Travel, transportation, and subsistence expenses for
Commission personnel no longer subject to Federal Travel
Regulation.
The committee understands that requiring the Panama Canal
Commission to comply with the Federal Travel Regulation until
the Canal Transfer Date will make it difficult to develop and
implement new travel regulations suitable for the successor to
the Commission. The committee recommends a provision that would
exempt the Panama Canal Commission from the requirements of the
Federal Travel Regulation as of January 1, 1999, so that the
Commission can develop and implement travel regulations that
are more business-like, will better facilitate the dissolution
of the Commission's affairs, and will be more suitable for
adoption by the Government of Panama.
Section 3525. Enhanced recruitment and retention authorities.
The committee understands that the Panama Canal
Commission's current authority with respect to personnel
recruitment and retention are limited to narrow classes of
employees, and cannot be used to attract and retain Panamanian
citizens for most positions. The committee recommends a
provision that would give the Commission broader authority for
recruitment and retention incentives to facilitate stewardship
of the Canal transfer.
The committee believes that the period of the commitment
should generally be at least four years for cases where the
Commission determines that the maximum amount of the bonus that
would be allowed by this provision is appropriate. The
provision would also allow education benefits to be offered as
part of a recruitment or retention package, when determined to
be necessary by the Commission.
Section 3526. Transition separation incentive payments.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Panama Canal Commission to implement a limited and
specialized transition separation incentive program, geared
towards facilitating the critical succession planning necessary
for an orderly transition. The program would differ from
general Federal Government separation incentive programs in
several respects.
First, there would be no requirement to eliminate
positions, as the purpose of the program is not related to
downsizing. Second, the Commission would be allowed to make the
offers during two three-month windows of time, for three months
immediately after enactment of this Act and from October 1,
1998 through December 31, 1998. Third, the general authority
would be for payments of $25,000 or less, but the Commission
would be authorized, for especially critical positions, to
offer up to 50 percent of basic pay. The latter special
authority may be used for no more than 15 incentive payments,
and could be used only in the three-month window immediately
after enactment of this Act.
In many respects, the requirements for the Commission
aresimilar to those applicable to Federal agencies generally: a
strategic plan must be submitted to the Congress; an amount equal to 15
percent of basic pay must be remitted to the Civil Service Retirement
and Disability Fund for each payment made; and recipients of a
separation incentive payment who are reemployed by the U.S. Government
within five years must repay the amount in full to the U.S. Treasury.
Section 3527. Labor-management relations.
The committee recommends a provision that would provide
reasonable bounds of time for the mediation and impasse
resolution processes, given the amount of time left for the
agency to develop and implement changes that are important for
the transfer of the Canal to Panama.
The provision would provide a time limit of 45 days for the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to conclude its
efforts, measured from the date its assistance begins. It would
also provide a time limit of 90 days for a decision by the
Federal Services Impasses Panel, measured from the date on
which its services are requested. Both time limits may be
decreased by mutual agreement of the parties.
Section 3528. Availability of Panama Canal Revolving Fund for severance
pay for certain employees separated by Panama Canal Authority
after Canal Transfer Date.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Panama Canal Commission to transfer funds to the Panama
Canal Authority to cover periods of employment with the
Commission of employees who may be separated from Canal
employment after December 31, 1999. This authority would
facilitate an agreement to have funds committed for this
purpose, to address employee concerns that the Panama Canal
Authority will have the funds in place to properly recognize in
its severance pay program employees'' years of service for the
U.S. Government.
PART II--TRANSITION MATTERS RELATING TO OPERATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF
CANAL
Section 3541. Establishment of procurement system and board of contract
appeals.
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
special authority for the Panama Canal Commission to issue its
own procurement regulation for the purpose of facilitating
Panama's adoption and continuous use of it beyond 1999. The
Commission will be required to develop, in consultation with
the Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy,
an independent and comprehensive procurement system that
preserves the fundamental operating principles and procedures
of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, while adapting its
details and form for use by Panama after December 31, 1999.
This provision would enable the Commission to waive the
application of U.S. procurement statutes in its new regulation,
except for certain listed statutes and those laws relating to
civil rights, labor standards, or environmental protection.
This will permit the new regulation to be delinked from U.S.
laws and references to them that, were they to remain in the
regulation, would hinder the ability of Panama to adopt the
body of rules for its own use. It would also authorize the
formation of a Panama Canal Board of Contract Appeals,
empowered to decide all contract appeals and bid protests. The
Board would be established, and would function, with narrow
exceptions, in accordance with the Contracts Disputes Act. It
would constitute a forum for the expert, expeditious and
transparent resolution of contract disputes that can be adopted
and preserved by Panama as part of the Canal's comprehensive
procurement system. Currently, these functions are handled, by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Board of Contract Appeals and
the General Accounting Office, neither of which will be
available to the Republic of Panama after December 31, 1999.
Section 3542. Transactions with the Panama Canal Authority.
The committee recommends a provision that would allow U.S.
Government agencies to sell services to, and be reimbursed for
such services by the Panama Canal Authority. Currently, many
Federal agencies provide services to the Panama Canal
Commission on a reimbursable basis. This provision would enable
those agencies to continue providing those services (or
establish new services) to the new Panama Canal Authority on a
reimbursable basis if they choose to do so. This provision
would also allow the Commission to provide in-kind services to
the Panama Canal Authority on a nonreimbursable basis during
the remaining years of the Commission's existence. This will
allow the Commission to provide fuller assistance to Panama in
this critical period of intensive work on the regulations that
will govern the Panama Canal after December 31, 1999, as well
as numerous other administrative responsibilities. As with all
of its expenses, funding for this in-kind assistance would be
derived solely from Canal revenues.
Section 3543. Time limitations on filing of claims for damages.
The committee recommends a provision that would shorten the
time periods applicable to the filing of vessel accident
claims. The provision would shorten the time for filing
administrative claims against the Panama Canal Commission from
two years to one year, as well as shorten the period for filing
civil actions from one year to six months following the final
administrative determination with respect to the claim. These
shortened periods will facilitate the faster disposition of the
final business of the Commission, while not significantly
affecting the due process afforded claimants.
Section 3544. Tolls for small vessels.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Panama Canal Commission to charge a fixed minimum toll for
yachts and other small craft, rather than basing tolls strictly
on the tonnage of those vessels. The committee understands that
the tolls generated on a tonnage basis from such vessels do not
cover the actual handling and liability costs associated with
their transit. It should be noted that before the Commission
could implement a fixed minimum toll for small vessels, it
would be required to first comply with its usual rulemaking
process for adjusting tolls.
Section 3545. Date of actuarial evaluation of FECA liability.
The committee recommends a provision that would change the
date in section 5(a) of the Panama Canal Commission
Compensation Fund Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-705) for the
Department of Labor actuarial determination from December 31,
1999 to March 31, 1998. This change would facilitate financial
planning by allowing the Panama Canal Commission to liquidate a
financial liability prior to the Canal Transfer Date.
Section 3546. Notaries public.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Panama Canal Commission to appoint notaries public. This
authority would be similar to the authority provided to U.S.
embassies in section 4221 of title 22, United States Code, and
to military attorneys in sections 1044a and 1044b of title 10,
United States Code.
Section 3547. Commercial services.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Panama Canal Commission to conduct and promote commercial
activities related to the management, operation or maintenance
of the Panama Canal, but only to the extent consistent with the
Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 and related agreements.
Section 3548. Transfer from President to Commission of certain
regulatory functions relating to employment classification
appeals.
The committee recommends a provision that would remove the
President from responsibilities relating to position
classification appeals. It is required to complete the change
intended by section 3530 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1997, which removed the President from
responsibilities in the administration of the Panama Canal
Employment System, and reconfigured that system.
Section 3549. Enhanced printing authority.
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
Panama Canal Commission with more flexibility in meeting its
printing production needs.
Section 3550. Technical and conforming amendments.
The committee recommends a provision that would carry out
various technical and conforming amendments.
LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS
Departmental Recommendations
By letter dated March 12, 1997, the General Counsel of the
Department of Defense forwarded to the President of the Senate
proposed legislation ``To authorize appropriations for fiscal
years 1998 and 1999 for military activities of the Department
of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for
fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and for other purposes.'' The
transmittal letter and proposed legislation were officially
referred as Executive Communication 1432 to the Committee on
Armed Services on March 17, 1997. Executive Communication 1432
is available for review at the committee. Senators Thurmond and
Levin introduced this legislative proposal as S. 450, by
request, on March 17, 1997. The statement made by Senator
Thurmond upon introduction of S. 450 appears in the
Congressional Record of March 17, 1997, on pages S2358-2372.
By letter dated February 14, 1997, the General Counsel of
the Department of Defense forwarded to the President of the
Senate proposed legislation ``To authorize construction at
certain military installations for fiscal year 1998, and for
other military construction authorizations and activities of
the Department of Defense.'' The transmittal letter and
proposed legislation were officially referred as Executive
Communication 1155 to the Committee on Armed Services on
February 25, 1997. Executive Communication 1155 is available
for review at the committee. Senators Thurmond and Levin
introduced this legislative proposal as part of S. 450, by
request, on March 17, 1997.
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 1998.
In favor: Senators Thurmond, Warner, McCain, Coats, Smith,
Kempthorne, Inhofe, Santorum, Snowe, Roberts, Levin, Kennedy,
Bingaman, Glenn, Byrd, Robb, Lieberman, and Cleland.
Vote: 18-0.
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 1998 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.
Offset Folios 1210 to -- Insert here
<SKIP PAGES = 001>
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 Bill for Fiscal Year 1998.
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 VIEWS OF SENATOR JOHN McCAIN
politicization of service unfunded priority lists
As Administration budget requests continue to reflect an
exceedingly low priority on providing our men and women in
uniform with the resources necessary to execute the missions
assigned them by the National Command Authority, Congress has
taken it upon itself to add funding to those requests. In order
to best allocate the additional budget authority provided by
Congress, the Senate and House oversight committees have
adopted policies of requesting from the services lists of high
priority programs and activities that otherwise would not be
funded.
The so-called ``wish lists'' that have resulted from
Congress' request for service input on where to allocate funds
added to the national defense budget have proven an effective
means of ensuring that such funds are apportioned appropriately
in terms of what is best for the national interest. There is,
however, growing reason for concern that the process by which
the wish lists are drafted is being politicized, possibly
through lobbying of the services by Members of Congress.
This further politicization of the process has resulted in
lists, especially with regard to the Department of the Army, of
increasingly questionable merit. The Department of the Army
``unfunded requirements'' list includes 319 programs and
activities--clearly well beyond the scope intended. The result
has been a plethora of additions--some arguably justifiable in
a far more expansive budget environment--to the defense
spending bills of items clearly not of pressing importance to
national security. These items, including continued funding of
the National Automotive Center, increased procurement of DDG-51
destroyers, and continued acquisition of C-130J aircraft, the
latter despite Air Force Chief of Staff, General Ronald
Fogelman's testimony that the service already possesses many
more C-130s than it requires, are seriously impeding the
military's ability to channel resources where they are most
needed.
Should the degradation in the quality and practical utility
of service unfunded priority lists continue, it will become
rapidly apparent that emphasis on receipt of these lists will
have to decline or disappear altogether. That would be
unfortunate, indeed. It would, however, be the direct result of
the effort on the part of some Members of Congress to influence
the process through which the lists are prepared.
competition in submarine construction
Another area that is troubling concerns the quality of
analysis supporting decisions by the Administration on major
weapon systems, particularly as pertains to the acquisition of
surface ships and submarines. The phenomenon whereby program
acquisition rates and schedules are legislated one year on the
basis of ensuring competition only to have new legislation
introduced the following year mandating cooperative or teaming
arrangements due to production levels insufficient to support
competition hasundermined the confidence of some Members in the
entire process. In the specific case of attack submarine construction,
painstaking negotiating processes conducted in preparation of the
fiscal years 1996 and 1997 defense authorization bills resulted in a
detailed if dubious plan whereby the two submarine builders would
alternate contracts for the first four of a new class of attack
submarine. Each of those four submarines was to include technological
innovations and reflect improved construction techniques. The intent
was to develop a submarine more capable and less expensive than current
designs. After the year 2003, submarine contracts were to be competed
between the two shipbuilders.
The impracticality of that plan was apparent to many, but
it passed into law as seemingly the only politically tenable
arrangement--particularly given the initial Clinton
Administration proposal of consolidating all submarine work at
Electric Boat at the expense of Newport News Shipbuilding, its
competitor and sole builder of nuclear-powered aircraft
carriers. In truth, it is highly questionable whether
competition was ever a viable option given expected procurement
rates and the considerable efforts needed to retain two
nuclear-capable shipbuilders. In short, Congress rejected the
Administration's submarine construction plan set forth in the
Bottom-Up Review and passed in its place legislation
establishing an extremely flawed construction plan.
In recognition of this situation, the Navy urged the two
shipbuilders to work together, each one specializing in
specific sections of the submarine while alternating final
assembly between them. The notion of competition was now
determined to be dead, and the American taxpayer will soon find
itself funding submarines less capable by design than the
Seawolf but in all likelihood paying as much per unit as for
Seawolf--itself a submarine that was never needed after the
Cold War and was only procured to keep Electric Boat alive
until the next generation submarine was in construction.
Something definitely went awry here.
Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC) Process
It was extremely disappointing that politics prevailed and
prevented the Committee from approving additional base closure
rounds. Senators Levin, Coats, and Robb joined me in offering
an amendment to authorize two base closure rounds in 1999 and
2001, but our amendment was defeated on a 9-to-9 tie.
The amendment would have authorized two additional base
closure rounds, in 1999 and 2001, consistent with the
recommendations in the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). It
also would have established a process identical to that
contained in the 1990 law that mandated the last three BRAC
rounds. An additional provision, however, addressed the
politicization in the last BRAC process which permitted the
President to implement privatization in place at Kelly and
McClellan Air Force Bases.
The United States clearly needs to correct the current
imbalance between force structure and infrastructure. After
four base closure rounds, only 21 percent of the military
installations in the continental U.S. have been reduced. Force
structure will be reduced by over 38 percent by the time the
QDR recommendations are complete.
Excess infrastructure wastes scarce defense resources.
Realistically, defense budgets will, at best, remain stable in
the foreseeable future. Maintaining that excess infrastructure
drains scarce financial resources from much-needed
modernization programs, like tactical aircraft, strategic lift,
and technology development programs designed to maintain our
edge over potential adversaries.
The Pentagon clearly recognizes the need to eliminate
excess base structure. The QDR recommended the 1999 and 2001
rounds. The National Defense Panel endorsed this recommendation
in their May 15 report accompanying the QDR. And the Chairman
and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, as well as all four
Service Chiefs, support the two base closure rounds.
Communities in all of our states are understandably nervous
about additional base closures. Base closures, however, do not
have to cause long-term economic devastation. Arizonans are
very familiar with the economic and personal pain caused by
such closures. The East Valley of Phoenix felt the direct and
devastating effects of the 1991 closure of Williams Air Force
Base. A look at those communities today, though, reveals the
economic potential that can follow the loss of military
installations around which communities have grown. A thriving
educational consortium and airport exists at the site of the
former Williams Air Force Base, and the economic future of the
East Valley looks very bright. This experience has proven that
base closures can have a positive, long-term effect on a
community.
I share the concern of many of my colleagues about the
politicization of the last base closure round. Frankly, I do
not believe we would have to be debating this issue today if
the integrity of the last round had not been undermined.
Remember that the 1995 round was supposed to be the
``mother of all base closure rounds'', but it did not live up
to that expectation. The Department of Defense, instead of
making the hard decisions, allowed the Services' parochial
views to be reflected in their overall recommendation to the
commission. Then, when the Commission took bold action and made
recommendations to close Kelly and McClellan Air Force Bases,
moving their workloads to what would have been the three
remaining Air Logistics Centers, the President decided instead
to implement privatization in place at the two installations,
thus sparing them, and the jobs they represent in voter-rich
states, from elimination.
Politicization of the last base closure round was wrong,
and the amendment offered in Committee would have ensured that
no privatization in place could occur unless the Commission
explicitly recommended it. The amendment contained many other
provisions designed to eliminate the influence of politics and
ensure the process focused on bases with excess capacity. There
may be suggestions of other ways to eliminate politics from
theprocess, and I would be willing to discuss any of those ideas, but
such discussions have not been forthcoming.
I fully expect that political influence and protectionism
will make it very difficult to actually enact legislation to
conduct additional base closure rounds. I intend to fight,
however, to ensure that we do what is right, and that is to
finish the job we started--eliminate excess defense
infrastructure. It's the only way we can maintain a credible
and capable military for the future.
I intend to pursue this issue further on the Senate floor.
In so doing, I hope that my colleagues will rethink their
opposition to further base closure rounds and recognize the
seriously adverse impact on modernization that will continue if
we do not take steps now to reduce unnecessary expenditures
associated with maintaining excess infrastructure.
Depot-Level Maintenance
Closely related to the base closure issue, thanks in no
small part to the aforementioned politicization of that
process, is the subject of depot-level maintenance. Provisions
relating to allocation of workload between public and private
maintenance depots were included in the defense bill. The
Committee adopted a compromise measure to revise the current
statutorily-mandated 60/40 public/private workload allocation--
the ratio of maintenance work performed in government and
privately-owned facilities--to a 50/50 formula. The compromise
requires the Defense Department to preserve a core depot
capability that could maintain the types of weapons systems
that the warfighting commanders-in-chief identify as mission
essential.
This legislative provision includes Contractor Logistic
Support (CLS) and Interim Contractor Support (ICS) in the 60/40
public/private workload mix. The Navy and Army already wrap CLS
and ICS into the 60/40 calculation. Additionally, this
legislates a definition of ``core'' capability based on the
Joint Chief of Staff (JCS) contingency scenarios as identified
by the Chairman of the JCS and the combatant commanders. The
Committee adjusted the law so that work performed by private
companies at public depots will be counted as public sector
depot maintenance rather than private sector depot maintenance.
The Committee also adopted a provision that would require that
the remaining publicly-owned Air Logistics Centers (ALCs) be
operated at 75 percent capacity prior to implementation of any
privatization-in-place at former ALC locations.
Termination of the B-2 Spirit Heavy Bomber Program
I was pleased that the Committee adopted an amendment, by a
14 to 4 vote, that prohibits the expenditure of any defense
dollars to procure additional B-2 bombers or to preserve the B-
2 industrial base. It is my understanding that the House bill
contains $331 million to maintain the B-2 industrial base and
preserve the option to procure additional B-2s. This could
balloon into a $20.7 billion commitment over the next 20 years.
The Air Force has consistently rejected Congressional
inquiries targeted at increasing B-2 acquisitions. In fact,
General Fogleman testified before the Senate Armed Services
Committee this year that the Air Force opposes expansion of the
B-2 fleet, and that it clearly has many higher priority
applications for scarce defense dollars. Two comprehensive, in-
depth, quantitative analyses of the heavy bomber force over the
past two years have determined that the U.S. could execute the
national military strategy with the existing fleet of B-2, B-1B
and B-52H bombers.
Additionally, there quite simply is no compelling argument
for keeping the B-2 production line open for industrial base
reasons. Preservation of a bomber industrial base is largely
inherent in the process of designing and building large
commercial aircraft, albeit without some attributes of stealth
aircraft. The techniques of design, engineering, and production
for bombers is not unique to that industry. Companies that
build aircraft can build bombers. Boeing, which has not built a
bomber in over 30 years, is in competition today for the Joint
Strike Fighter because the necessary skills are an integral
part of the broader field of aircraft design and construction.
A corollary to the above is the misleading argument
advanced by proponents of preserving the industrial base unique
to the B-2 that the United States needs to keep the production
line open to preserve the ability to manufacture stealth
technology aircraft. This argument has absolutely no merit.
Stealth is alive and well, and will be preserved in the
manufacture of the F-22 and Joint Strike Fighter, as well as
other non-aircraft programs.
The notion that the United States should preserve the B-2
industrial base because of the uncertainty of future
requirements ignores a very basic fact: This aircraft takes so
long to produce that short of a multi-year global conflict on
the scale of World War II, the prospects of reopening the line
and producing operational bombers are extremely remote at best.
Major regional contingencies will be fought with aircraft on-
hand, not with fighters and bombers that take a year or more to
produce.
I will work closely with the Chairman and my Committee
colleagues to ensure that we are able to maintain this position
on the Senate floor and in our conference with the House.
Personnel Matters and Aviator Retention Pay
There are many good personnel provisions that will
favorably affect service members and their families in the
defense bill that I intend to see through the legislative
process. Among the highlights are health care provisions for
service members assigned to remote areas (i.e., recruiters,
ROTC instructors, and those stationed at reserve centers) and
health care benefits for reserve service members and National
Guardsmen who served in the Persian Gulf and are inflicted with
the Gulf War Illness.
The Committee also adopted an amendment that enhances
aviation special pays. After compelling testimony from the
Service Chiefs of the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps
concerning aviator retention, it is clear that the provisions
in this amendment willbe critical in retaining the skilled
aviators necessary to operate the technically advanced aircraft of the
future.
Reserve Component Issues
I am very disappointed in the continuing ``empty'' rhetoric
regarding the Defense Department's Total Force policy. For too
long, the active component of the armed forces has disregarded
the ``Total Force Policy'' of the armed forces, which includes
the responsibility to modernize reserve component forces.
Although I recognize that adequate funding for reserve
component equipment modernization was not included in the
President's budget as directed in last year's law, I will not
support the $922 million plus-up of National Guard and Reserve
Equipment (NG&RE) outside the unfunded priority lists provided
by the service chiefs to Chairman Thurmond. I also acknowledge
that reserve component military construction is not funded at
previous levels. However, I will not support funding beyond the
President's budget request. The reason I cannot support the
add-ons is simply because, in most instances, National Guard
and reserve force plus-ups are Members' pork and are not even
required by the reserve components.
A positive development, however, is the inclusion in this
year's defense bill of language similar to what was in last
year's authorization and appropriations bills requiring the
Secretary of Defense to specify in each future-years defense
plan (FYDP) the proposed appropriations for equipment and
military construction for each of the reserve components of the
armed forces. Additionally, the bill established new reporting
requirements for the Department of Defense designed to identify
the level of modernization funding established for each of the
reserve components in both the budget request and future year
defense program.
Military Construction Projects
I am pleased that the Committee continued to follow the
criteria regarding military construction add-ons that Senator
Glenn and I established two years ago. However, I am very
concerned that the Committee did not continue to submit land
conveyances to the General Services Administration (GSA) for
screening prior to their adoption. I urge the Committee to seek
a review by the GSA prior to final action on this bill in the
Senate.
General Accounting Office Self-Generated Studies
Another area of concern is the increasing practice by the
General Accounting Office (GAO) of prioritizing self-generated
audits and reports over those requested by Members of Congress.
For example, last year's defense bill required GAO to conduct
three studies on the Persian Gulf War illness. Twenty months
after the report was initiated, it has still not been delivered
despite its March 1, 1997 due-date. In an effort to restrain
therogue activities of the GAO, the Committee included a
provision that would require the Comptroller General to certify that
all Congressionally requested work will be completed prior to the
beginning of any self-generated work.
Member-Adds Not Requested by the Defense Department
As usual, this year's defense bill emerged from committee
with a plethora of programs not requested by the Defense
Department. Earlier, I discussed my concern about the growing
role of congressional involvement in the drafting of service
Unfunded Priority lists. In addition to questionable Member-
adds that are nevertheless reflected on those lists, there are
a large number of programs included in the bill that were
neither requested nor included on the wish lists.
One such add-on is an $11 million increase for the High
Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, or HAARP. This
program thrives because of Congressional support since 1990,
costing the taxpayer a total of $87 million over the past eight
years. Another $100 million would be required before the
project could be completed by 2001. It remains unclear what
military benefit might accrue from the construction of a
facility to study the aurora borealis. Proponents of the
program argue that it should be a part of the counter
proliferation program of the Department of Defense because it
will be able to detect underground tunnels and structures.
However, the Air Force, which manages the program for the
Department of Defense, noted in April of last year that ``the
research is not sufficiently mature to warrant its inclusion in
the nonproliferation and counter-proliferation program.''
Proponents of HAARP further argue that the program will
have applications for communications, navigation, and
surveillance activities. The Department of Defense, however,
did not include this $11 million in its budget request for
fiscal year 1997, and it was not included on their ``wish
list'' for additional funds. That indicates to me that, in
competition with other militarily relevant programs, HAARP is
not a high priority for the military. In my view, the Congress
should stop compelling the military to pursue research programs
that do not meet their requirements. Spending hundreds of
millions of defense dollars to study the energy of the aurora
borealis is, in my view, an unconscionable waste of taxpayer
dollars. This program should be turned over to a privately
funded university, research institution, or other organization
where it could be pursued as a purely scientific endeavor.
Once again, the Committee included a provision in the bill
that continues to fund an expensive bureaucracy the intended
purpose of which is to coordinate the Navy's oceanographic
research activities. The bill sets aside $16 million to
continue to fund the National Oceanographic Partnership
Program. The return on its investment is minimal from the
Navy's perspective. The benefits that accrue to the Navy from
this multi-tiered organization pale in comparison to the
benefits enjoyed by nondefense agencies. Additionally, the out-
year funding from defense dollars are unknown, and I question
whether the Navy can afford this potential funding drain in the
future based on its many other unfunded requirements.
Overall, I believe that the committee has produced a very
good defense bill, and I voted in favor of reporting it to the
Senate. It is critical that we maintain the additional $2.6
billion added to the Administration's request as we move
through the legislative process. How that additional money was
allocated, however, warrants concern. I hope my colleagues will
look carefully at these pork-barrel add-ons. We must protect
the high priority military programs that contribute to the
future readiness of our Armed Forces and reject those additions
that detract from that essential goal.
John McCain.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR JAMES M. INHOFE
On May 1, 1997, the Readiness Subcommittee conducted a
hearing with witnesses from the Department of Defense and
General Accounting Office which addressed many of the issues
surrounding the outsourcing of Air Force depot maintenance
workload currently performed at Kelly and McClellan Air Force
Bases. The Subcommittee spent considerable time reviewing the
bidding procedures the Air Force is using for these
competitions.
The DoD witness stressed that the Air Force is no longer
pursuing a strategy of ``privatization in place,'' and that
instead the department is now planning for public/private
competitions. However, the Subcommittee and staff have received
a great deal of reliable information which indicates that the
manner in which the competitions have been structured strongly
favors private sector bidders who propose to do the work in
place. Indeed, many features of the planned competitions appear
to both favor the private sector and create strong
disincentives for moving the work from their present locations.
In other words, the Air Force is still pursuing privatization
in place, only by another name.
This information was corroborated at our hearing by a panel
of three GAO witnesses. For example, there appears to be a very
large disparity between estimates of the cost to move equipment
required to perform the engine workload at San Antonio Air
Logistics Center. San Antonio officials estimate this
``transition cost'' might be as high as $400 million while
Tinker AFB officials indicate the cost may be as low as $60-70
million. Clearly, high transition costs will drive private
sector bidders to propose to keep the work in place. In
addition, if the public depot is directed to use an
exorbitantly high transition cost in its proposal (obviously
they cannot propose to do the work in place) they will not be
competitive. Furthermore, the source selection authority--the
person with the latitude to select the ``correct'' estimate--
will be an individual who has been the Air Force's primary
advocate of transitioning depot work to the private sector.
Another concern is the Air Force's plan to ``bundle''
discrete workloads into a single package for competition. At
Sacramento Air Logistics Center, for example, the Air Force
originally planned to conduct separate competitions for several
business areas--such as aircraft, hydraulics, software, etc.
Under their revised plan, however, the Air Force has
``bundled'' these diverse workloads into one competition. The
Air Force depot system was structured to minimize redundancy
between the air logistics centers, hence each has particular
areas of expertise. Considering the fact that the Air Force
will allow only one depot to compete during each public/private
competition, the effect of bundling discrete workloads becomes
apparent. While two depots together would likely be able to
provide the most cost effective proposal for the entire
package, it is very unlikely a single, specialized depot will
be able to compete for the entire workload.
Clearly, the bundling of workloads brings into question the
fairness of public/private competition. Other issues include:
Marginal pricing by private sector;
Teaming and subcontracting restrictions on public
sector;
Differing methods of depreciating capital assets;
Protest procedures insufficient for public depots;
Different evaluation methodology: low cost for public
sector, best value for private sector.
While DOD pledged that the so called public/private
competitions would be fair, GAO has identified specific aspects
of the competitions which seem to guarantee the work will go to
private bidders. After thoroughly considering this testimony,
it would be irresponsible to support a competition which
arbitrarily saddles one side with massive facilities costs,
prohibits one side from having to achieve maximum savings for
the taxpayers, and ignores the fundamental principle that
increased savings and readiness will result from consolidation
of excess capacity to the remaining public depots. Awarding
contracts to private sector bidders who propose to perform the
workload in place would further exacerbate the excess capacity
problem for both the private sector and the Department of
Defense.
Today, our decreasing defense budget not only threatens
readiness, it compelled DOD to request two additional rounds of
base closings. It is therefore impossible to ignore the
opportunity for hundreds of millions of dollars in savings
which GAO testified would result from implementing the 1995
BRAC recommendation to close McClellan and Kelly. For over a
year, DoD has been unable to produce data to refute the GAO's
figures. As Chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, I must be
concerned with ensuring the greatest possible levels of
readiness and cost savings in the remaining public depots. As a
result, and with strong bipartisan support on the Committee,
the FY98 DoD Authorization markup includes provisions that will
correct the excess capacity issue by requiring the remaining
depots to be at a reasonable level of capacity prior to
privatizing in place workloads the BRAC intended to transfer to
other locations.
James M. Inhofe.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998
reported by the Armed Services Committee is consistent with the
bipartisan budget agreement and with the FY1998 Budget
Resolution. In several important aspects the bill begins to
implement some of the recommendations of the recently completed
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) to help keep our military
forces the finest in the world.
There are several critical areas, however, where I believe
this bill needs to be improved, and I will be working to make
these improvements during the floor debate in the Senate and in
conference.
base closures
I am disappointed that the committee could not agree on a
process for future base closures in the Department of Defense.
Although there was strong support in the Committee for more
base closures, the amendment to authorize two additional base
closure rounds--one in 1999 and one in 2001--failed on a 9-9
tie vote.
The case for closing more military bases is clear and
compelling.
From 1989 to 1997, DOD reduced total active duty military
endstrength by 32 percent, a figure that will grow to 36
percent by 2003 as a result of the QDR. Even after four base
closure rounds, the domestic military base structure in the
United States has been reduced only 21 percent.
Both the QDR and the National Defense Panel concluded that
further reductions in the DOD base structure are essential to
free up the money we need to modernize our forces. Although we
will not get the final report of the National Defense Panel
until December, their May 15 Report accompanying the QDR
concludes:
We endorse the Secretary's plan to request authority
for two additional rounds of Base Closure and
Realignment (BRAC). We strongly urge the Administration
to support legislation that will start this process in
1999 and encourage Congress to approve the request
despite constituency challenges.
Just last week, the Armed Services Committee received a
letter signed by all six members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--
the Chairman, the Vice Chairman, and the four Service Chiefs.
They urged the Committee to ``strongly support further
reductions in base structure proposed by the Secretary of
Defense.''
The senior civilian and military leadership of the Defense
Department understand that reductions in the base structure are
essential to the modernization of our forces. Every dollar we
spend to keep open bases we don't need is a dollar we can't
spend on modernization programs our military forces do need.
Closing bases has saved and will save substantial amounts
of money, although the savings have not come as quickly as DOD
originally forecast for a number of reasons. CBO concluded in a
report last year that ``BRAC actions will result in significant
long-term savings.''
Between 1990 and 2001, DOD estimates that BRAC actions will
produce a total of $13.5 billion in net savings. After 2001,
when all of the BRAC actions must be completed, steady state
savings will be $5.6 billion per year. These BRAC savings are
an important part of the funds that are going to finance the
future modernization of our Armed Forces that will keep our
military the most technologically advanced and lethal fighting
force in the world.
I know that closing bases is a painful process. But if we
are serious about modernizing our military forces and
maintaining their qualitative technological edge, we have to
reduce our infrastructure costs. As Secretary Cohen pointed out
in his testimony on the QDR, the choice is clear: we can
maintain the current base structure and fail to meet our
modernization goals, or we can reduce our base structure and
achieve the savings that we need to pay for the modernization
we all agree is necessary.
air force depots
I oppose the provision in the committee bill dealing with
the workload of the two Air Force maintenance depots closed by
the 1995 Base Closure Commission--San Antonio Air Logistics
Center and Sacramento Air Logistics Center. This provision
prohibits the Defense Department from privatizing in place the
workload of these two depots until the three remaining Air
Force depots are operating at 75 percent of capacity. Since the
remaining three Air Force depots are currently being utilized
at 50-60 percent of capacity, the effect of the Committee
provision would be to prohibit privatization in place of the
workload of these two depots, even if there are specific
workloads for which privatization in place proves, through a
fair competition, to be the most cost effective alternative.
The 1995 Base Closure Commission left it up to the Defense
Department to decide how to redistribute the work of the two
Air Force depots that the Commission recommended for closure.
The wording of the Commission's recommendation concerning these
two closing depots directs DOD to:
Consolidate the workloads to other DOD depots or to
private sector commercial activities as determined by
the Defense Depot Maintenance Council. (Emphasis added)
We should let a fair competition determine the most cost
effective solution to redistribute the workload of these two
depots, regardless of whether the result is privatization in
place, privatization at some other location, or transfer to
another government depot.
Under the committee provision, privatization in place is
effectively prohibited. The only options are privatization at
another location or transfer to another government depot. I
offered an amendment to allow the Secretary of Defense to
determine how to redistribute the workload of these two
closingdepots if the DOD Inspector General determined that the outcome
was based on a fair and open competition. This amendment was defeated
in Committee.
I know that some believe that the White House politicized
the base closure process by putting political pressure on DOD
to privatize in place the work of the two closing Air Force
depots. I think it would be just as bad for Congress to
politicize the base closure process by attempting to legislate
a particular outcome--as the committee provision would do.
The presence of this provision in the bill will jeopardize
the enactment of this bill. Ultimately, we to have to reach a
compromise that moves beyond political solutions and is fair
and equitable to all.
Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs
One of the most cost effective and successful defense
programs to reduce threats to our country and enhance our
national security is the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR)
program started in 1991 by Senators Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar.
The CTR program at the Department of Defense and its companion
program at the Department of Energy have produced important
results in reducing the threat of proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction, including nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons and their materials.
Since 1991, these CTR programs have helped three newly
independent states, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakstan, completely
rid themselves of some 6,000 nuclear weapons they inherited
from the former Soviet Union. The CTR program has also
permitted Russia to implement the START I Treaty ahead of
schedule, helping eliminate over 800 Russian nuclear missiles
and bombers. These are weapons that will never again threaten
the United States.
The Department of Energy has worked to secure the tons of
nuclear weapons materials, primarily plutonium and highly
enriched uranium, that were--and to a significant extent, still
are--under inadequate safeguards and vulnerable to theft or
diversion. Keeping these dangerous materials out of the hands
of would-be proliferators reduces the likelihood that nuclear
weapons will threaten us.
Although these are immensely important contributions to our
security, the job is only partly finished, and much more needs
to be done. That is why it is disappointing that the Committee
bill reduces the budget request for these programs by $135
million, including a reduction of $60 million for the DOD CTR
program; a reduction of $25 million for the DOE Materials
Protection, Control and Accounting (MPC&A) program; and a
reduction of $50 million, the total amount requested, for the
DOE International Nuclear Safety program.
Given the great concern the Committee has appropriately
expressed for the danger of proliferation of nuclear, chemical
and biological weapons and materials, and the Committee's
interest in taking steps to reduce this danger, these
reductions are surprising. In my view, the Committee should be
considering what additional efforts we can take to reduce these
threats. While the threat from such proliferation is more
likely and immediate than the threat from a ballistic missile
attack on the United States, Congress has pushed to increase
funding for national missile defense while reducing funding for
cooperative threat reduction. We may be underfunding the latter
problem at our peril.
There are numerous CTR programs that need to be funded on
an urgent basis. For example, Ukraine decided in mid-May to
eliminate all its SS-24 intercontinental ballistic missiles
(ICBMs), a decision which the United States encouraged and
welcomed. We should help Ukraine eliminate these missiles so
they can never be used by any nation. Furthermore, there remain
large quantities of nuclear materials that need to be secured
and accounted for. The list of unfunded CTR and related DOE
projects is long and represents an urgent opportunity for the
United States to take tangible and permanent steps to reduce
threats to our security. For a tiny fraction of the defense
budget, we can accomplish extraordinary gains.
The proliferation and nuclear safety problems remain
considerably larger and more serious than the response has been
so far. I hope the Congress and the Administration are up to
the challenge of taking advantage of this opportunity to
eliminate some of the most serious threats to our security. To
do so, we should fund these threat reduction and safety
programs at a higher and more appropriate level.
Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier (CVN-77)
The Committee bill authorizes $345 million in FY1998 to
begin incrementally funding construction of the next Nimitz
class nuclear aircraft carrier, CVN-77, based on claims of cost
savings by the shipbuilder. Unfortunately, the Committee did
not adopt safeguards to insure that the taxpayers' actually
receive the savings on which this unusual action is based.
The Defense Department's current Future Years Defense
Program includes a total of $5.2 billion for construction of
the next aircraft carrier--$695 million in advanced procurement
in FY2000, with the balance of $4.5 billion in FY2002.
Earlier this year the CVN-77 shipbuilder came forward with
a proposal to incrementally fund this carrier, beginning in
FY1998 and continuing each year through FY2002. According to
the shipbuilder, this alternative funding proposal would save
$600 million in the cost of building CVN-77. This claim has
been repeated over the last two months in highly visible media
campaign.
The normal method of funding major defense procurement
programs is to provide full funding in one lump sum in the year
in which the program is started, with the exception of certain
limited long-lead items which are funded through advance
procurement. As a general rule, incrementally funding major
weapons programs reduces visibility over total program costs,
and can lead to a ``buy in'' situation in which it becomes more
difficult to control total program costs and future cost
growth. Secretary Cohen indicated in a letter to me that:
As a matter of fiscal policy, we do not normally
incrementally fund procurement programs. Therefore, the
Department plans to fully fund the construction of the
tenth and final Nimitz class nuclear aircraft carrier
in fiscal year 2002. This schedule, which is reflected
in the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) accompanying
the FY1998 President's budget, is consistent with force
structure requirements and the end of the service life
of existing ships in the fleet.
In the case of this proposal to incrementally fund CVN-77,
the RAND Corporation did a study for the Navy substantiating
the savings proposed by the shipbuilder. In addition, the
Navy's own analysis confirmed that the savings could be
achieved.
I am willing to support incremental funding of CVN-77, but
only if this incremental funding approach includes a guarantee
that the government will receive the savings from this approach
that have been promised by the contractor. For this reason, I
offered an amendment in the Committee to guarantee the promised
savings.
My amendment would have established a cost cap of $4.6
billion for CVN-77, $600 million below the Navy's current
budget estimate for funding this ship under the normal full
funding procedures. This cost cap would have excluded
outfitting and post delivery costs, and would have been
adjusted automatically to reflect changes in inflation or costs
attributable to compliance with changes in Federal, State or
local laws.
I also included a provision to adjust this cost cap based
on changes in costs that are incurred by inserting new items
into CVN-77 that are not currently planned for this ship.
The committee did not adopt this amendment. While I believe
that incremental funding may be appropriate in the unique case
of CVN-77 because of the anticipated savings, I am unwilling to
support this approach without a mechanism to protect the
interests of the taxpayers and guarantee the savings.
Secretary of Defense Authority to Unilaterally Suspend Administrative
Actions
Section 363 of the committee bill would give the Secretary
of Defense the unprecedented authority unilaterally to stop for
30 days certain administrative actions of other federal
agencies. The Secretary would have this authority without
regard to the valid health or safety concerns that may have
motivated the other agency in taking its action. This automatic
stay could cover rules and orders intended to protect the
environment, safeguard worker safety, preserve private
property, or any other conceivable administration action or
order. This provision exceeds the jurisdiction of the Armed
Services Committee and creates the appearance of placing the
Department of Defense above the law. For these reasons, I do
not believe it should have been included in the bill.
Restrictions on GAO Audits
I also oppose Section 1039 of the committee bill, which
would prohibit the General Accounting Office (GAO) from
undertaking any self-initiated audits unless it can certify
that it has completed all congressional requests. Since GAO has
hundreds of pending requests at any given time, this provision
is, in effect, a total prohibition on any self-initiated work
by GAO. This provision is outside the jurisdiction of the Armed
Services Committee. If it remains in the bill, I am concerned
that it could hamstring the GAO in its important efforts to
identify waste, fraud, and abuse in government programs.
United States--Canada Environmental Settlement
The bill does not include a provision, requested by the
Administration, to authorize the payment of $100 million to
Canada--$10 million per year for ten years--to fund the cleanup
of former U.S. defense sites in Canada, pursuant to an
agreement negotiated with the Canadian government. I am
concerned that political and military relations could be
adversely affected if the agreement--reached after a year of
intensive negotiations between the two governments--is not
funded.
Readiness of Our Military Forces
Finally, I am troubled by the section in the committee
report entitled ``The Storm Clouds are on the Horizon''. This
report language depicts a United States military in decline
that is sharply at odds with the evidence provided to the
committee by the Defense Department in the testimony of its
military and civilian leadership and its quarterly readiness
reports to the committee.
This report language is critical of the funding levels
recommended by the Administration for the Operation and
Maintenance accounts, yet the committee bill increases funding
in those areas by only $42 million, which represents just 1.6
percent of the $2.6 billion increase to the original request
that is included in this bill pursuant to the bipartisan budget
agreement. This $42 million increases the funding for the
readiness accounts by approximately 5/100ths of one percent
over the amount requested. If the committee really believes the
readiness of our force is in jeopardy, it should have devoted a
more significant portion of the $2.6 billion in available funds
to that purpose.
To take a specific example, Secretary of Defense Cohen
requested that the Congress add $550 million to correct a
shortfall in Navy and Air Force flying hour funding that was
identified subsequent to the preparation of the budget request.
A shortfall in flying hour funding will directly affect the
readiness of our tactical aviation units, yet the committee
chose not to fully fund the Secretary's request for additional
funds in this area. Only $230 million of the requested $550
million was provided.
Even before the recent bipartisan balanced budget
agreement, the emerging bipartisan consensus on defense
spending was evident, as the five year plan for defense
spending in the President's fiscal year 1998 budget exceeds the
levels contained in last year's budget resolution by just one
percent. This recent budget agreement has ratified that
bipartisan consensus on defense spending levels. I believe this
section of the report is inconsistent with that bipartisan
consensus and inconsistent with the facts and testimony
presented to the committee.
Carl Levin.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY
I support this bill. I commend Republicans and Democrats
for working closely together to prepare a bill that meets the
terms of the budget resolution and has unanimous committee
support.
The bill does contain a glaring defect, however. It
irresponsibly reduces funding for the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative
Threat Reduction Program and related Department of Energy
programs by $135 million below the requested level of $668
million. Specifically, the bill takes $60 million from the
Defense Department's Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, $50
million from the Energy Department's International Nuclear
Safety Program, and $25 million from the Energy Department's
Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting Program.
The funds for the Nunn-Lugar and related programs are the
most cost-effective dollars in the entire defense budget. These
programs support the destruction of nuclear weapons in the
states of the Former Soviet Union, the strengthening of border
controls to prevent the illegal transport of nuclear bomb-
making materials, and efforts to safeguard these materials from
theft at their storage sites or during transport. They also
provide employment and economic incentives for former Soviet
weapons scientists, to avoid the temptation that they will sell
their know-how to buyers from nations and organizations that
support international terrorism.
The National Research Council released a report this spring
on U.S. proliferation policy and the Former Soviet Union. Its
first recommendation is that funding for the Materials
Protection, Control, and Accounting program be maintained at
requested levels, and it expresses strong support for the
overall DoE and DoD Nunn-Lugar programs.
The United States faces the very real threat that loose
controls over nuclear weapons and bomb-making material in the
nations of the Former Soviet Union could result in a nuclear
terrorist attack on the U.S. Even a crude weapon used in such
an attack could have thousands or millions of times the
destructive power of the truck bomb that destroyed the Federal
building in Oklahoma City. We must do our utmost to prevent
such a nuclear catastrophe. Restoring the funds that this bill
takes from these programs is an indispensible first step
towards that goal.
Edward M. Kennedy.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR JEFF BINGAMAN
This year's defense bill reflects the continued
unwillingness of the Senate to move beyond the Cold War. I am
deeply concerned that we lack the shared vision we need in the
Senate to move beyond the past to build a more secure and
peaceful future.
We live in a period of time that offers us a great
opportunity to redirect our resources and expertise to meet
changing national security requirements and to take important
steps toward building a more peaceful international system. The
annual budget deliberations in the Congress provide us in the
Senate with an opportunity to address changing priorities and
undertake new initiatives to meet emerging needs.
Unfortunately, instead of moving toward the future, the
committee and to a considerable extent the Administration, have
chosen to stay the course and pursue the old agenda.
This year's bill, for example, includes a number of
provisions to spend tens of millions of dollars on items for
which the Defense Department has no requirement while
simultaneously cutting funds for programs which have tremendous
importance to our national security. The committee funded $118
million to accelerate development of the Space Based Laser
program, a program for which no requirement exists and which is
not included in current approved plans for the National Missile
Defense program. The committee also added about $40 million for
new dump trucks that the Army did not include in its budget
request and which appeared near the bottom of its list of
unfunded requirements. Many similar examples of spending for
programs not required by the military services characterize
this year's defense bill.
Even more disappointing is the fact that the committee
chose not to fully fund, or in many cases, to cut funding for
programs for which legitimate military requirements exist and
which are needed to meet current pressing national security
needs. When given the option, the committee chose not to
provide sufficient funds, for example, for our pilots to obtain
the training necessary to meet highest performance standards.
The committee chose to reject a plan to shift money from
unnecessary programs to meet this basic need to meet our
warfighting requirements.
I am deeply disappointed that the committee chose to cut
$135 million from the DoD Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR)
Program and related programs in the Department of Energy. The
Congress initiated CTR programs, also known as Nunn-Lugar
Programs, in November 1991. Our concerns about the safety and
security of nuclear weapons and materials in Russia following
the collapse of the Soviet Union contributed to a broad
Congressional consensus supporting the United States' role in
preventing the proliferation of nuclear materials and expertise
from Russia to unfriendly states.
Since that time, we have spent over $1 billion to provide
assistance to Russia and former Soviet states to eliminate
strategic nuclear weapons, to establish security, control and
accounting systems to protect nuclear weapons and
fissilematerials from unauthorized use or theft, to improve the
operational safety of Soviet designed nuclear power reactors and to
support Russian nuclear scientists' research in non-defense programs to
meet their livelihood needs and prevent them from seeking alternative
employment in an unfriendly state. The record shows that these programs
are meeting their objectives. Although there is evidence of attempts,
we have no evidence of successful theft of nuclear materials from
Russia and application of nuclear materials or expertise to nuclear
programs in unfriendly nations.
Those who object to this program may believe that our
support constitutes a form of foreign aid to a former (perhaps
current, in the view of many) enemy. They maintain that such
programs should be the concern and obligation of the Russian
government. I concur that the Russian government is obligated
to meet these security needs, but I am also persuaded that our
actions to support the CTR programs are primarily in our own
national security interest. Regardless of who may be at fault
if nuclear materials are stolen from stockpiles in Russia, the
threat of nuclear terrorism constitutes the most significant
threat to the United States today. To the extent that the
Russian economy is not able to fully support funding their
nuclear security requirements, we should continue to assist
them in our own national interest.
I recently visited Russian nuclear facilities in
Chelyabinsk-70 and near Moscow, and was able to observe
firsthand the limitations of Russian technology in meeting
their nuclear security needs. While in Russia, I observed the
fruits of our cooperative programs at numerous facilities where
our high technology security devices have been installed. Those
facilities will serve as models for the hundreds of other
nuclear research and storage facilities in Russia that are
currently without effective security systems. No one knows the
full extent of Russia's nuclear security needs at this point,
but our effort to help meet those needs should continue until
Russia is able to do so by itself or until the requirements are
fully met. I am baffled by those who would want to curtail or
abandon efforts to achieve this goal.
As we continue to move to START II and then to START III we
still have a need to maintain a safe and reliable nuclear
deterrent. This committee has pushed the Department of Energy
(DOE) very hard to accelerate its program to select a tritium
production technology, either an existing reactor or an
accelerator, and produce new tritium. (Tritium, a radioactive
gas with a half life of 12.3 years and needed for all nuclear
weapons, has not been made in the United States since 1988.)
Paradoxically, even though the Secretary of Energy has both
written and testified about the need for a legislative
provision to clear the way to produce tritium in a commercial
reactor, the committee refused to adopt the provision that
would allow the Secretary to accelerate this technology
decision.
The committee has chosen to fund programs for which no
requirement exists, to neglect fully funding programs for which
current military requirements are not being met, and to cut
funding for programs such as CTR which are dedicated to meeting
our highest priority security needs. I regret those choices by
the committee and intend to raise these issues when the Senate
considers the bill.
Jeff Bingaman.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR JOHN GLENN
I am pleased the Committee supported the inclusion of
criteria to be used in determining how to add funds for Reserve
Component equipment. The criteria, not unlike those used for
evaluating adding funds for military construction projects, are
aimed at ensuring that added funding for Reserve Component
equipment meets a joint requirement, is in the Department's
Future Years Defense Plan, is consistent with the Reserve
Component's planned operations, and can be obligated in the
upcoming fiscal year. Every year we add hundreds of millions of
dollars for Reserve Component equipment. I am pleased that this
year the Committee also supports adding an objective standard
by which we can measure requests for added funding.
While I support the bill overall, there are a number of
issues about which I must express my concern. First, I take
strong exception to the section included in the General
Provisions which would prevent the General Accounting Office
(GAO) from conducting any self-initiated audits, under its
basic legislative authority, until all other outstanding
Congressional requests have been completed.
This language amends Title 31 of the U.S. Code and is an
unwarranted and unjustified intrusion into the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Governmental Affairs. It represents a major
policy shift in the operation and authority of GAO. One which
this Committee adopted without any consultation or input from
the Governmental Affairs Committee.
The Governmental Affairs Committee held an oversight
hearing on GAO last Congress. There were several Members on
each side of the aisle at that time who served on both
Committees. I don't recall any Member raising this as an issue
or discussing problems regarding GAO's self-initiated audits to
light. Moreover, the Committee, under my Chairmanship,
contracted with the National Academy of Public Administration
(NAPA), to comprehensively review GAO's management and
operations. The NAPA study did not identify any problems
related to GAO's conduct under their basic legislative
authority, nor did it make any recommendations for our
consideration on this issue. In fact, quite the contrary. Some
analysts thought GAO should perform more, not less, self-
initiated audits. In their view, GAO was often subject to
rather parochial and narrow Member requests which only drained
GAO's time and resources. I would note that GAO currently
conducts 80% of its work in response to Member requests. A few
years ago, it was far more evenly split.
Since 1921, the Comptroller General has had broad authority
to evaluate programs and investigate on his own initiative
``all matters relating to the receipt, disbursement, and use of
public money''. Self-initiated authority has provided GAO the
flexibility to pursue critical issues that auditors and
investigators uncover in the course of their work. It is
essential to the maintenance of generally accepted standards of
independence and impartiality. Any restriction of this
authority would be akin to us muzzling the auditor. The effect
of this provision would be that, for example, work could not
proceed onthe next set of ``High Risk'' list reports until all
Member requests--just think if a Member requested GAO to examine
``alien'' abductions--not only had been staffed, but had been
completed. On large jobs, it may take well over a year to do the work.
I know from my long service on the Governmental Affairs
Committee that Members often disagree with GAO's conclusions on
a particular report. That has happened to me more than once.
But if we demand objectivity, and I think all of us do, then we
must give GAO the independence and authority they need to do
the job. We want them to be able to investigate mismanagement
or fraud wherever it exists.
I regret that this Committee did not see fit to consult
with GAO's authorizing Committee before slipping this provision
in a massive bill at the last moment. I know that I, during my
Chairmanship of the Governmental Affairs Committee, would at
least have consulted with the Armed Services Committee if we
were going to act on legislation affecting Title 10.
For these reasons, I will do all I can to strike this
provision from this bill on the Senate floor, and I would hope
colleagues on both Committees would join with me.
The Committee's bill contains five land conveyance
provisions--including one that was added at literally the last
minute--and in their current form I am opposed to each of them.
I am extremely disappointed that the Committee has discontinued
a process to evaluate land conveyances which started when I was
chairman of the Readiness subcommittee, and which was continued
by Senator McCain when he was chairman. This informal process
sought to ensure that taxpayer's interests were partially
protected, by conducting an expedited 30-day screen conducted
by the General Services Administration for other federal
interest of each proposed conveyance. Because these land
conveyance provisions waive the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act, the Committee cannot assure
taxpayers that the Federal government is not seeking to acquire
property that is similar to what the legislative provisions are
giving away.
In the past, we have also asked the General Services
Administration to provide a preliminary estimate of the value
of the property which the Committee is proposing to give away.
I would note that each of the five conveyances included in the
Committee's bill would convey the property for no
consideration. I think, at a minimum, we should at least have a
ball park estimate of how much money the government is losing
with these provisions.
I intend to ask GSA to conduct a 30-day screen for each
property, and make an estimate, to the extent possible, of the
value of each proposed conveyance. I will let my colleagues
know of the results of this inquiry.
In addition, I am strongly opposed to the Committee's
action in raising the budget for the space based laser by $118
million. Deployment of this dubious Star Wars hold-over would
violate the ABM Treaty, cost an exorbitant amount, and not
address any real current or anticipated near-term threat to our
security. I have similar concerns about the $80 million that
the Committee isrecommending for the antisatellite (ASAT)
program.
The Committee can find $118 for the Space Based Laser and
$80 million for ASAT, but is slashing $135 million from one of
our most valuable national security programs, the Cooperative
Threat Reduction program. The proposal to cut $25 million from
the Energy Department's Materials Protection, Control and
Accounting (MPC&A) program, another $50 million from the
department's international nuclear safety program, and $60
million from the CTR program itself--are to me extremely ill-
advised. I strongly support the efforts by Senator Bingaman to
restore and to increase funds for the MPC&A program and the
Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention program.
Perhaps most extraordinary of all was the Committee's
agreement to increase the National Missile Defense program by a
whopping $474 million without even first requiring a detailed
explanation of how these funds would be spent. The Committee's
action offers strong evidence of a double standard at work in
the current Congress, in which social and environmental
programs are being slashed and subjected to congressional
micromanagement, while a massive and provocative defense
program escapes close congressional scrutiny. The Committee is
giving all the appearance here of handing the NMD program a
blank check, at the same time another bill (S. 7) would force
the President to deploy a NMD system by the year 2003. I regard
these actions both as poor defense policy and poor management
of the public's funds.
Finally, I regret that the Committee has acceded to the
Department's request to cut end strength further. I understand
the rationale that is used to support continued end strength
reductions, i.e. to cut end strength in order to generate cash
savings that can help pay for modernization programs, and I
agree completely that our service members deserve to have the
best and most modern equipment available. However, I do not
agree with the approach that we reduce the size of the force to
pay for it.
We are using the military more today than at any time
during the Cold War. I believe that if we want to continue to
deploy a superb and ready force, we cannot cut the size of the
force year after year and operate at the same optempo. Even if
modernization programs can reduce the manpower needed to
conduct wartime or peacetime operations in the long term, in
the near term, we still need people to carry out our important
worldwide commitments. I am concerned that we are rapidly
falling below the manning levels necessary to either conduct
our peacetime operations or credibly maintain a combat force
capable of carrying out two nearly simultaneous major regional
contingencies. Unfortunately, I do not believe it is possible
to build a consensus in the Congress to maintain the
appropriate size force, which I believe to be about 1.6 million
active duty, when the Defense Department, itself, argues that
it does not need these personnel and views the savings from end
strength reductions as a relatively easy way to fund its
weapons programs.
John Glenn.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR MAX CLELAND
I support most of the provisions in this bill. However, I
am deeply concerned about the 25 percent reduction in
Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) funding for the
F-22. The committee decided to spend $420 million on other
military items none of which were rated higher in priority to
the Department of Defense than the F-22. The Committee had a
clear choice: Support our military leaders in upgrading and
modernizing our tactical air capability with the F-22, or cut
25 percent out of the program now and buy a bunch of dump
trucks.
In all the testimony this committee has received, the
committee has been informed repeatedly that the F-22 is the
number one priority of the Air Force. This includes a former
Republican member of this committee who is now Secretary of
Defense The F-22's stealthy features combined with its
supercruise capability will allow the F-22 to not only achieve
air-superiority, but air dominance. To put it in context, the
United States achieved air-superiority in Korea and Vietnam. In
the Gulf War, we achieved air dominance.
Last year, the Joint Estimate Team, a joint team of
contractors and Air Force leadership conducted a review of the
program with an eye towards reducing costs in the EMD phase.
The JET determined that EMD cost increases were driven by
better information on touch labor, additional flight test time,
increased timing for avionics integration and engineering
changes on the engine. Additional costs due to inflation were
also identified. To address these issues and reduce risk, the
JET recommended reducing the cost of the program by eliminating
the requirement for some pre-production vehicles and absorbing
the remaining cost by slowing the production ramp.
The recommendations set forth in this bill reduce funding
for the EMD phase by $420 million. It essentially rejects the
recommendations of the JET. In my view, it does so without
offering a clear path for successful execution of the program.
I fail to see how preventing the Air Force from making prudent
adjustments in the program will increase the confidence in the
F-22 program.
I share the concerns raised by many regarding the cost of
this aircraft, especially with regard to the growth of cost
estimates for production of the F-22. I agree that we need to
support efforts to restore our confidence in the program. In
that regard, I supported the implementation of reporting
requirements contained in this bill, which will allow this
committee to closely monitor the development of this program,
particularly with regard to the cost. I also believe it is
reasonable to consider supporting a cap on funding for the
Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase. This cap is
essentially what the Air Force believes it will cost to
complete this phase.
However, the decision to reduce funding for the F-22 at a
time when the Air Force is undergoing a restructure to the
program sends the wrong message. It tells the Air Force that
conscientious steps to reduce costs and restore confidence in
the program will be met with budget cuts. This bill contains no
incentive to restore costs. I have proposed authorizing the
necessary funds to proceed with the program, but making such an
authorization contingent on certain requirements aimed at
bringing the program under control. I will continue to advocate
such an approach for the F-22, and I hope the Congress will
ultimately make the right decision on this matter.
Max Cleland.
<all>
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
