104th Congress           HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                Report
2d Session                                                      104-450
_______________________________________________________________________

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
CONFERENCE REPORT

to accompany
S. 1124
January 22, 1996.--Ordered to be printed

Mr. Spence, from the committee of conference, submitted the following

CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany S. 1124]

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 1124), to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1996 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:

DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

Subtitle C--Navy Programs

Sec. 138. Pioneer unmanned aerial vehicle program.

TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations

Sec. 211. Space launch modernization.
Sec. 212. Tactical manned reconnaissance.
Sec. 214. Development of laser program.
Sec. 216. Space-based infrared system.
Sec. 217. Defense Nuclear Agency programs.
Sec. 218. Counterproliferation support program.
Sec. 219. Nonlethal weapons study.
Sec. 227. Defense Airborne Reconnaissance program.

Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense Act of 1995

Sec. 231. Short title.
Sec. 232. Findings.
Sec. 233. Ballistic Missile Defense policy.
Sec. 234. Theater Missile Defense architecture.
Sec. 235. Prohibition on use of funds to implement an international agreement concerning Theater Missile Defense systems.
Sec. 236. Ballistic Missile Defense cooperation with allies.
Sec. 237. ABM Treaty defined.
Sec. 238. Repeal of Missile Defense Act of 1991.

Subtitle D--Other Ballistic Missile Defense Provisions

Sec. 251. Ballistic Missile Defense program elements.
Sec. 252. Testing of Theater Missile Defense interceptors.
Sec. 253. Repeal of missile defense provisions.

Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Reviews, Studies, and Reports

Sec. 261. Precision-guided munitions.
Sec. 262. Review of C4I by National Research Council.

Subtitle F--Other Matters

Sec. 274. Cruise missile defense initiative.
Sec. 279. Global Positioning System.

TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

Sec. 301. Operation and maintenance funding.
Sec. 305. Civil Air Patrol.

Subtitle G--Other Matters

Sec. 378. Provision of equipment and facilities to assist in emergency response actions.
Sec. 379. Report on Department of Defense military and civil defense preparedness to respond to emergencies resulting from a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear attack.

TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Reserve Components

Sec. 517. Department of Defense funding for National Guard participation in joint disaster and emergency assistance exercises.

Subtitle C--Decorations and Awards

Sec. 523. Military intelligence personnel prevented by secrecy from being considered for decorations and awards.

Subtitle F--Other Matters

Sec. 562. Army Ranger training.
Sec. 570. Associate Director of Central Intelligence for Military Support.

TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

Subtitle A--General Matters

Sec. 901. Organization of the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Sec. 902. Reduction in number of Assistant Secretary of Defense positions.
Sec. 907. Report on Nuclear Posture Review and on plans for nuclear weapons management in event of abolition of Department of Energy.

TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards

Sec. 1018. Sense of Congress concerning naming of amphibious ships.
Sec. 1019. Sense of Congress concerning naming of naval vessel.
Sec. 1020. Transfer of riverine patrol craft.

Subtitle C--Counter-Drug Activities

Sec. 1021. Revision and clarification of authority for Federal support of drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the National Guard.

Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Reporting Requirements

Sec. 1053. Report on national policy on protecting the national information infrastructure against strategic attacks.
Sec. 1055. Date for submission of annual report on special access programs.

TITLE XII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF FORMER SOVIET UNION

Sec. 1201. Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs.
Sec. 1202. Fiscal year 1996 funding allocations.
Sec. 1203. Prohibition on use of funds for peacekeeping exercises and related activities with Russia.
Sec. 1204. Revision to authority for assistance for weapons destruction.
Sec. 1205. Prior notice to Congress of obligation of funds.
Sec. 1206. Report on accounting for United States assistance.
Sec. 1207. Limitation on assistance to nuclear weapons scientists of former Soviet Union.
Sec. 1208. Limitations relating to offensive biological warfare program of Russia.
Sec. 1209. Limitation on use of funds for chemical weapons destruction facility.

TITLE XIII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS

Subtitle E--Other Matters

Sec. 1343. Semiannual reports concerning United States-People's Republic of China Joint Defense Conversion Commission.

TITLE XIV--ARMS CONTROL MATTERS

Sec. 1403. Extension and amendment of counterproliferation authorities.
Sec. 1404. Limitation on retirement or dismantlement of strategic nuclear delivery systems.
Sec. 1405. Sense of Congress on ABM treaty violations.
Sec. 1406. Sense of Congress on ratification of Chemical Weapons Convention and START II Treaty.
Sec. 1407. Implementation of arms control agreements.
Sec. 1408. Iran and Iraq arms nonproliferation.

DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Subtitle B--Other Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing Changes

Sec. 2820. Extension of authority to enter into leases of land for special operations activities.

DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations

Sec. 3103. Other defense activities.

Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations

Sec. 3144. Department of Energy Declassification Productivity Initiative.

Subtitle D--Other Matters

Sec. 3154. Prohibition on international inspections of Department of Energy facilities unless protection of restricted data is certified.
Sec. 3155. Review of certain documents before declassification and release.
Sec. 3158. Responsibility for Defense Programs Emergency Response Program.

DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

Subtitle C--Navy Programs

SEC. 138. PIONEER UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE PROGRAM

. Not more than one-sixth of the amount appropriated pursuant to this Act for the activities and operations of the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Joint Program Office (UAV-JPO), and none of the unobligated balances of funds appropriated for fiscal years before fiscal year 1996 for the activities and operations of such office, may be obligated until the Secretary of the Navy certifies to the Committee on Armed Services of theSenate and the Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives that funds have been obligated to equip nine Pioneer Unmanned Aerial Vehicle systems with the Common Automatic Landing and Recovery System (CARS).

TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations

SEC. 211. SPACE LAUNCH MODERNIZATION.

(a) Allocation of Funds.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated pursuant to the authorization in section 201(3), $50,000,000 shall be available for a competitive reusable rocket technology program.

(b) Limitation.--Funds made available pursuant to subsection (a)(1) may be obligated only to the extent that the fiscal year 1996 current operating plan of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration allocates at least an equal amount for its Reusable Space Launch program.

SEC. 212. TACTICAL MANNED RECONNAISSANCE.

(a) Limitation.--None of the amounts appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to an authorization in this Act may be used by the Secretary of the Air Force to conduct research, development, test, or evaluation for a replacement aircraft, pod, or sensor payload for the tactical manned reconnaissance mission until the report required by subsection (b) is submitted to the congressional defense committees.

(b) Report.--The Secretary of the Air Force shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report setting forth in detail information about the manner in which the funds authorized by section 201 of this Act and section 201 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 2690) are planned to be used during fiscal year 1996 for research, development, test, and evaluation for the Air Force tactical manned reconnaissance mission. At a minimum, the report shall include the sources, by program element, of the funds and the purposes for which the funds are planned to be used.

SEC. 214. DEVELOPMENT OF LASER PROGRAM.

Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by section 201(2), $9,000,000 shall be used for the development by the Naval High Energy Laser Office of a continuous wave, superconducting radio frequency free electron laser program.

SEC. 216. SPACE-BASED INFRARED SYSTEM.

(a) Program Baseline.--The Secretary of Defense shall establish a program baseline for the Space-Based Infrared System. Such baseline shall--

(1) include--
(A) program cost and an estimate of the funds required for development and acquisition activities for each fiscal year in which such activities are planned to be carried out;
(B) a comprehensive schedule with program milestones and exit criteria; and
(C) optimized performance parameters for each segment of an integrated space-based infrared system;

(2) be structured to achieve initial operational capability of the low earth orbit space segment (the Space and Missile Tracking System) in fiscal year 2003, with a first launch of Block I satellites in fiscal year 2002;
(3) ensure integration of the Space and Missile Tracking System into the architecture of the Space- Based Infrared System; and
(4) ensure that the performance parameters of all space segment components are selected so as to optimize the performance of the Space-Based Infrared System while minimizing unnecessary redundancy and cost.

(b) Report on Program Baseline.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report, in classified and unclassified forms as necessary, on the program baseline established under subsection (a).

(c) Establishment of Program Elements.--In the budget justification materials submitted to Congress in support of the Department of Defense budget for any fiscal year after fiscal year 1996 (as submitted in the budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code), the amount requested for the Space-Based Infrared System shall be set forth in accordance with the following program elements:

(1) Space Segment High.
(2) Space Segment Low (Space and Missile Tracking System).
(3) Ground Segment.

(d) Funding for Fiscal Year 1996.--Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated pursuant to section 201(3) for fiscal year 1996, or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1996, the following amounts shall be available for the Space-Based Infrared System:

(1) $265,744,000 for demonstration and validation, of which $249,824,000 shall be available for the Space and Missile Tracking System. (2)
$162,219,000 for engineering and manufacturing development, of which $9,400,000 shall be available for the Miniature Sensor Technology Integration program.

SEC. 217. DEFENSE NUCLEAR AGENCY PROGRAMS.

(a) Agency Funding.--Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Defense in section 201, $241,703,000 shall be available for the Defense Nuclear Agency.

(b) Tunnel Characterization and Neutralization Program.--Of the amount made available under subsection (a), $3,000,000 shall be available for a tunnel characterization and neutralization program to be managed by the Defense Nuclear Agency as part of the counterproliferation activities of the Department of Defense.

(c) Long-Term Radiation Tolerant Microelectronics Program.--(1) Of the amount made available under subsection (a), $6,000,000 shall be available for the establishment of a long-term radiation tolerant microelectronics program to be managed by the Defense Nuclear Agency for the purposes of--

(A) providing for the development of affordable and effective hardening technologies and for incorporation of such technologies into systems;
(B) sustaining the supporting industrial base; and
(C) ensuring that a use of a nuclear weapon in regional threat scenarios does not interrupt or defeat the continued operability of systems of the Armed Forces exposed to the combined effects of radiation emitted by the weapon.

(2) Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on how the long-term radiation tolerant microelectronics program is to be conducted and funded in the fiscal years after fiscal year 1996 that are covered by the future-years defense program submitted to Congress in 1995.

(d) Thermionics Program.--Of the amount made available under subsection (a), $10,000,000 shall be available for the thermionics program, to be managed by the Defense Nuclear Agency.

(f) Counterterror Explosives Research Program.--Of the amount made available under subsection (a), $4,000,000 shall be available for the counterterror explosives research program of the Defense Nuclear Agency.

(g) Transfer of Unobligated Balance.--The Secretary of Defense shall transfer to the Defense Nuclear Agency, to be available for the thermionics program, an amount not to exceed $12,000,000 from the unobligated balance of funds authorized and appropriated for research, development, test, and evaluation for fiscal year 1995 for the Air Force for the Advanced Weapons Program.

SEC. 218. COUNTERPROLIFERATION SUPPORT PROGRAM.

(a) Funding.--Of the funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Defense under section 201(4), $138,237,000 shall be available for the Counterproliferation Support Program, of which $30,000,000 shall be available for a tactical antisatellite technologies program.

(b) Additional Authority To Transfer Authorizations.--(1) In addition to the transfer authority provided in section 1001, upon determination by the Secretary of Defense that such action is necessary in the national interest, the Secretary may transfer amounts of authorizations made available to the Department of Defense in this division for fiscal year 1996 to counterproliferation programs, projects, and activities identified as areas for progress by the Counterproliferation Program Review Committee established by section 1605 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160; 107 Stat. 1845). Amounts of authorizations so transferred shall be merged with and be available for the same purposes as the authorization to which transferred.

(2) The total amount of authorizations transferred under the authority of this subsection may not exceed $50,000,000.

(3) The authority provided by this subsection to transfer authorizations--

(A) may only be used to provide authority for items that have a higher priority than the items from which authority is transferred; and
(B) may not be used to provide authority for an item that has been denied authorization by Congress.

(4) A transfer made from one account to another under the authority of this subsection shall be deemed to increase the amount authorized for the account to which the amount is transferred by an amount equal to the amount transferred.

(5) The Secretary of Defense shall promptly notify Congress of transfers made under the authority of this subsection.

SEC. 219. NONLETHAL WEAPONS STUDY.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:

(1) The role of the United States military in operations other than war has increased.
(2) Weapons and instruments that are nonlethal in application yet immobilizing could have widespread operational utility and application.
(3) The use of nonlethal weapons in operations other than war poses a number of important doctrine, legal, policy, and operations questions which should be addressed in a comprehensive and coordinated manner.
(4) The development of nonlethal technologies continues to spread across military and agency budgets.
(5) The Department of Defense should provide improved budgetary focus and management direction to the nonlethal weapons program.

(b) Responsibility for Development of Nonlethal Weapons Technology.--Not later than February 15, 1996, the Secretary of Defense shall assign centralized responsibility for development (and any other functional responsibility the Secretary considers appropriate) of nonlethal weapons technology to an existing office within the Office of the Secretary of Defense or to a military service as the executive agent.

(c) Report.--Not later than February 15, 1996, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report setting forth the following:

(1) The name of the office or military service assigned responsibility for the nonlethal weapons program by the Secretary of Defense pursuant to subsection (b) and a discussion of the rationale for such assignment.
(2) The degree to which nonlethal weapons are required by more than one of the armed forces.
(3) The time frame for the development and deployment of such weapons.
(4) The appropriate role of the military departments and defense agencies in the development of such weapons.
(5) The military doctrine, legal, policy, and operational issues that must be addressed by the Department of Defense before such weapons achieve operational capability.

(d) Authorization.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated under section 201(4), $37,200,000 shall be available for nonlethal weapons programs and nonlethal technologies programs.

(e) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term ``nonlethal weapon'' means a weapon or instrument the effect of which on human targets is less than fatal.

SEC. 221. JOINT SEISMIC PROGRAM AND GLOBAL SEISMIC NETWORK.

Of the amount authorized to be appropriated under section 201(3), $9,500,000 shall be available for fiscal year 1996 (in program element 61101F in the budget of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1996) for continuation of the Joint Seismic Program and Global Seismic Network.

SEC. 227. DEFENSE AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE PROGRAM.

(a) Limitation.--Not more than three percent of the total amount appropriated for research and development under the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance program pursuant to the authorizations of appropriations in section 201 may be obligated for systems engineering and technical assistance (SETA) contracts until--

(1) funds are obligated (out of such appropriated funds) for--
(A) the upgrade of U-2 aircraft senior year electro-optical reconnaissance sensors to the newest configuration; and
(B) the upgrade of the U-2 SIGINT system; and

(2) the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology submits the report required under subsection (b).

(b) Report on U-2-Related Upgrades.--(1) Not later than April 1, 1996, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology shall transmit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives a report on obligations of funds for upgrades relating to airborne reconnaissance by U-2 aircraft.

(2) The report shall set forth the specific purposes under the general purposes described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (a)(1) for which funds have been obligated (as of the date of the report) and the amounts that have been obligated (as of such date) for those specific purposes.

Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense Act of 1995

SEC. 231. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ``Ballistic Missile Defense Act of 1995''.

SEC. 232. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The emerging threat that is posed to the national security interests of the United States by the proliferation of ballistic missiles is significant and growing, both in terms of numbers of missiles and in terms of the technical capabilities of those missiles.
(2) The deployment of ballistic missile defenses is a necessary, but not sufficient, element of a broader strategy to discourage both the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the proliferation of the means of their delivery and to defend against the consequences of such proliferation.
(3) The deployment of effective Theater Missile Defense systems can deter potential adversaries of the United States from escalating a conflict by threatening or attacking United States forces or the forces or territory of coalition partners or allies of the United States with ballistic missiles armed with weapons of mass destruction to offset the operational and technical advantages of the United States and its coalition partners and allies.
(4) United States intelligence officials have provided intelligence estimates to congressional committees that (A) the trend in missile proliferation is toward longer range and more sophisticated ballistic missiles, (B) North Korea may deploy an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching Alaska or beyond within five years, and (C) although a new, indigenously developed ballastic missile threat to the continental United States is not foreseen within the next ten years, determined countries can acquire intercontinental ballistic missiles in the near future and with little warning by means other than indigenous development.
(5) The development and deployment by the United States and its allies of effective defenses against ballistic missiles of all ranges will reduce the incentives for countries to acquire such missiles or to augment existing missile capabilities.
(6) The concept of mutual assured destruction (based upon an offense-only form of deterrence), which is the major philosophical rationale underlying the ABM Treaty, is now questionable as a basis for stability in a multipolar world in which the United States and the states of the former Soviet Union are seeking to normalize relations and eliminate Cold War attitudes and arrangements.
(7) The development and deployment of a National Missile Defense system against the threat of limited ballistic missile attacks--

(A) would strengthen deterrence at the levels of forces agreed to by the United States and Russia under the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks Treaty (START-I); and
(B) would further strengthen deterrence if reductions below the levels permitted under START-I should be agreed to and implemented in the future.

(8) The distinction made during the Cold War, based upon the technology of the time, between strategic ballistic missiles and nonstrategic ballistic missiles, which resulted in the distinction made in the ABM Treaty between strategic defense and nonstrategic defense, has become obsolete because of technological advancement (including the development by North Korea of long-range Taepo-Dong I and Taepo-Dong II missiles) and, therefore, that distinction in the ABM Treaty should be reviewed.

SEC. 233. BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE POLICY.

It is the policy of the United States--

(1) to deploy affordable and operationally effective theater missile defenses to protect forward- deployed and expeditionary elements of the Armed Forces of the United States and to complement the missile defense capabilities of forces of coalition partners and of allies of the United States; and

(2) to seek a cooperative, negotiated transition to a regime that does not feature an offense-only form of deterrence as the basis for strategic stability.

SEC. 234. THEATER MISSILE DEFENSE ARCHITECTURE.

(a) Establishment of Core Program.--To implement the policy established in paragraph (1) of section 233, the Secretary of Defense shall restructure the core theater missile defense program to consist of the following systems, to be carried out so as to achieve the specified capabilities:

(1) The Patriot PAC-3 system, with a first unit equipped (FUE) during fiscal year 1998.

(2) The Navy Lower Tier (Area) system, with a user operational evaluation system (UOES) capability during fiscal year 1997 and an initial operational capability (IOC) during fiscal year 1999.

(3) The Theater High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, with a user operational evaluation system (UOES) capability not later than fiscal year 1998 and a first unit equipped (FUE) not later than fiscal year 2000.

(4) The Navy Upper Tier (Theater Wide) system, with a user operational evaluation system (UOES) capability during fiscal year 1999 and an initial operational capability (IOC) during fiscal year 2001.

(b) Use of Streamlined Acquisition Procedures.--The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe and use streamlined acquisition policies and procedures to reduce the cost and increase the efficiency of developing and deploying the theater missile defense systems specified in subsection (a).

(c) Interoperability and Support of Core Systems.--To maximize effectiveness and flexibility of the systems comprising the core theater missile defense program, the Secretary of Defense shall ensure that those systems are integrated and complementary and are fully capable of exploiting external sensor and battle management support from systems such as--

(A) the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) system of the Navy;

(B) airborne sensors; and

(d) Follow-on Systems.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall prepare an affordable development plan for theater missile defense systems to be developed as follow-on systems to the core systems specified in subsection (a). The Secretary shall make the selection of a system for inclusion in the plan based on the capability of the system to satisfy military requirements not met by the systems in the core program and on the capability of the system to use prior investments in technologies, infrastructure, and battle-management capabilities that are incorporated in, or associated with, the systems in the core program.

(2) The Secretary may not proceed with the development of a follow-on theater missile defense system beyond the Demonstration/Validation stage of development unless the Secretary designates that system as a part of the core program under this section and submits to the congressional defense committees notice of that designation. The Secretary shall include with any such notification a report describing--

(A) the requirements for the system and the specific threats that such system is designed to counter;

(B) how the system will relate to, support, and build upon existing core systems;

(D) a preliminary estimate of total program cost for that system and the effect of development and acquisition of such system on Department of Defense budget projections.

(e) Program Accountability Report.--(1) As part of the annual report of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization required by section 224 of Public Law 101-189 (10 U.S.C. 2431 note), the Secretary of Defense shall describe the technical milestones, the schedule, and the cost of each phase of development and acquisition (together with total estimated program costs) for each core and follow-on theater missile defense program.

(2) As part of such report, the Secretary shall describe, with respect to each program covered in the report, any variance in the technical milestones, program schedule milestones, and costs for the program compared with the information relating to that program in the report submitted in the previous year and in the report submitted in the first year in which that program was covered.

(f) Reports on TMD System Limitations Under ABM Treaty.--

(1) Whenever, after January 1, 1993, the Secretary of Defense issues a certification with respect to the compliance of a particular Theater Missile Defense system with the ABM Treaty, the Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives a copy of such certification. Such transmittal shall be made not later than 30 days after the date on which such certification is issued, except that in the case of a certification issued before the date of the enactment of this Act, such transmittal shall be made not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(2) If a certification under paragraph (1) is based on application of a policy concerning United States compliance with the ABM Treaty that differs from the policy described in section 235(b)(1), the Secretary shall include with the transmittal under that paragraph a report providing a detailed assessment of--

(A) how the policy applied differs from the policy described in section 235(b)(1); and

(B) how the application of that policy (rather than the policy described in section 235(b)(1)) will affect the cost, schedule, and performance of that system.

SEC. 235. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT AN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT CONCERNING THEATER MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS.

(a) Findings.--(1) Congress hereby reaffirms--

(A) the finding in section 234(a)(7) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160; 107 Stat. 1595; 10 U.S.C. 2431 note) that the ABM Treaty was not intended to, and does not, apply to or limit research, development, testing, or deployment of missile defense systems, system upgrades, or system components that are designed to counter modern theater ballistic missiles, regardless of the capabilities of such missiles, unless those systems, system upgrades, or system components are tested against or have demonstrated capabilities to counter modern strategic ballistic missiles; and
(B) the statement in section 232 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 2700) that the United States shall not be bound by any international agreement entered into by the President that would substantively modify the ABM Treaty unless the agreement is entered into pursuant to the treaty making power of the President under the Constitution.

(2) Congress also finds that the demarcation standard described in subsection (b)(1) for compliance of a missile defense system, system upgrade, or system component with the ABM Treaty is based upon current technology.

(b) Sense of Congress Concerning Compliance Policy.--It is the sense of Congress that--

(1) unless a missile defense system, system upgrade, or system component (including one that exploits data from space-based or other external sensors) is flight tested in an ABM-qualifying flight test (as defined in subsection (e)), that system, system upgrade, or system component has not, for purposes of the ABM Treaty, been tested in an ABM mode nor been given capabilities to counter strategic ballistic missiles and, therefore, is not subject to any application, limitation, or obligation under the ABM Treaty; and
(2) any international agreement that would limit the research, development, testing, or deployment of missile defense systems, system upgrades, or system components that are designed to counter modern theater ballistic missiles in a manner that would be more restrictive than the compliance criteria specified in paragraph (1) should be entered into only pursuant to the treaty making powers of the President under the Constitution.

(c) Prohibition on Funding.--Funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1996 may not be obligated or expended to implement an agreement, or any understanding with respect to interpretation of the ABM Treaty, between the United States and any of the independent states of the former Soviet Union entered into after January 1, 1995, that--

(1) would establish a demarcation between theater missile defense systems and anti-ballistic missile systems for purposes of the ABM Treaty; or

(2) would restrict the performance, operation, or deployment of United States theater missile defense systems.

(d) Exceptions.--Subsection (c) does not apply--

(1) to the extent provided by law in an Act enacted after this Act;

(2) to expenditures to implement that portion of any such agreement or understanding that implements the policy set forth in subsection (b)(1); or

(3) to expenditures to implement any such agreement or understanding that is approved as a treaty or by law.

(e) ABM-Qualifying Flight Test Defined.--For purposes of this section, an ABM-qualifying flight test is a flight test against a ballistic missile which, in that flight test, exceeds (1) a range of 3,500 kilometers, or (2) a velocity of 5 kilometers per second.

SEC. 236. BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE COOPERATION WITH ALLIES.

It is in the interest of the United States to develop its own missile defense capabilities in a manner that will permit the United States to complement the missile defense capabilities developed and deployed by its allies and possible coalition partners. Therefore, the Congress urges the President--

(1) to pursue high-level discussions with allies of the United States and selected other states on the means and methods by which the parties on a bilateral basis can cooperate in the development, deployment, and operation of ballistic missile defenses;

(2) to take the initiative within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to develop consensus in the Alliance for a timely deployment of effective ballistic missile defenses by the Alliance; and

(3) in the interim, to seek agreement with allies of the United States and selected other states on steps the parties should take, consistent with their national interests, to reduce the risks posed by the threat of limited ballistic missile attacks, such steps to include--

(A) the sharing of early warning information derived from sensors deployed by the United States and other states;
(B) the exchange on a reciprocal basis of technical data and technology to support both joint development programs and the sale and purchase of missile defense systems and components; and
(C) operational level planning to exploit current missile defense capabilities and to help define future requirements.

SEC. 237. ABM TREATY DEFINED.

For purposes of this subtitle, the term ``ABM Treaty'' means the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Limitation of Anti- Ballistic Missile Systems, and signed at Moscow on May 26, 1972, and includes the Protocols to that Treaty, signed at Moscow on July 3, 1974.

SEC. 238. REPEAL OF MISSILE DEFENSE ACT OF 1991.

The Missile Defense Act of 1991 (10 U.S.C. 2431 note) is repealed.

Subtitle D--Other Ballistic Missile Defense Provisions

SEC. 251. BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAM ELEMENTS.

(a) Elements Specified.--In the budget justification materials submitted to Congress in support of the Department of Defense budget for any fiscal year after fiscal year 1996 (as submitted with the budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code), the amount requested for activities of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization shall be set forth in accordance with the following program elements:

(1) The Patriot system.
(2) The Navy Lower Tier (Area) system.
(3) The Theater High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system.
(4) The Navy Upper Tier (Theater Wide) system.
(5) The Corps Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) system.
(6) Other Theater Missile Defense Activities.
(7) National Missile Defense.
(8) Follow-On and Support Technologies.

(b) Treatment of Core Theater Missile Defense Programs.-- Amounts requested for core theater missile defense programs specified in section 234 shall be specified in individual, dedicated program elements, and amounts appropriated for such programs shall be available only for activities covered by those program elements.

(c) BM/C3I Programs.--Amounts requested for programs, projects, and activities involving battle management, command, control, communications, and intelligence (BM/C<SUP>3I) shall be included in the ``Other Theater Missile Defense Activities'' program element or the ``National Missile Defense'' program element, as determined on the basis of the primary objectives involved.

(d) Management and Support.--Each program element shall include requests for the amounts necessary for the management and support of the programs, projects, and activities contained in that program element.

SEC. 252. TESTING OF THEATER MISSILE DEFENSE INTERCEPTORS.

Subsection (a) of section 237 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160; 107 Stat. 1600) is amended to read as follows:

``(a) Testing of Theater Missile Defense Interceptors.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may not approve a theater missile defense interceptor program proceeding beyond thelow-rate initial production acquisition stage until the Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that such program has successfully completed initial operational test and evaluation.

``(2) In order to be certified under paragraph (1) as having been successfully completed, the initial operational test and evaluation conducted with respect to an interceptors program must have included flight tests--

``(A) that were conducted with multiple interceptors and multiple targets in the presence of realistic countermeasures; and
``(B) the results of which demonstrate the achievement by the interceptors of the baseline performance thresholds.

``(3) For purposes of this subsection, the baseline performance thresholds with respect to a program are the weapons systems performance thresholds specified in the baseline description for the system established (pursuant to section 2435(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code) before the program entered the engineering and manufacturing development stage.

``(4) The number of flight tests described in paragraph (2) that are required in order to make the certification under paragraph (1) shall be a number determined by the Secretary of Defense to be sufficient for the purposes of this section.

``(5) The Secretary may augment live-fire testing to demonstrate weapons system performance goals for purposes of the certification under paragraph (1) through the use of modeling and simulation that is validated by ground and flight testing.''.

SEC. 253. REPEAL OF MISSILE DEFENSE PROVISIONS.

The following provisions of law are repealed:

(1) Section 222 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1986 (Public Law 99-145; 99 Stat. 613; 10 U.S.C. 2431 note).

(2) Section 225 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1986 (Public Law 99-145; 99 Stat. 614).

(3) Section 226 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (Public Law 100-180; 101 Stat. 1057; 10 U.S.C. 2431 note).

(4) Section 8123 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1989 (Public Law 100-463; 102 Stat. 2270-40).

(5) Section 8133 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1992 (Public Law 102-172; 105 Stat. 1211).

(6) Section 234 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103- 160; 107 Stat. 1595; 10 U.S.C. 2431 note).

(7) Section 242 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103- 160; 107 Stat. 1603; 10 U.S.C. 2431 note).

(8) Section 235 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103- 337; 108 Stat. 2701; 10 U.S.C. 221 note).

(9) Section 2609 of title 10, United States Code.

Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Reviews, Studies, and Reports

SEC. 262. REVIEW OF C4I BY NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL.

(a) Review by National Research Council.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall request the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a comprehensive review of current and planned service and defense-wide programs for command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence (C4I) with a special focus on cross-service and inter- service issues.

(b) Matters To Be Assessed in Review.--The review shall address the following:

(1) The match between the capabilities provided by current service and defense-wide C<SUP>4I programs and the actual needs of users of these programs.
(2) The interoperability of service and defense- wide C4I systems that are planned to be operational in the future.
(3) The need for an overall defense-wide architecture for C4I.
(4) Proposed strategies for ensuring that future C4I acquisitions are compatible and interoperable with an overall architecture.
(5) Technological and administrative aspects of the C4I modernization effort to determine the soundness of the underlying plan and the extent to which it is consistent with concepts for joint military operations in the future.

(c) Two-Year Period for Conducting Review.--The review shall be conducted over the two-year period beginning on the date on which the National Research Council and the Secretary of Defense enter into a contract or other agreement for the conduct of the review.

(d) Reports.--(1) In the contract or other agreement for the conduct of the review, the Secretary of Defense shall provide that the National Research Council shall submit to the Department of Defense and Congress interim reports and progress updates on a regular basis as the review proceeds. A final report on the review shall set forth the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Council for defense-wide and service C4I programs and shall be submitted to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate, the Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives, and the Secretary of Defense.

(2) To the maximum degree possible, the final report shall be submitted in unclassified form with classified annexes as necessary.

(e) Interagency Cooperation With Study.--All military departments, defense agencies, and other components of the Department of Defense shall cooperate fully with the National Research Council in its activities in carrying out the review under this section.

(f) Expedited Processing of Security Clearances for Study.--For the purpose of facilitating the commencement of the study under this section, the Secretary of Defense shall expedite to the fullest degree possible the processing of security clearances that are necessary for the National Research Council to conduct the study.

(g) Funding.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated in section 201 for defense-wide activities, $900,000 shall be available for the study under this section.

Subtitle F--Other Matters

SEC. 274. CRUISE MISSILE DEFENSE INITIATIVE.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall undertake an initiative to coordinate and strengthen the cruise missile defense programs of the Department of Defense to ensure that the United States develops and deploys affordable and operationally effective defenses against existing and future cruise missile threats to United States military forces and operations.

(b) Coordination With Ballistic Missile Defense Efforts.-- In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary shall ensure that, to the extent practicable, the cruise missile defense programs of the Department of Defense and the ballistic missile defense programs of the Department of Defense are coordinated with each other and that those programs are mutually supporting.

(c) Defenses Against Existing and Near-Term Cruise Missile Threats.--As part of the initiative under subsection (a), the Secretary shall ensure that appropriate existing and planned air defense systems are upgraded to provide an affordable and operationally effective defense against existing and near-term cruise missile threats to United States military forces and operations.

(d) Defenses Against Advanced Cruise Missiles.--As part of the initiative under subsection (a), the Secretary shall undertake a well-coordinated development program to support the future deployment of cruise missile defense systems that are affordable and operationally effective against advanced cruise missiles, including cruise missiles with low observable features.

(e) Implementation Plan.--Not later than the date on which the President submits the budget for fiscal year 1997 under section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a detailed plan, in unclassified and classified forms, as necessary, for carrying out this section. The plan shall include an assessment of the following:

(1) The systems of the Department of Defense that currently have or could have cruise missile defense capabilities and existing programs of the Department of Defense to improve these capabilities.
(2) The technologies that could be deployed in the near- to mid-term to provide significant advances over existing cruise missile defense capabilities and the investments that would be required to ready those technologies for deployment.
(3) The cost and operational tradeoffs, if any, between (A) upgrading existing air and missile defense systems, and (B) accelerating follow-on systems with significantly improved capabilities against advanced cruise missiles.
(4) The organizational and management changes that would strengthen and further coordinate the cruise missile defense programs of the Department of Defense, including the disadvantages, if any, of implementing such changes.

(f) Definition.--For the purposes of this section, the term ``cruise missile defense programs'' means the programs, projects, and activities of the military departments, the Advanced Research Projects Agency, and the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization relating to development and deployment of defenses against cruise missiles.

SEC. 279. GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM.

(a) Conditional Prohibition on Use of Selective Availability Feature.--Except as provided in subsection (b), after May 1, 1996, the Secretary of Defense may not (through use of the feature known as ``selective availability'') deny access of non-Department of Defense users to the full capabilities of the Global Positioning System.

(b) Plan.--Subsection (a) shall cease to apply upon submission by the Secretary of Defense to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives of a plan for enhancement of the Global Positioning System that provides for--

(1) development and acquisition of effective capabilities to deny hostile military forces the ability to use the Global Positioning System without hindering the ability of United States military forces and civil users to have access to and use of the system, together with a specific date by which those capabilities could be operational; and
(2) development and acquisition of receivers for the Global Positioning System and other techniques for weapons and weapon systems that provide substantially improved resistance to jamming and other forms of electronic interference or disruption, together with a specific date by which those receivers and other techniques could be operational with United States military forces.

TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

SEC. 378. PROVISION OF EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES TO ASSIST IN EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACTIONS.

Section 372 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The Secretary of Defense''; and

(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

``(b) Emergencies Involving Chemical and Biological Agents.--(1) In addition to equipment and facilities described in subsection (a), the Secretary may provide an item referred to in paragraph (2) to a Federal, State, or local law enforcement or emergency response agency to prepare for or respond to an emergency involving chemical or biological agents if the Secretary determines that the item is not reasonably available from another source.

``(2) An item referred to in paragraph (1) is any material or expertise of the Department of Defense appropriate for use in preparing for or responding to an emergency involving chemical or biological agents, including the following:

``(A) Training facilities.
``(B) Sensors.
``(C) Protective clothing.
``(D) Antidotes.''.

SEC. 379. REPORT ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MILITARY AND CIVIL DEFENSE PREPAREDNESS TO RESPOND TO EMERGENCIES RESULTING FROM A CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, RADIOLOGICAL, OR NUCLEAR ATTACK.

(a) Report.--(1) Not later than March 1, 1996, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress a joint report on the military and civil defense plans and programs of the Department of Defense to prepare for and respond to the effects of an emergency in the United States resulting from a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear attack on the United States (hereinafter in this section referred to as an ``attack-related civil defense emergency'').

(2) The report shall be prepared in consultation with the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

(b) Content of Report.--The report shall include the following:

(1) A discussion of the military and civil defense plans and programs of the Department of Defense for preparing for and responding to an attack-related civil defense emergency arising from an attack of a type for which the Department of Defense has a primary responsibility to respond.
(2) A discussion of the military and civil defense plans and programs of the Department of Defense for preparing for and providing a response to an attack- related civil defense emergency arising from an attack of a type for which the Department of Defense has responsibility to provide a supporting response.
(3) A description of any actions, and any recommended legislation, that the Secretaries consider necessary for improving the preparedness of the Department of Defense to respond effectively to an attack-related civil defense emergency.

TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS

Subtitle C--Decorations and Awards

SEC. 523. MILITARY INTELLIGENCE PERSONNEL PREVENTED BY SECRECY FROM BEING CONSIDERED FOR DECORATIONS AND AWARDS.

(a) Waiver on Restrictions of Awards.--(1) Any decoration covered by paragraph (2) may be awarded, without regard to any time limit imposed by law or regulation for a recommendation for such award, to any person for an act, achievement, or service that the person performed in carrying out military intelligence duties during the period beginning on January 1, 1940, and ending on December 31, 1990.

(2) Paragraph (1) applies to any decoration (including any device in lieu of a decoration) that, during or after the period described in paragraph (1) and before the date of the enactment of this Act, was authorized by law or under the regulations of the Department of Defense or the military department concerned to be awarded to a person for an act, achievement, or service performed by that person while serving on active duty.

(b) Review of Requests for Consideration of Awards.--(1) The Secretary of each military department shall review each request for consideration of award of a decoration described in subsection (a) that is received by the Secretary during the one-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.

(2) The Secretaries shall begin the review within 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and shall complete the review of each request for consideration not later than one year after the date on which the request is received.

(3) The Secretary may use the same process for carrying out the review as the Secretary uses for reviewing other recommendations for awarding decorations to members of the Armed Forces under the Secretary's jurisdiction for acts, achievements, or service.

(c) Report.--(1) Upon completing the review of each such request under subsection (b), the Secretary shall submit a report on the review to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives.

(2) The report shall include, with respect to each request for consideration reviewed, the following information:

(A) A summary of the request for consideration.
(B) The findings resulting from the review.
(C) The final action taken on the request for consideration.
(D) Administrative or legislative recommendations to improve award procedures with respect to military intelligence personnel.

(d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term ``active duty'' has the meaning given such term in section 101 of title 10, United States Code.

SEC. 562. ARMY RANGER TRAINING.

(a) In General.--(1) Chapter 401 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 4302 the following new section:

``Sec. 4303. Army Ranger training: instructor staffing; safety

``(a) Levels of Personnel Assigned.--(1) The Secretary of the Army shall ensure that at all times the number of officers, and the number of enlisted members, permanently assigned to the Ranger Training Brigade (or other organizational element of the Army primarily responsible for ranger student training) are not less than 90 percent of the required manning spaces for officers, and for enlisted members, respectively, for that brigade.

``(2) In this subsection, the term `required manning spaces' means the number of personnel spaces for officers, and the number of personnel spaces for enlisted members, that are designated in Army authorization documents as the number required to accomplish the missions of a particular unit or organization.

``(b) Training Safety Cells.--(1) The Secretary of the Army shall establish and maintain an organizational entity known as a `safety cell' as part of the organizational elements of the Army responsible for conducting each of the three major phases of the Ranger Course. The safety cell in each different geographic area of Ranger Course training shall be comprised of personnel who have sufficient continuity and experience in that geographic area of such training to be knowledgeable of the local conditions year-round, including conditions of terrain, weather, water, and climate and other conditions and the potential effect on those conditions on Ranger student training and safety.

``(2) Members of each safety cell shall be assigned in sufficient numbers to serve as advisers to the officers in charge of the major phase of Ranger training and shall assist those officers in making informed daily `go' and `no-go' decisions regarding training in light of all relevant conditions, including conditions of terrain, weather, water, and climate and other conditions.''.

(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 4302 the following new item:

``4303. Army Ranger training: instructor staffing; safety.''.

(b) Accomplishment of Required Manning Levels.--(1) If, as of the date of the enactment of this Act, the number of officers, and the number of enlisted members, permanently assigned to the Army Ranger Training Brigade are not each at (or above) the requirement specified in subsection (a) of section 4303 of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), the Secretary of the Army shall--

(A) take such steps as necessary to accomplish that requirement within 12 months after such date of enactment; and (B)
submit to Congress, not later than 90 days after such date of enactment, a plan to achieve and maintain that requirement.

(2) The requirement specified in subsection (a) of section 4303 of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall expire two years after the date (on or after the date of the enactment of this Act) on which the required manning levels referred to in paragraph (1) are first attained.

(c) GAO Assessment.--(1) Not later than one year from the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report providing a preliminary assessment of the implementation and effectiveness of all corrective actions taken by the Army as a result of the February 1995 accident at the Florida Ranger Training Camp, including an evaluation of the implementation of the required manning levels established by subsection (a) of section 4303 of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a).

(2) At the end of the two-year period specified in subsection (b)(2), the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report providing a final assessment of the matters covered in the preliminary report under paragraph (1). The report shall include the Comptroller General's recommendation as to the need to continue required statutory manning levels as specified in subsection (a) of section 4303 of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a).

(d) Sense of Congress.--In light of requirement that particularly dangerous training activities (such as Ranger training, Search, Evasion, Rescue, and Escape (SERE) training, SEAL training, and Airborne training) must be adequately manned and resourced to ensure safety and effective oversight, it is the sense of Congress--

(1) that the Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with the Secretaries of the military departments, should review and, if necessary, enhance oversight of all such training activities; and (2)
that organizations similar to the safety cells required to be established for Army Ranger training in section 4303 of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), should (when appropriate) be used for all such training activities.

SEC. 570. ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE FOR MILITARY SUPPORT.

Section 102 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``(e) In the event that neither the Director nor Deputy Director of Central Intelligence is a commissioned officer of the Armed Forces, a commissioned officer of the Armed Forces appointed to the position of Associate Director of Central Intelligence for Military Support, while serving in such position, shall not be counted against the numbers and percentages of commissioned officers of the rank and grade of such officer authorized for the armed force of which such officer is a member.''.

TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

Subtitle A--General Matters

SEC. 901. ORGANIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The statutory provisions that as of the date of the enactment of this Act govern the organization of the Office of the Secretary of Defense have evolved from enactment of a number of executive branch legislative proposals and congressional initiatives over a period of years. (2) The May 1995 report of the congressionally
mandated Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces included a number of recommendations relating to the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
(3) The Secretary of Defense has decided to create a special Department task force and to conduct other reviews to review many of the Commission's recommendations.
(4) The Secretary of Defense has decided to institute a 5 percent per year reduction of civilian personnel assigned to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, including the Washington Headquarters Service and the Defense Support Activities, for the period from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2001.
(5) Over the ten-year period from 1986 through 1995, defense spending in real dollars has been reduced by 34 percent and military end-strengths have been reduced by 28 percent. During the same period, the number of civilian employees of the Office of the Secretary of Defense has increased by 22 percent.
(6) To achieve greater efficiency and to revalidate the role and mission of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, a comprehensive review of the organizations and functions of that Office and of the personnel needed to carry out those functions is required.

(b) Review.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a further review of the organizations and functions of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, including the Washington Headquarters Service and the Defense Support Activities, and the personnel needed to carry out those functions. The review shall include the following:

(1) An assessment of the appropriate functions of the Office and whether the Office of the Secretary of Defense or some of its component parts should be organized along mission lines.
(2) An assessment of the adequacy of the present organizational structure to efficiently and effectively support the Secretary in carrying out his responsibilities in a manner that ensures civilian authority in the Department of Defense. (3) An assessment of the advantages and
disadvantages of the use of political appointees to fill the positions of the various Under Secretaries of Defense, Assistant Secretaries of Defense, and Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense.
(4) An assessment of the extent of unnecessary duplication of functions between the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Staff.
(5) An assessment of the extent of unnecessary duplication of functions between the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military departments.
(6) An assessment of the appropriate number of positions referred to in paragraph (3) and of Deputy Assistant Secretaries of Defense.
(7) An assessment of whether some or any of the functions currently performed by the Office of Humanitarian and Refugee Affairs are more properly or effectively performed by another agency of Government or elsewhere within the Department of Defense.
(8) An assessment of the efficacy of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council and whether it is advisable or necessary to establish a statutory charter for this organization.
(9) An assessment of any benefits or efficiencies derived from decentralizing certain functions currently performed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
(10) An assessment of the appropriate size, number, and functional responsibilities of the Defense Agencies and other Department of Defense support organizations.

(c) Report.--Not later than March 1, 1996, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report containing--

(1) his findings and conclusions resulting from the review under subsection (b); and
(2) a plan for implementing resulting recommendations, including proposals for legislation (with supporting rationale) that would be required as a result of the review.

(d) Personnel Reduction.--(1) Effective October 1, 1999, the number of OSD personnel may not exceed 75 percent of the number of OSD personnel as of October 1, 1994.

(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``OSD personnel'' means military and civilian personnel of the Department of Defense who are assigned to, or employed in, functions in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (including Direct Support Activities of that Office and the Washington Headquarters Services of the Department of Defense).

(3) In carrying out reductions in the number of personnel assigned to, or employed in, the Office of the Department of Defense in order to comply with paragraph (1), the Secretary may not reassign functions solely in order to evade the requirement contained in that paragraph.

(4) If the Secretary of Defense determines, and certifies to Congress, that the limitation in paragraph (1) would adversely affect United States national security, the limitation under paragraph (1) shall be applied by substituting ``80 percent'' for ``75 percent''.

SEC. 902. REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE POSITIONS.

(a) Reduction.--Section 138(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking out ``eleven'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``ten''.

(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking out ``(11)'' after ``Assistant Secretaries of Defense'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``(10)''.

SEC. 903. DEFERRED REPEAL OF VARIOUS STATUTORY POSITIONS AND OFFICES IN OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.

(a) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take effect on January 31, 1997.

(b) Termination of Specification by Law of ASD Positions.-- Subsection (b) of section 138 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``(b) The Assistant Secretaries shall perform such duties and exercise such powers as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe.''.

(c) Repeal of Certain OSD Presidential Appointment Positions.--The following sections of chapter 4 of such title are repealed:

(1) Section 133a, relating to the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology.
(2) Section 134a, relating to the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
(3) Section 134a, relating to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering.
(4) Section 142, relating to the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs.

(d) Director of Military Relocation Assistance Programs.-- Section 1056 of such title is amended by striking out subsection (d).

(e) Conforming Amendments Relating to Repeal of Various OSD Positions.--Chapter 4 of such title is further amended--

(1) in section 131(b)--

(A) by striking out paragraphs (6) and (8); and
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (7), (9), (10), and (11), as paragraphs (6), (7), (8), and (9), respectively;

(2) in section 138(d), by striking out ``the Under Secretaries of Defense, and the Director of Defense Research and Engineering'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``and the Under Secretaries of Defense''; and
(3) in the table of sections at the beginning of the chapter, by striking out the items relating to sections 133a, 134a, 137, 139, and 142.

(f) Conforming Amendments Relating to Repeal of

Specification of ASD Positions.--

(1) Section 176(a)(3) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--

(A) by striking out ``Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``official in the Department of Defense with principal responsibility for health affairs''; and
(B) by striking out ``Chief Medical Director of the Department of Veterans Affairs'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Under Secretary for Health of the Department of Veterans Affairs''.

(2) Section 1216(d) of such title is amended by striking out ``Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``official in the Department of Defense with principal responsibility for health affairs''.

(3) Section 1587(d) of such title is amended by striking out ``Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Logistics'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``official in the Department of Defense with principal responsibility for personnel and readiness''.

(4) The text of section 10201 of such title is amended to read as follows:

``The official in the Department of Defense with responsibility for overall supervision of reserve component affairs of the Department of Defense is the official designated by the Secretary of Defense to have that responsibility.''.

(5) Section 1211(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (P.L. 100-180; 101 Stat 1155; 10 U.S.C. 167 note) is amended by striking out ``the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the official designated by the Secretary of Defense to have principal responsibility for matters relating to special operations and low intensity conflict''.

(g) Repeal of Minimum Number of Senior Staff for Specified Assistant Secretary of Defense.--Section 355 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101- 510; 104 Stat. 1540) is repealed.

SEC. 904. REDESIGNATION OF THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ATOMIC ENERGY.

(a) In General.--(1) Section 142 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--

(A) by striking out the section heading and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

``Sec. 142. Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs'';

(B) in subsection (a), by striking out ``Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Atomic Energy'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs''; and

``(b) The Assistant to the Secretary shall--

``(1) advise the Secretary of Defense on nuclear energy, nuclear weapons, and chemical and biological defense;

``(2) serve as the Staff Director of the Nuclear Weapons Council established by section 179 of this title; and

``(3) perform such additional duties as the Secretary may prescribe.''.

(2) The item relating to such section in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 4 of such title is amended to read as follows:

``142. Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs.''.

(b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 179(c)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking out ``The Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Atomic Energy'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``The Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs''.

(2) Section 5316 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking out ``The Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Atomic Energy, Department of Defense.'' and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

``Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs, Department of Defense.''.

SEC. 907. REPORT ON NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW AND ON PLANS FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS MANAGEMENT IN EVENT OF ABOLITION OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.

(a) Report Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report concerning the nuclear weapons complex. The report shall set forth--

(1) the Secretary's views on the effectiveness of the Department of Energy in managing the nuclear weapons complex, including the fulfillment of the requirements for nuclear weapons established for the Department of Energy in the Nuclear Posture Review; and

(2) the Secretary's recommended plan for the incorporation into the Department of Defense of the national security programs of the Department of Energy if the Department of Energy should be abolished and those programs be transferred to the Department of Defense.

(b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term ``Nuclear Posture Review'' means the Department of Defense Nuclear Posture Review as contained in the report entitled ``Report of the Secretary of Defense to the President and the Congress'', dated February 19, 1995, or in subsequent such reports.

TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 1002. INCORPORATION OF CLASSIFIED ANNEX.

(a) Status of Classified Annex.--The Classified Annex prepared by the committee on conference to accompany the bill H.R. 1530 of the One Hundred Fourth Congress and transmitted to the President is hereby incorporated into this Act.

(b) Construction With Other Provisions of Act.--The amounts specified in the Classified Annex are not in addition to amounts authorized to be appropriated by other provisions of this Act.

(c) Limitation on Use of Funds.--Funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization contained in this Act that are made available for a program, project, or activity referred to in the Classified Annex may only be expended for such program, project, or activity in accordance with such terms, conditions, limitations, restrictions, and requirements as are set out for that program, project, or activity in the Classified Annex.

(d) Distribution of Classified Annex.--The President shall provide for appropriate distribution of the Classified Annex, or of appropriate portions of the annex, within the executive branch of the Government.

SEC. 1018. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING NAMING OF AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS.

It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Navy--

(1) should name the vessel to be designated LHD-7 as the U.S.S. Iwo Jima; and

(2) should name the vessel to be designated LPD-17, and each subsequent ship of the LPD-17 class, after a Marine Corps battle or a member of the Marine Corps.

SEC. 1019. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING NAMING OF NAVAL VESSEL.

It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Navy should name an appropriate ship of the United States Navy the U.S.S. Joseph Vittori, in honor of Marine Corporal Joseph Vittori (1929-1951) of Beverly, Massachusetts, who was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for actions against the enemy in Korea on September 15-16, 1951.

SEC. 1020. TRANSFER OF RIVERINE PATROL CRAFT.

(a) Authority To Transfer Vessel.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (d) of section 7306 of title 10, United States Code, but subject to subsections (b) and (c) of that section, the Secretary of the Navy may transfer a vessel described in subsection (b) to Tidewater Community College, Portsmouth, Virginia, for scientific and educational purposes.

(b) Vessel.--The authority under subsection (a) applies in the case of a riverine patrol craft of the U.S.S. Swift class.

(c) Limitation.--The transfer authorized by subsection (a) may be made only if the Secretary determines that the vessel to be transferred is of no further use to the United States for national security purposes.

(d) Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may require such terms and conditions in connection with the transfer authorized by this section as the Secretary considers appropriate.

Subtitle C--Counter-Drug Activities

SEC. 1021. REVISION AND CLARIFICATION OF AUTHORITY FOR FEDERAL SUPPORT OF DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL GUARD.

(a) Funding Assistance Authorized.--Subsection (a) of

section 112 of title 32, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: ``(a) Funding Assistance.--The Secretary of Defense may pro

vide funds to the Governor of a State who submits to the Secretary a State drug interdiction and counter-drug activities plan satisfying the requirements of subsection (c). Such funds shall be used for--

``(1) the pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, travel, and related expenses, as authorized by State law, of personnel of the National Guard of that State used, while not in Federal service, for the purpose of drug interdiction and counter-drug activities;
``(2) the operation and maintenance of the equipment and facilities of the National Guard of that State used for the purpose of drug interdiction and counter-drug activities; and
``(3) the procurement of services and leasing of equipment for the National Guard of that State used for the purpose of drug interdiction and counter-drug activities.''.

(b) Reorganization of Section.--Such section is further amended--

(1) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (h);
(2) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (g) and transferring that subsection to appear before subsection (h), as redesignated by paragraph (1); and
(3) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections (c) and (d), respectively.

(c) State Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug Activities Plan.--Subsection (c) of such section, as redesignated by subsection (b)(3), is amended--

(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking out ``A plan referred to in subsection (a)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``A State drug interdiction and counter-drug activities plan'';

(2) by striking out ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2); and (3) in paragraph (3)--

(A) by striking out ``annual training'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``training'';

(B) by striking out the period at the end and inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon; and

``(4) include a certification by the Attorney General of the State (or, in the case of a State with no position of Attorney General, a civilian official of the State equivalent to a State attorney general) that the use of the National Guard of the State for the activities proposed under the plan is authorized by, and is consistent with, State law; and ``(5) certify that the Governor of the State or a

civilian law enforcement official of the State designated by the Governor has determined that any activities included in the plan that are carried out in conjunction with Federal law enforcement agencies serve a State law enforcement purpose.''.

(d) Examination of State Plan.--Subsection (d) of such section, as redesignated by subsection (b)(3), is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)--

(A) by striking out ``subsection (b)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``subsection (c)''; and

(B) by inserting after ``Before funds are provided to the Governor of a State under this section'' the following: ``and before members of the National Guard of that State are ordered to full-time National Guard duty as authorized in subsection (b)''; and

(2) in paragraph (3)--

(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking out ``subsection (b)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``subsection (c)''; and

(B) by striking out subparagraph (B) and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

``(B) pursuant to the plan submitted for a previous fiscal year, funds were provided to the State in accordance with subsection (a) or personnel of the National Guard of the State were ordered to perform full-time National Guard duty in accordance with subsection (b).''.

(e) Use of Personnel Performing Full-Time National Guard Duty.--Such section is further amended by inserting after subsection (a) the following new subsection (b):

``(b) Use of Personnel Performing Full-Time National Guard Duty.--Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, personnel of the National Guard of a State may, in accordance with the State drug interdiction and counter-drug activities plan referred to in subsection (c), be ordered to perform full-time National Guard duty under section 502(f) of this title for the purpose of carrying out drug interdiction and counter-drug activities.''.

(f) End Strength Limitation.--Such section is further amended by inserting after subsection (e) the following new subsection (f):

``(f) End Strength Limitation.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), at the end of a fiscal year there may not be more than 4000 members of the National Guard--

``(A) on full-time National Guard duty under section 502(f) of this title to perform drug interdiction or counter-drug activities pursuant to an order to duty for a period of more than 180 days; or

``(B) on duty under State authority to perform drug interdiction or counter-drug activities pursuant to an order to duty for a period of more than 180 days with State pay and allowances being reimbursed with funds provided under subsection (a)(1).

``(2) The Secretary of Defense may increase the end strength authorized under paragraph (1) by not more than 20 percent for any fiscal year if the Secretary determines that such an increase is necessary in the national security interests of the United States.''. (g) Definitions.--Subsection (h) of such section, as red

esignated by subsection (b)(1), is amended by striking out paragraph (1) and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

``(1) The term `drug interdiction and counter-drug activities', with respect to the National Guard of a State, means the use of National Guard personnel in drug interdiction and counter-drug law enforcement activities authorized by the law of the State and requested by the Governor of the State.''.

(h) Technical Amendments.--Subsection (e) of such section is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``sections 517 and 524'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``sections 12011 and 12012''; and

(2) in paragraph (2), by striking out ``the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives''.

SEC. 1053. REPORT OF NATIONAL POLICY ON PROTECTING THE NATIONAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE AGAINST STRATEGIC ATTACKS.

Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to Congress a report setting forth the results of a review of the national policy on protecting the national information infrastructure against strategic attacks. The report shall include the following:

(1) A description of the national policy and architecture governing the plans for establishing procedures, capabilities, systems, and processes necessary to perform indications, warning, and assessment functions regarding strategic attacks by foreign nations, groups, or individuals, or any other entity against the national information infrastructure.

(2) An assessment of the future of the National Communications System (NCS), which has performed the central role in ensuring national security and emergency preparedness communications for essential United States Government and private sector users, including

a discussion of-- (A) whether there is a Federal interest in expanding or modernizing the National Communications System in light of the changing strategic national security environment and the revolution in information technologies; and

(B) the best use of the National Communications System and the assets and experience it represents as an integral part of a larger national strategy to protect the United States against a strategic attack on the national information infrastructure.

SEC. 1055. DATE FOR SUBMISSION OF ANNUAL REPORT ON SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAMS.

Section 119(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking out ``February 1'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``March 1''.

TITLE XII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF FORMER SOVIET UNION

SEC. 1201. SPECIFICATION OF COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION PROGRAMS.

(a) In General.--For purposes of section 301 and other provisions of this Act, Cooperative Threat Reduction programs are the programs specified in subsection (b).

(b) Specified Programs.--The programs referred to in subsection (a) are the following programs with respect to states of the former Soviet Union:

(1) Programs to facilitate the elimination, and the safe and secure transportation and storage, of nuclear, chemical, and other weapons and their delivery vehicles.

(2) Programs to facilitate the safe and secure storage of fissile materials derived from the elimination of nuclear weapons.

(3) Programs to prevent the proliferation of weapons, weapons components, and weapons-related technology and expertise.

(4) Programs to expand military-to-military and defense contacts.

SEC. 1202. FISCAL YEAR 1996 FUNDING ALLOCATIONS.

(a) In General.--Of the amount appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 301 for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs, not more than the following amounts may be obligated for the purposes specified:

(1) For elimination of strategic offensive weapons in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, $90,000,000.

(2) For weapons security in Russia, $42,500,000.

(3) For the Defense Enterprise Fund, $0.

(4) For nuclear infrastructure elimination in Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, $35,000,000.

(5) For planning and design of a storage facility for Russian fissile material, $29,000,000.

(6) For planning and design of a chemical weapons destruction facility in Russia, $73,000,000.

(7) For activities designated as Defense and Military Contacts/General Support/Training in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, $10,000,000.

(8) For activities designated as Other Assessments/ Support $20,500,000.

(b) Limited Authority To Vary Individual Amounts.--(1) If the Secretary of Defense determines that it is necessary to do so in the national interest, the Secretary may, subject to paragraph (2), obligate amounts for the purposes stated in any of the paragraphs of subsection (a) in excess of the amount specified for those purposes in that paragraph, but not in excess of 115 percent of that amount. However, the total amount obligated for the purposes stated in the paragraphs in subsection (a) may not by reason of the use of the authority provided in the preceding sentence exceed the sum of the amounts specified in those paragraphs.

(2) An obligation for the purposes stated in any of the paragraphs in subsection (a) in excess of the amount specified in that paragraph may be made using the authority provided in paragraph (1) only after--

(A) the Secretary submits to Congress a notification of the intent to do so together with a complete discussion of the justification for doing so; and

(B) 15 days have elapsed following the date of the notification.

(c) Reimbursement of Pay Accounts.--Funds appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 301 for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs may be transferred to military personnel accounts for reimbursement of those accounts for the amount of pay and allowances paid to reserve component personnel for service while engaged in any activity under a Cooperative Threat Reduction program.

SEC. 1203. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR PEACEKEEPING EXERCISES AND RELATED ACTIVITIES WITH RUSSIA.

None of the funds appropriated pursuant to the authorization in section 301 for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs may be obligated or expended for the purpose of conducting with Russia any peacekeeping exercise or other peacekeeping-related activity.

SEC. 1204. REVISION TO AUTHORITY FOR ASSISTANCE FOR WEAPONS DESTRUCTION.

Section 211 of Public Law 102-228 (22 U.S.C. 2551 note) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

``(c) As part of a transmission to Congress under subsection (b) of a certification that a proposed recipient of United States assistance under this title is committed to carrying out the matters specified in each of paragraphs (1) through (6) of that subsection, the President shall include a statement setting forth, in unclassified form (together with a classified annex if necessary), the determination of the President, with respect to each such paragraph, as to whether that proposed recipient is at that time in fact carrying out the matter specified in that paragraph.''.

SEC. 1205. PRIOR NOTICE TO CONGRESS OF OBLIGATION OF FUNDS.

(a) Annual Requirement.--(1) Not less than 15 days before any obligation of any funds appropriated for any fiscal year for a program specified under section 1201 as a Cooperative Threat Reduction program, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional committees specified in paragraph (2) a report on that proposed obligation for that program for that fiscal year.

(2) The congressional committees referred to in paragraph (1) are the following:

(A) The Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.

(B) The Committee on National Security, the Committee on International Relations, and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.

(b) Matters To Be Specified in Reports.--Each such report shall specify--

(1) the activities and forms of assistance for which the Secretary of Defense plans to obligate funds;

(2) the amount of the proposed obligation; and

(3) the projected involvement (if any) of any department or agency of the United States (in addition to the Department of Defense) and of the private sector of the United States in the activities and forms of assistance for which the Secretary of Defense plans to obligate such funds.

SEC. 1206. REPORT ON ACCOUNTING FOR UNITED STATES ASSISTANCE.

(a) Report.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress an annual report on the efforts made by the United States (including efforts through the use of audits, examinations, and on-site inspections) to ensure that assistance provided under Cooperative Threat Reduction programs is fully accounted for and that such assistance is being used for its intended purposes.

(2) A report shall be submitted under this section not later than January 31 of each year until the Cooperative Threat Reduction programs are completed.

(b) Information To Be Included.--Each report under this section shall include the following:

(1) A list of cooperative threat reduction assistance that has been provided before the date of the report.

(2) A description of the current location of the assistance provided and the current condition of such assistance.

(3) A determination of whether the assistance has been used for its intended purpose.

(4) A description of the activities planned to be carried out during the next fiscal year to ensure that cooperative threat reduction assistance provided during that fiscal year is fully accounted for and is used for its intended purpose.

(c) Comptroller General Assessment.--Not later than 30 days after the date on which a report of the Secretary under subsection (a) is submitted to Congress, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to Congress a report giving the Comptroller General's assessment of the report and making any recommendations that the Comptroller General considers appropriate.

SEC. 1207. LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE TO NUCLEAR WEAPONS SCIENTISTS OF FORMER SOVIET UNION.

Amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 301 for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs may not be obligated for any program established primarily to assist nuclear weapons scientists in states of the former Soviet Union until 30 days after the date on which the Secretary of Defense certifies in writing to Congress that the funds to be obligated will not be used (1) to contribute to the modernization of the strategic nuclear forces of such states, or (2) for research, development, or production of weapons of mass destruction.

SEC. 1208. LIMITATION RELATING TO OFFENSIVE BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM OF RUSSIA.

(a) Limitation.--Of the amount appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 301 for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs that is available for the purpose stated in section 1202(a)(6), $60,000,000 may not be obligated or expended until the President submits to Congress either a certification as provided in subsection (b) or a certification as provided in subsection (c).

(b) Certification With Respect to Offensive Biological Warfare Program of Russia.--A certification under this subsection is a certification by the President of each of the following:

(1) That Russia is in compliance with its obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention.

(2) That Russia has agreed with the United States and the United Kingdom on a common set of procedures to govern visits by officials of the United States and United Kingdom to military biological facilities of Russia, as called for under the Joint Statement on Biological Weapons issued by officials of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia on September 14, 1992.

(3) That visits by officials of the United States and United Kingdom to the four declared military biological facilities of Russia have occurred.

(c) Alternative Certification.--A certification under this subsection is a certification by the President that the President is unable to make a certification under subsection (b).

(d) Use of Funds Upon Alternative Certification.--If the President makes a certification under subsection (c), the $60,000,000 specified in subsection (a)--

(1) shall not be available for the purpose stated in section 1202(a)(6); and

(2) shall be available for activities in Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus--

(A) for the elimination of strategic offensive weapons (in addition to the amount specified in section 1202(a)(1)); and

(B) for nuclear infrastructure elimination (in addition to the amount specified in section 1202(a)(4)).

SEC. 1209. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR CHEMICAL WEAPONS DESTRUCTION FACILITY.

(a) Limitation.--Of the amount appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 301 for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs that is available for planning and design of a chemical weapons destruction facility, not more than one-half of such amount may be obligated or expended until the President certifies to Congress the following:

(1) That the United States and Russia have completed a joint laboratory study to determine the feasibility of an appropriate technology for destruction of chemical weapons of Russia.

(2) That Russia is making reasonable progress, with the assistance of the United States (if necessary), toward the completion of a comprehensive implementation plan for managing and funding the dismantlement and destruction of Russia's chemical weapons stockpile.

(3) That the United States and Russia have made substantial progress toward resolution, to the satisfaction of the United States, of outstanding compliance issues under the 1989 Wyoming Memorandum of Understanding and the 1990 Bilateral Destruction Agreement.

(b) Definitions.--In this section:

(1) The term ``1989 Wyoming Memorandum of Understanding'' means the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Regarding a Bilateral Verification Experiment and Data Exchange Related to Prohibition on Chemical Weapons, signed at Jackson Hole, Wyoming, on September 23, 1989.

(2) The term ``1990 Bilateral Destruction Agreement'' means the Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on destruction and nonproduction of chemical weapons and on measures to facilitate the multilateral convention on banning chemical weapons signed on June 1, 1990.

TITLE XIII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS

SEC. 1322. NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS OF UNITED STATES EXPORT CONTROL POLICY.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Export controls remain an important element of the national security policy of the United States.
(2) It is in the national security interest that United States export control policy be effective in preventing the transfer, to potential adversaries or combatants of the United States, of technology that threatens the national security or defense of the United States.
(3) It is in the national security interest that the United States monitor aggressively the export of militarily critical technology in order to prevent its diversion to potential adversaries or combatants of the United States.
(4) The Department of Defense relies increasingly on commercial and dual-use technologies, products, and processes to support United States military capabilities and economic strength.
(5) The maintenance of the military advantage of the United States depends on effective export controls on dual-use items and technologies that are critical to the military capabilities of the Armed Forces.

(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--

(1) the Secretary of Defense should evaluate license applications for the export of militarily critical commodities the export of which is controlled for national security reasons if those commodities are to be exported to certain countries of concern;
(2) the Secretary of Defense should identify the dual-use items and technologies that are critical to the military capabilities of the Armed Forces, including the military use made of such items and technologies; (3) upon identification by the Secretary of Defense
of the dual-use items and technologies referred to in paragraph (2), the President should ensure effective export controls or use unilateral export controls on dual-use items and technologies that are critical to the military capabilities of the Armed Forces (regardless of the availability of such items or technologies overseas) with respect to the countries that--
(A) pose a threat to the national security interests of the United States; and
(B) are not members in good standing of bilateral or multilateral agreements to which the United States is a party on the use of such items and technologies; and

(4) the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Defense, should ensure effective controls on the re-export by other countries of dual-use items and technologies that are critical to the military capabilities of the Armed Forces.

(c) Annual Report.--(1) Not later than December 1 of each year through 1999, the President shall submit to the committees specified in paragraph (4) a report on the effect of the export control policy of the United States on the national security interests of the United States.

(2) The report shall include the following:

(A) A list setting forth each country determined by the Secretary of Defense, the intelligence community, and other appropriate agencies to be a rogue nation or potential adversary or combatant of the United States.

(B) For each country so listed, a list of--

(i) the categories of items that the United States currently prohibits for export to the country;

(ii) the categories of items that may be exported from the United States with an individual license, and in such cases, any licensing conditions normally required and the policy grounds used for approvals and denials; and

(iii) the categories of items that may be exported under a general license designated ``G-DEST''.

(i) a statement whether a prohibition, control, or licensing requirement on a category of items is imposed pursuant to an international multilateral agreement or is unilateral;

(ii) a statement whether a prohibition, control, or licensing requirement on a category of items is imposed by the other members of an international agreement or is unilateral;

(iii) when the answer under either clause (i) or clause (ii) is unilateral, a statement concerning the efforts being made to ensure that the prohibition, control, or licensing requirement is made multilateral; and

(iv) a statement on what impact, if any, a unilateral prohibition is having, or would have, on preventing the rogue nation or potential adversary from attaining the items in question for military purposes.

(D) A description of United States policy on sharing satellite imagery that has military significance and a discussion of the criteria for determining the imagery that has that significance.

(E) A description of the relationship between United States policy on the export of space launch vehicle technology and the Missile Technology Control Regime.

(F) An assessment of United States efforts to support the inclusion of additional countries in the Missile Technology Control Regime.

(G) An assessment of the ongoing efforts made by potential participant countries in the Missile Technology Control Regime to meet the guidelines established by the Missile Technology Control Regime.

(H) A discussion of the history of the space launch vehicle programs of other countries, including a discussion of the military origins and purposes of such programs and the current level of military involvement in such programs.

(3) The President shall submit the report in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.

(4) The committees referred to in paragraph (1) are the following:

(A) The Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.

(B) The Committee on National Security and the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives.

(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``Missile Technology Control Regime'' means the policy statement announced on April 16, 1987, between the United States, the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, Canada, and Japan to restrict sensitive missile-relevant transfers based on the Missile Technology Control Regime Annex, and any amendment thereto.

SEC. 1323. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REVIEW OF EXPORT LICENSES FOR CERTAIN BIOLOGICAL PATHOGENS.

(a) Department of Defense Review.--Any application to the Secretary of Commerce for a license for the export of a class 2, class 3, or class 4 biological pathogen to a country identified to the Secretary under subsection (c) as a country that is known or suspected to have a biological weapons program shall be referred to the Secretary of Defense for review. The Secretary of Defense shall notify the Secretary of Commerce within 15 days after receipt of an application under the preceding sentence whether the export of such biological pathogen pursuant to the license would be contrary to the national security interests of the United States.

(b) Denial of License if Contrary to National Security Interest.--A license described in subsection (a) shall be denied by the Secretary of Commerce if it is determined that the export of such biological pathogen to that country would be contrary to the national security interests of the United States.

(c) Identification of Countries Known or Suspected To Have a Program To Develop Offensive Biological Weapons.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall determine, for the purposes of this section, those countries that are known or suspected to have a program to develop offensive biological weapons. Upon making such determination, the Secretary shall provide to the Secretary of Commerce a list of those countries.

(2) The Secretary of Defense shall update the list under paragraph (1) on a regular basis. Whenever a country is added to or deleted from such list, the Secretary shall notify the Secretary of Commerce.

(3) Determination under this subsection of countries that are known or suspected to have a program to develop offensive biological weapons shall be made in consultation with the Secretary of State and the intelligence community.

(d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term ``class 2, class 3, or class 4 biological pathogen'' means any biological pathogen that is characterized by the Centers for Disease Control as a class 2, class 3, or class 4 biological pathogen.

SEC. 1324. ANNUAL REPORTS ON IMPROVING EXPORT CONTROL MECHANISMS AND ON MILITARY ASSISTANCE.

(a) Joint Reports by Secretaries of State and Commerce.-- Not later than April 1 of each of 1996 and 1997, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce shall submit to Congress a joint report, prepared in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, relating to United States export-control mechanisms. Each such report shall set forth measures to be taken to strengthen United States export-control mechanisms, including--

(1) steps being taken by each Secretary (A) to share on a regular basis the export licensing watchlist of that Secretary's department with the other Secretary, and (B) to incorporate the export licensing watchlist data received from the other Secretary into the watchlist of that Secretary's department;

(2) steps being taken by each Secretary to incorporate into the watchlist of that Secretary's department similar data from systems maintained by the Department of Defense and the United States Customs Service; and

(3) a description of such further measures to be taken to strengthen United States export-control mechanisms as the Secretaries consider to be appropriate.

(b) Reports by Inspectors General.--(1) Not later than April 1 of each of 1996 and 1997, the Inspector General of the Department of State and the Inspector General of the Department of Commerce shall each submit to Congress a report providing that official's evaluation of the effectiveness during the preceding year of the export licensing watchlist screening process of that official's department. The reports shall be submitted in both a classified and unclassified version.

(2) Each report of an Inspector General under paragraph (1) shall (with respect to that official's department)--

(A) set forth the number of export licenses granted to parties on the export licensing watchlist;

(B) set forth the number of end-use checks performed with respect to export licenses granted to parties on the export licensing watchlist the previous year;

(C) assess the screening process used in granting an export license when an applicant is on the export licensing watchlist; and

(D) assess the extent to which the export licensing watchlist contains all relevant information and parties required by statute or regulation.

(c) Annual Military Assistance Report.--The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is amended by inserting after section 654 (22 U.S.C. 2414) the following new section:

``SEC. 655. ANNUAL REPORT ON MILITARY ASSISTANCE, MILITARY EXPORTS, AND MILITARY IMPORTS.

``(a) Report Required.--Not later than February 1 of each of 1996 and 1997, the President shall transmit to Congress a report concerning military assistance authorized or furnished for the fiscal year ending the previous September 30.

``(b) Information Relating to Military Assistance and Military Exports.--Each such report shall show the aggregate dollar value and quantity of defense articles (including excess defense articles) and defense services, and of military education and training, authorized or furnished by the United States to each foreign country and international organization. The report shall specify, by category, whether those articles and services, and that education and training, were furnished by grant under chapter 2 or chapter 5 of part II of this Act or by sale under chapter 2 of the Arms Export Control Act or were authorized by commercial sale licensed under section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act.

``(c) Information Relating to Military Imports.--Each such report shall also include the total amount of military items of non-United States manufacture that were imported into the United States during the fiscal year covered by the report. The report shall show the country of origin, the type of item being imported, and the total amount of items.''.

SEC. 1325. REPORT ON PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTROL OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN WEAPONS.

Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy shall submit to the committees of Congress referred to in subsection (c) of section 1154 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160; 107 Stat. 1761) the report required under subsection (a) of that section. The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy shall include with the report an explanation of the failure of such Secretaries to submit the report in accordance with such subsection (a) and with all other previous requirements for the submittal of the report.

Subtitle E--Other Matters

SEC. 1343. SEMIANNUAL REPORTS CONCERNING UNITED STATES-PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA JOINT DEFENSE CONVERSION COMMISSION.

(a) Reports Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a semiannual report on the United States- People's Republic of China Joint Defense Conversion Commission. Each such report shall include the following:

(1) A description of the extent to which the activities conducted in, through, or as a result of the Commission could have directly or indirectly assisted, or may directly or indirectly assist, the military modernization efforts of the People's Republic of China.

(2) A discussion of the activities and operations of the Commission, including--

(A) United States funding;

(B) a listing of participating United States officials;

(D) summary of discussions; and

(E) copies of any agreements reached.

(3) A discussion of the relationship between the ``defense conversion'' activities of the People's Republic of China and its defense modernization efforts.

(4) A discussion of the extent to which United States business activities pursued, or proposed to be pursued, under the imprimatur of the Commission, or the importation of western technology in general, contributes to the modernization of China's military industrial base, including any steps taken by the United States or by United States commercial entities to safeguard the technology or intellectual property rights associated with any materials or information transferred.

(5) An assessment of the benefits derived by the United States from its participation in the Commission, including whether or to what extent United States participation in the Commission has resulted or will result in the following:

(A) Increased transparency in the current and projected military budget and doctrine of the People's Republic of China.

(B) Improved behavior and cooperation by the People's Republic of China in the areas of missile and nuclear proliferation.

(C) Increased transparency in the plans of the People's Republic of China's for nuclear and missile force modernization and testing.

(6) Efforts undertaken by the Secretary of Defense to--

(A) establish a list of enterprises controlled by the People's Liberation Army, including those which have been successfully converted to produce products solely for civilian use; and

(B) provide estimates of the total revenues of those enterprises.

(7) A description of current or proposed mechanisms for improving the ability of the United States to track the flow of revenues from the enterprises specified on the list established under paragraph (6)(A).

(b) Submittal of Reports.--A report shall be submitted under subsection (a) not later than August 1 of each year with respect to the first six months of that year and shall be submitted not later than February 1 of each year with respect to the last six months of the preceding year. The first report under such subsection shall be submitted not less than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply with respect to the six-month period preceding the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) Final Report Upon Termination of Commission.--Upon the termination of the United States-People's Republic of China Joint Defense Conversion Commission, the Secretary of Defense shall submit a final report under this section covering the period from the end of the period covered by the last such report through the termination of the Commission, and subsection (a) shall cease to apply after the submission of such report.

TITLE XIV--ARMS CONTROL MATTERS

SEC. 1403. EXTENSION AND AMENDMENT OF COUNTER-PROLIFERATION AUTHORITIES.

(a) One-Year Extension of Program.--Section 1505 of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Control Act of 1992 (title XV of Public Law 102-484; 22 U.S.C. 5859a) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a), by striking out ``during fiscal years 1994 and 1995'';

(2) in subsection (e)(1), by striking out ``fiscal years 1994 and 1995'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``a fiscal year during which the authority of the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance under this section is in effect''; and

(3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

``(f) Termination of Authority.--The authority of the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance under this section terminates at the close of fiscal year 1996.''.

(b) Program Authorities.--(1) Subsections (b)(2) and (d)(3) of such section are amended by striking out ``the On-Site Inspection Agency'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the Department of Defense''.

(2) Subsection (c)(3) of such section is amended by striking out ``will be counted'' and all that follows and inserting in lieu thereof ``will be counted as discretionary spending in the national defense budget function (function 050).''.

(1) in paragraph (1)--

(A) by striking out ``for fiscal year 1994'' the first place it appears and all that follows through the period at the end of the second sentence and inserting in lieu thereof ``for any fiscal year shall be derived from amounts made available to the Department of Defense for that fiscal year.''; and

(B) by striking out ``referred to in this paragraph''; and

(2) in paragraph (3)--

(A) by striking out ``may not exceed'' and all that follows through ``1995''; and

(B) by inserting before the period at the end the following: ``, may not exceed $25,000,000 for fiscal year 1994, $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1995, or $15,000,000 for fiscal year 1996''.

SEC. 1404. LIMITATION ON RETIREMENT OR DISMANTLEMENT OF STRATEGIC NUCLEAR DELIVERY SYSTEMS.

(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that, unless and until the START II Treaty enters into force, the Secretary of Defense should not take any action to retire or dismantle, or to prepare to retire or dismantle, any of the following strategic nuclear delivery systems:

(1) B-52H bomber aircraft.

(2) Trident ballistic missile submarines.

(3) Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles.

(4) Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missiles.

(b) Limitation on Use of Funds.--Funds available to the Department of Defense may not be obligated or expended during fiscal year 1996 for retiring or dismantling, or for preparing to retire or dismantle, any of the strategic nuclear delivery systems specified in subsection (a).

SEC. 1405. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING TREATY VIOLATIONS.

(a) Reaffirmation of Prior Findings Concerning the Krasnoyarsk Radar.--Congress, noting its previous findings with respect to the large phased-array radar of the Soviet Union known as the ``Krasnoyarsk radar'' stated in paragraphs (1) through (4) of section 902(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (Public Law 100-180; 101 Stat. 1135) (and reaffirmed in section 1006(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 101-189; 103 Stat. 1543)), hereby reaffirms those findings as follows:

(1) The 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty prohibits each party from deploying ballistic missile early warning radars except at locations along the periphery of its national territory and oriented outward.

(2) The 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty prohibits each party from deploying an ABM system to defend its national territory and from providing a base for any such nationwide defense.

(3) Large phased-array radars were recognized during negotiation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty as the critical long lead-time element of a nationwide defense against ballistic missiles.

(4) In 1983 the United States discovered the construction, in the interior of the Soviet Union near the town of Krasnoyarsk, of a large phased-array radar that has subsequently been judged to be for ballistic missile early warning and tracking.

(b) Further Reference to 1987 Congressional Statements.-- Congress further notes that in section 902 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (Public Law 100-180; 101 Stat. 1135) Congress also--

(1) noted that the President had certified that the Krasnoyarsk radar was an unequivocal violation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; and

(2) stated it to be the sense of the Congress that the Soviet Union was in violation of its legal obligation under that treaty.

(c) Further Reference to 1989 Congressional Statements.-- Congress further notes that in section 1006(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 101-189; 103 Stat. 1543) Congress also--

(1) again noted that in 1987 the President declared that radar to be a clear violation of the 1972 Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty and noted that on October 23, 1989, the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union conceded that the Krasnoyarsk radar is a violation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; and

(2) stated it to be the sense of the Congress that the Soviet Union should dismantle the Krasnoyarsk radar expeditiously and without conditions and that until such radar was completely dismantled it would remain a clear violation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

(d) Additional Findings.--Congress also finds, with respect to the Krasnoyarsk radar, that retired Soviet General Y.V. Votintsev, Director of the Soviet National Air Defense Forces from 1967 to 1985, has publicly stated--

(1) that he was directed by the Chief of the Soviet General staff to locate the large phased-array radar at Krasnoyarsk despite the recognition by Soviet authorities that the location of such a radar at that location would be a clear violation of the 1972 Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty; and

(2) that Marshal D.F. Ustinov, Soviet Minister of Defense, threatened to relieve from duty any Soviet officer who continued to object to the construction of a large-phased array radar at Krasnoyarsk.

(e) Sense of Congress Concerning Soviet Treaty Violations.--It is the sense of Congress that the government of the Soviet Union intentionally violated its legal obligations under the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to advance its national security interests.

(f) Sense of Congress Concerning Compliance by Russia With Arms Control Obligations.--In light of subsections (a) through (e), it is the sense of Congress that the United States should remain vigilant in ensuring compliance by Russia with its arms control obligations and should, when pursuing future arms control agreements with Russia, bear in mind violations of arms control obligations by the Soviet Union.

SEC. 1406. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON RATIFICATION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION AND START II TREATY.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Proliferation of chemical or nuclear weapons materials poses a danger to United States national security, and the threat or use of such materials by terrorists would directly threaten United States citizens at home and abroad.

(2) Events such as the March 1995 terrorist release of a chemical nerve agent in the Tokyo subway, the threatened use of chemical weapons during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and the widespread use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980's are all potent reminders of the menace posed by chemical weapons, of the fact that the threat of chemical weapons is not sufficiently addressed, and of the need to outlaw the development, production, and possession of chemical weapons.

(3) The Chemical Weapons Convention negotiated and signed by President Bush would make it more difficult for would-be proliferators, including terrorists, to acquire or use chemical weapons, if ratified and fully implemented, as signed, by all signatories.

(4) United States military authorities, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Shalikashvili, have stated that United States military forces will deter and respond to chemical weapons threats with a robust chemical defense and an overwhelming superior conventional response, as demonstrated in the Persian Gulf War, and have testified in support of the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

(5) The United States intelligence community has testified that the Convention will provide new and important sources of information, through regular data exchanges and routine and challenge inspections, to improve the ability of the United States to assess the chemical weapons status in countries of concern.

(6) The Convention has not entered into force for lack of the requisite number of ratifications.

(7) Russia has signed the Convention, but has not yet ratified it.

(8) There have been reports by Russian sources of continued Russian production and testing of chemical weapons, including a statement by a spokesman of the Russian Ministry of Defense on December 5, 1994, that ``We cannot say that all chemical weapons production and testing has stopped altogether.''.

(9) The Convention will impose a legally binding obligation on Russia and other nations that possess chemical weapons and that ratify the Convention to cease offensive chemical weapons activities and to destroy their chemical weapons stockpiles and production facilities.

(10) The United States must be prepared to exercise fully its rights under the Convention, including the request of challenge inspections when warranted, and to exercise leadership in pursuing punitive measures against violators of the Convention, when warranted.

(11) The United States should strongly encourage full implementation at the earliest possible date of the terms and conditions of the United States-Russia bilateral chemical weapons destruction agreement signed in 1990.

(12) The START II Treaty negotiated and signed by President Bush would help reduce the danger of potential proliferators, including terrorists, acquiring nuclear warheads and materials, and would contribute to United States-Russian bilateral efforts to secure and dismantle nuclear warheads, if ratified and fully implemented as signed by both parties.

(13) It is in the national security interest of the United States to take effective steps to make it more difficult for proliferators or would-be terrorists to obtain chemical or nuclear materials for use in weapons.

(14) The President has urged prompt Senate action on, and advice and consent to ratification of, the START II Treaty and the Chemical Weapons Convention.

(15) The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has testified to Congress that ratification and full implementation of both treaties by all parties is in the United States national interest and has strongly urged prompt Senate advice and consent to their ratification.

(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that the United States, Russia, and all other parties to the START II Treaty and the Chemical Weapons Convention should promptly ratify and fully implement, as negotiated, both treaties.

SEC. 1407. IMPLEMENTATION OF ARMS CONTROL AGREEMENTS.

(a) Funding.--Of the amounts appropriated pursuant to authorizations in sections 102, 103, 104, 201, and 301, the Secretary of Defense may use an amount not to exceed $239,941,000 for implementing arms control agreements to which the United States is a party.

(b) Limitation.--(1) Funds made available pursuant to subsection (a) for the costs of implementing an arms control agreement may not (except as provided in paragraph (2)) be used to reimburse expenses incurred by any other party to the agreement for which (without regard to any executive agreement or any policy not part of an arms control agreement)--

(A) the other party is responsible under the terms of the arms control agreement; and

(B) the United States has no responsibility under the agreement.

(2) The limitation in paragraph (1) does not apply to a use of funds to carry out an arms control expenses reimbursement policy of the United States described in subsection (c).

(c) Covered Arms Control Expenses Reimbursement Policies.-- Subsection (b)(2) applies to a policy of the United States to reimburse expenses incurred by another party to an arms control agreement if--

(1) the policy does not modify any obligation imposed by the arms control agreement;

(2) the President--

(A) issued or approved the policy before the date of the enactment of this Act; or

(B) entered into an agreement on the policy with the government of another country or approved an agreement on the policy entered into by an official of the United States and the government of another country; and

(3) the President has notified the designated congressional committees of the policy or the policy agreement (as the case may be), in writing, at least 30 days before the date on which the President issued or approved the policy or has entered into or approved the policy agreement.

(d) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section:

(1) The term ``arms control agreement'' means an arms control treaty or other form of international arms control agreement.

(2) The term ``executive agreement'' means an international agreement entered into by the President that is not authorized by law or entered into as a Treaty to which the Senate has given its advice and consent to ratification.

(3) The term ``designated congressional committees'' means the following:

(A) The Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.

(B) The Committee on International Relations, the Committee on National Security, and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.

SEC. 1408. IRAN AND IRAQ ARMS NONPROLIFERATION.

(a) Sanctions Against Transfers of Persons.--Section 1604(a) of the Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act of 1992 (title XVI of Public Law 102-484; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended by inserting ``to acquire chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons or'' before ``to acquire''.

(b) Sanctions Against Transfers of Foreign Countries.-- Section 1605(a) of such Act is amended by inserting ``to acquire chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons or'' before ``to acquire''.

(c) Clarification of United States Assistance.-- Subparagraph (A) of section 1608(7) of such Act is amended to read as follows:

``(A) any assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.), other than urgent humanitarian assistance or medicine;''.

(d) Notification of Certain Waivers Under MTCR Procedures.--Section 73(e)(2) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2797b(e)(2)) is amended--

(1) by striking out ``the Congress'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on National Security and the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives''; and

(2) by striking out ``20 working days'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``45 working days''.

DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

SEC. 2001. SHORT TITLE.

This division may be cited as the ``Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996''.

TITLE XXI--ARMY

SEC. 2101. AUTHORIZED ARMY CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS.

(a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 2104(a)(1), the Secretary of the Army may acquire real property and carry out military construction projects for the installations and locations inside the United States, and in the amounts, set forth in the following table:

                     Army: Inside the United States                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Installation or                   
              State                       location            Amount    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona..........................  Fort Huachuca........     $16,000,000
CONUS Classified.................  Classified Location..      $1,900,000
                                                         ---------------
                                     Total:.............    $478,230,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Outside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 2104(a)(2), the Secretary of the Army may acquire real property and carry out military construction projects for the locations outside the United States, and in the amounts, set forth in the following table:

                     Army: Outside the United States                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Installation or                   
             Country                      location            Amount    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overseas Classified..............  Classified Location..     $48,000,000
                                                         ---------------
                                     Total:.............    $102,550,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE XXII--NAVY

SEC. 2201. AUTHORIZED NAVY CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS.

(a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 2204(a)(1), and, in the case of the project described in section 2204(b)(2), other amounts appropriated pursuant to authorizations enacted after this Act for that project, the Secretary of the Navy may acquire real property and carry out military construction projects for the installations and locations inside the United States, and in the amounts, set forth in the following table:

                     Navy: Inside the United States                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Installation or                   
              State                       location            Amount    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California.......................Naval Command,                       
                                    Control, and Ocean                  
                                    Surveillance Center,                
                                    San Diego...........      $3,170,000
Hawaii...........................Intelligence Center                  
                                    Pacific, Pearl                      
                                    Harbor..............      $2,200,000
West Virginia....................  Naval Security Group                 
                                    Detachment..........      $7,200,000
CONUS Classified.................  Classified Locations.      $1,200,000
                                                         ---------------
                                     Total:.............    $435,409,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 2202. FAMILY HOUSING.

(a) Construction and Acquisition.--Using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 2204(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of the Navy may construct or acquire family housing units (including land acquisition) at the installations, for the purposes, and in the amounts set forth in the following table:

                                              Navy: Family Housing                                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  State                          Installation                   Purpose               Amount    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
West Virginia...........................  Security Group Naval                                                  
                                           Detachment, Sugar Grove..   23 units.................      $3,590,000
                                                                                                 ---------------
                                                                        Total:..................    $207,478,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE

SEC. 2301. AUTHORIZED AIR FORCE CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS.

(a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 2304(a)(1), and, in the case of the project described in section 2304(b)(2), other amounts appropriated pursuant to authorizations enacted after this Act for that project, the Secretary of the Air Force may acquire real property and carry out military construction projects for the installations and locations inside the United States, and in the amounts, set forth in the following table:

                   Air Force: Inside the United States                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Installation or                   
              State                       location            Amount    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California....................... Vandenberg Air Force       $6,000,000
                                    Base.                               
Colorado.........................  Buckley Air National       $5,500,000
                                    Guard Base.                         
                                   Peterson Air Force         $4,390,000
                                    Base.
Florida..........................  Cape Canaveral Air         $1,600,000
                                    Force Station.                      
New Mexico.......................  Cannon Air Force Base     $13,420,000
                                   Holloman Air Force         $6,000,000
                                    Base.                               
                                   Kirtland Air Force         $9,156,000
                                    Base.                               
CONUS Classified.................  Classified Location..        $700,000
                                                         ---------------
                                     Total:.............    $504,690,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Outside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 2304(a)(2), the Secretary of the Air Force may acquire real property and may carry out military construction projects for the installations and locations outside the United States, and in the amounts, set forth in the following table:

                  Air Force: Outside the United States                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Installation or                   
             Country                      location            Amount    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overseas Classified..............  Classified Location..     $17,100,000
                                                         ---------------
                                     Total:.............     $49,400,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES

SEC. 2401. AUTHORIZED DEFENSE AGENCIES CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS.

(a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 2405(a)(1), and, in the case of the project described in section 2405(b)(2), other amounts appropriated pursuant to authorizations enacted after this Act for that project, the Secretary of Defense may acquire real property and carry out military construction projects for the installations and locations inside the United States, and in the amounts, set forth in the following table:

               Defense Agencies: Inside the United States               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Installation or                   
           Agency/State                   location            Amount    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ballistic Missile Defense                                               
 Organization                                                           
Texas............................  Fort Bliss...........     $13,600,000
                                                                        
Defense Intelligence Agency                                             
District of Columbia.............  Bolling Air Force                    
                                    Base................        $498,000
Defense Mapping Agency                                                  
Missouri.........................  Defense Mapping                      
                                    Agency Aerospace                    
                                    Center..............     $40,300,000
Defense Medical Facility Office                                         
Virginia.........................  Northwest Naval                      
                                    Security Group                      
                                    Activity............      $4,300,000
National Security Agency                                                
Maryland.........................  Fort Meade...........     $18,733,000
Office of the Secretary of                                              
 Defense                                                                
Inside the United States.........  Classified location..     $11,500,000
                                                                   
Special Operations Command                                              
California.......................  Camp Pendleton.......      $5,200,000
Florida..........................  Eglin Air Force Base                 
                                    (Duke Field)........      $2,400,000
                                   Eglin Auxiliary Field                
                                    9...................     $14,150,000
North Carolina...................  Fort Bragg...........     $23,800,000
Pennsylvania.....................  Olmstead Field,                      
                                    Harrisburg IAP......      $1,643,000
Virginia.........................  Dam Neck.............      $4,500,000
                                   Naval Amphibious                     
                                    Base, Little Creek..      $6,100,000
                                                         ---------------
                                     Total:.............    $364,602,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Outside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 2405(a)(2), the Secretary of Defense may acquire real property and carry out military construction projects for the installations and locations outside the United States, and in the amounts, set forth in the following table:

               Defense Agencies: Outside the United States              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Agency/Country             Installation name        Amount    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Security Agency                                                
United Kingdom...................  Menwith Hill Station.        $677,000
Special Operations Command                                              
Guam.............................  Naval Station, Guam..      $8,800,000
                                                         ---------------
                                     Total:.............     $54,877,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subtitle B--Other Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing Changes

SEC. 2820. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO LEASES OF LAND FOR SPECIAL OPERATIONS ACTIVITIES.

(a) Extension of Authority.--Subsection (d) of section 2680 of title 10, United States Code, is amended in the first sentence by striking out ``September 30, 1995'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``September 30, 2000''.

(b) Reporting Requirement.--Such section is further amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

``(e) Reports.--Not later than March 1 of each year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on the Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives a report that--

``(1) identifies each leasehold interest acquired during the previous fiscal year under subsection (a); and

``(2) contains a discussion of each project for the construction or modification of facilities carried out pursuant to subsection (c) during such fiscal year.''.

(c) Conforming Repeal.--Section 2863 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-190; 10 U.S.C. 2680 note) is amended by striking out subsection (b).

DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations

SEC. 3103. OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES.

(a) Other Defense Activities.--Subject to subsection (b), funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Energy for fiscal year 1996 for other defense activities in carrying out programs necessary for national security in the amount of $1,351,975,600, to be allocated as follows:

(1) For verification and control technology, $428,205,600, to be allocated as follows:

(A) For nonproliferation and verification research and development, $224,905,000.

(B) For arms control, $160,964,600.

(2) For nuclear safeguards and security, $83,395,000.

(3) For security investigations, $20,000,000.

(4) For security evaluations, $14,707,000.

SEC. 3144. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DECLASSIFICATION PRODUCTIVITY INITIATIVE.

Of the funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Energy under section 3103, $3,000,000 shall be available for the Declassification Productivity Initiative of the Department of Energy.

SEC. 3154. PROHIBITION ON INTERNATIONAL INSPECTIONS OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FACILITIES UNLESS PROTECTION OF RESTRICTED DATA IS CERTIFIED.

(a) Prohibition on Inspections.--(1) The Secretary of Energy may not allow an inspection of a nuclear weapons facility by the International Atomic Energy Agency until the Secretary certifies to Congress that no restricted data will be revealed during such inspection.

(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term ``restricted data'' has the meaning provided by section 11 y. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(y)).

(b) Extension of Notice-and-Wait Requirement Regarding Proposed Cooperation Agreements.--Section 3155(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 3092) is amended by striking out ``December 31, 1995'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``October 1, 1996''.

SEC. 3155. REVIEW OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS BEFORE DECLASSIFICATION AND RELEASE.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Energy shall ensure that, before a document of the Department of Energy that contains national security information is released or declassified, such document is reviewed to determine whether it contains restricted data.

(b) Limitation on Declassification.--The Secretary may not implement the automatic declassification provisions of Executive Order 12958 if the Secretary determines that such implementation could result in the automatic declassification and release of documents containing restricted data.

(c) Restricted Data Defined.--In this section, the term ``restricted data'' has the meaning provided by section 11 y. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(y)).

SEC. 3158. RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEFENSE PROGRAMS EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM.

The Office of Military Applications under the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Defense Programs shall retain responsibility for the Defense Programs Emergency Response Program within the Department of Energy.

JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE

                                   Floyd Spence,
                                   Bob Stump,
                                   Duncan Hunter,
                                   Herbert H. Bateman,
                                   Curt Weldon,
                                   G.V. Montgomery,
                                   John M. Spratt, Jr.,
                                 Managers on the Part of the House.
                                   Strom Thurmond,
                                   John Warner,
                                   Bill Cohen,
                                   Trent Lott,
                                   Sam Nunn,
                                Managers on the Part of the Senate.

The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 1124) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1996 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes, submit the following joint statement to the House and the Senate in explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon by the managers and recommended in the accompanying conference report:

All references in this joint statement to provisions of the House bill refer to the provisions of H.R. 1530 (The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996), as passed by the House on June 15, 1995. All references to provisions of the Senate amendment refer to the Senate amendment to the text of H.R. 1530, as passed by the Senate on September 6, 1995.

The conference report on H.R. 1530 is set forth in House Report 104-406. The President vetoed H.R. 1530 on December 28, 1995.

DIVISION A:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATIONS

Title I--Procurement

Airborne reconnaissance low

The budget request included $18.4 million to procure one additional aircraft.

The House bill and the Senate amendment would approve the budget request.

The conferees agree to authorize the budget request and express a continued strong support for the Airborne Reconnaissance Low (ARL) program, to include the procurement of a total of 9 aircraft as soon as possible.

The conferees expect the Department to evaluate the advantages of linking the airborne workstations of the ARL to an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, to provide for airborne analysis and assured dissemination of information.

GUARDRAIL tactical information broadcast service

The budget request included $48.9 million for the GUARDRAIL common sensor program.

Both the House bill and the Senate amendment would authorize funding at the requested level.

The conferees have determined that there is a need for GUARDRAIL aircraft to be equipped with improved intelligence data dissemination capability and interoperability with other intelligence data producers. Therefore, the conferees agree to authorize an increase of $9.0 million to the budget request for procurement and integration of tactical information broadcast service to provide this capability for existing GUARDRAIL aircraft.

Electronic warfare

The budget request included no funds to either expand the Navy's fleet of EA-6B Block 89 aircraft to accommodate the retirement of the EF-111 jammer aircraft or to improve the capabilities of the existing Block 89 EA-6B fleet.

The House bill would approve the budget request.

The Senate amendment would authorize $216.0 million to modernize airborne electronic warfare (EW) capabilities of the EA-6B Block 89 aircraft and to expand the number of Block 89 aircraft by 20.

The conferees agree that modernization of the Department's tactical electronic warfare aircraft fleet is a priority item of special interest. Accordingly, the conferees agree to authorize $165.0 million to initiate procurement of EA-6B modifications, as set forth below:

(1) $100.0 million to modernize up to 20 older EA- 6B Block 82 aircraft to the newer Block 89 configuration to offset EF-111 retirements;

(2) $40.0 million to procure 60 band 9/10 transmitters; and (3) $25.0 million for 30 USQ-113 enhanced radio

countermeasure sets.

The conferees also authorize an increase of $10.0 million to Navy EW development (PE 64270N), to develop a low-cost, reactive jamming capability for the EA-6B. The conferees are especially interested in the Navy's completion of an affordable upgrade to the EA-6B reactive processor capability.

The conferees note the inconsistent nature of the Navy's actions regarding airborne tactical EW in recent years and are deeply concerned with the Navy's vacillating commitment and support for meaningful upgrades to the EA-6B aircraft. Accordingly, the Secretary of the Navy is directed to:

(1) initiate the EA-6B modifications identified above.

(2) provide the congressional defense committees with the following:

(a) a program and budget plan for completing the directed modifications.

(b) the Joint Tactical Airborne EW Study (JTAEWS).

In addition, the conferees agree that the Secretary of the Navy shall not obligate more than 75 percent of funds appropriated for procurement of the F/A-18C/D for fiscal year 1996 until he has accomplished the actions specified above. F-14 modifications

The budget request included $59.0 million for F-14 modifications. This amount did not include any funds for a forward-looking infrared (FLIR)/laser designator system for the F-14. The budget request included $25.4 million in research and development funds for a precision strike upgrade, an effort to integrate the joint direct attack munition (JDAM) into the F- 14.

The House bill would approve the budget request for F-14 modifications.

After completion of the House bill, the Navy informed the Senate that the requirements validation process had documented an operational requirement for a FLIR/laser designator system for the F-14, in lieu of the JDAM integration. The Senate considered this requirement to be a high priority for carrier operations. Therefore, the Senate amendment would authorize an increase of $17.1 million for F-14 aircraft modifications in fiscal year 1996. This action was taken with the understanding that the Department of Defense would provide funding for the system in future budget requests.

The conferees agree to provide $101.5 million for F-14 modifications, with an increase of $42.5 million provided for the FLIR/laser designator effort. The conferees also agree to reduce the F-14 research and development request by $25.4 million.

Additionally, the conferees agree to invite the Navy to reprogram funds originally authorized for JDAM integration into the FLIR/laser designator procurement effort, to expedite meeting the need for improving F-14 strike capability.

Afloat planning system

The conferees have fully supported the Tomahawk cruise missile program and the associated support systems necessary for employment of Tomahawk for precision strike missions. The conferees note that the Tomahawk afloat planning system (APS) complements the Tomahawk mission planning system, located at the shore-based mission planning centers, and provides afloat battle group and battle force commanders or deployed joint staffs with an organic capability to plan for the tactical employment of the conventional Tomahawk land attack missile (TLAM). APS is also an integral part of the Joint Service Imagery Processing System--Navy (JSIPS-N) and Challenge Athena systems. These systems support Tomahawk strike planning, but can also provide mission planning support for other precision guided munitions.

The conferees encourage the Department of Defense to:

(1) continue support and funding for APS; and

(2) consider extending APS's targeting and mission planning capabilities to other tactical command echelons, in order to meet the expanding requirement for tactical utilization of the Tomahawk system and improve its responsiveness to the demands of land battle.

Commander's Tactical Terminal

The budget request included no funding for USMC procurement of Commander's Tactical Terminal (CTT) radios.

Neither the House bill nor the Senate amendment authorized additional funding for CTT radios.

The conferees note that the Department's integrated (intelligence) broadcast service plan included migration to an interoperable family of transceivers known as the Joint Tactical Terminal. The conferees have been informed that Marine Corps procurement of CTTs will play a vital role in this plan, and therefore authorize an increase of $12.5 million for this purpose.

Marine Corps intelligence support equipment

The budget request included no funding for Marine Corps procurement of Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) ground support module.

Neither the House bill nor the Senate amendment included additional funds for this purpose.

The conferees believe the Marine Corps should have more responsibility over its own procurement actions, and therefore agree to authorize an increase of $16.5 million for Marine procurement of two JSTARS ground support modules.

Air Force fighter aircraft data link

The budget request included $79.5 million for F-15 modifications.

The House bill would authorize the requested amount based on assurances from the Department of Defense that Air Force efforts to procure a tactical information data link for a portion of the F-15 fleet would be conducted within the scope of the Department's multifunction information distribution system (MIDS) program.

The Senate amendment would authorize the budget request. The Senate report (S. Rept. 104-112) expressed support for the Air Force's efforts to equip its fighter aircraft with ``Link 16'' data link capability, but questioned the Air Force's decision to pursue this capability for only a portion of the F- 15 fleet. The Senate report also recommended that the Department continue MIDS acquisition and stated that it would not support any Air Force effort to start a new program, redundant to MIDS, to meet similar requirements.

The conferees note that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology has terminated the F-15 data link procurement and that the Air Force now intends to pursue a MIDS variant data link to meet its requirements. The Department has informed the conferees that this program is to be a competitive solicitation that will require adherence to the MIDS architecture, MIDS software modularity, and MIDS hardware modulatory as a design objective, and, for the F-15, reduced hardware and software functionality to reduce costs.

The conferees agree to authorize $78.3 million for F-15 modifications. The conferees direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology to ensure that the Department uses a competitive acquisition strategy for fighter data link procurement. The strategy should promote full opportunity for U.S. companies to compete within the competitive solicitation outlined by the Under Secretary.

Defense support program procurement

The budget request included $102.9 million for Defense Support Program (DSP) procurement.

The Senate amendment would authorize $67.0 million, a reduction of $35.9 million to the budget request.

The House bill would authorize the budget request.

The House recedes. The conferees are aware that $35.9 million in fiscal year 1995 funds are excess and subject to consideration for reprogramming for non-DSP purposes. Therefore, the conferees agree to reduce the fiscal year 1996 DSP procurement budget by $35.9 million, leaving $67.0 million. The conferees direct the Air Force to use the excess fiscal year 1995 funds currently identified as a source on the fiscal year 1995 omnibus reprogramming request to fulfill fiscal year 1996 DSP requirements. Given that the fiscal year 1995 DSP procurement source has been denied as part of this year's omnibus reprogramming, the conferees direct that the full amount be restored to DSP.

RC-135 re-engining

The budget request included no funding for the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Program (DARP) modifications line (P-1, line 57) in the Aircraft Procurement, Air Force account.

The House bill would authorize an increase of $37.0 million for modification of an existing C-135 aircraft to the RC-135 RIVET JOINT configuration.

The Senate amendment would authorize an increase of $48.0 million for re-engining of two existing RIVET JOINT aircraft. The Senate amendment would also authorize an increase of $31.5 million in PE 64268F for non-recurring integration activity to facilitate an affordable program for converting two retired EC- 135 aircraft to the RIVET JOINT configuration.

engines and installation

The conferees concur with the cost effectiveness and increase in operational effectiveness that could be provided by re-engining the existing fleet of RIVET JOINT aircraft and agree to authorize an increase of $48.0 million to procure and install re-engining kits for two existing RIVET JOINT aircraft.

The conferees note that the theater Commanders-in-Chief (CINCs) have addressed additional RIVET JOINT aircraft as one of their highest intelligence priorities. The need for additional RIVET JOINT aircraft is further reinforced by the extremely high operational tempo currently experienced by this reconnaissance asset. The conferees support the theater CINCs' requirements for additional RIVET JOINT aircraft and strongly urge the Department to seek reprogramming authority to modify other existing C-135 assets to the RC-135 configuration.

SR-71

The conferees agree to provide an additional $5.0 million for costs associated with the refurbishment of SR-71 aircraft.

Defense airborne reconnaissance program procurement

The budget request included $179.3 million in procurement for the Defense airborne reconnaissance program (DARP).

The House bill would approve the budget request.

The Senate amendment would increase the requested amount by $4.5 million, and would direct the Department to change the priorities of some program elements. The conferees agree to an authorization of $161.6 million, a reduction of $17.7 million from the budget request.

Joint Tactical UAV

The conferees agree to authorize a total of $42.4 million for the joint tactical UAV (JT-UAV), a reduction of $17.7 million from the budget request.

The conferees are particularly concerned about the continuing problems with the Hunter UAV in the JT-UAV program. Therefore, the conferees direct that none of the funds appropriated for fiscal year 1996 be used to procure production Hunter systems or additional low-rate initial production units, beyond those already ordered, until the Secretary of Defense provides to the Congressional defense committees the results of the Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) review of the Hunter program.

Pioneer UAV Of the funds authorized and appropriated for defense-wide

procurement, Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Programs (DARP), the conferees direct that the Department use $4.5 million to equip nine Pioneer UAV systems with the common automatic landing and recovery system (CARLS).

The conferees note the Department's continuing failure to equip UAVs with the CARLS system. The conferees are concerned with this result, particularly since the Department agrees that CARLS installation on UAVs in general, and Pioneer in particular, would reduce landing accidents and associated losses.

Items of Special Interest

Engineer construction equipment

The conferees are aware of the significant contribution National Guard engineer construction units have made to securing the southwest border. The construction efforts of the National Guard have been of singular assistance in providing for increased safety for U.S. Border Patrol agents and in facilitating the U.S. Border Patrol efforts to counter illegal drugs and illegal immigration along the southwest border. The conferees agree that sufficient funds should be allocated by the National Guard to purchase appropriate loaders, dozers, and road-grading equipment for use by National Guard engineer construction units that rotate to continue construction on projects along the United States-Mexican border.

The conferees have indicated elsewhere in this statement of managers, that the Department of Defense should, through normal reprogramming procedures, use available funds provided for counterdrug activities to continue construction to extend the fence constructed by the National Guard on the southwest border.

Legislative Provisions
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Legislative Provisions Not Adopted

Tier II predator unmanned aerial vehicle program

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 131) that would prohibit the obligation of funds appropriated or otherwise made available for the Department of Defense in fiscal year 1996 for the Tier II Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes.

Title II--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

Tractor rose

The budget request included $4.5 million for Tractor Rose.

The House bill would authorize the requested amount.

The Senate amendment would authorize an additional $13.5 million.

The conferees are aware of recent progress in the activities related to this program. As a consequence, the conferees recommend authorization of this project at the level of funds appropriated in fiscal year 1996. In addition, the conferees urge the Department of the Army to consider reprogramming funds below threshold to capitalize on the potential of this technology.

Space applications technology program

The budget request included $16.9 million in PE 63006A for command, control, and communications advanced technology, including $498,000 for the Army's space applications technology program.

Both the House bill and the Senate amendment would authorize the budget request for the Army's space applications technology program.

The conferees agree to an additional $5.0 million in PE 63006A for the space applications technology program. The conferees are aware of the program's success in demonstrating global positioning system and Wrasse weather data receivers during Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield and other space technology applications, such as, the location of high value targets using hyperspectral sensing techniques, high data rate satellite communications on the move, and down link weather satellite technology. The conferees encourage the Army to continue support to the program in future budget requests.

Intelligence fusion analysis demonstration

The budget request included $2.9 million in PE 63745A for the Intelligence Fusion Analysis Demonstration program.

The House bill would authorize an additional $3.0 million for development and evaluation in Army Warfighter Experiments and the joint precision strike demonstration program of advanced large screen, automated graphical displays that would provide enhanced situational awareness for tactical commanders.

The Senate amendment would authorize the requested amount.

The Senate recedes.

Joint surveillance target attack radar system

The budget request included $18.8 million for the Army and $169.7 million for the Air Force for the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS).

The House bill would authorize an increase in the Air Force requested amount, $14.0 million to establish a NATO program office and $20.0 million for development of an improved data modem and satellite communications capability.

The Senate amendment would authorize no additional funding for these programs.

The conferees agree to authorize an additional $9.5 million in PE 64770A for the Army Ground Station Module, in support of the NATO Alliance Ground Surveillance program, and an additional $24.5 million in PE 64770F, with $4.5 million for the Air Force portion of the JSTARS NATO Alliance Ground Surveillance program and $20.0 million for development of an improved data modem and satellite communications capability.

Joint warfighter interoperability demonstration

The budget request included $46.5 million in PE 65712A for support of Army operational testing.

The House bill would recommend an additional $1.5 million for support of a joint warfighter interoperability demonstration, one of the key fiscal year 1996 funding shortfalls identified during evaluation of the Department of the Army budget request.

The Senate amendment would authorize the budget request.

The conferees agree to authorize an additional $1.5 million in PE 23758A for support of the joint warfighting interoperability demonstration, as recommended in the House bill.

Missile/air defense product improvement

The budget request included $17.1 million for the missile/air defense product improvement program element.

The House bill would authorize an increase of $9.8 million for the evaluation of Stinger block II.

The Senate amendment would also authorize $9.8 million for Stinger, and an additional $35.0 million for Patriot cruise missile defense.

The conferees agree to authorize $61.9 million in PE 23801A, an increase of $44.8 million for both programs. Instrumented factory for gear development

Long-range guided projectile technology

The budget request contained $32.7 million for development and demonstration of the advanced global positioning system/inertial navigation system (GPS/INS) guidance and control technology for long range precision guided munitions used by Navy surface fire support and Army long-range artillery.

The House bill would authorize an additional $9.0 million to accelerate the development and demonstration of the GPS/INS.

The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes with an amendment.

The conferees agree to an additional $2.0 million in PE 62111N for the purposes indicated in the House report (H. Rept. 104-131). The conferees are aware of a demonstrated rapid progress in the development and demonstration of miniaturized, gun-hardened GPS/INS technology in the Army's Low-Cost Competent Munition (LCCM) Program, the Navy's advanced technology demonstration program for an extended range guided projectile, and the cooperative LCCM technology program established between Departments of the Army and the Navy. The conferees believe that the technology may significantly improve the accuracy of existing and future gun-fired projectiles, missiles, and rockets, and that an opportunity exists to accelerate development and demonstration in these areas. The conferees strongly encourage increased funding in this area in future Army and Navy budget requests.

Polar Ozone Aerosol Monitor III

The budget request included $45.5 million for exploratory development of oceanographic and atmospheric technology, in support of joint warfare mission area capabilities.

The House bill would authorize an additional $5.0 million to complete engineering, integration and test of the Polar Ozone Aerosol Monitor (POAM) III payload on the SPOT 4 spacecraft, in anticipation of system launch in 1997.

The Senate amendment included no similar provision.

The conferees agree to authorize an additional $2.5 million in PE 62435N to continue engineering, integration and test of the POAM III payload on the SPOT 4 spacecraft. The conferees encourage the Secretary of the Navy to reprogram those funds necessary to complete the program and launch the POAM III payload on the SPOT 4 spacecraft in 1997.

Cooperative engagement capability

The budget request included $180.0 million in PE 63755N for development of the cooperative engagement capability (CEC).

The House bill would authorize the requested amount, but would direct that no more than $102.0 million be obligated until the Secretary of Defense notifies the congressional defense committees that the test and evaluation master plan for the CEC program has been approved by the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation.

The Senate amendment would add $22.5 million to continue accelerated development of the airborne component of CEC and an additional $20.0 million to accelerate joint Army-Navy and Air Force-Navy exploitation of CEC for cruise missile defense and theater missile defense.

The conferees agree to an additional $42.5 million for CEC for the purposes described in Senate amendment. The House recedes from its funding limitation. The conferees note the concerns expressed in the House report (H. Rept. 104-131) regarding developmental testing and independent operational testing required to insure that the CEC is operationally effective and suitable when deployed to the fleet. They direct the Secretary of the Navy to submit to the congressional defense committees, by March 31, 1996, a report on the status of plans for developmental and independent operational testing of the CEC.

Naval surface fire support

The Navy's budget request included $12.0 million in PE 63795N to develop the gun weapon system technology needed by the Navy to resolve major deficiencies in its ability to provide naval surface fire support (NSFS) to amphibious operations.

The House report (H. Rept. 104-131) noted that the budget request was sharply reduced during the budget formulation process. It further observed that the future years defense plan for gun system technology had been left under funded by over $160 million and did not include an adequate plan to meet long- term requirements for advanced NSFS weapons systems. To address these concerns the House bill would increase funding in PE 63795N by $25.0 million to:

(1) accelerate the development of a long range guided projectile that would incorporate advanced low cost global positioning system/inertial navigation system (GPS/INS) guidance;

(2) improve the existing MK-45 5-inch naval gun; and

(3) permit the Navy to place increased emphasis on satisfying long-term requirements for advanced gun systems in addition to its near-term focus on modifications to the MK-45 gun.

The Senate amendment would add $19.2 million to PE 63795N. The Senate's evaluation noted in the Senate report (S. Rept. 104-112) of the Navy's NSFS program, as reflected in the budget request, yielded conclusions similar to those of the House.

The conferees note that in May 1995 the Secretary of the Navy, based on a recently completed cost and operational effectiveness analysis (COEA), reported the following conclusions to Congress regarding NSFS:

(1) a 155 millimeter/60-caliber naval gun, employing precision guided munitions, is the most cost effective NSFS solution; and

(2) a combination of guns, missiles, and tactical aviation is needed to fully meet NSFS requirements.

The Secretary also reported that, as a result of the NSFS COEA, the Navy's NSFS program had been structured to:

(1) proceed with the long-term development of a 155 millimeter gun;

(2) develop a gun-launched precision guided munition; and

(3) modify the Navy's existing MK-45, 5-inch gun to deal with long-term and near-term challenges.

However, as reflected in the budget request, affordability constraints and a desire to field an enhanced NSFS capability prior to Fiscal Year 2001 have moved the Navy to embrace a near-term program reflecting the following priorities:

(1) develop a global positioning system/inertial navigation system 5-inch guided projectile;

(2) improve the existing MK-45 5-inch gun; and

(3) demonstrate the NSFS capabilities of Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), Sea Standoff Land Attack Missile (SLAM), and STANDARD Missiles.

To confirm the cost effectiveness of this near-term approach, which was not thoroughly evaluated in the NSFS COEA, the Navy has directed the Center for Naval Analysis to perform supplemental analysis to evaluate its cost effectiveness. The need for this supplemental analysis was reinforced by the General Accounting Office, which strongly recommended in May 1995 that the Navy revalidate its NSFS requirements and conduct a comprehensive supplemental analysis to the COEA that would include all available gun and missile alternatives.

The conferees agree to authorize $34.0 million, an increase of $22.0 million, in PE 63795N. Over the past several years, the conferees have repeatedly stressed the issue of NSFS, but have found the Navy's response to be highly variable as new programs or approaches have succeeded one another from year to year. Because of a strong need and the Navy's apparent commitment to pursue the program to completion, the conferees are willing to provide initial support, in fiscal year 1996, to the Navy's effort to upgrade the capability of its 5-inch guns and projectiles. The conferees take this action based on the Navy leadership's assurances that the Navy will follow through with consistent, stable, and adequate future years funding.

The conferees affirm their conclusion that the Navy needs to place increased emphasis on pursuing a long-term program to satisfy NSFS mission requirements. The conferees direct that the Secretary of the Navy include a report on the plans for such a program in the fiscal year 1997 budget submission. The conferees also affirm the need for an updated COEA that considers all available gun and missile alternatives, including extended range multiple launch rockets and existing and improved 5-inch guns, to support future acquisition milestone decisions related to the Navy's near-term and long-term programs.

S-3B Project Gray Wolf

The budget request included $12.9 million in PE 64217N for continued development of weapon system improvements for the S-3 aircraft.

The House bill would authorize an additional $15.0 million for continued evaluation and potential establishment of an advanced concept technology demonstration of ``Project Gray Wolf,'' a fleet proof of concept demonstration of the ability of an S-3B aircraft equipped with a multi-mode synthetic aperture radar designed to provide real time stand-off surveillance, targeting, and strike support for littoral operations.

The Senate amendment would authorize an additional $13.2 million for the same purpose.

The conferees agree to authorize the requested amount.

The conferees agree that ``Project Gray Wolf'' demonstrates potential for providing the Department of the Navy with a versatile carrier-based capability to provide real time, stand-off surveillance, targeting, and strike support. The conferees encourage the Secretary of the Navy to consider a reprogramming request to support this program, should any funds become available during fiscal year 1996. The conferees further encourage the Secretary to include funds for the program in his fiscal year 1997 budget request.

P-3 maritime patrol aircraft sensor integration

The budget request included $1.9 million in PE 64221N for the P-3 maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) modernization program.

The House bill would authorize an increase of $15.0 million to the budget request. That increase would include $12.0 million to restore the schedule for integration of the improved extended echo ranging (IEER) and the anti-surface warfare improvement program (AIP) capabilities in the P-3, and $3.0 million for upgrade of P-3 stores management, to permit integration of advanced weapons systems. In relation to the fiscal year 1995 budget projections for fiscal year 1996, the House report (H. Rept. 104-131) noted that sharp funding reductions in the P-3 modernization program would result in an overall program cost increase and multi-year delays in fielding capability improvements needed to offset decreases in MPA force structure. The House report also expressed the House's expectation that the Navy's future budget requests would include the increased funding necessary to complete the IEER and AIP capabilities integration in the P-3, the P-3 stores management upgrades, and procurement of sufficient quantities of the AIP and update III kits to appropriately outfit the active and reserve MPA force.

The Senate amendment would authorize the budget request.

The Senate recedes.

Cryptologic system trainer

The budget request included $7.0 million in PE 24571N to continue development and evaluation of the Navy's surface tactical team trainer.

The House bill would authorize an additional $3.0 million for:

(1) integration and evaluation of the cryptologic systems trainer in the battle force tactical training system; and

(2) the development of related information warfare/ command and control warfare shipboard training systems.

The Senate amendment would authorize the budget request.

The conferees authorize $10.0 million in PE 24571N. Of this amount, $3.0 million is for the purposes discussed in the House report (H. Rept. 104-131).

Defense research sciences

The budget request included $239.893 million for defense research sciences in PE 61102F.

The House bill would authorize an additional $5.0 million for adaptive optics research.

The Senate amendment would reduce the budget request by $9.0 million and authorize $5.0 million for adaptive optics research.

The conferees agree, that of the $249.5 million authorized in this program element, $5.0 million shall be authorized for adaptive optics research.

High frequency active auroral research program (HAARP)

The conferees agree to a $5.0 million increase in PE 62601F for the high frequency active auroral research program (HAARP).

Computer security

The budget request included $98.5 million for Command, Control, and Communications in PE 62702F.

The House bill would authorize an additional $3.0 million to evaluate voice recognition computer security systems.

The Senate amendment contained no similar authorization.

The conferees direct that, of the $96.5 million authorized, $3.0 million be authorized for evaluation of voice recognition computer security systems, as specified in the House report (H. Rept. 104-131).

Micro-satellite development program

The budget request included $32.6 million in PE 63401F for Advanced Spacecraft Technology.

The Senate amendment would authorize an additional $20.0 million for a micro-satellite development program.

The House bill would authorize the budget request.

The House recedes.

The Air Force Phillips Laboratory, in conjunction with the Air Force Space Command's Space Warfare Center, has initiated a small satellite program to develop and demonstrate a variety of miniaturized space technologies. The micro- satellite program builds upon the highly successful Clementine satellite program. The conferees strongly support this effort and direct that it be placed under the control of the Space Warfare Center and be executed by the Clementine Team (Phillips Laboratory, Naval Research Laboratory, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory).

Ballistic Missile Technology

The budget request contained $3.1 million in PE 63311F to conduct guidance and range safety technology experiments.

The House bill would authorize an additional $5.7 million for Minuteman class range tracking and safety equipment based on Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment developments.

The Senate amendment would authorize an additional $5.0 million for suborbital flight testing conducted at White Sands Missile Range for ballistic missile guidance, range tracking, and safety equipment, based on existing GPS equipment.

The conferees agree to authorize $5.7 million above the budget request to enhance ballistic missile technology experiments and to proceed with a follow-on to the successful Missile Technology Demonstration Flight 1 (MTD-1). The conferees commend the participants in this joint effort and encourage the Air Force, the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, the Defense Nuclear Agency, and the Phillips Laboratory to continue to pursue such joint efforts. Prior to completing plans for a MTD follow-on, the conferees direct the Air Force to consult with the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on National Security on the issues and options associated with the following: (1) the technologies to be tested; (2) the type of booster configuration to be employed; and (3) the test range to be used.

peacekeeper contingency planning

The conferees direct the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, by March 1, 1996, that outlines the Air Force's current plans for retiring Peacekeeper, and maintaining the system in the interim. The report should also address the additional actions and funding that would be required to maintain the option of retaining up to 50 Peacekeeper ICBMs in an operational status beyond 2003. The report should include a timetable that outlines when such actions and funding would be needed.

Weapon impact assessment system

The conferees are aware of innovative technologies that may significantly resolve the battlefield damage assessment problems related to tactical aviation. The conferees support the priorities established in the fiscal year 1996 Department of Defense Small Business Innovative Research Program solicitation (96.1) to expeditiously pursue weapon impact assessment technology. Accordingly, the conferees authorize $950,000, distributed equally between PE 64618N and PE 64618F, for a joint Navy-Air Force flight demonstration of a weapon impact assessment system that uses a video sensor-transmitter with precision guided munitions.

Mobile missile launch detection and tracking

The conferees are aware of a proposal to use specialized processing techniques on synthetic aperture radar data to detect medium-rage ballistic missiles shortly after launch. The conferees urge the Air Force to consider this promising concept and agree to authorize the use of up to $1.0 million in funds made available in PE 28060F to demonstrate the feasibility of this concept.

Rivet joint technology transfer program

The Senate amendment recommended a $28.0 million increase to the theater missile defense program element (PE 28060F) to initiate the migration of the Cobra Ball medium wave infrared acquisition technology for the Rivet Joint RC-135 tactical reconnaissance fleet.

The House bill did not contain a similar recommendation.

The Senate recedes.

The conferees encourage the Air Force to move forward with this near term, cost effective program. With the transfer of this mature technology, the Rivet Joint fleet would offer early deployment and provide a significant improvement to the Department of Defense's capabilities in long range surveillance, warning, rapid cueing for attack operations, and impact point prediction. To achieve this goal, the conferees would consider a reprogramming in fiscal year 1996. The conferees understand that funds for the completion of this technology migration are included in the Air Force future year defense plans for this program.

Information systems security

The budget request included $11.3 million in PE 33140F for the Air Force's Information Systems Security program.

The Senate amendment would authorize an additional $1.5 million to complete research and development of the Trusted RUBIX multi-level security database management system.

The House bill would authorize the budget request.

The House recedes.

Chemical-biological defense program

The budget request contained $383.5 million for the Department of Defense chemical-biological defense program, including $243.0 million for research, development, test and evaluation and $140.5 million for procurement of chemical and biological defense non-medical and medical systems.

The House bill would authorize a $57.1 million increase to the budget request for the following chemical-biological defense research and development programs: $4.6 million for PE 61384BP; $23.5 million for PE 62384BP; $12.6 million for PE 63384BP; $4.4 million for PE 63884BP; and $12.0 million for PE 64384BP. The House bill would also authorize a total of an additional $50.0 million in operations and maintenance funding for chemical defense training and chemical medical defense training in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force.

The Senate amendment would authorize the budget request.

The conferees agree to authorize an increase to the budget request in the following program elements: $4.6 million for PE 61384BP; $7.8 million for PE 62384BP; $10.0 million for PE 63384BP; and $1.6 million for PE 63884BP. The increased authorizations would augment and accelerate research and development in medical and non-medical chemical and biological defense. Prior to obligation or expenditure of funds authorized above the budget request, the conferees direct the Department to report on the projected use of these funds.

The conferees also agree to a $50.0 million increase in the military services operations and maintenance accounts for chemical defense training and chemical medical defense training. The conferees direct the Department to provide a report to Congress on the use of this increased funding in the Department's chemical defense training and chemical medical defense training. Additionally, the Department is directed to notify Congress 15 days in advance of obligation or expenditure of funds, and to provide a justification for the use of such funds in connection with the procurement of chemical-biological defense equipment.

Computing systems and communications technology

The budget request included $403.9 million for computing systems and communications technology in PE 62301E.

The House bill would reduce the budget request by $25.0 million. The House bill would authorize an additional $11.0 million for accelerated development of improved nuclear detection and forensic analysis capabilities.

The Senate amendment would authorize an additional $3.0 million for software reuse activities and $30.0 million in procurement for the global broadcast service.

The conferees agree to authorize $396.3 million in PE 62301E, to include: $11.0 million for nuclear monitoring and detection; $8.0 million for global broadcast service; $7.5 million for software reuse; and a general reduction of $29.6 million.

Global broadcast service

The budget request contained no funds for global broadcast service (GBS).

The Senate amendment would authorize $30.0 million in weapons procurement, Navy, for a GBS pilot program. The Senate report (S. Rept. 104-112) endorsed insertion of this technology into the military communications master plan and the Navy's proposal to use the ultra-high frequency follow-on (UFO) satellite system as a host for an interim GBS capability.

Neither the House bill nor the House report (H. Rept. 104-131) addressed the subject.

The Senate recedes on the $30.0 million authorization in weapons procurement, Navy. The conferees, however, agree to authorize $8.0 million for fiscal year 1996 in PE 62301E to support this effort.

The conferees endorse the Senate language regarding the insertion of DBS/GBS technology into the communications master plan. The conferees, however, do not believe that the Department of Defense (DOD) has adequately evaluated all alternatives and associated issues. The conferees support proceeding swiftly with this program, but require additional information before endorsing any particular technical approach or acquisition strategy.

The conferees are aware of the time-sensitivity surrounding the Navy's proposal to use UFO satellites 8, 9, and 10 as host platforms, and that a protracted period of study and review may preclude this option (insofar as it is dependent on use of satellite 8, which is currently scheduled to be launched no later than December 1997). The conferees are also aware that the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Space has tentatively endorsed the UFO approach as an interim bridge to an objective GBS system.

Nonetheless, the conferees remain concerned that no detailed analysis of options and requirements has been presented to Congress. Not wanting to prematurely endorse any particular GBS option nor preclude any promising alternative, the conferees direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology to submit a report to the congressional defense committees that addresses the following issues regarding the development and deployment of interim and objective GBS capabilities: (1) the military requirement to be satisfied; (2) the cost, schedule, technical risk, and operational effectiveness of all hosted and free-flyer options; (3) the issues involved with the use of competitive procedures or other than competitive procedures; and (4) the role of GBS capabilities in the DOD's future military satellite communications architecture and the Department's strategy for acquiring and integrating such capabilities.

The conferees encourage early involvement by the Commanders-in-Chief (CINCs) to ensure that GBS capabilities support a broad range of joint missions in the CINCs' areas of responsibility. The conferees also believe that the Under Secretary for Acquisition and Technology should conduct a broad survey of the capabilities and views of industry prior to selecting a particular technical approach or acquisition strategy.

Once the congressional defense committees have received the report described above, the conferees would consider a reprogramming request to satisfy any outstanding fiscal year 1996 funding requirements. The conferees' approval of such a request would depend largely on the content of the report submitted, the offsets identified, and the degree to which the chosen GBS acquisition strategy is funded in the Secretary of Defense's fiscal year 1997 budget request and Future Years Defense Program.

Materials and electronics technology

The budget request included $226.1 million for material and electronics technology.

The House bill would authorize an additional $3.0 million for chemical vapor deposition (CVD) and $2.0 million for chemical vapor composite (CVC) deposition. The bill would also provide an additional $5.0 million for higher transition temperature superconducting (HTS) materials, $7.5 million for seamless high off-chip connectivity (SHOCC) and $10.0 million for non-woven aramide fiber packaging.

The Senate amendment would authorize an additional $8.0 million for CVD and $8.0 million for HTS.

The conferees agree to authorize $242.0 million in PE 62712E, an increase of $16.0 million. This increase provides $4.0 million each for CVC deposition and CVD diamond material development and $8.0 million for HTS. The HTS authorization shall include HTS wire applications and precision band pass filters and high ``Q'' antennae for military communication systems that operate in signal rich environments.

Counterterror technical support

The budget request included $12.0 million for the counterterror technical support program.

The House bill would authorize the budget request.

The Senate amendment would authorize an increase of $2.0 million to the budget request for the continued development of pulsed fast neutron analysis (PFNA) cargo inspection technology.

The House recedes.

Integrated bridge system for MK V special operations craft

The budget request included $13.3 million in PE 1160402BB for special operations advanced technology development.

The House bill would authorize an additional $1.5 million for development of a prototype maritime integrated bridge system for the MK V special operations craft to demonstrate the potential for advanced display and control technologies to enhance mission performance.

The Senate amendment would authorize the budget request.

The Senate recedes.

Quiet Knight advanced concept and technology demonstration

The budget request included $101.6 million in PE 1160404BB for Special Operations tactical systems development, to include $3.5 million allocated by the U.S. Special Operations Command to continue the Quiet Knight advanced avionics technology demonstration.

The House bill would authorize the budget request. The House report (H. Rept. 104-131) expressed strong support for a Phase I (component development and demonstration) of an advanced concept technology demonstration of Quiet Knight for both fixed and rotary wing aircraft, and the continuation to a Phase II full scale demonstration and flight test of the integrated Quiet Knight capability. The House report also expressed the expectation that funding requirements for completion of the Phase II demonstration would be included in the fiscal year 1997 budget request.

The Senate amendment would authorize the budget request.

The conferees support completion of the Quiet Knight technology demonstration, and encourage the Department of Defense to validate the requirements for advanced low probability of intercept/low probability of detection avionics for special operations aircraft.

Advanced SEAL delivery system

The budget request included $24.6 million in PE 1160404BB to complete fabrication and integration of the first Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS) and begin system level testing.

The House bill would authorize an additional $4.0 million to complete evaluation of the ASDS employed on the SSN-688 class submarine.

The Senate amendment contained a similar provision.

The conferees are pleased with the joint efforts of the U.S. Special Operations Command and the Navy in the development of ASDS. The conferees agree to increase the budget request by $4.0 million to complete evaluation of the ASDS.

Rigid hull inflatable boat

The budget request contained $11.7 million for procurement of special warfare equipment, including $10.1 million for procurement of the Naval Special Warfare 10 meter Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat (RHIB).

The House bill would authorize the budget request.

The Senate amendment noted that the U.S. Special Operations Command had reported that the 10 meter RHIB, on which initial developmental effort had been focused, performed unsatisfactorily during operational testing. As a result, a new strategy was adopted for development of a RHIB to meet Special Operations Forces' requirements. The Senate amendment would authorize an increase of $4.3 million in PE 1160404BB to support this developmental effort and would direct a corresponding reduction in the procurement account for special warfare equipment to offset the increase.

The House recedes. The conferees understand that the $4.3 million increase in PE 1160404BB for this purpose will support the competitive procurement of three to four prototype RHIBs for developmental testing and early operational assessment. The remaining $5.8 million authorized for procurement of special warfare RHIBs will be used to procure approximately 30 interim 24-foot RHIBs to alleviate deficiencies caused by the estimated three-year delay in initial operation capability for the new RHIBs.

Ballistic missile defense funding and programmatic guidance

The budget request contained $2,912.9 million for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), including $2,442.2 million for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), $453.7 million for Procurement, and $17.0 million for Military Construction.

The House bill would authorize an additional $628.0 million for BMDO.

The Senate amendment would authorize an additional $490.5 million for BMDO.

The conferees agree to authorize a total of $3,516.9 million for BMDO, an increase of $603.9 million above the budget request. The conferees set forth specific funding allocations and programmatic guidance below.

                                                                 BMDO FUNDING ALLOCATION                                                                
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]                                                               
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                           Conference   
                         Program                             Budget Request      House Change      Senate Change    Conference Change       Outcome     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support Tech.............................................             93,308  .................  .................  .................             93,308
Support Tech.............................................             79,387  .................            +70,000            +50,000            129,387
THAAD Dem/Val............................................            576,327  .................  .................  .................            576,327
Hawk.....................................................             23,188  .................  .................  .................             23,188
BM/C3 Dem/Val............................................             24,231  .................  .................  .................             24,231
Navy LT Dem/Val..........................................  .................  .................  .................           +185,000            185,000
Navy UT Dem/Val..........................................             30,442           +170,000           +170,000           +170,000            200,442
Corps SAM................................................             30,442            -10,000             +4,558            -10,000             20,442
BPI......................................................             49,061            -20,000            -49,061            -49,061  .................
NMD......................................................            370,621           +450,000           +300,000           +450,000            820,621
Other TMD................................................            460,470            -37,000            +15,000            -22,000            438,470
THAAD EMD................................................  .................            +50,000  .................  .................  .................
BM/C3 EMD................................................             14,301  .................  .................  .................             14,301
PAC-3 EMD................................................            247,921  .................           +104,500           +104,500            352,421
PAC-3 EMD/RR.............................................             19,485  .................  .................  .................             19,485
Navy LT EMD..............................................            237,473            +45,000            +45,000           -140,000             97,473
Management...............................................            185,542            -20,000            -30,000            -30,000            155,542
Patriot Proc.............................................            399,463  .................           -104,500           -104,500            294,963
Navy LT Proc.............................................             16,897  .................  .................  .................             16,897
Hawk Proc................................................              5,106  .................  .................  .................              5,106
BM/C3 Proc...............................................             32,242  .................  .................  .................             32,242
BMDO Milcon..............................................             17,009  .................  .................  .................             17,009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)--The conferees agree to authorize the budget request of $576.3 million in PE 63861C for THAAD Demonstration/Validation (Dem/Val).

The conferees endorse the language in the House report (H. Rept. 104-131) and the Senate report (S. Rept. 104-112) regarding the THAAD User Operational Evaluation System (UOES) option, and the need to ensure a smooth and timely transition from the Dem/Val phase to the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase. The conferees direct the Secretary of Defense to restructure the THAAD program so as to achieve a First Unit Equipped (FUE) by fiscal year 2000. The conferees believe that this objective can be facilitated by making only minor modifications to the UOES design and beginning Low-Rate Initial Production as soon as the EMD missiles have been adequately tested. Subsequent performance improvements to the initial system configuration should be incorporated through block upgrades, as appropriate and necessary. The conferees note that this approach would reduce overall THAAD development costs while significantly accelerating fielding of an operational system. Therefore, the conferees urge the Secretary of Defense to release the THAAD engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) request for proposal. Finally, the conferees direct the Secretary of Defense to promptly initiate development of all battle management software for the THADD system, including that necessary to receive cuing information from external sensors.

Navy Upper Tier--The budget request included $30.4 million in PE 63868C for the Navy Upper Tier program.

The conferees agree to authorize an increase of $170.0 million for a total Navy Upper Tier authorization of $200.4 million. The conferees direct the Secretary of Defense to include the Navy Upper Tier program in the core theater missile defense (TMD) program and to structure the Navy Upper Tier development and acquisition program so as to achieve an initial operational capability (IOC) not later than fiscal year 2001, with a UOES capability not later than fiscal year 1999. The conferees look forward to receiving the results of the various studies that are assessing Navy Upper Tier technical issues and deployment options. The conferees agree to require the Director of BMDO to provide a status report to the congressional defense committees, not later than March 1, 1996, that summarizes the findings and recommendations (as available) of these analyses. The Director of BMDO should include in such report an assessment of options for reducing risk and enhancing competition in the Navy Upper Tier program, including the option of establishing a competitive development and flight test program between the Lightweight Exoatomospheric Projectile (LEAP) and THAAD kill vehicles.

The conferees believe that competition within the Navy Upper Tier program is desirable, but do not support the notion of competition between the Navy Upper Tier and THAAD programs. The conferees are convinced that the United States can and should develop and deploy both sea-based and land-based upper tier programs. Although there may be an opportunity to reduce the number of TMD programs being developed by the Department of Defense, the conferees strongly oppose the notion of a competition and down-select between the THAAD and Navy Upper Tier systems. The conferees view these as critical and complementary systems.

Patriot--The budget request included $247.9 in PE 64865C for PAC-3 EMD, $19.5 million in PE 64866C for PAC-3 risk reduction, and $399.5 million for Patriot procurement.

The conferees agree to authorize the overall amount requested for the Patriot program and related activities. Within this overall authorization, the conferees agree to transfer $104.5 million from Patriot procurement to PAC-3 EMD, a total authorization of $352.4 million in PE 64865C.

Navy Lower Tier--The budget request included $237.5 million in PE 64867C for Navy Lower Tier EMD and $16.9 million for Navy Lower Tier procurement.

The conferees agree to authorize an increase of $45.0 million for Navy Lower Tier Dem/Val and to transfer $140.0 million from Navy Lower Tier EMD to Navy Lower Tier Dem/Val, a total of $185.0 million in PE 63867C.

Corps SAM--The budget request included $30.4 million in PE 63869C for the Corps Surface to Air Missile (Corps SAM) system.

The conferees agree to authorize $20.4 million for Corps SAM, a reduction of $10.0 million. Although the conferees support the Corps SAM requirement, they remain concerned by several aspects of the current Corps SAM program, now known as the medium extended air defense system (MEADS). The conferees support an effort to explore alternative means to satisfy the Corps SAM requirement. Given the investments that have already been made in developing systems such as PAC-3 and THAAD, reintegration of existing systems and technologies may offer an achievable, cost-effective, and expeditious alternative. The conferees direct the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the options associated with the use of existing systems, technologies, and program management mechanisms to satisfy the Corps SAM requirement, including an assessment of cost and schedule implications. The conferees direct that, of the funds authorized in fiscal year 1996 for the Corps SAM program, not more than $15.0 million may be obligated until such report has been submitted to the congressional defense committees.

Boost-Phase Intercept--The budget request included $49.1 million in PE 63870C for the kinetic energy Boost-Phase Intercept (BPI) program.

The House bill would authorize $29.1 million for the kinetic BPI program.

The Senate amendment would authorize no funds for the kinetic BPI program in PE 63870C. However, the Senate amendment would authorize $15.0 million in the Other TMD (OTMD) program element (PE 63872C) to initiate a joint United States-Israel BPI program based on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

The conferees agree to authorize no funds for the kinetic BPI program due to continuing skepticism about the operational and technical effectiveness of a BPI system based on a manned tactical aircraft. However, the conferees agree to authorize the use of up to $15.0 million, from within funds made available in the OTMD program element, for a UAV-based BPI program. The conferees support a joint U.S.-Israel UAV-BPI program focused on risk mitigation, provided that an equitable cost-sharing arrangement can be reached and that the program will be structured to satisfy the BPI requirements of both sides. The conferees also support continuation of the Atmospheric Interceptor Technology (AIT) program, which is being developed as an advanced multi-purpose kill vehicle. The conferees authorize the use of up to $30.0 million, from within funds made available in the OTMD program element, to continue the AIT program. The conferees are disappointed that the Department has not completed its review of BPI programs and options in time to inform the conferees' deliberations and decisions. Therefore, the conferees agree to require the Director of BMDO to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, not later than February 1, 1996, that summarizes the findings and recommendations of the Department's BPI study. This report should also address promising options and technical approaches associated with a UAV BPI program.

Other TMD--The budget request contained $460.5 million in PE 63872C for OTMD programs, projects, and activities.

The House bill would authorize $423.5 million for OTMD.

The Senate amendment would authorize $475.5 million, including the $15.0 million for the UAV-BPI program cited above.

The conferees agree to authorize $438.5 million for OTMD. Of this amount, the conferees authorize the use of up to $15.0 million to explore a UAV-BPI program and up to $30.0 million to continue the AIT advanced kill vehicle program.

National Missile Defense--The budget request contained $370.6 million in PE 63871C for National Missile Defense (NMD).

The House bill would authorize $820.6 million for NMD. The Senate amendment would authorize $670.6 million for NMD.

The conferees agree to authorize $820.6 million for NMD.

Support Technologies--The budget request contained $93.3 million in PE 62173C and $79.4 million in PE 63173C for ballistic missile defense (BMD) support technologies.

The House bill would authorize the budget request for BMD Support Technologies.

The Senate amendment would authorize an increase of $70.0 million in PE 63173C for the Space-Based Laser (SBL) program.

The conferees agree to authorize the budget request in PE 62173C and to authorize an increase in the SBL program of $50.0 million, for a total authorization of $129.4 million in PE 63173C. The conferees believe that it is critical for the United States to continue developing the technology for space- based defenses, to preserve the option of deploying highly effective global defenses in the future. The conferees note that a space-based laser would likely be the most effective system for intercepting ballistic missiles of virtually all ranges in the boost phase. Therefore, the conferees direct the Secretary of Defense to take the following actions: (1) continue integration and testing of the laser, mirror, and beam control components of the Alpha-Lamp Integration program; (2) accelerate design activities on the StarLITE space demonstration configuration; (3) produce the concept of operations and design requirements for a follow-on operational space-based laser deployment; and (4) revitalize the technology development efforts most likely to yield significant cost and weight savings for a future SBL spacecraft. The conferees direct the Secretary of Defense to ensure that sufficient funds are provided in the outyears for continuation of a robust SBL effort, and submit to the congressional defense committees, by March 1, 1996, a report that outlines a program and funding profile that could lead to an on-orbit test of a demonstration system by the end of 1999 if approved.

The conferees note that the Director, BMDO, has testified to Congress that BMDO's follow-on technology programs are severely under-funded and that the Director is seeking to increase such funding to approximately 12 percent of the overall BMDO budget. The conferees support the efforts of the Director of BMDO to increase funding for advanced technology development. However, the conferees note that such increases will require an overall increase in the funds allocated to BMDO. The conferees support such an increase in order to reinvigorate and advanced technology programs and to help sustain the development and acquisition activities endorsed by the conferees.

BMDO is required to set aside 2.15 percent of extramural research, development, test, and evaluation authorized and appropriated (RDT&E) funds for Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) efforts. Since the conferees recommend a level of funding for BMD programs exceeding the budget request, and programmed funding for SBIR represents a level below the mandated percentage, the Director of BMDO is authorized to transfer such funds as necessary from BMD program elements into PE 62173C to achieve the required percentage for SBIR.

BMDO Management--The budget request contained $185.5 million in PE 65218C for BMD Management.

The House bill would authorize $165.5 million for BMDO Management.

The Senate amendment would authorize $155.5 million for BMDO Management.

The conferees agree to authorize $155.5 million for BMDO Management. The conferees recognize that BMDO must maintain the integrity of its oversight of the overall BMD program. The conferees are concerned, however, that BMD management infrastructure may be unnecessarily duplicated in one or more of the services. Therefore, the conferees direct that BMDO identify any such duplication and take actions to eliminate it. The conferees request that the Director of BMDO consult with the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on National Security regarding the Director's findings and proposed actions. The conferees further direct that BMDO show no increase in fiscal year 1997, after adjustments for inflation and any change in mission, over the level appropriated for management in fiscal year 1996.

Cruise missile defense funding

The House bill would authorize an increase of $76.0 million above the budget request for cruise missile defense programs, projects, and activities.

The Senate amendment would authorize an increase of $145.0 million above the budget request for a similar group of programs, projects, and activities.

The conferees agree to authorize an increase of $85.0 million above the budget request for cruise missile defense programs, projects, and activities. The conferees provide additional guidance in the classified annex.

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Geosat follow-on program

The House report (H. Rept. 104-131) addressed the issue of converging the Navy's Geosat Follow-On (GFO) altimetry program with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's TOPEX/Poseidon Follow-On (TPFO) altimetry program.

The Senate report (S. Rept. 104-112) did not address the issue.

The conferees share the concerns raised in the House report. The conferees are dismayed that the report to Congress on altimetry convergence was submitted more than three months later than an already extended deadline. The conferees are also troubled that the report recommends proceeding with the TPFO option, despite the fact that this approach would cost more, not involve U.S. construction and control of the satellite, and not provide the same level of data security. The TPFO option would require the Navy to spend an additional $5.2 million, for which it has not budgeted, to add global positioning system (GPS) and direct downlink capabilities critical for satisfying Navy requirements. The conferees direct that no funds authorized for the Department of Defense be obligated or expended during fiscal year 1996 for activities associated with adding GPS and direct downlink capabilities to TPFO.

National security space policy, management, and oversight

The House report (H. Rept. 104-131) and the Senate report (S. Rept. 104-112) each contained reporting requirements concerning policy, management, and oversight of U.S. national security space programs. In lieu of the reporting requirements contained in those reports, the conferees direct the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Congress, not later than April 15, 1996, that addresses in detail the following matters:

(1) The results of the Administration's reviews of U.S. national and military space policies--The conferees direct that copies of any updated policy directives (including unclassified and classified forms) that result from the reviews be included as attachments to the Secretary's report. The conferees view the Administration's decision to initiate such reviews as appropriate in light of changes in the international security environment, and expect the reviews will be completed in time to permit Departmental witnesses to discuss the results in hearings on the President's fiscal year 1997 budget request.

(2) The activities of the Joint Department of Defense Intelligence Community Space Management Board (JSMB)--The report shall include a copy of the charter for the Board and a description of its planned functions, operations, and staffing. The report shall address the responsibilities for the development of an integrated national security space architecture and the integrated acquisition of national security space systems. In addition, the report shall describe the Board's plans for reviewing military and intelligence satellite communications architectures and systems. The conferees endorse the establishment of the JSMB, noting that improved integration of military and intelligence satellite architectures and systems can result in significant cost-savings and efficiencies in the acquisition and operation of those systems.

(3) The status of and plans for completing a national security space master plan to guide investments in military and intelligence space architectures and systems for the coming decade--The conferees note with concern that the Department failed in a similar, but more narrowly focused, undertaking when, in the Statement of Managers to accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (H. Rept. 102-966), the conferees directed the Department to develop ``a comprehensive acquisition strategy for developing, fielding, and operating DOD space programs.'' Nonetheless, the conferees applaud the decision of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Space to begin drafting such a master plan, and request that the report include an estimated completion date for the plan.

(4) The Department's plans for ensuring that, even as oversight of national security space acquisition and planning is centralized, each of the military services is able to influence decisions regarding space architectures and systems--The conferees direct that the report include: (a) an assessment of progress to date in centralizing DOD space management; (b) the organizational structure that will be achieved upon completion of the planned consolidation, and an estimated completion date for such consolidation; (c) a description of how the DOD plans to protect service- unique interests and other equities in the new centralized organization; (d) the anticipated reductions in personnel and infrastructure that will result from such consolidation; and (e) the degree to which effectiveness and efficiency will be enhanced by the new structure and associated procedures.

The conferees are aware that the Department has established a Space Architect Office as part of the space management reorganization. Given that this is a new function and organization, budget planning was not completed prior to submittal of the amended fiscal year 1996 budget request. Therefore, the conferees agree to authorize the use of up to $10.0 million in Air Force research, development, test, and evaluation funds to operate the Space Architect Office in fiscal year 1996.

Shortstop

The conferees stress the need to move forward without delay on the Shortstop countermeasure system, and encourage the Secretary of the Army to maintain funding for the currently planned program leading to procurement.

Softwar operations

The conferees direct the Air Force's Phillips Laboratory Combat Space Operations Program Office to examine the use of commercially developed Information Warfare Systems that use television enhanced situational awareness for ``softwar'' operations. The Secretary of the Air Force shall report to the congressional defense committees by January 1, 1996 on the results of the Phillips Laboratory examination and the possibility to fund a technology demonstration in ``softwar'' operations. The conferees direct the Secretary to pursue this technology if the examination results in a favorable recommendation.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Legislative Provisions Adopted
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations

Space launch modernization (sec. 211)

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 211) that would authorize $100.0 million for a competitive reusable rocket technology program, and $7.5 million for evaluation of prototype hardware of low-cost expendable launch vehicles.

The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes with an amendment that would authorize $50.0 million for a competitive reusable rocket technology program, provided that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration allocates at least an equal amount for its reusable space launch program.

Tactical manned reconnaissance (sec. 212)

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 213) that would prohibit the Air Force from conducting any research and development on tactical manned reconnaissance systems.

The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes with an amendment that would require a report explaining the Air Force's planned uses of funds for the tactical manned reconnaissance mission.

Space-based infrared system (sec. 216)

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 214) that would accelerate development and deployment of the Space and Missile Tracking System (SMTS), formerly known as Brilliant Eyes, and that would require the Secretary of the Air Force to obtain the concurrence of the Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) before implementing any decision that would impact the SMTS program.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The House recedes with an amendment that would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a program baseline for the overall Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) program. The baseline would include the following:

(1) overall program structure, including: (A) program cost and an estimate of the funds required in each fiscal year in which development and acquisition activities are planned, (B) a comprehensive schedule with program milestones and exit criteria, and (C) optimized performance parameters for each segment of the integrated system;

(2) a development schedule for SMTS structured to achieve the first launch of a Block I satellite in fiscal year 2002, and initial operational capability (IOC) of the system in fiscal year 2003;

(3) full integration of SMTS into the overall SBIRS architecture; and

(4) establishment of the performance parameters of all space segment components so as to optimize the performance of the integrated system while minimizing unnecessary redundancy and cost.

The provision adopted by the conferees would require the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees on the SBIRS program baseline not later than 60 days after the enactment of this Act.

The conference provision would also establish the following program elements for the SBIRS program:

(1) Space Segment High;

(2) Space Segment Low (SMTS); and

(3) Ground Segment.

The conference provision requires the SBIRS baseline to include an SMTS IOC by fiscal year 2003 to support national and theater missile defenses. The conferees understand that the Air Force has defined this IOC as consisting of 12-18 satellites. The conferees urge the Air Force to make every effort to achieve an 18 satellite IOC by fiscal year 2003.

In accelerating the SMTS program, it is not the conferees' intent to reduce the priority and importance of the SBIRS High components. The conferees endorse the schedule that the Air Force has established for the SBIRS High components. The SBIRS program should feature complementary and mutually supportive elements that do not include excessive technical and functional redundancy.

Although SMTS can, over time, become a multi-functional sensor system capable of fulfilling missions such as technical intelligence and battlespace characterization, the conferees direct the Air Force to ensure that the SMTS Flight Demonstration System (FDS) and Block I system be designed primarily to satisfy the missile defense mission. Missions not related to theater and/or national ballistic missile defense should not be allowed to add significant cost, weight or delay to the SMTS FDS or Block I system. This scaled-down approach will ameliorate the technical challenges associated with an accelerated schedule while contributing to overall affordability.

To support this schedule and missile defense focus, the conferees direct the Secretary of Defense to commence SMTS pre- engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) activities in fiscal year 1996 and to ensure that the FDS and Block I satellites are equipped with long-wave infrared sensors. The conferees endorse the design characteristics specified in the Senate report (S. Rept. 104-112) regarding the objective SMTS system. The conferees have authorized sufficient funds in fiscal year 1996 to commence these activities and to prepare the way for a fiscal year 1998 FDS launch.

Over time, as the Air Force gains operational experience with the High and Low Block I systems, it is likely that SMTS will be able to assume a much larger share of the SBIRS requirements burden. In the meantime, the conferees urge the Secretary of Defense to initiate technical and cost trade studies among the SBIRS space systems and include any preliminary findings and recommendations in the SBIRS baseline report.

The budget request for SBIRS included $130.7 million for demonstration/validation (Dem/Val), $152.2 million for EMD, and $19.9 million for procurement. Of the funds requested for Dem/ Val, $114.8 million was for SMTS. The conferees agree on the following authorizations:

(1) $265.7 million in PE 63441F for SBIRS Dem/Val, of which $249.8 million is for SMTS; and

(2) $162.2 million in PE 64441F for SBIRS EMD, of which $9.4 million is for the Miniature Sensor Technology Integration (MSTI) program.

The conferees are aware of a recent proposal to increase competition and reduce risk in the SMTS program through a low- cost flight experiment. The conferees direct the Air Force and BMDO to carefully assess the merits of this concept and to include their joint findings and recommendations in the SBIRS baseline report. If the Air Force Acquisition Executive and the Director of BMDO certify to the congressional defense committees that such a flight experiment is in the overall interest of the SMTS program (measured in terms of risk reduction and schedule acceleration), the conferees authorize the use of up to $40.0 million of the funds authorized for SMTS in fiscal year 1996 to begin a low-cost flight experiment.

The conferees congratulate the Air Force and BMDO for reaching agreement on the acquisition management relationship for execution of the SMTS program. In light of the Memorandum of Agreement between the Air Force Acquisition Executive and the Director of BMDO, the Senate recedes on its language dealing with management oversight of the SMTS program. As with all aspects of the SMTS program, however, the conferees will continue to monitor management oversight with great interest. If the present management structure does not fulfill the expectations of the conferees, or lead to implementation of the guidance provided above, the conferees will reconsider transferring SMTS back to BMDO.

Defense Nuclear Agency programs (sec. 217)

The budget request contained $219.0 million for research and development at the Defense Nuclear Agency.

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 216) that would authorize $242.0 million for fiscal year 1996 for research and development programs (PE 62715H), a $23.0 increase to the budget request. The increase would provide: $3.0 million for the establishment of the tunnel characterization/ neutralization program; $6.0 million for the establishment of a long-term radiation tolerant microelectronics program and require the Secretary to report to Congress on the program and future year funding; $4.0 million for the electro-thermal gun program; and transfer the Air Force thermionics program and any unobligated funds to the DNA and provide $10.0 to accelerate that program.

The House report (H. Rept. 104-131) would provide a $4.0 million increase to the budget request for the electro-thermal gun technology.

The conferees agree to a provision that would authorize $241.7 million, including a reduction of $5.0 for environmental pollutant research. This represents a $27.7 million increase over the budget request. Of that amount, $3.0 million shall be used for a tunnel characterization/neutralization program, $4.0 million shall be available for the electro-thermal gun technology program, $6.0 million shall be available for the establishment of a long-term radiation tolerant microelectronics program and development of long pulse, high power microwave technology, $10 million shall be available for the thermionics program; and $4.0 million shall be available for the counterterror explosives research program. Additionally, the Secretary is directed to provide a report to Congress, 120 days after enactment of this Act, on the conduct of the long-term radiation tolerant microelectronics program and future years funding for this program. The remainder of the increase should be used to supplement the tunnel characterization/neutralization program and the long-term radiation tolerant microelectronics program, as appropriate.

TUNNEL CHARACTERIZATION/NEUTRALIZATION PROGRAM

The conferees understand that the Department of Defense has allocated $10.0 million of funds requested in the budget for the counterproliferation support program for a tunnel characterization/neutralization program. Although the DNA tunnel characterization/neutralization target tests and program would be executed independently of the Department's counterproliferation efforts, the conferees expect close coordination between the two programs to ensure that common concerns are addressed. The conferees urge the DNA to utilize, to the maximum extent possible, the Nevada Test Site infrastructure for the tunnel target characterization/ neutralization tests and program.

thermionics

The conferees directed the transfer of the thermionics conversion technology from the Air Force Weapons program (PE 62601F), together with all unobligated funds authorized and appropriated in prior years, totalling up to $12.0 million, to the Defense Nuclear Agency program (PE 62715H).

Counterproliferation support program (sec. 218)

The budget request contained $108.2 million for the defense counterproliferation support program.

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 217) that would authorize $144.5 million for the program, a $36.3 million increase to the budget request. Of the funds authorized in this section, $6.3 million would be available to the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) for purposes of broadening SOCOM's counterproliferation activities and $30.0 million would be available for the continuation of the Army tactical antisatellite technologies (ASAT) program (PE 63392A) for a user operation evaluation system (UOES) contingency capability. The provision would authorize the Department of Defense to transfer up to $50.0 million from fiscal year 1996 defense research and development accounts for counterproliferation support activities.

The House bill would authorize the budget request for the counterproliferation support program and include $11.0 million for the development of improved nuclear detection and forensics analysis by the Advanced Projects Research Agency (ARPA).

The conferees agree to a provision that would authorize $138.2 million for the counterproliferation support program, of which $30.0 million shall be available for the continuation of the Army tactical antisatellite technologies program. Of the funds authorized in fiscal year 1996, the conferees recommend that $1.5 million be available for the exploration of the ``deep digger'' concept for hard target characterization, and that $5.0 million be available for the high frequency active auroral research program (HAARP).

The conferees acknowledge concerns raised in the Senate report (S. Rept. 104-112) regarding the need for the Department to continue the aggressive pursuit of discriminate detection and attack capabilities of deep underground structures. The Department should continue to develop the capability to detect and defend against biological agents through the use of technologies, available through universities and non-profit industries, that have been developed for biological detection, emergency preparedness and response. The Department should also continue to develop a capability to counter technological gains by proliferant countries that could gain access to a broad mix of commercial-off-the-shelf space technologies which could provide these countries with significant space capabilities or access to space-derived data and could negatively impact a spectrum of multi-service and joint warfighting capabilities.

tactical antisatellite technology

The conferees direct the Secretary of Defense to include sufficient resources in fiscal year 1997, and throughout the future year defense plan (FYDP), for the following: a user operation evaluation system (UOES) contingency capability to produce 10 kill vehicles with the appropriate boosters by fiscal year 1999; a review to determine the appropriate management structure and military service responsibility; report on the current status of antisatellite development worldwide and the degree to which United States antisatellite development efforts may contribute to similar development among other nations and their impact on U.S. operational capabilities; and to report the Department's recommendations to Congress in the fiscal year 1997 budget request. To avoid significant or lengthy delays in developing a needed capability, the conferees direct the Department to leverage, or build upon the current Army tactical antisatellite technology program. The conferees note that authorization of funds for continued development of the tactical antisatellite system does not constitute a decision to deploy the system.

mission planning and analysis

The conferees recommend that $2.5 million from Air Force operation and maintenance (O&M) be made available for Strategic Air Command (STRATCOM) mission planning and analysis. The STRATCOM program provides support to the regional commanders- in-chief (CINCs) in advance planning for counterproliferation contingencies. This program aids commanders in identifying and characterizing current and emerging proliferation threats. In instances in which proliferation activities challenge the interests of the United States and its military forces and operations, STRATCOM mission planning and analysis capabilities allow defense planners to: identify a variety of potential military targets; assess the effectiveness, consequences and costs of military options; and develop alternative contingency plans that would maximize mission effectiveness, and minimize the risks, costs, and collateral effects.

improved nuclear detection and forensic analysis capabilities

Due to an increase in international terrorism and attempts by criminal elements to acquire weapons-grade nuclear material, the conferees recommend $11.0 million to accelerate the development of improved nuclear detection and forensic analysis capabilities in PE 62301E, project ST23. The conferees direct the ARPA to closely coordinate its efforts in this area closely coordinate with the counterproliferation support program manager in the Department of Defense and the interagency group on counterproliferation.

Nonlethal Weapons Program (sec. 219)

The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 218) that would establish a new, consolidated program for non-lethal systems and technology. The program would be managed by the Office of Strategic and Tactical Systems of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology. The provision would create a new program element within the defense budget for this program, and transfer funds from PE 603570D, PE 603750D, PE 603702E, and PE 603226E into this new program element.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The House recedes with an amendment that would express congressional recognition of the U.S. armed forces increasing role in operations other than war, recognition of support for the use of nonlethal weapons and systems across the spectrum of conflict, and concern that development of these technologies is being spread across the budgets of the military services and defense agencies. The conferees direct the Department of Defense to submit a report to Congress by February 15, 1996 and direct the Secretary of Defense to assign responsibility for the nonlethal weapons program to an existing office within the Office of the Secretary of Defense or designate an executive agent from the military services, to establish centralized responsibility for development and fielding of nonlethal weapons technology. The conferees authorize $37.2 million in a new defense program element for nonlethal weapons programs and nonlethal technologies programs.

The conferees believe that centralized responsibility for the nonlethal weapons program will ensure effective program management and expeditious development, acquisition, and fielding of nonlethal weapons and systems. The conferees further understand that both the Department of the Army and the Marine Corps are the primary users of these technologies and recommend the designation of either military service as the executive agent for this important program. Further, the conferees understand that the Department of the Army and the Marine Corps have closely coordinated their efforts in this area and expect this coordination to continue to ensure centralized management and improved budgetary focus for the nonlethal weapons program. The provision would also require the Department to report to Congress by February 15, 1996 on the designation of the executive agent for oversight of the program, the acquisition plan, the time frame for fielding systems, current and anticipated military requirements, and the Department of Defense policy regarding the nonlethal weapons program.

Joint seismic program and global seismic network (sec. 221)

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 224) that would authorize $9.5 million of unobligated fiscal year 1995 funds in Air Force research and development for the joint seismic program (JSP) and the global seismic network (GSN) to provide more robust monitoring research and expanded seismic monitoring of potential nuclear tests.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The conferees agree to a provision that would authorize $9.5 million in fiscal year 1996 for the joint seismic and global seismic network programs. The conferees understand that no future year funds would be required for this program. Further, the conferees direct the Department of Defense Comptroller to release the funds in a timely manner so that the programs can be completed.

Defense airborne reconnaissance program (sec. 228)

The budget request included $525.2 million for research and development for the Defense airborne reconnaissance program (DARP).

The House bill would add a total of $121.6 million to the requested amount. The Senate amendment would increase the request by $33.0 million. Details of the adjustments in the House bill and the Senate amendment, as well as the final conference agreement, are displayed in the table below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Budget     House     Senate   Conference
                                request    bill    amendment   agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total..................    $525.2   +$121.6     +$33.0    +$114.8 
                              ------------------------------------------
UAV programs:                                                           
  Joint tactical maneuver....  ........     -36.8  .........      -10.0 
    Hunter...................  ........  ........  .........  ..........
    Navy variant (VTOL)......  ........  ........  .........      +12.5 
  Tier II....................  ........     +25.9  .........      +25.3 
  Tier II+...................  ........     +60.0  .........  ..........
  Tier III...................  ........     +35.0  .........      +18.0 
U-2 upgrade programs:                                                   
  SYERS......................  ........     +14.0  .........      +14.0 
  Defensive systems..........  ........  ........      +13.0      +10.0 
  SIGINT.....................  ........  ........      +20.0      +20.0 
  PGMs.......................  ........       -10  .........  ..........
Other programs:                                                         
  CIGGS......................  ........     +16.0  .........      +11.0 
  Common data link...........  ........      +0.5  .........  ..........
  EO framing sensors.........  ........      +5.0  .........       +7.0 
  MSAG.......................  ........     +12.0  .........       +8.0 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

MANNED AND UNMANNED RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS

The conferees remain optimistic about the future contributions of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) systems to the Department of Defense's (DOD) reconnaissance missions. However, the conferees remain unwilling to sacrifice proven manned systems in the near-term for the promise of unproven future systems. Further, the conferees believe five major UAV programs are overly redundant. The conferees are aware of the Department's intent to reduce the number of UAVs to satisfy the tactical, theater, and strategic missions. The conferees agree that it is important for the Department to satisfy these three distinct missions.

Further, the conferees believe the Department's endurance UAV programs must be viewed in the larger context of the broad area search/wide area surveillance missions. The conferees are concerned that the current and projected array of sensors (including Tier II+ and Tier III- UAVs, SR-71, U-2, and national systems) are not simply ``complementary'', but are ``duplicative''. The conferees will, therefore, remain extremely interested in the Department's future directions with respect to high altitude endurance UAV efforts.

MANEUVER UAV

The budget request included $36.8 million for the maneuver UAV.

The House will would deny any authorization for the maneuver UAV because the Department had failed to provide either a joint operational requirements document (JORD) or a cost and operational effectiveness analysis (COEA) in a timely manner.

The Senate amendment would approve the budget request.

The conferees agree to authorize $26.8 million for the maneuver UAV. The conferees are disappointed that the Department took so long to complete the JORD and the COEA. The conferees hope that the results of the ongoing review of the various UAV programs will be provided to the congressional defense and intelligence committees in a more timely fashion.

joint tactical uav

The conferees remain particularly concerned about the Department's inability to develop and pursue a cohesive joint tactical UAV (JT-UAV) master plan for longer than a four month period. The conferees direct the Department not to use appropriated fiscal year 1996 funds to procure production Hunter UAV systems or additional low rate initial production units beyond those already ordered. The conferees intend that this prohibition remain in effect until the Department provides the congressional defense and intelligence committees with the results of its UAV program review. Accordingly, if the Department's review results in the cancellation of one or more of the currently planned UAV programs, the conferees direct the Department to seek reprogramming actions to use those funds to satisfy other CINC near-term reconnaissance support requirements. Any funds made available as a result of Department decisions on UAVs will remain within the DARP account. Of any resources made available from UAV restructuring, the conferees direct that the Department use them to fully fund the U-2 sensor upgrades described later in this section. Any additional excess resources over those used for U-2 sensor upgrades may be used for the naval variant (VTOL). Further, the conferees specifically deny authorization of any fiscal year 1996 funds for marinization of the Hunter UAV.

naval variant uav

The conferees agree that development and evaluation of a joint tactical UAV (JT-UAV) short or vertical take-off and landing (STOL/VTOL) variant for naval applications should be continued and structured on existing successful efforts. The conferees agree to authorize an additional $12.5 million to support continued development and evaluation of VTOL JT-UAV variants, as detailed in the Senate report (S. Rept. 104-112). The conferees intend that the Department limit its air vehicle evaluation to items that are low risk, currently available off- the-shelf, and have the demonstrated potential to meet joint tactical UAV interoperability and performance requirements.

medium altitude endurance uav (predator)

The House bill would authorize an additional $25.9 million for the Tier II medium altitude endurance UAV (Predator).

The Senate amendment included a provision (sec. 131) that would deny funds for the Tier II system.

The Senate recedes.

The conferees agree to authorize an additional $25.3 million for another Predator system (air vehicles and ground station) and replacement air vehicles. The conferees are encouraged by the successes of the Predator advanced concept technology program, and particularly by the theater commanders' praise for its contributions in the Bosnia area. The conferees strongly support continuation of this ACTD, and encourage the Department to take the necessary steps to make a full production decision. The conferees believe this vehicle could satisfy multiple operational roles, including the theater and maritime roles. The conferees encourage the Department to develop plans for a maritime use of this vehicle. Such planning should include conducting an operational demonstration at sea. Finally, the conferees agree to authorize all prior year allocated funds.

HIGH ALTITUDE ENDURANCE UAVS

The House bill would authorize an additional $60.0 million for the Tier II+ and $35.0 million for the Tier III-.

The Senate amendment would authorize the budget request for both programs.

The House recedes on Tier II+. The Senate recedes on the Tier III-. The conferees agree to authorize an additional $18.0 million for Tier III-.

As with the JT-UAV, the conferees expect the Department to make acquisition decisions on this issue based on operational requirements. However, the conferees emphasize that the Department needs a more capable, low observable vehicle. The conferees agree that the Department should use the additional $18.0 million for Tier III- to buy the third air vehicle in fiscal year 1996, instead of fiscal year 1997. The conferees direct the Department to provide the congressional defense and intelligence committees with a report on the operational user needs for such a vehicle. If the current estimate of the Tier III- system capabilities fall short of those needs, the Department should outline its technical proposals to improve this vehicle, in response to those user requirements.

U-2 SENSOR UPGRADES

The House bill would authorize an additional $14.0 million to upgrade all Senior Year electro-optical reconnaissance sensors (SYERS) to the newest configuration, upgrade existing ground stations, and improve geolocational accuracy through various product improvements.

The Senate amendment would authorize an additional $20.0 million to initiate the remote airborne SIGINT system upgrade program.

The Senate report (S. Rept. 104-112) contained a technical error in the table for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-Wide, that shows an increase in the DARP PE 35154D, line 102, rather than in line 124. This error was facilitated by the Department's budget exhibit for RDT&E programs (R-1) in which both of these budget lines are associated with the same program element. The conferees encourage the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office (DARO) to carry a single R-1 line for an individual program element in the future.

The conferees view with concern the DARO's lack of emphasis on manned reconnaissance upgrades, and include a provision that requires the Director of the DARO to expeditiously carry out those upgrades. The conferees agree to authorize $34.0 million to meet U-2 sensor upgrade requirements, and direct the Secretary of Defense to provide a report on the Department's plans to obligate funds for U-2 upgrades prior to February 1, 1996.

U-2 DEFENSIVE SYSTEMS

The conferees agree to authorize $10.0 million to upgrade U-2 defensive systems for the purposes specified in the Senate Report (S. Rept. 104-112).

COMMON IMAGERY GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEM (CIGSS)

The budget request included $161.8 million for the CIGSS effort.

The House bill would authorize an additional $16.0 million. This increase would be used to mitigate a near-term funding shortfall for DARO's ``migration'' of the various imagery ground stations to a common architecture.

The Senate amendment would approve the budget request.

The conferees agree to authorize an additional $11.0 million for this effort.

INTELLIGENCE DISSEMINATION

The budget request included funds for numerous intelligence dissemination systems and data links.

The House bill would restrict the use of funds pending the Department's development of a coherent, long-term intelligence dissemination architecture and a plan for development of a joint tactical transceiver (JTT).

The Senate amendment would authorize the requested amounts.

The House recedes.

The conferees are pleased with the Department's response to the House bill provision. The conferees believe that the Department is moving in the right direction to ensure service interoperability and to reduce the number of unique tactical intelligence transceivers. Additionally, the conferees are aware that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence is monitoring efforts to develop advanced software reprogrammable radios. The conferees strongly encourage continued involvement in this technology development, as it appears to have great potential for future application in the JTT program. The conferees will continue to monitor the progress of the Department's approach.

ELECTRO-OPTICAL FRAMING SENSOR DEVELOPMENT

The House would authorize an additional $5.0 million to continue development and evaluation of airborne electro-optic framing sensor and multi-spectral framing technologies with on- chip forward motion compensation. These improved capabilities could be used to support precision targeting.

The Senate amendment included no similar adjustment.

The conferees agree to authorize $7.0 million for this purpose.

The conferees are pleased with the results of the four million picture element (four mega-pixel) framing demonstration. The conferees encourage the Department to program funding to accelerate the four mega-pixel and the 25 mega-pixel sensor initiatives.

JOINT AIRBORNE SIGINT ARCHITECTURE

The budget request included $88.8 million for the joint airborne signals intelligence (SIGINT) architecture (JASA) program.

The House bill would restrict obligation of fiscal year 1996 funds for JASA to no more than 25 percent of available funds until the Department submits an analysis and report that includes a comparison of future years defense programs (FYDP) and life cycle costs for development and fielding of the joint airborne SIGINT system (JASS), and that address a more conventional, evolutionary, product-improvement approach.

The Senate amendment would authorize the requested amount.

The House recedes on the funding restrictions.

Despite their support for the evolving concept and development of JASA, the conferees remain concerned about several issues:

(1) the Department's ability to sustain current operational systems;

(2) elimination of the potential for airborne SIGINT modernization gaps prior to fielding JASA components;

(3) the projected costs of the JASS program; and

(4) the risk that current approaches may sacrifice near and mid-term operational requirements for promised long-term common solutions.

The conferees believe that there is a need to continue interim, affordable, incremental upgrades, and to provide quick reaction capability improvements to meet emerging requirements, while continuing the JASA architectural approach. The conferees encourage competitive evolutionary solutions to satisfy existing and projected SIGINT requirements, and urge the earliest delivery of architecturally compliant components for evolving current and future systems. The conferees expect future budget requests for the DARO to include funding for these efforts. The conferees direct the DARO Director to certify to the congressional defense and intelligence committees that the individual SIGINT systems will be upgraded to incorporate these interim needs, as identified by the operational users.

The conferees direct the Department to provide an interim report by March 1, 1996, with a completed report by August 1, 1996, that includes:

(1) an independent cost and operational effectiveness analysis that compares the FYDP and life- cycle costs of the JASS program to an evolutionary product improvement approach, based on equivalent system performance;

(2) an evaluation of cost, technical and schedule risks, as well as a comparison of technical requirements and JASS performance; and

(3) the Department's assessment of its ability to predict both the future threat and technology environments necessary to determine whether a single approach is viable and in the nation's best interests.

Finally, to ensure that there are no airborne SIGINT capability gaps during the transition to JASA, DARO is directed to determine and implement necessary quick-reaction improvements to existing airborne systems. The conferees intend that the Department pursue a balanced approach to JASA development that allows the services to program funds for such evolutionary upgrades, provided there is compliance with an overall migration to the JASA architecture.

Ballistic missile defense policy (secs. 231-253)

The House bill contained eight provisions (secs. 231-238) that collectively would be called the ``Ballistic Missile Defense Act of 1995.'' The House bill contained four additional provisions (secs. 241-244) that would also deal with matters related to ballistic missile defense (BMD).

The Senate amendment contained eleven provisions (secs. 231-241) that collectively would be called the ``Missile Defense Act of 1995.'' The Senate amendment contained two additional provisions (secs. 227 and 243) that would also deal with matters related to BMD.

The conference agreement combines the House and the Senate BMD provisions into two subtitles as described below.

Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense Act of 1995

Short title (sec. 231)

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 231) that would entitle this group of provisions the ``Ballistic Missile Defense Act of 1995.''

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 231) that would use a different title--``Missile Defense Act of 1995''--reflecting the fact that the Senate version included a provision dealing with cruise missile defense.

The Senate recedes.

Findings (sec. 232)

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 232) that would establish a series of congressional findings as the rationale for developing and deploying theater and national ballistic missile defenses.

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 242) that would make several similar findings.

The House recedes with an amendment merging the House and Senate findings.

Ballistic Missile Defense Policy (sec. 233)

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 232) that would establish a United States policy to: (1) deploy at the earliest practical date highly effective theater missile defenses; and (2) deploy at the earliest practical date a national missile defense (NMD) system that is capable of providing a highly effective defense of the United States against limited ballistic missile attacks.

The Senate amendment contained a similar provision (sec. 233) that would establish a United States policy to: (1) deploy as soon as possible affordable and operationally effective theater missile defenses; (2) develop for deployment a multiple site national missile defense system (that can be augmented to a layered defense over time) while initiating negotiations to amend the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty; (3) ensure congressional review prior to a decision to deploy the NMD system; (4) improve existing cruise missile defense systems and deploy as soon as practical defenses against advanced cruise missiles; (5) pursue a focused research and development program to provide follow-on ballistic missile defense options; (6) employ streamlined acquisition procedures in developing and deploying missile defenses; (7) seek a cooperative transition to a regime that does not feature mutual assured destruction and an offense-only form of deterrence as the basis for strategic stability; and (8) carry out the policies, programs, and requirements of the Missile Defense Act through processes specified within, or consistent with, the ABM Treaty.

The House recedes with an amendment to establish a United States policy to: (1) deploy affordable and operationally effective theater missile defenses to protect forward-deployed and expeditionary elements of the armed forces of the United States and to complement and support the missile defense capabilities of the forces of coalition partners and allies of the United States; and (2) seek a cooperative transition to a regime that does not feature mutual assured destruction and an offense-only form of deterrence as the basis of strategic stability.

Theater Missile Defense Architecture (sec. 234)

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 233) that, in part, would direct the Secretary of Defense to develop and deploy at the earliest practical date advanced theater missile defense (TMD) systems. The House bill contained another provision (sec. 236) that would establish a ballistic missile defense program accountability report.

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 234) that would provide detailed policy guidance related to theater missile defense. The provision would establish a core theater missile defense program (the Theater High Altitude Area Defense system, the Navy Upper Tier system, the Patriot PAC-3 system, and the Navy Lower Tier system) with programmatic milestones for each core system, require that the systems in the core program be interoperable and mutually supporting, establish guidelines for creating new core systems, and require the Secretary of Defense to provide the congressional defense committees a TMD Architecture report along with the fiscal year 1997 budget submission.

The House recedes with an amendment to integrate elements of the House's ballistic missile defense program accountability provision into a revised TMD reporting requirement, and to make technical and clarifying changes. Included is a requirement that the Secretary of Defense report on the following matters to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on National Security whenever the Secretary issues an ABM Treaty compliance certification for any TMD system: (1) the compliance policy applied in preparing such a certification; (2) how the policy applied differs from the policy stated in section 235(b)(1) of this Act (the so-called ``demonstrated standard''); and (3) how the application of that compliance policy (rather than the ``demonstrated standard'') will affect the cost, schedule, and performance of the TMD system being considered.

Prohibition on use of funds to implement an international agreement concerning theater missile defense systems (sec. 235)

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 235) that would establish a theater missile defense demarcation standard (the so-called ``demonstrated standard'' based on the range and speed of the target) and would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of funds appropriated for the Department of Defense to implement or employ any other standard.

The Senate amendment contained a related provision (sec. 238) that would: (1) express the sense of Congress that the ``demonstrated standard'' is the appropriate standard for defining a TMD demarcation; and (2) prohibit the use of funds appropriated for the Department of Defense in fiscal year 1996 to implement an international agreement that is inconsistent with this standard, unless such agreement receives Senate advice and consent to ratification, or is specifically approved in a subsequent Act.

The House recedes with a clarifying amendment.

Ballistic missile defense cooperation with allies (sec. 236)

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 242) that, in part, would endorse cooperation in the area of ballistic missile defense between the United States and its allies and coalition partners, and that would urge the President to: (1) pursue high-level discussions with allies of the United States and selected other states on the means and methods by which the parties can cooperate in the development, deployment, and operation of ballistic missile defenses; (2) take the initiative within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to develop a consensus for deployment of BMD by the Alliance; and (3) seek agreement with U.S. allies and selected other states on steps the parties can take to reduce the risks posed by the threat of limited ballistic missile attacks.

The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes with an amendment to include the House language on BMD cooperation with allies as a free-standing provision.

ABM Treaty defined (sec. 237)

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 237) that would define the ABM Treaty.

The Senate amendment contained a similar provision.

The Senate recedes with a technical amendment.

Repeal of Missile Defense Act of 1991 (sec. 238)

The House bill contained a provision, (sec. 238) that would repeal the Missile Defense Act of 1991.

The Senate amendment contained a similar provision (sec. 241(1)).

The Senate recedes.

Subtitle D--Other Ballistic Missile Defense Provisions

Ballistic Missile Defense Program Elements (sec. 251)

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 239) that would establish seven program elements for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization's budget.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The House recedes with an amendment creating eight program elements.

Testing of theater missile defense interceptors (sec. 252)

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 243) that would amend subsection (a) of section 237 of Public Law 103- 160, pertaining to the testing of theater missile defense interceptors.

The Senate amendment contained a similar provision (sec. 227) that also would relate to the testing of theater missile defense interceptors.

The Senate recedes.

Repeal of missile defense provisions (sec. 253)

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 241) that would repeal ten outdated BMD-related provisions of law.

The House bill contained a similar provision (sec. 244) that would repeal six outdated BMD-related provisions of law.

The House recedes with an amendment. The Conferees agree to repeal nine outdated BMD-related provisions of law.

Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Reviews, Studies, and Reports

Review of C4I by National Research Council (sec. 262)

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 256) that would direct the Secretary of Defense to enter into a contract with the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a review of Department of Defense programs for command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence. The study would be conducted over a two-year period and $900.0 thousand would be available for the cost of the study.

The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes.

Global Positioning System (sec. 279)

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1081) that would require the Secretary of Defense to suspend use of the selective availability feature of the Global Positioning System (GPS) by May 1, 1996, unless the Secretary develops a plan for dealing with the challenges associated with GPS jamming and denial.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The House recedes with a clarifying amendment.

legislative provisions not adopted

Maneuver variant unmanned aerial vehicle

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 212) that would prohibit the obligation of funds appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to authorizations in fiscal year 1996 for the Maneuver Variant Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.

The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

The House recedes.

National missile defense

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 233) that, in part, would direct the Secretary of Defense to develop for deployment at the earliest practical date a national missile defense system consisting of: (1) up to 100 ground-based interceptors at a single site or a greater number of interceptors at a number of sites, as determined necessary by the Secretary; (2) fixed, ground-based radars; (3) space based sensors, including those sensor systems that are capable of cuing ground-based interceptors and providing initial targeting vectors; and (4) battle management, command, control, and communications.

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 235) that would direct the Secretary of Defense to take the following steps regarding national missile defense (NMD): (1) develop for deployment an affordable and operationally effective NMD system (consisting of ground-based interceptors capable of being deployed at multiple sites, ground-based radars, space-based sensors, and battle management, command, control, and communications) to counter a limited, accidential, or unauthorized ballistic missile attack, and which is capable of attaining initial operational capability by the end of 2003; (2) develop an interim operational capability plan that would give the United States the ability to field a limited NMD system by the end of 1999; (3) prescribe and use streamlined acquisition procedures; (4) employ additional cost saving measures; and (5) report on his plan for NMD deployment and an analysis of options for supplementing the initial NMD architecture to improve cost and operational effectiveness. The Senate amendment also contained a provision (sec. 235(d)(2)) that would prohibit the use of Minuteman boosters in any NMD architecture.

The conference agreement does not include a provision on national missile defense.

Ballistic missile defense follow-on technology research and development

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 234) that would provide guidance on follow-on technology development for theater and national ballistic missile defense programs.

The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

The House recedes.

Policy regarding the ABT Treaty

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 237) that would clarify that the policies, programs, and requirements of the ``Missile Defense Act of 1995'' (subtitle C of title II of the Senate amendment) can be accomplished through processes specified in the ABM Treaty, and that would express the sense of Congress that the Senate should review the continuing value and validity of the ABM Treaty.

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 242(c)(2)) that would urge the President to pursue high-level discussions with Russia to amend the ABM Treaty.

The conference agreement does not include either provision.

Ballistic missile defense funding

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 241) that would authorize $3.070 billion in Defensewide research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) funds for ballistic missile defense programs.

The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

The House recedes. The conferees discuss funding for ballistic missile defense programs elsewhere in this Statement of Managers.

Allocation of funds for medical countermeasures against biowarfare threats

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 251) that would amend section 2370a of title 10, United States Code, to permit the obligation or expenditure of up to 50 percent of funds authorized for the medical component of the Department of Defense Biological Defense Research program for product development, or for research, development, test, or evaluation of medical countermeasures related to mid-term or far-term validated biowarfare threat agents.

The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

The House recedes.

The conferees note with concern that the recent progress in bio-technology could potentially lead to the development of new biological warfare agents and capabilities among potential adversaries of the United States. The conferees direct that the Department report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 1996 on the national security threats posed by such potential developments of new agents through advances in bio- technology and genetic engineering. The report should also include recommendations related to reducing the impact of progress in these areas, examine the utility of increased emphasis on research and development of medical countermeasures related to mid-term or far-term biowarfare threat agents; and identify other measures that could reduce the threat of these technological advances and reduce the threat of biological agent and weapons proliferation.

Joint targeting support system testbed

The budget request included $141.4 million in PE 24229N for the Tomahawk missile and the Tomahawk mission planning center programs.

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 265) that would reallocate project funding within PE 24229N. The provision would increase funding for Tomahawk theater mission planning by $10.0 million in order to establish a joint targeting support system testbed and would reduce funding for Tomahawk missile development by $10.0 million, as an offset.

The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

The House recedes.

The conferees agree to an additional authorization of $4.0 million in PE 24229N to initiate development of a joint targeting support system testbed (JTSST) for demonstration of potential joint targeting operations. The conferees understand that an initial study would investigate the relative roles of the existing systems installed in the Tomahawk mission planning center and other mission planning systems that are being developed by the individual military services. It is recognized that these systems are projected to have embedded precision weapons planning capabilities.

The conferees expect that the results of the initial JTSST study and follow-on demonstrations will contribute to the definition of long-term objectives, guidelines, and schedule milestones for convergence of the Navy/Marine Corps tactical aircraft mission planning systems and the Air Force mission support system, and should lead to the development of a joint mission planning system architecture for the military services.

The conferees direct the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees as soon as possible, but no later than the submission of the fiscal year 1998 budget request. This report shall describe the Secretary's plan for implementing the recommendations that result from the study.

Battlefield Integration Center

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 201(4)(C)) that would authorize the use of up to $25.0 million in Defensewide research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) funds made available for Other Theater Missile Defense activities for the Army's Battlefield Integration Center (BIC).

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes.

The conferees agree to authorize an increase of $21.0 million in PE 63308A for the BIC.

Army echelon above corps communication

The budget request included $5.9 million for Army echelon above corps communications.

The House bill would authorize the budget request.

The Senate amendment included a provision (sec. 226) that would provide an increase of $40.0 million to procure additional communications equipment for the Army's echelons above corps.

The Senate recedes.

The conferees agree to authorize the increase of $40.0 million for the procurement of additional communications equipment for the Army's echelons above corps.

Ballistic missile defense technology center

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 243) that would establish a ballistic missile defense technology center within the Space and Strategic Defense Command of the Army.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes.

Title III--Operation and Maintenance

PACER COIN

The budget request included $5.5 million in procurement and $19.5 million in operations and maintenance funding for the PACER COIN aircraft.

The House bill would deny all funding, effectively terminating this program.

The Senate amendment would authorize the Department's request.

The House recedes.

The conferees agree to authorize the budget request. Nevertheless, the conferees have serious reservations about whether the PACER COIN program, within its current mission tasking, provides such unique intelligence collection as to justify continued spending of limited resources on this mission. However, the conferees agree that:

(1) terminating the PACER COIN program immediately this fiscal year would place unacceptable stresses on the personnel system;

(2) the Department has already obligated fiscal year 1996 funds for this mission; and

(3) the Air Force would need funds to terminate the program and provide proper aircraft/equipment disposition.

The conferees direct the Department to determine whether or not the PACER COIN aircraft could be used in a dual use role. The conferees believe that the analysis should answer several questions, including at least the following:

(1) Could the aircraft be used, without certain PACER COIN systems, in an air drop role?

(2) Could the aircraft be configured to simultaneously perform the PACER COIN mission and carry the SENIOR SCOUT tactical intelligence system?

(3) What alternatives are there for filling the requirements of the regional Commander in Chief if the PACER COIN program is terminated?

(4) What would be the effects of failing to meet the requirements of the regional Commander in Chief for the PACER COIN capability?

The conferees direct the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense and intelligence committees on the results of this analysis by May 1, 1995.

If the Department determines that dual use of the aircraft is not practical, the conferees direct the Department to determine proper disposition of the PACER COIN mission aircraft (e.g. permanent aircraft storage or deconfiguration from the current mission configuration).

If the Department determines that dual use of the aircraft is practical, and that the operational unit can fulfill multiple missions, the conferees direct the department to:

(1) maintain the PACER COIN aircraft in a reconfigurable state for use in those multiple roles and retain the PACER COIN mission equipment for future contingency or national disaster mission uses; and

(2) begin training for those appropriate new missions, including air drop, as soon as possible to ensure a smooth transition from the PACER COIN-unique mission.

National Security Agency oversight

The budget request included $5.0 million in operations and maintenance (O&M) funds and 82 new personnel billets for National Security Agency (NSA) oversight of tactical signals intelligence (SIGINT) system development.

The House bill would not authorize the $5.0 million O&M request.

The Senate amendment would authorize the budget request.

The conferees question the necessity for 82 persons to perform a function that could be significantly facilitated by automation and improved electronic connectivity, but recognize both the importance of the program and the commitment of the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Director of NSA to this effort. Accordingly, the conferees agree to authorize the budget request, but direct that the 82 billets be transferred from the Consolidated Cryptological Program (CCP) to the Defense Cryptological Program (DCP), resulting in no net gain in United States SIGINT System activities. The conferees understand that this billet transfer may temporarily force NSA to exceed its personnel ceilings. The conferees agree to authorize NSA to remain above its personnel ceiling through fiscal year 1997 for this purpose, but expect that, as of September 30, 1997, NSA will meet its congressionally mandated 17.5 percent reduction target. The conferees also urge NSA to review the requirements for each of these billets for validity and consistency.

Legislative Provisions
Subtitle G--Other Matters

Provision of equipment and facilities to assist in emergency response actions (sec. 378)

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 383) that would amend section 372 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Department of Defense to provide assistance in the form of training facilities, sensors, protective clothing, antidotes, and other materials and expertise to appropriate federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies for responding to emergencies involving chemical or biological agents.

The Senate amendment did not contain a similar provision.

The Senate recedes with a technical amendment.

Department of Defense military and civil defense preparedness to respond to emergencies resulting from a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear attack (sec. 379)

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 223) that would require the Secretaries of the Departments of Defense and Energy, in consultation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to submit a report to Congress that would describe the military and civil defense plans and programs to respond to the use of chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological agents or weapons against a civilian population located in the United States or near a U.S. military installation.

The House bill did not contain a similar provision.

The House recedes with an amendment.

Transfer of excess personal property to support law enforcement activities

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 389) that would amend section 1208(a)(1)(A) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991, concerning the transfer of excess personal property. This provision would expand current authority to permit the Secretary of Defense to transfer excess property to state and other federal agencies for use in law enforcement activities. Current authority contained in the above section addresses only transfers to such agencies for their use in counter-drug activities.

The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

The House recedes.

The conferees note that numerous avenues currently exist to transfer excess property to state and other federal agencies, including law enforcement agencies which do not have explicit counternarcotics responsibilities. However, there appears to be no coherent policy, priority, or central data base which allows such agencies to learn what is available at a given time, or to effect a transfer without inordinate administrative work.

The conferees direct the Secretary of Defense to review this matter and report to the defense committees of the Congress not later than March 30, 1996, on developing a comprehensive policy and establishing procedures which would assist state and federal law enforcement agencies in identifying and obtaining such equipment. The Secretary should consider Memoranda of Understanding as a means to effect transfers.

The Secretary should also give high priority consideration to state and federal law enforcement agencies that demonstrate their need for such equipment.

Southwest border states anti-drug information system

The House bill included a provision (sec. 396) that indicated that the Southwest Border States Anti-Drug Information Systems program is an important element of the Department of Defense support of law enforcement agencies in the fight against illegal trafficking of narcotics.

The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

The House recedes. The Southwest Border States Anti-Drug Information System is addressed elsewhere in this statement of managers.

Title V--Military Personnel Policy

Subtitle C--Decorations and Awards

Military intelligence personnel prevented by secrecy from being considered for decorations and awards (sec. 523)

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 543) that would require the secretaries of the military departments, upon application, to review the records of personnel who performed military intelligence duties during the Cold War period.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The House recedes.

The conferees expect the secretaries of the military departments to take reasonable actions to widely publicize the opportunity to submit requests for consideration of awards and decorations under this provision.

Subtitle F--Other Matters

Army ranger training (sec. 562)

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 557) that would establish a baseline number of officers and enlisted personnel that would have to be assigned to the Army Ranger Training Brigade and would give the Secretary of the Army one year to achieve that level. This provision would also require that training safety cells be established in each of the three major phases of the Ranger training course.

The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes with an amendment which would require the Ranger Training Brigade to be manned at 90 percent of the requirements for two years, at which time the statutory requirement would expire. The amendment would also require the Comptroller General to assess the effectiveness of corrective actions taken by the Army as a result of the February 1995 accident at the Florida Ranger Training Camp. The amendment also expresses the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of Defense review and enhance, if necessary, oversight of all high-risk training and consider establishment of safety cells similar to those prescribed in the Ranger Training Brigade.

The conferees direct the secretary of defense to undertake a comprehensive analysis of high-risk training activities, to include, but not limited to the following: Army- Ranger; Navy SEAL; Navy and Air Force Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape; and Airborne training. The study should identify key contributing factors prejudicial to personnel safety. This study shall include sensitivity analysis for each high-risk training program, with particular emphasis on officer-enlisted ratios and instructor-student ratios. The conferees direct the Secretary to submit the study results to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on National Security not later than December 31, 1996.

Associate Director of Central Intelligence for Military Support (sec. 570)

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1096) that would exempt the position of Associate Director of Central Intelligence for Military Support from counting against the numbers and percentages of officers authorized to be serving in the rank and grade of such officer for the armed force of which such officer is a member when neither the Director for Central Intelligence or the Deputy Director for Central Intelligence is a military officer.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The House recedes.

Title IX--Department of Defense Organization and Management

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
LEGISLATIVE PROVISION ADOPTED
Subtitle A--General Matters

Reorganization of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (sec. 901-903 and 905)

The conferees, while agreeing to provide the Secretary with broad latitude in recommending changes to the existing OSD structure, continue to strongly believe that the functional responsibilities associated with Special Operations and Low Intensity (SOLIC) should be carried out under a senior civilian official who can maintain clear and unambiguous civilian control over that element of the military. Therefore, the conferees urge that the Secretary, in formulating the plan required by this provision, vest the SOLIC responsibility in an official whose appointment is subject to the advice and consent of the Senate and for whom the SOLIC function shall be a principal responsibility.

Title X--General Provisions

legislative provisions
legislative provisions adopted
Subtitle A--Financial Matters

Incorporation of classified annex (sec. 1002)

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 1002) that would incorporate by reference the classified annex to the bill. In addition, the provision would authorize the expenditure of funds made available for programs, projects, and activities referred to in the classified annex according to the terms, conditions, limitations, restrictions, and requirements of those programs, projects, and activities.

The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes with a technical amendment.

Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards

Naming amphibious ships (sec. 1018)

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1013) that would make the following findings:

(1) this is the fiftieth anniversary of the battle of Iwo Jima, one of the greatest victories in the Marine Corps' illustrious history;

(2) the Navy has recently retired the ship that honored that battle, U.S.S. Iwo Jima (LPH-2), the first ship in a class of amphibious assault ships;

(3) this Act authorizes the LHD-7, the final ship of the Wasp class of amphibious assault ships, to replace the Iwo Jima class of ships;

(4) the Navy is planning to start building a new class of amphibious transport docks, now called the LPD-17 class, and this Act also authorizes funds that will lead to procurement of these vessels;

(5) there has been some confusion in the rationale behind naming new naval vessels, with traditional naming conventions frequently violated; and

(6) although there have been good and sufficient reasons to depart from naming conventions in the past, the rationale for such departures has not always been clear.

The Senate amendment would also express the sense of the Senate that:

(1) the LHD-7, authorized in the Senate amendment, should be named the U.S.S. Iwo Jima; and

(2) the ships of the LPD-17 class amphibious ships should be named after a Marine Corps battle or a member of the Marine Corps.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The House recedes with an amendment. The conferees agree to endorse the sense of the Senate expressed as a sense of Congress.

Naming of naval vessel (sec. 1019)

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 1024) that would express the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Navy should name an appropriate naval vessel the U.S.S. Joseph Vittori.

The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes.

Subtitle C--Counter-Drug Activities

Counter-drug activities

The budget request for drug interdiction and counterdrug activities totals $680.4 million, plus $131.5 million for operational tempo which is included within the operating budgets of the military services.

Both the House bill and the Senate amendment would authorize the budget request of $680.4 million, with marginal differences in the allocation of these funds.

Both the House bill and the Senate amendment would delete funding for the Community Outreach Programs ($8.2 million). In addition, the Senate amendment included a provision (sec. 1022) that would prohibit continued Department of Defense (DOD) funding of the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) ($34.0 million).

The House bill would authorize increased funding for the Tethered Aerostat Radar System ($1.5 million), Counterdrug Analysis ($1.2 million), Southcom Radars ($1.5 million), Special Operations Forces (SOF) Counterdrug Support ($2.5 million), and CARIBROC Communications ($1.5 million).

The Senate amendment would authorize an increase in funding for procurement of non-intrusive inspection devices for the Customs Service ($25.0 million), Source Nation Support Initiatives ($15.2 million) and the Gulf States Counterdrug Initiative ($2.0 million).

The conferees agree to delete DOD funding for the Community Outreach Programs and to reduce funding for the National Drug Intelligence Center to $20.0 million. The conferees also agree to an undistributed reduction of $12.3 million. Offsets to comply with the undistributed reduction may not be taken from items where increases have been provided.

The conferees agree to authorize additional funding for Law Enforcement Agency Support, with a $4.0 million increase to expand the intelligence activities of the Gulf States Coast Initiative and a $2.5 million increase for the Southwest Border States Information System. The conferees support continued DOD assistance for the Southwest Border States Anti-Drug Information System and urge the Secretary of Defense to continue to monitor and support this system through completion of the current program.

The conferees further agree to authorize an additional increase of $28.0 million for other Law Enforcement Agency Support. The conferees urge the Secretary of Defense, through normal reprogramming procedures, to use up to $25.0 million of these funds to procure low-energy/backscatter x-ray equipment for use as non-intrusive inspection devices. The conferees are aware that 70 percent of the illegal drugs that enter the United States come, primarily by air, into Mexico and then across the southwest border by truck and automobile. The conferees believe that the fielding of non-intrusive inspection devices at the southwest border would significantly contribute to the fight against illegal drug trafficking across the United States-Mexican border. The conferees also urge the Secretary of Defense, through normal reprogramming procedures, to consider using available funds for improvements and extension of the existing fence along the San Diego Border Patrol Sector.

Allocation of funds for counterdrug activities are indicated below:

Drug interdiction and counterdrug activities, operations and maintenance
                                                               Thousands
    Fiscal year 1996 drug and counterdrug request.............  $680,400
        Source nation support.................................   127,300
        Dismantling cartels...................................    64,300
        Detection and monitoring..............................   111,700
        Law enforcement agency support........................   279,300
        Demand reduction......................................    97,800
    Reductions:
        Community outreach programs...........................     8,236
        National Drug Intelligence Center.....................    14,000
        Undistributed reduction...............................    12,264
    Increases, law enforcement agency support:
        Gulf States counterdrug initiative....................     4,000
        Southwest border States information system............     2,500
    Other (non-intrusive inspection devices, Southwest border 
      fence)..................................................    28,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
            Total.............................................   680,400

Revision and clarification of authority for Federal support of drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the National Guard (sec. 1021)

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1021) that would revise and clarify authority for federal support of drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the National Guard.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The House recedes with an amendment which would further clarify the legal status of National Guard personnel participating in these programs.

National Drug Intelligence Center (sec. 1022)

The Senate amendment included a provision (sec. 1022) that would prohibit further Department of Defense (DOD) funding of the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC), but would allow the Secretary of Defense to continue to provide DOD intelligence personnel to support intelligence activities at NDIC, as long as the number of personnel provided by DOD does not exceed the number used to support intelligence activities at NDIC as of the date of enactment of this bill.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The House recedes.

Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Reporting Requirements

Review of national policy on protecting the national information infrastructure against strategic attack (sec. 1053)

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1097) that would require the President to submit a report that would set forth the national policy and architecture governing plans to protect the national information infrastructure against strategic attack.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The House recedes.

The conferees intend that the President rely, to the maximum extent practicable, on the executive agent for the national communications system in the preparation and submission of the report.

Change in reporting date (sec. 1055)

The Senate amendment contained a provision in its classified annex that would change the date that the Department of Defense is required to submit annually its budget materials for Special Access Programs, from February 1 to March 1.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The House recedes.

Subtitle H--Other Matters

legislative provisions not adopted

Assistance to Customs Service

The Senate amendment included a provision (sec. 1023) that would authorize the Department of Defense to procure or transfer funds to the Customs service for procurement of non- intrusive inspection devices for use at the ports of entry on the southwest border of the United States.

The House bill contained no similar provision. The Senate recedes. The conferees agree, as stated else

where in this statement of managers, to urge the Secretary of Defense to procure non-intrusive inspection devices with funds available through reprogramming procedures.

Sense of the Senate on protection of United States from ballistic missile attack

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1062) that would express the Sense of the Senate that all Americans should be protected from accidental, intentional, or limited ballistic missile attack, and that front line troops of the United States should be protected from missile attacks. The Senate provision would also provide funding for the Corps surface-to-air missile (SAM) program.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes. Although the conferees fully support the views expressed in the Senate provision, they believe that such views are adequately represented elsewhere in the conference report. The conferees also address the Corps SAM issue elsewhere in the conference report.

Title XII--Cooperative Threat Reduction With States of Former Soviet Union

legislative provisions
legislative provisions adopted

Cooperative threat reduction program (secs. 1201-1209)

The budget request included $371.0 million in defense operation and maintenance for the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program.

The House bill contained provisions (secs. 1101-1108) related to the CTR program that would include the following: authorize $200.0 million for the CTR program, a $171.0 million reduction to the budget request (sec. 1101); place specific limitations on all CTR programs for fiscal year 1996 (sec. 1102); repeal authority for the Demilitarization Enterprise Fund (DEF) (sec. 1103); prohibit the use of CTR funds for peacekeeping exercises and related activities with Russia (sec. 1104); revise authority for assistance for weapons destruction (sec. 1105); require prior notice of obligation of funds (sec. 1106); require an annual accountability report to ensure that assistance is being used for its intended purpose (sec. 1107); and prohibit the obligation or expenditure of fiscal year 1996 funds until the President provides written certification to Congress that Russia has terminated its offensive biological weapons program.

The Senate amendment included several provisions (sec. 1041-1044) related to the CTR program that would include the following: authorize $365.0 million for the CTR program, a $6.0 million reduction to the budget request (sec. 1041); limit the obligation of CTR funds that would assist nuclear weapons scientists in the former Soviet Union, pending a written certification from the Secretary of Defense that funds would not contribute to the modernization of strategic nuclear forces or for research, development or production of weapons of mass destruction (sec. 1042); limit the obligation of $50.0 million, pending a written certification from the President that Russia is in compliance with its obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC); and limit the use of more than $52.0 million of fiscal year 1996 funds available for CTR, pending a presidential certification that a joint laboratory study to evaluate the Russian neutralization proposal has been completed and the United States agrees with that proposal, that Russia is in the process of preparing a comprehensive destruction and dismantlement plan for its chemical weapons stockpile, and that Russia is committed to resolving outstanding issues under the 1989 Wyoming Memorandum of Understanding and the 1990 Bilateral Destruction Agreement.

The conferees agree to the CTR provisions, as follows: authorize $300.0 million in fiscal year 1996 for CTR and place limitations on the CTR projects in fiscal year 1996; provide authority for individual limitations to be exceeded by a specified percentage; authorize use of CTR funds to reimburse pay accounts for U.S. military reserve members participating in CTR activities; prohibit the use of CTR funds for peacekeeping activities and related activities with Russia; require a presidential determination that each recipient country is observing the criteria for assistance provided under the CTR program; require the Secretary of Defense to provide congressional defense committees with advance notification of obligation of funds; require an annual audit and examination report; limit assistance to nuclear weapons scientists; and limit the obligation of $60.0 million in fiscal year 1996 CTR funds for Russia, pending presidential certification that Russia is complying with its BWC obligations and that Russia has agreed to, and implemented, agreements and visits per the September 14, 1992 Joint Statement on Biological Weapons and that visits to the four declared military biological facilities of Russia by officials of the U.S. and United Kingdom have occurred. If the President is unable to certify Russian compliance with its BWC obligations, or that visits agreed to under the Joint Statement have not occurred, he may certify that fact and related funds would then be available for strategic offensive weapons elimination in Ukraine, Kazakhstan or Belarus. The provision would also prohibit obligation of more than half the funds authorized for chemical weapons destruction-related activities in Russia, pending a presidential certification.

The conferees direct that none of the funds authorized for CTR in fiscal year 1996 may be used to reimburse other departments and agencies for the travel and other expenses incurred by employees of those departments and agencies, even if those employees are engaged in CTR-related activities.

The Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty requires signatories to be in full compliance with their obligations to reduce treaty limited equipment by November 16, 1995. The Russian government has generally been in overall compliance with its obligations since the treaty has been in force provisionally. Russia's compliance with the limits in the northern and southern flank zones has caused concern for a number of the signatories. Russian officials have indicated that they will not be in compliance with the flank limits in these zones because of the instability along their southern borders.

If Russia refuses to honor its legal and political obligations under the CFE Treaty, the conferees question the ability of the President to certify Russia's commitment to complying with its arms control obligations, necessary to make it eligible to receive CTR assistance. Further, the conferees believe that the President would only be in a position to certify Russia's commitment to comply with its arms control obligations under the following circumstances: (1) through an agreement to comply with a NATO-endorsed flank limit proposal and substantial progress toward withdrawing any excess equipment by the May 1996 Treaty Review Conference; (2) demonstrated fulfillment of obligations to meet agreed-upon reductions in levels of military equipment in the naval infantry and coastal defense forces, and in holdings east of the Ural mountains; and (3) through an agreement on an offset package that would add to the flank limit proposal additional verification measures, additional information sharing arrangements on the flank areas, and additional constraints on Treaty-limited equipment contained in areas formerly defined as flank areas.

Subtitle C--Arms Export and Military Assistance

Defense export loan guarantees (sec. 1321)

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 1224) that would require the Secretary of Defense to create a defense export loan guarantee program for certain eligible countries.

The Senate amendment contained a similar provision (sec. 1053) with different criteria for eligible countries.

The House recedes with an amendment that would authorize use of fees generated under the program for payment of start-up costs for administration of the program and for payment of ongoing administrative expenses. The conferees intend to monitor the administration of this program closely to ensure that the method of funding the administrative fees does not impact the process of approval of the loan guarantees.

National security implications of United States export control policy (sec. 1322-1323)

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1052) that would express the sense of Congress regarding the national security implications of maintaining effective export controls on dual-use items and technologies that are critical to the military capabilities of the United States. This provision would require the Department to review export licenses for class 2, 3, and 4 biological pathogens with a potential use in biological warfare programs and to determine if export would be contrary to U.S. national security interests.

The House bill did not contain a similar provision.

The House recedes. The conferees concur with concerns identified in the Senate report (S. Rept. 104-112) that the lowering of export controls on dual-use items and technologies may place current U.S. technologies and defense capabilities at risk. The conferees continue to be concerned with administration support for admittance of nations into the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and the New Forum absent a record of compliance with the spirit of these regimes prior to their inclusion.

Two years ago in the House report (H. Rept. 103-357), the conferees expressed concern that ``. . . loosening the restrictions on space launch vehicle technology within the MTCR could, over time, result in the proliferation of offensive ballistic missiles . . .'' and expressed particular concern about the new MTCR members being permitted to retain space launch vehicle programs. Despite written administration assurances that Congress would be consulted on MTCR-related issues, to include the addition of new members, the conferees were disappointed to learn in the summer of 1995 that new countries would be admitted to the MTCR, despite retention of a SLV program and a history of evading program controls. The conferees believe that the current administration approach facilitates a growing and perhaps irreversible danger that the MTCR, despite its auspicious early history, will increasingly become an avenue for technology proliferation.

The conferees strongly encourage the administration to emphasize the use of controls on sensitive technologies in any new administration proposals to reauthorize the Export Administration Act, and that no attempts be made to repeal or substantially alter the missile sanction provisions in Title XVII of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, as was the case in the administration proposal submitted in the last Congress.

American firms are conducting discussions and negotiations with a number of foreign governments, or other entities, on the purchase of high-resolution U.S. commercial reconnaissance and imaging satellites and high-resolution imagery or imagery distribution systems. The conferees understand that the Secretary of Defense is authorized under Presidential Directive/National Security Council-23 and the Remote Sensing Act of 1992 to determine when national security interests call for controls on such satellite imagery. The Secretary of State is similarly empowered to determine when international obligations would require imagery controls. The conferees emphasize the following: that determinations on national security and international obligations should be communicated to U.S. firms in discussions regarding issuance of operating licenses to U.S. firms, to the extent such determinations can be made in advance of the actual operation of the satellites; that the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of State should ensure that license agreements and distribution agreements include adequate provisions to ensure that the sharing of imagery or procurement of U.S. commercial imagery systems or products with foreign governments or foreign entities would not be used against U.S. military forces deployed overseas; and that provisions in the license agreements should deny terrorist governments and entities controlled by these governments access to imagery of neighboring countries. The conferees continue to be concerned that the national security issues involved in the proliferation of high-resolution satellites and satellite imagery have not been adequately thought through by the executive branch and hope that the report mandated by this section will serve to clarify DoD policy on these issues.

The conferees also note the recent decision to relax export restrictions on supercomputers and are concerned about the potential impact of this decision on the United States' nonproliferation efforts and the maintenance of the U.S. military technological edge. The conferees direct the Secretary of Defense to submit a report, not later than December 31, 1995, that describes the impact of the export decision on the ability of nations to acquire and use high-performance computing capabilities to develop advanced conventional weaponry, weapons of mass destruction, and delivery vehicles, including missiles.

Reports on arms export control and military assistance (sec. 1324)

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1064) that would require the following reports to be submitted to Congress: (1) a report by the Secretary of State on the firms that are on the Department of State watch list for export of sensitive or dual use technologies, and a description of the measures taken to strengthen United States export controls; (2) an evaluation of the watch list screening process by the Department of State Inspector General; and (3) an annual report on the aggregate dollar value and quantity of defense articles, services, and military education and training furnished by the United States to each foreign country and international organization.

The House bill did not contain a similar provision.

The conferees agree to a provision that would require the Department of State and the Department of Commerce, in consultation with the Department of Defense, to report jointly to the Congress on United States export control mechanisms and measures taken to strengthen export controls. The provision would also require the President to submit a report to Congress on military assistance and military exports authorized or furnished to foreign countries and international organizations.

Report on personnel requirements for control of transfer of certain weapons (sec. 1325)

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1093) that would require the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy to report to the Congress on the personnel resources necessary to implement nonproliferation policy responsibilities of both departments and would require both Secretaries to explain the failure to provide the report, as previously required by legislation.

The House bill did not contain a similar provision.

The House recedes.

United States-China Joint Defense Conversion Commission (sec. 1343)

The House bill included a provision (sec. 1223) that would prohibit the use of funds authorized in fiscal year 1996 for the Department of Defense activities associated with the United States-People's Republic of China Joint Defense Conversion Commission.

The Senate bill did not include a similar provision.

The House recedes with an amendment.

The conferees agree to a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to submit semi-annual reports to Congress on the United States-People's Republic of China (PRC) Joint Defense Conversion Commission. The report shall include: a description of activities that could directly, or indirectly, assist the military modernization efforts of the PRC; information on the activities and operations of the Commission; a discussion of the relationship of PRC defense conversion activities and PRC defense modernization efforts; steps taken by the United States to safeguard against use of western technology to modernize the PRC military industrial base; and an assessment of U.S. benefits derived from participation in the commission, to include an increase in the transparency of the military budget and doctrine of the PRC. In preparing the reports required by this section, the Secretary shall seek and obtain the views of appropriate U.S. intelligence agencies and shall be consulted on the matters assessed in the reports and those views shall be included as an annex to the reports.

The conferees agree that a continued dialogue on security matters between the United States and the PRC can promote stability in the region, and help protect American interests and the interests of America's Asian allies. The conferees note that the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House National Security Committee intend to review the status of the U.S.-PRC security dialogue on a regular basis to determine the extent to which the dialogue has produced tangible results in the areas of human rights, transparency in military spending and doctrine, missile and nuclear nonproliferation, and other important security issues.

Title XIV--Arms Control Matters

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
legislative provisions adopted

Extension and amendment of counterproliferation authorities (sec. 1403)

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 1222) that would extend, through fiscal year 1996, the authorities in section 1505 of title XV of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484). The provision would authorize the Department of Defense to provide up to $15.0 million to support international nonproliferation activities, such as, the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM). Authority for the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance under this section would terminate at the end of fiscal year 1996.

The Senate bill contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes.

The conferees understand that the extension of authority in fiscal year 1996 for the Department of Defense support of international nonproliferation activities would be used primarily to support the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM). The conferees do not intend to provide the Department of Defense with authority to use defense funds to support chemical weapons and ballistic missile dismantlement, nuclear materials control and removal, or to destroy weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems in foreign countries, such as Brazil, South Africa, or countries in Africa or the Middle East generally. These disarmament activities are more appropriately funded from the international affairs budget. Authorities for dismantlement of weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union are provided elsewhere in this Act.

In accordance with the conference report to accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, the conferees direct the Secretary of Defense to provide to the congressional defense committees, 30 days in advance of any U.S. commitment to support international nonproliferation activities, a report on the international nonproliferation activities which the Department seeks to support. The report should identify potential future funding for this support, the extent to which the United States is obligated to provide such support, the extent to which funds are provided for in the international affairs budget, and the national security objective for providing the support.

Limitation on retirement or dismantlement of strategic nuclear delivery systems (sec. 1404)

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1082) that would express the sense of Congress that until the START II Treaty enters into force, the Secretary of Defense should not retire or dismantle any B-52H bombers, Trident ballistic missile submarines, Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), or Peacekeeper ICBMs. The provision would also prohibit the use of funds appropriated to the Department of Defense during fiscal year 1996 for retiring or dismantling any such systems.

The House bill contained a similar provision (sec. 1229) that would express the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense should not implement any reduction in strategic forces that is called for in the START II Treaty unless and until that treaty enters into force.

The House recedes.

The conferees reiterate the importance of not having the United States unilaterally and prematurely begin to implement reductions under the START II Treaty. Until it is clear that the treaty will actually enter into force, the United States must retain options for maintaining a larger force of strategic nuclear delivery systems, to include 500 Minuteman III ICBMs, 50 Peacekeeper ICBM's 18 Trident II ballistic missile submarines, and 94 B-52H bombers. The conferees believe that by retaining such options, the United States increases Russia's incentives to ratify and fully implement the START II Treaty.

Additionally, the conferees believe that it is prudent to delay, beyond fiscal year 1996, the decision to retire or dismantle 28 B-52H bombers, as currently planned by the Department of Defense. At the same time, the conferees do not believe that the Air Force should take any action that prejudge a decision in fiscal year 1997 to retire or dismantle those 28 B-52H bombers. Therefore, the conferees direct the Secretary of Defense to retain 94 B-52H bombers during fiscal year 1996, while minimizing additional expenditures on the 28 aircraft that may be retired in the near future.

The conferees understood that the Air Force would require $17.4 million in procurement funds, $45.3 million in operations and maintenance funds, and $4.3 million in military personnel funds to retain the 28 B-52H bombers in a fully operational status and to provide them with system updates and modifications. The conferees believe that with system updates and modifications. The conferees believe that this level of funding may not be required merely to preserve the option of retaining the 28 aircraft for one more year. In particular, it may not be necessary to expand procurement funds on aircraft that may be retired in fiscal year 1997. Therefore, the conferees agree to authorize the use of up to $17.4 million in Air Force procurement funds, up to $45.3 million in Air Force operations and maintenance funds, and up to $4.3 million in Air Force personnel funds to retain in an attrition reserve status the 28 B-52H bombers that would otherwise be retired in fiscal year 1996.

Congressional findings and Sense of Congress concerning treaty violations (sec. 1405)

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 1227) that would express a sense of Congress that the government of the former Soviet Union intentionally violated its legal obligation under the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to advance its national security interests, and that the United States should remain vigilant to ensure compliance with arms control obligations.

The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes with a clarifying amendment that would outline the legislative history behind the provision.

Sense of Congress on ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (sec. 1406)

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 1230) that would express the sense of Congress that the United States should ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) as a signal of its commitment to reduce the threat posed by chemical weapons.

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1099F) that would express the sense of Congress that it is in the national security interests of the United States and Russia, as signatories of the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START II), and the United States and all parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), to ratify and fully implement the agreements, as negotiated.

The conferees agree to a provision that would express the sense of Congress that it is in the national security interests of the United States, that the United States and Russia, as parties to START II and the CWC, and all other signatories to the CWC, to ratify and fully implement these arms control agreements, as negotiated.

The conferees note that a full Senate debate on the ratification of START and the CWC treaties has not taken place. It is not the intention of the Congress, through this provision, to predetermine the outcome of the Senate debate on the advice and consent to ratification of the two arms control treaties.

Implementation of arms control agreements (sec. 1407)

The budget request included $261.9 million in procurement, operation and maintenance, and research and development in the defense and military service accounts for the implementation of arms control agreements.

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1060) that would authorize $228.9 million for implementing arms control agreements, a $33.0 million reduction to the budget request. The provision would also prohibit the use of defense funds to reimburse expenses of signatories to arms control treaties, other than the United States, pursuant to treaties or agreements with the United States that have entered into force, if the Congress has not received 30-day notice prior to agreement between the parties.

The House bill did not contain a similar provision, but would provide $261.9 million for implementation of arms control agreements.

The House recedes with an amendment that would make available up to $239.9 million for implementing arms control agreements, a $22.0 million reduction to the budget request. The reductions are reflected in the following table. The conferees endorse the views stated in the Senate report (S. Rept. 104-112), that reiterate the concern expressed in the conference report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (H. Rept. 103-357). That conference report required the Congress to be notified 30 days in advance of a U.S. agreement to accept the recommendations of any consultative commissions that result in either technical changes to a treaty or agreement affecting inspections and monitoring provisions, or that result in increased U.S. implementation costs.

The conferees limit the expenditure of funds to provide reimbursement for arms control implementation inspections costs borne by the inspected party to a treaty or agreement. Funds may only be expended if the Congress has been notified 30 days in advance of an agreement by the President to a policy or policy agreement, and that policy or policy agreement does not modify any obligation imposed by the arms control agreement.

The provision would not prohibit the use of funds to implement two policy agreements under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (START), concluded in May 1994 and February 1995. The conferees understand that the Department of Defense agreed to reimburse Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine for the costs of U.S. inspections conducted within those territories for each six-month period, expenses for which those countries are obligated under the treaties, if Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine do not conduct inspections in the United States. Further, the conferees understand that if Belarus, Kazakhstan, or Ukraine conduct an inspection of a U.S. facility, the U.S. will not provide reimbursement during the applicable six-month time period.

The Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty permit the United States to conduct inspections to verify compliance with the treaties within the territories of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine. The conferees are concerned about assertions by the administration that failure to reimburse Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine would prevent the United States from conducting INF and START inspections in these countries in the future. The Senate provided its advice and consent to ratification of INF and START based on the ability of the United States to fully exercise its inspection rights.

In a September 21, 1994 letter from the Secretary of Defense to Congress, the Secretary emphasized that the policy statements exchanged between the United States and the three Parties expressed ``. . . strictly a policy understanding.'' He also stated ``that they are not legally binding'' and that no treaty provisions would be changed. Further, the Secretary stated ``[T]he Administration would not consider this to be a precedent for any other area of START implementation.''

The conferees express their continuing concern that arms control consultative commissions are being used to facilitate changes or modifications to arms control treaties and agreements that should be brought to the Senate for its review and subsequent advice and consent. There may be very good reasons for changes in implementation of specific arms control treaties or agreements. However, if a change or modification to the treaty or agreement would result in a change to the understanding under which the Senate provided its advice and consent to ratification, the Congress must be consulted about the recommended change or modification in advance of any agreement in the consultative commissions, and must provide its subsequent agreement to the change or modification.

                               FISCAL YEAR 1996 ARMS CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION BUDGET                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Account                                  Program               Request     Recomm    Rec Auth
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WPN..........................................  Arms control compliance.........     14.800      0.000     14.800
OPAF.........................................  Spares & repairs................      0.467      0.000      0.467
PDA..........................................  OSIA............................      2.941      0.000      2.941
RDT&E, AF....................................  Arms control implementation.....      0.998      0.000      0.998
RDT&E, DA....................................  Ver tech dem, DNA (603711)......     33.971      0.000     33.971
O&M, Army....................................  ................................     40.778     -6.000     34.778
O&M, Navy....................................  ................................     35.354     -2.000     33.354
O&M, AF......................................  ................................     34.645     -2.000     32.645
O&M, DA......................................  OSIA............................     97.987    -12.000     85.987
                                                                                --------------------------------
    Total....................................  ................................    261.941    -22.000    239.941
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iran and Iraq arms nonproliferation (sec. 1408)

The Senate amendment included a provision (sec. 1063) that would amend sections 1604(a) and 1605(a) of Title XVI of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484), to apply sanctions and controls to persons or countries who transfer or retransfer goods or technology that would contribute to the Iran or Iraq efforts to acquire chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, in addition to sanctions and controls on the acquisition of destabilizing advanced conventional weapons. The provision would also amend section 1608(7) to clarify the meaning of ``United States assistance'' to conform to the definition of such term in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (section 2151 et seq. of Title 10, United States Code).

The House bill did not contain a similar provision.

The House recedes with an amendment.

The conferees also agree to an amendment to section 73(e)(2) of the Arms Export Control Act (section 2797b(e)(2) of title 22, United States Code) that would require that the notification of certain waivers under the Missile Technology Control Regime procedures be submitted to the congressional defense committees and the congressional foreign relations committees, not less than 45 working days before issuance of the waiver.

NEWSLETTER

Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 CONFERENCE REPORT

to accompany S. 1124 January 22, 1996.--Ordered to be printed

CONFERENCE REPORT [To accompany S. 1124]

DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

Subtitle C--Navy Programs

TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations

Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense Act of 1995

Subtitle D--Other Ballistic Missile Defense Provisions

Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Reviews, Studies, and Reports

Subtitle F--Other Matters

TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

Subtitle G--Other Matters

TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Reserve Components

Subtitle C--Decorations and Awards

Subtitle F--Other Matters

TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

Subtitle A--General Matters

TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards

Subtitle C--Counter-Drug Activities

Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Reporting Requirements

TITLE XII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF FORMER SOVIET UNION

TITLE XIII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS

Subtitle E--Other Matters

TITLE XIV--ARMS CONTROL MATTERS

DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Subtitle B--Other Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing Changes

DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations

Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations

Subtitle D--Other Matters

DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

Subtitle C--Navy Programs

SEC. 138. PIONEER UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE PROGRAM

TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations

SEC. 211. SPACE LAUNCH MODERNIZATION.

SEC. 212. TACTICAL MANNED RECONNAISSANCE.

SEC. 214. DEVELOPMENT OF LASER PROGRAM.

SEC. 216. SPACE-BASED INFRARED SYSTEM.

SEC. 217. DEFENSE NUCLEAR AGENCY PROGRAMS.

SEC. 218. COUNTERPROLIFERATION SUPPORT PROGRAM.

SEC. 219. NONLETHAL WEAPONS STUDY.

SEC. 221. JOINT SEISMIC PROGRAM AND GLOBAL SEISMIC NETWORK.

SEC. 227. DEFENSE AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE PROGRAM.

Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense Act of 1995

SEC. 231. SHORT TITLE.

SEC. 232. FINDINGS.

SEC. 233. BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE POLICY.

SEC. 234. THEATER MISSILE DEFENSE ARCHITECTURE.

SEC. 235. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT AN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT CONCERNING THEATER MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS.

SEC. 236. BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE COOPERATION WITH ALLIES.

SEC. 237. ABM TREATY DEFINED.

SEC. 238. REPEAL OF MISSILE DEFENSE ACT OF 1991.

Subtitle D--Other Ballistic Missile Defense Provisions

SEC. 251. BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAM ELEMENTS.

SEC. 252. TESTING OF THEATER MISSILE DEFENSE INTERCEPTORS.

SEC. 253. REPEAL OF MISSILE DEFENSE PROVISIONS.

Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Reviews, Studies, and Reports

SEC. 262. REVIEW OF C4I BY NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL.

Subtitle F--Other Matters

SEC. 274. CRUISE MISSILE DEFENSE INITIATIVE.

SEC. 279. GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM.

TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

SEC. 378. PROVISION OF EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES TO ASSIST IN EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACTIONS.

SEC. 379. REPORT ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MILITARY AND CIVIL DEFENSE PREPAREDNESS TO RESPOND TO EMERGENCIES RESULTING FROM A CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, RADIOLOGICAL, OR NUCLEAR ATTACK.

TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS

Subtitle C--Decorations and Awards

SEC. 523. MILITARY INTELLIGENCE PERSONNEL PREVENTED BY SECRECY FROM BEING CONSIDERED FOR DECORATIONS AND AWARDS.

SEC. 562. ARMY RANGER TRAINING.

``4303. Army Ranger training: instructor staffing; safety.''.

SEC. 570. ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE FOR MILITARY SUPPORT.

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
CONFERENCE REPORT

to accompany
S. 1124
January 22, 1996.--Ordered to be printed

CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany S. 1124]

JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE

DIVISION A:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATIONS

Legislative Provisions
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Legislative Provisions Not Adopted

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Legislative Provisions Adopted
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations