H. Rpt. 104-617. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1997

104th Congress Report HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 104-617 _______________________________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1997 __________ R E P O R T of the COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS together with DISSENTING VIEWS [To accompany H.R. 3610] <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> June 11, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed C O N T E N T S __________ Page Bill Totals...................................................... 1 Committee Budget Review Process.................................. 4 Introduction..................................................... 4 Budget Shortfalls and Deficiencies........................... 5 Committee Conclusions and Objectives............................. 7 Special Areas of Emphasis.................................... 7 Major Committee Recommendations.................................. 8 Ensuring a Quality, Ready Force.............................. 8 Modernization Programs....................................... 9 Redressing Mission Essential Shortfalls...................... 10 High-Leverage ``Force Multipliers''.......................... 11 Reducing Future Defense Spending Requirements................ 12 Reforms/Program Reductions................................... 13 Highlights of Committee Recommendations by Major Category........ 14 Active Military Personnel.................................... 14 Guard and Reserve Personnel.................................. 14 Operation and Maintenance.................................... 15 Procurement.................................................. 15 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation................... 16 Forces to be Supported........................................... 16 Department of the Army....................................... 16 Department of the Navy....................................... 16 Department of the Air Force.................................. 18 Title I. Military Personnel...................................... 19 Programs and Activities Funded by Military Personnel Appropriations............................................. 19 Summary of Military Personnel Recommendations for Fiscal Year 1997....................................................... 19 Overall Active End Strength.............................. 20 Overall Selected Reserve End Strength.................... 20 Adjustments to Military Personnel Account.................... 21 Overview................................................. 21 Special Pays and Allowances.............................. 21 Dental Special Pays...................................... 21 Force Structure Add-Backs................................ 21 Full-Time Support Strengths.............................. 21 Military Personnel, Army..................................... 22 Military Personnel, Navy..................................... 22 Military Personnel, Marine Corps............................. 23 Marine Security Guards................................... 23 Military Personnel, Air Force................................ 23 Reserve Personnel, Army...................................... 24 Active Guard and Reserve Full-Time Support............... 24 Reserve Personnel, Navy...................................... 24 Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps.............................. 24 Reserve Personnel, Air Force................................. 25 National Guard Personnel, Army............................... 25 159th Mobile Army Surgical Hospital...................... 25 National Guard Personnel, Air Force.......................... 26 Title II. Operation and Maintenance.............................. 27 Operation and Maintenance Overview........................... 27 Real Property Maintenance................................ 28 Strategic Mobility....................................... 28 Soldier Enhancement and Initial Issue Equipment.......... 29 Chemical/Biological Defense Equipment.................... 29 Base Operations Support.................................. 29 Off-Duty and Voluntary Education......................... 29 Acquisition Workforce Reduction.......................... 29 USTRANSCOM Efficiencies.................................. 30 Security Programs........................................ 30 Excess Funded Carryover.................................. 30 Spare Parts Inventories.................................. 30 Defense Business Operations Passthrough.................. 31 Civilian Understrength................................... 31 Professional Military Education and Training............. 31 Budget Justification and Execution Materials............. 31 Readiness Reprogramming.................................. 32 Procurement Fraud........................................ 32 Teletraining and Distance Learning....................... 33 Contractor Provided Logistical Support (LOGCAP).......... 33 Operational Support Aircraft............................. 34 Communications-Electronics Depot Maintenance............. 34 Foreign Nationals Attending Military Academies........... 35 Electron Scrubber Technology............................. 35 Military Traffic Management Command Reengineering Program 35 Recruiting and Advertising............................... 35 Biggs Army Airfield...................................... 35 Classified Programs...................................... 36 Operation and Maintenance, Army.............................. 36 Program Recommended...................................... 36 Operation and Maintenance, Navy.............................. 38 Shipyard Blasting and Coating Pilot Program.............. 38 Program Recommended...................................... 39 Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps...................... 42 Alternative Fuels Training Program....................... 42 Program Recommended...................................... 42 Operation and Maintenance, Air Force......................... 44 STRATCOM................................................. 44 Program Recommended...................................... 44 Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide...................... 47 Halon Reserves........................................... 47 Combat Boot Inventories.................................. 47 Defense Fuel Supply Point Norwalk........................ 47 Procurement Technical Assistance Program................. 48 Energy Trainer Program................................... 48 Defense Mapping Agency................................... 48 Ballistic Missile Threat Commission...................... 48 Family Advocacy.......................................... 48 Program Recommended...................................... 49 Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve...................... 51 Program Recommended...................................... 51 Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve...................... 53 Program Recommended...................................... 53 Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve.............. 55 Program Recommended...................................... 55 Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve................. 57 Program Recommended...................................... 57 WC-130 Weather Reconnaissance Mission.................... 59 910th Airlift Group...................................... 59 Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard............... 59 Program Recommended...................................... 60 M-1 Abrams Tanks......................................... 62 Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard................ 62 Program Recommended...................................... 62 159th Air National Guard Fighter Group................... 64 Joint Disaster Training Center........................... 64 United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.......... 64 Environmental Restoration, Defense........................... 64 DERA Development......................................... 65 Newmark--Formerly-Used Defense Site...................... 65 Summer Olympics.............................................. 65 Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster and Civic Aid................ 66 Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction......................... 66 Quality of Life Enhancement, Defense......................... 66 Title III. Procurement........................................... 69 Estimates and Appropriation Summary.......................... 69 GPS and Flight Data Recorders............................ 71 Information Security..................................... 71 Classified Programs...................................... 71 Aircraft Procurement, Army................................... 71 Committee Recommendations................................ 72 Authorization Changes................................ 72 Fixed Wing Aircraft...................................... 72 Airborne Reconnaissance Low.......................... 72 Guardrail Common Sensor Program...................... 72 Rotary Wing Aircraft..................................... 72 Blackhawk............................................ 72 Modification of Aircraft................................. 73 Kiowa Warrior........................................ 73 Quickfix............................................. 73 Apache-Longbow Modifications......................... 73 Airborne Avionics.................................... 73 Spares and Repair Parts.............................. 74 Program Recommended...................................... 74 Missile Procurement, Army.................................... 76 Committee Recommendations................................ 76 Authorization Changes................................ 76 Anti-Tank/Assault Missile Systems........................ 76 Patriot.............................................. 76 Javelin.............................................. 76 Patriot Mods......................................... 77 Program Recommended...................................... 77 Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army..... 79 Committee Recommendations................................ 79 Authorization Changes................................ 79 Tracked Combat Vehicles.................................. 79 Bradley Base Sustainment............................. 79 Field Artillery Ammunition Support Vehicle........... 79 Modification of Tracked Combat Vehicles.................. 79 FAASV PIP to Fleet................................... 79 Armored Combat Earthmover............................ 80 Weapons and Other Combat Vehicles........................ 80 Machine Gun, 5.56mm (SAW)............................ 80 Grenade Launcher, Auto, 40mm MK-19................... 80 M16 Rifle............................................ 80 Machine Gun M240B.................................... 80 Program Recommended...................................... 80 Procurement of Ammunition, Army.............................. 82 Committee Recommendations................................ 82 Authorization Changes................................ 82 Ammunition Shortfalls................................ 82 Small and Medium Ammunition.............................. 83 .50 Small Caliber, All Types......................... 83 Special Purpose Ammunition........................... 83 Mortar Ammunition........................................ 83 CTG, Mortar 60mm 1/10 Practice....................... 83 CTG, Mortar 81mm Practice 1/10 Range M880............ 83 CTG, Mortar 120mm Full Range Practice XM931.......... 83 CTG Mortar 120mm ILLUM XM930......................... 83 CTG, Mortar 120mm Smoke XM929........................ 83 Tank Ammunition.......................................... 83 120mm Kinetic Energy Tank Ammunition................. 83 CTG 120mm M892A2..................................... 84 Artillery Ammunition..................................... 84 SADARM............................................... 84 Ammunition Production Base Support....................... 84 Provision for Industrial Facilities.................. 84 Large Caliber Deepdrawn Cartridges................... 84 Program Recommended...................................... 85 Other Procurement, Army...................................... 87 Committee Recommendations................................ 87 Authorization Changes................................ 87 Tactical and Support Vehicles............................ 87 High Mobility Multi-Purpose Vehicles................. 87 Armored Security Vehicles............................ 87 Medium Truck Extended Service Program................ 87 Communications and Electronics Equipment................. 88 SMART-T.............................................. 88 SCAMP................................................ 88 Information System Security.......................... 88 Fort Carson Communications........................... 88 Items Less Than $2,000,000........................... 88 JTT/CIBS-M........................................... 89 Trojan Spirit........................................ 89 Night Vision Devices................................. 89 Integrated Meteorological System Sensors............. 89 Forward Entry Device (FED)........................... 89 Automated Data Processing Equipment.................. 89 Integrated Family of Test Equipment.................. 89 Other Support Equipment.................................. 90 Force Provider....................................... 90 Items Less Than $2,000,000........................... 90 Inland Petroleum Distribution System................. 90 Combat Support Medical............................... 90 Generators and Associated Equipment.................. 90 Training Devices, Non-System......................... 91 Program Recommended...................................... 91 Aircraft Procurement, Navy................................... 94 Committee Recommendations................................ 94 Authorization Changes................................ 94 Combat Aircraft.......................................... 94 AV-8B Harrier........................................ 94 V-22................................................. 94 E-2C Hawkeye......................................... 95 Trainer Aircraft......................................... 95 T-39N Saberliner..................................... 95 Modification of Aircraft................................. 95 EA-6 Series.......................................... 95 F-14 Series.......................................... 95 F-18 Series.......................................... 95 AH-1W Series......................................... 95 P-3 Series........................................... 96 E-2 Series........................................... 96 Common ECM Equipment................................. 96 Common Avionics Changes.............................. 96 Aircraft Spares and Repair Parts......................... 96 Aircraft Support Equipment and Facilities................ 97 Common Ground Equipment.............................. 97 Program Recommended...................................... 97 Weapons Procurement, Navy.................................... 99 Committee Recommendations................................ 99 Strategic Missiles....................................... 99 Tomahawk............................................. 99 Tactical Missiles........................................ 99 AMRAAM............................................... 99 JSOW................................................. 99 Penguin.............................................. 99 Modification of Missiles................................. 99 Tomahawk Mods........................................ 99 Other Weapons............................................ 100 9mm Handgun.......................................... 100 Ammunition............................................... 100 Procurement of Ammunition............................ 100 Program Recommended...................................... 100 Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps............. 102 Committee Recommendations................................ 102 Munitions Transfer................................... 102 Ammunition, Navy......................................... 102 Practice Bombs....................................... 102 5 inch/54 Gun Ammunition............................. 102 Ammunition, Marine Corps................................. 102 120mm Heat M830A1.................................... 102 Linear Charge, All Types............................. 102 M757 Charge Assembly................................. 102 Kinetic Energy Tank Rounds........................... 103 Program Recommended...................................... 103 Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................ 105 Committee Recommendations................................ 105 Authorization Changes................................ 105 Other DDG-51 Warships.................................... 105 Ship Self-Defense.................................... 106 Auxiliaries, Craft, and Prior Year Program Costs......... 106 Fast Patrol Craft.................................... 106 Outfitting........................................... 106 U.S. Navy Propeller Shop and Foundry................. 106 Program Recommended...................................... 107 Other Procurement, Navy...................................... 109 Committee Recommendations................................ 109 Authorization Changes................................ 109 Ships Support Equipment.................................. 109 Submarine Propellers................................. 109 Hull Mechanical and Electrical (HM&E) Items Under $2,000,000......................................... 109 Reactor Plant Equipment.................................. 109 Reactor Power Units.................................. 109 Communications and Electronic Equipment.................. 110 AN/SQQ-89 Surface Anti-Submarine Warfare System...... 110 SSN Acoustics........................................ 110 C-3 Countermeasures.................................. 110 Tactical Flag Commander Center....................... 110 Strategic Platform Support Equipment................. 110 NCCS Ashore.......................................... 110 Shipboard Tactical Communications.................... 111 Submarine Communications Equipment................... 111 Magic Lantern........................................ 111 Aviation Support Equipment............................... 111 Sonobouys............................................ 111 Ordnance Support Equipment............................... 112 Rolling Airframe Missile Guided Missile Launch System (RAM GMLS)......................................... 112 Ship Self-Defense System............................. 112 Civil Engineering Support Equipment...................... 112 Amphibious Equipment................................. 112 Personnel Command Support Equipment...................... 112 Command Support Equipment............................ 112 Program Recommended...................................... 112 Procurement, Marine Corps.................................... 116 Committee Recommendations................................ 116 Authorization Changes................................ 116 Procurement of Ammunition................................ 116 Intelligence/Communication Equipment..................... 116 Intelligence Support Equipment....................... 116 Items Less Than $2,000,000 (Intell).................. 116 Other Support........................................ 117 Maneuver C2 Systems.................................. 117 Support Vehicles......................................... 117 Trailers............................................. 117 General Property......................................... 117 Training Devices..................................... 117 Program Recommended...................................... 117 Aircraft Procurement, Air Force.............................. 119 Committee Recommendations................................ 119 Authorization Changes................................ 119 Combat Aircraft.......................................... 119 F-15E................................................ 119 F-16................................................. 119 Airlift Aircraft......................................... 120 C-17................................................. 120 Trainer Aircraft......................................... 120 Joint Primary Aircraft Training System............... 120 Misson Support Aircraft.................................. 120 C-20A................................................ 120 Modification of In-Service Aircraft...................... 121 B-2A................................................. 121 B-1B................................................. 121 F-15................................................. 121 F-16................................................. 121 C-130................................................ 122 E-3.................................................. 122 Other Aircraft....................................... 122 GPS/FDR.............................................. 122 Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Program.............. 122 Aircraft Spares and Repair Parts......................... 123 Spares and Repair Parts.............................. 123 Aircraft Support Equipment and Facilities................ 123 F-15 Post Production Support......................... 123 F-16 Post Production Support......................... 123 Program Recommended...................................... 123 Missile Procurement, Air Force............................... 125 Committee Recommendations................................ 125 Authorization Changes................................ 125 Ballistic Missiles....................................... 125 Missile Replacement Equipment-Ballistic.............. 125 Tactical Missiles........................................ 125 HAVE NAP............................................. 125 AMRAAM............................................... 125 AGM-130.............................................. 126 Other Support............................................ 126 Space Programs........................................... 126 Global Positioning System (GPS) Space Segment........ 126 Space Shuttle Operations............................. 126 Titan IV/Space Boosters.............................. 126 Medium Launch Vehicles............................... 126 Defense Support Program (DSP)........................ 126 Defense Satellite Communications System Space........ 127 Procurement of Ammunition............................ 127 Program Recommended...................................... 127 Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force......................... 129 Committee Recommendations................................ 129 Authorization Changes................................ 129 Munitions Transfer................................... 129 Program Recommended...................................... 129 Other Procurement, Air Force................................. 131 Committee Recommendations................................ 131 Authorization Changes................................ 131 Vehicular Equipment...................................... 131 60K A/C Loader....................................... 131 Electronics and Telecommunications Equipment............. 131 Weather Observation/Forecast......................... 131 Navstar GPS Space.................................... 131 Base Level Data Automation Program................... 132 Program Recommended...................................... 132 Procurement, Defense-Wide.................................... 135 Committee Recommendations................................ 135 Authorization Changes................................ 135 Major Equipment, Office of the Secretary of Defense.. 135 Enhanced Strategic Mobility.......................... 135 Natural Gas Vehicles................................. 135 Mentor Protege....................................... 136 High Performance Computer Modernization.............. 136 Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Program.................. 136 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV)....................... 135 Budget Format........................................ 135 Information Resources Management..................... 137 Major Equipment, DISA.................................... 137 Information Systems Security......................... 137 Special Operations Command............................... 137 Aviation Programs........................................ 137 AC-130 Force Structure............................... 137 C-130 Modifications.................................. 137 Ammunition Programs...................................... 138 SOF Individual Weapons Ammunition.................... 138 Other Procurement Program................................ 138 Advanced Seal Delivery System........................ 138 Chemical and Biological Defense Program.................. 138 Individual Protection................................ 138 Chemical/Biological Response Planning................ 138 Program Recommended...................................... 139 National Guard and Reserve Equipment......................... 141 Committee Recommendations................................ 141 Army National Guard Night Vision Devices............. 141 C-130J Aircraft...................................... 141 C-130 Upgrades....................................... 141 Program Recommended...................................... 141 Information Resources Management............................. 143 Corporate Information Management..................... 143 Army Sustaining Base Information System.............. 143 Navy Standard Integrated Personnel System............ 143 Air Force Fuel Automated Management System........... 144 Air Force Automated Maintenance System............... 145 Automated Document Conversion........................ 145 Joint Services Logistics Center...................... 145 Software Managers Network............................ 145 Title IV. Research, Development, Test and Evaluation............. 147 Estimates and Appropriation Summary.......................... 147 LRIP Test Articles....................................... 147 Cruise Missile Defense................................... 148 Human Factors Research................................... 150 B-1 Congressional Interest Item.......................... 150 New Start Notification................................... 150 Special Interest Items................................... 151 Classified Programs...................................... 151 Joint Advanced Strike Technology......................... 151 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army............. 151 Committee Recommendations................................ 151 Authorization Changes................................ 151 Basic Research........................................... 152 University and Industry Research Centers............. 152 Exploratory Development.................................. 152 Aviation Technology.................................. 152 Combat Vehicle and Automotive Technology............. 152 Ballistics Technology................................ 152 Electronics and Electronic Devices................... 153 Countermine Systems.................................. 153 Human Factors........................................ 153 Environment Quality Technology....................... 153 Medical Technology................................... 153 Advanced Development..................................... 154 Medical Advanced Technology.......................... 154 Aviation Advanced Technology......................... 154 Weapons and Munitions Advanced Technology............ 154 Combat Vehicle and Automotive Advanced Technology.... 154 Military HIV Research................................ 154 Landmine Warfare and Barrier Advanced Technology..... 154 Joint Service Small Arms Program..................... 155 Demonstration and Validation............................. 155 Artillery Propellant Development..................... 155 Tactical Electronic Support System................... 155 Aviation Advanced Development........................ 155 Artillery Systems.................................... 155 Engineering and Manufacturing Development................ 155 Medium Tactical Vehicle.............................. 155 Javelin.............................................. 156 Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles.................... 156 Light Tactical Wheeled Vehicles...................... 156 Night Vision Systems--Engineering Development........ 156 Automatic Test Equipment Development................. 156 Brilliant Anti-Armor Submunition (BAT)............... 157 Weapons and Munitions--Engineering Development....... 157 Firefinder........................................... 157 Management Support....................................... 157 DoD High Energy Laser Test Facility.................. 157 Munitions Standardization, Effectiveness and Safety.. 157 Operational Systems Development.......................... 157 Combat Vehicle Improvement Programs.................. 157 MLRS Product Improvement Program..................... 158 Aircraft Engine Component Improvement Program........ 158 Digitation........................................... 158 Other Missile Product Improvement Programs........... 158 End Item Industrial Preparedness Activities.......... 158 Force XXI Initiative................................. 158 Lightweight 155mm Howitzer........................... 159 Depressed Altitude Gun............................... 159 Program Recommended...................................... 159 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy............. 162 Committee Recommendations................................ 162 Authorization Changes................................ 162 Basic Research........................................... 162 Ocean Partnerships................................... 162 Exploratory Development.................................. 163 Surface Ship Technology.............................. 163 Aircraft Technology.................................. 163 Readiness, Training, and Environmental Quality Technology......................................... 163 Materials, Electronics, and Computer Technology...... 163 Oceanographic and Atmospheric Technology............. 164 Advanced Development..................................... 164 Precision Strike and Air Defense..................... 164 Ship Propulsion System............................... 164 Marine Corps Advanced Technology Demonstration....... 164 Medical Development.................................. 165 Environmental, Quality and Logistics Advanced Technology......................................... 165 Shallow Water Mine Countermine Demonstrations........ 165 Advanced Technology Transition....................... 165 Demonstration and Validation............................. 165 Aviation Survivability............................... 165 Advanced Submarine Combat Systems Development........ 165 Ship Concept Advanced Design......................... 166 Advanced Surface Machinery Systems................... 166 Marine Corps Mine/Countermeasures Systems............ 166 Ship Self-Defense.................................... 166 Gun Weapon System Technology......................... 166 Engineering and Manufacturing Development................ 167 Other Helicopter Development......................... 167 S-3 Weapon System Improvement........................ 167 P-3 Modernization Program............................ 167 Tactical Command System.............................. 167 Air Crew Systems Development......................... 167 Electronic Warfare Development....................... 168 AEGIS Combat System Engineering...................... 168 SSN-688 and Trident Modernization.................... 168 Enhanced Modular Signal Processor.................... 168 New Design Submarine................................. 168 Navy Tactical Computer Resources..................... 168 Unguided Conventional Air Launched Weapon............ 169 Ship Self-Defense.................................... 169 Navigation/ID System................................. 169 Operational Systems Development.......................... 169 SSBN Security........................................ 169 F/A-18 Squadrons..................................... 169 Tomahawk............................................. 169 HARM Improvement..................................... 170 Aviation Improvements................................ 170 Marine Corps Communications Systems.................. 170 Industrial Preparedness.............................. 170 Program Recommended...................................... 170 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force........ 173 Committee Recommendations................................ 173 Authorization Changes................................ 173 Program Growth/Budget Execution Adjustments.......... 173 Basic Research........................................... 173 Defense Research Sciences............................ 173 Exploratory Development.................................. 174 Materials............................................ 174 Aerospace Flight Dynamics............................ 174 Armstrong Lab Exploratory Development................ 174 Aerospace Propulsion................................. 174 Phillips Lab Exploratory Development................. 174 Advanced Development..................................... 174 Advanced Materials for Weapon Systems................ 174 Flight Vehicle Technology............................ 175 Aerospace Propulsion and Power Technology............ 175 Crew Systems and Personnel Protection Technology..... 175 Electronic Combat Technology......................... 175 Space and Missile Rocket Propulsion.................. 175 Advanced Spacecraft Technology....................... 175 Advanced Weapons Technology.......................... 175 Demonstration and Validation............................. 176 Airborne Laser Technology............................ 176 Polar Adjunct........................................ 176 Space Based Infrared Architecture--DEM/VAL........... 176 Intercontinental Ballistic Missile--DEM/VAL.......... 176 Engineering and Manufacturing Development................ 176 B-1B................................................. 176 Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training............. 177 F-22................................................. 177 B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber....................... 177 Life Support Systems................................. 177 Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS)............................................ 177 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM)........ 177 Operational Systems Development.......................... 178 F-16 Squadrons....................................... 178 F-15E Squadrons...................................... 178 Manned Destructive Suppression....................... 178 Aircraft Component Engine Improvement Program (ACIP). 178 USAF Wargaming and Simulation........................ 178 Defense Satellite Communications System.............. 179 Satellite Control Network (SCN)...................... 179 Titan IV Space Launch Vehicles....................... 179 Arms Control Implementation.......................... 179 PRAM................................................. 179 Program Recommended...................................... 179 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide..... 182 Committee Recommendations................................ 182 Authorization Changes................................ 182 Basic Research........................................... 182 In-House Laboratory Independent Research............. 182 Focused Research Initiatives......................... 182 Chemical and Biological Defense Program.............. 182 Tactical Technology.................................. 183 Integrated Command and Control Technology............ 183 Materials and Electronics Technology................. 183 Defense Nuclear Agency............................... 183 Electrolthermal Gun.................................. 183 Experimental Evaluation of Major Innovative Technologies....................................... 183 Electronic Volumetric Imaging System (EVIS).......... 183 Thermo Photovoltaics................................. 184 Internetted Unattended Ground Sensors (IUGS)......... 184 Chemical and Biological Defense Program.............. 184 Strategic Environmental Research Program............. 184 Cooperative DoD/VA Medical Research.................. 184 Advanced Electronics Technologies.................... 184 Microelectromechanical Systems....................... 185 Manufacturing Processes.............................. 185 Secures.............................................. 185 Electric Vehicles.................................... 185 Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations........... 185 High Performance Computing Modernization Program..... 186 Dual Use Applications Programs....................... 186 Ballistic Missile Defense............................ 187 Theater Missile Defense.............................. 187 National Missile Defense............................. 187 RAMOS................................................ 188 Demonstration and Validation............................. 188 Joint Robotics....................................... 188 Advanced Sensor Applications Program................. 188 NATO Research and Development........................ 188 Engineering and Manufacturing Development................ 188 Chemical and Biological Defense Program.............. 188 Management Support....................................... 189 Technical Studies.................................... 189 Chemical and Biological Defense Program.............. 189 Management Headquarters.............................. 189 Operational Systems Development.......................... 189 Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Program.............. 189 Program Management................................... 189 Dark Star UAV........................................ 191 Electro-Optical (EO) Framing Technology.............. 191 USH-42 Mission Recorder.............................. 192 Authorization Adjustments............................ 192 Special Operations Technology Development............ 192 Special Operations Tactical Systems Development...... 192 Special Operations Intelligence Systems.............. 192 Joint Threat Warning System.......................... 192 Special Operations Enhancements...................... 192 Quiet Knight......................................... 193 Program Recommended...................................... 193 Developmental Test and Evaluation, Defense................... 196 Committee Recommendations............................ 196 Program Recommended...................................... 196 Director of Test and Evaluation Defense.............. 196 Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense..................... 196 Committee Recommendations................................ 196 Program Recommended...................................... 196 Live Fire Testing.................................... 197 Test and Evaluation Capabilities..................... 197 Title V. Revolving and Management Funds.......................... 199 Defense Business Operations Fund............................. 199 DBOF Financial Management Practices.................. 199 National Defense Sealift Fund................................ 199 Large Medium Speed Roll-On/Roll-Off (LMSR) Sealift Ships. 200 Maritime Prepositioning Force--Enhancement............... 200 Lighterage............................................... 200 Title VI. Other Department of Defense Programs................... 203 Defense Health Program....................................... 203 Medical Research............................................. 203 Desert Storm Syndrome.................................... 203 Bone Marrow Research..................................... 204 HIV Research............................................. 204 Breast Cancer............................................ 204 Provision of Care for Military Retirees.................. 205 Uncompensated Health Care................................ 205 Diabetes................................................. 206 Air Medical Evacuation................................... 206 Global Infectious Diseases............................... 206 Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense........... 206 Program Recommended...................................... 207 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense....... 207 Committee Recommendations................................ 207 National Guard Counter-Drug Program.................. 208 Gulf States Initiative............................... 208 Civil Air Patrol..................................... 208 Army Support to Multi-Jurisdictional Task Force...... 208 Southwest Border States Anti-Drug Information System. 209 Program Recommended...................................... 209 Office of the Inspector General.............................. 209 Title VII. Related Agencies...................................... 211 National Foreign Intelligence Program........................ 211 Introduction............................................. 211 Classified Report.................................... 211 Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund....................................................... 211 Intelligence Community Management Account.................... 212 National Security Education Trust Fund....................... 212 Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation and Environmental Restoration Fund............................. 212 Title VIII. General Provisions................................... 213 Definition of Program, Project and Activity.................. 213 Marine Security Guards....................................... 213 AN/ALE-47 Countermeasure Dispenser System.................... 214 Deep Attack Weapons Mix Study................................ 214 Peace Enforcement, Peacekeeping, and International Humanitarian Assistance.................................... 214 House of Representatives Reporting Requirements.............. 215 Changes in Application of Existing Law................... 215 Appropriation Language................................... 215 General Provisions....................................... 217 Appropriations Not Authorized by Law..................... 218 Transfer of Funds........................................ 220 Inflationary Impact Statement............................ 220 Comparison With Budget Resolution........................ 220 Five-Year Projection of Outlays.......................... 221 Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments...... 221 Full Committee Votes............................................. 221 104th Congress Report HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 104-617 _______________________________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1997 _______ June 11, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed _______________________________________________________________________ Mr. Young of Florida, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following R E P O R T together with DISSENTING VIEWS [To accompany H.R. 3610] The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense, and for other purposes, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997. budget shortfalls and deficiencies In the Committee's view, the budget's failure to provide for an adequate modernization program carries with it many penalties. The most significant is the added element of risk to U.S. forces should they be forced to rely upon increasingly older equipment. The need for more modern, capable weapons systems and support equipment is underscored by the more than 30 percent reduction in military force structure in recent years, coupled with the transition of the American military to an increasingly less forward-deployed posture. As the U.S. military loses the advantages of size and forward deployment, an ever greater premium is placed on the acquisition of technologically sophisticated equipment, capable of giving a smaller force much greater firepower and the ability to rapidly move thousands of miles into potentially hostile environments. In addition, the Committee believes funding constraints are impeding the essential development and fielding of critical technologies needed to cope with emerging threats and to leverage the capability of existing systems. The prime example is missile defense, where the Administration's program to counter the growing threat posed by both ballistic and cruise missiles is clearly in need of bolstering. While the debate on missile defenses is moving towards a focus on ``national missile defense'' systems to protect the continental United States, the Committee observes that even Secretary Perry has acknowledged that prospective deployment dates of key theater ballistic defense systems (such as THAAD and the Navy Upper-Tier program), which have been given precedence over national systems in the budget, have slipped from the schedules set forth in last year's Defense Authorization and Appropriations Acts solely because of the lack of funding proposed in the President's budget. The Committee finds it difficult to understand why, more than five years after the threat of theater ballistic missiles to our forces in the field and our allies moved from the realm of possibility to reality during the Gulf War, the Administration continues to delay the deployment of effective theater missile defenses because of self-imposed fiscal constraints. The Committee also believes the budget request for certain key ``force multipliers''--such as strategic and tactical mobility, joint service communications and intelligence, and precision munitions--is inadequate. This is particularly troublesome given the central role these capabilities are envisioned to play in any future conflict, and the potential these systems coupled with ``information age'' technologies have for achieving what the Joint Chiefs have described as ``order of magnitude improvements'' in warfighting capability. Major Committee Recommendations ensuring a quality, ready force DoD Drug Interdiction: The Committee recommends an increase over the budget request of $132 million for Department of Defense counter-drug and drug interdiction programs, a 20 percent increase over the Department's proposed fiscal year 1997 levels. modernization programs The most significant recommendations include: Missile defense: The Committee recommends total funding of $3.5 billion, a net increase of $705 million, for Ballistic Missile Defense, including an additional $350 million for national missile defense and $386 million for theater systems. The Committee has fully funded the budget request for the joint U.S.-Israel ARROW missile defense program, and has added $55 million for the joint U.S.-Israel ``Nautilus'' Tactical High- Energy Laser program, which was not budgeted. Also, mindful of the growing threat to U.S. forces posed by both theater ballistic and cruise missiles, the Committee has continued its long-standing emphasis on ship self-defense and ``cooperative engagement'' (the sharing of tracking and targeting information among many different platforms) and has added $111 million over the budget for these efforts. Joint command, control, communications and intelligence (C3I): In fiscal year 1996, the Committee provided additional funds to correct communications interoperability deficiencies identified by DoD and improve battlefield awareness. This year, the Committee again heard testimony from the Service Chiefs and the Commander in Chiefs from the various Unified and Specified Commands who described deficiencies in command, control, communications systems and tactical collection systems. Therefore, the Committee has recommended an additional $844 million to develop, deploy, improve and evaluate programs targeted at better battlefield situational awareness; improve communications capabilities; and finally, to improve the integrity of information systems from exploitation, corruption, and destruction. The Committee recommends increases in the following programs: Battlefield Situational Awareness improvements: Force XXI........................................... +$50,000,000 Guardrail Common sensor............................. +10,000,000 ARL-Moving Target Indicator......................... +5,000,000 Tactical Command System............................. +3,000,000 Commandant's Warfighting Laboratory................. +40,000,000 AWACS (TIBS)........................................ +11,900,000 Airborne Command and Control (TIBS)................. +4,100,000 Global Positioning System (Space)................... +10,100,000 RIVET JOINT (aircraft and reengining)............... +322,000,000 COMBAT SENT......................................... +6,000,000 U-2 Aircraft........................................ +5,000,000 Predator............................................ +50,000,000 Darkstar UAV........................................ +42,500,000 E-2C AEW Aircraft................................... +155,000,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Subtotal.......................................... $714,600,000 ======================================================== ____________________________________________________ Communications improvements: Trojan Spirit....................................... +2,600,000 Commanders Tactical Terminals....................... +5,000,000 SATCOM Radios (E-2C)................................ +4,800,000 Marine Corps (GCCS)................................. +2,700,000 Deployable communications (Marine Corps)............ +1,700,000 SATCOM Terminals (Air Force)........................ +21,200,000 JTIDS Commonality (Air Force)....................... +19,800,000 Milstar............................................. +20,000,000 DSCS Upgrade........................................ +6,400,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Subtotal.......................................... $84,200,000 ======================================================== ____________________________________________________ Protection of C3I systems: Army--forward deployed forces....................... +19,400,000 Network protections--DISA........................... +26,000,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Subtotal.......................................... $45,400,000 ======================================================== ____________________________________________________ Highlights of Committee Recommendations by Major Category procurement The Committee recommends $43,871,857,000 in new obligational authority for Procurement, an increase of $5,734,748,000 over the fiscal year 1997 budget request, but a decrease from the current fiscal year when measured in constant dollars. Major programs funded in the bill include the following: $263,173,000 for Ballistic Missile Defense research, development, test and evaluation The Committee recommends $37,611,031,000 in new obligational authority for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, an increase of $2,865,359,000 from the budget. Major programs funded in the bill include the following: $720,278,000 for the MILSTAR communications satellite $3,238,950,000 for Ballistic Missile Defense $203,784,000 for JSTARS (Joint Surveillance/Target Attack Radar System) TITLE II OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE chemical/biological defense equipment The Committee is concerned about the state of chemical/ biological defense capabilities in the Department of Defense. Accordingly, the Committee recommends an increase of $16,200,000 over the budget request to improve chemical biological defense equipment and maintain existing stocks of such equipment. Communications-Electronics Depot Maintenance The 1995 Base Closure and Realignment Commission directed the Department of the Air Force to transfer its ground communications-electronics workload to Tobyhanna Army Depot. It is estimated that performing this workload at Tobyhanna would save annual maintenance costs in excess of $20 million. The Air Force has recently indicated its intent to delay transfer of this workload until after the year 2000. Given the potential savings associated with this shift, which also promotes the interservicing of depot maintenance which is a policy objective of the Department, the Committee finds such actions inexplicable and therefore expects the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the Air Force fully comply with the BRAC directives as soon as possible. The Secretary is directed to report to the Committee by July 10, 1996, on the actions he has taken to comply with this direction. classified programs Adjustments to classified Operation and maintenance programs are explained in a classified report accompanying this report. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY Program Recommended The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Army are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] Other Adjustments: 3550 Classified (Undistributed)................... 6,600 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Navy are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] Other Adjustments: 9550 Classified (Undistributed)................... 4,600 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE Program Recommended The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Air Force are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: 13300 RIVER JOINT Communications Installation...... 26,000 13750 PACER COIN Operations........................ -8,000 13750 SENIOR SCOUT................................. 1,300 Other Adjustments: 16950 Classified (Undistributed)................... -24,700 17580 Chem-Bio Protective Equipment................ 3,000 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE defense mapping agency The Committee directs the Defense Mapping Agency (DMA) to develop a strategy that includes aggressively contracting with the private sector for mapping, charting and geodetic activities. The Committee believes such contracting should include, but not be limited to, the geographic information systems services field. The Committee directs DMA to engage in discussions with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and private industry representatives in the development of this strategy. This strategy should include DMA leadership in setting standards and specifications, research and technology transfer, and coordination in the area of geographic data, while the actual collection of data be performed as much as possible by the commercial private sector. The Committee directs that any proposals to increase private contracting should be done in compliance with the normal qualifications based selection process found in 40 USC 541 and 10 USC 2855. The Committee further directs DMA to submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate, not later than February 1, 1997, a report on how this contracting strategy will be implemented. ballistic missile threat commission The Committee supports the initiative taken by the House National Security Committee to establish a Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the Department of Defense fund the establishment of this Commission from funds provided in this account. Program Recommended The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Defense-Wide are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: 17950 SOCOM OPTEMPO/DLRs........................... 15,300 17950 Intel Spt to Naval SpOps Tng................. 500 Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: 18600 Classified and Intell........................ -483 18900 Defense Mapping Agency....................... 27,100 19350 Seismic System Communication Links........... 400 19450 Security Programs-On Site Inspection Agency.. -22,000 joint disaster training center In its report accompanying the fiscal year 1996 Defense Appropriations bill, the Committee directed the Air National Guard to conduct a test and report on the Civil Engineers' rapid deployment capability to support disaster recovery and refugee relief missions. The results validate the Reserves' capability to perform these types of missions. The interaction and coordination between the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) and the Air National Guard has proven to be productive and has resulted in a cost effective concept to deal with national emergencies. This concept is consistent with recent developments in the FEMA community, as well as the Emergency Management Assistance Compact and recent National Guard regulations. The Committee understands that the Air National Guard is developing Home Station Training Centers which would be ideal for this type of disaster training. The Committee believes that the Air National Guard should coordinate with FEMA to establish a pilot joint disaster response training center at the Stanly County Home Station Training Center. In addition, the National Guard Bureau should prepare to establish additional training centers in designated locations based on the potential threat of natural disasters, if this pilot center is validated as a cost effective measure to enhance disaster response capability. FORMER SOVIET UNION THREAT REDUCTION Fiscal year 1996 appropriation.......................... $300,000,000 Fiscal year 1997 budget request......................... 327,900,000 Committee recommendation................................ 302,900,000 Change from budget request.............................. -25,000,000 The Department of Defense requested a total of $327,900,000 for the Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction program. Consistent with the recommendations in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill, the Committee recommends $302,900,000, a reduction of $25,000,000. The Committee is advised that $20,000,000 of excess funds are available in the fissile material storage facility program and are available for the fiscal year 1997 program. Additional authorization reductions concurred in by the Committee include $4,000,000 in chemical weapons destruction and $1,000,000 in ``other program support''. The Committee has fully funded the budget request for the ongoing removal and dismantlement of nuclear warheads in the former Soviet Union. Although this program proceeded at a relatively slow pace during its early years, progress is now being made at a relatively rapid pace. Almost 4,000 warheads have been removed and dismantled from weapon systems in Belarus, Kazakstan, Ukraine and Russia. Kazakstan is now totally denuclearized. Rapid progress is also being made in Belarus and Ukraine becoming non-nuclear states in accordance with START I and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Programs are also proceeding in the area of chemical demilitarization and storage of fissile material. Currently, it is projected that the Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction program will achieve its overall goals by the end of fiscal year 2001. TITLE III PROCUREMENT gps and flight data recorders The Committee is saddened by the tragic loss of Secretary Ron Brown, his delegation, and the Air Force flight crew during their recent mission in the former Yugoslavia. The Committee was dismayed to learn that many passenger carrying aircraft in DoD are not equipped with flight data recorders as is standard in commercial airlines. Even though these military aircraft often operate in austere airports around the world, many of the aircraft are not equipped with modern navigation equipment like GPS. The Committee believes this situation is unacceptable. Recently, DoD provided the Committee with a request for an additional $170,600,000 for accelerated installation of GPS and flight data recorder equipment on its fleet of passenger carrying military aircraft. The Committee has provided these additional funds, and encourages the DoD to move quickly on this effort. The Committee directs the DoD to provide a report detailing the cost, by year, and schedule for installation of GPS and flight data recorders on each of the required aircraft types. This report should be provided to the congressional defense committees no later than June 30, 1996. information security Last year, the Committee expressed concern about the protection, detection and response to attacks on DoD unclassified information systems. DoD's reliance on automated information systems to communicate and exchange unclassified data greatly increases the risks of unauthorized access to information. Attacks to DoD unclassified information systems can be both costly and damaging to the nation's security. Both the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the Committee's Survey and Investigations (S&I) Staff have conducted studies on the vulnerability of DoD's unclassified networks and the potential damage of unauthorized access to those systems. Both have made recommendations to protect, detect, and react to attacks on DoD networks. DoD is making an effort to address information security; however, fiscal constraints and technological limitations will never allow DoD to protect all of its systems at all times. Based on the recommendations by both the GAO and the S&I Staff, the Committee requests that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence provide to the Committee with the fiscal year 1998 budget request a comprehensive plan for information security. The plan should include information security policies and procedures, vulnerability assessments for unclassified networks, corrections for identified deficiencies, and required funding to implement those corrections. classified programs Adjustments to classified Procurement programs are explained in a classified report accompanying this report. AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY Fixed Wing Aircraft airborne reconnaissance low The Army requested no funds for upgrades to the Airborne Reconnaissance Low (ARL). The Committee recommends an increase of $10,500,000, of which $5,500,000 shall be used only to develop an engine upgrade for ARL and the remaining $5,000,000 shall be used only to complete the moving target indicator (MTI) purchase. guardrail common sensor program The Army requested $1,081,000 for the GUARDRAIL Common Sensor (GRCS). The Committee recommends $11,081,000, an increase of $10,000,000 only to begin the enhancements to the GRCS systems currently deployed. MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY patriot mods The Army requested $11,464,000 for Patriot Modifications. The Committee recommends $21,464,000, an increase of $10,000,000 only for procurement of GEM +/- upgrades to the Patriot PAC-2 missiles. OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY Communications and Electronics Equipment smart-t The Army requested $45,427,000 for SMART-T. The Committee recommends $34,727,000, a decrease of $10,700,000. The Committee is supportive of the SMART-T program and recognizes that the acquisition program is a success. However, subsequent to submitting the budget request, the Army awarded a contract which reduced the overall program cost. Because the fiscal year 1997 contract will be $10,700,000 less than the budget request and the Army has not requested that the funds be used for another purpose, the Committee recommends the budget request be reduced. scamp The Army requested $23,555,000 for SCAMP (space) terminals. The Committee recommends $14,455,000, a decrease of $9,100,000. The Army awarded a contract which was less than the estimated cost and reprogrammed fiscal year 1996 savings to the C3 Systems Program Office. The fiscal year 1997 contract will be $9,100,000 less than the estimated amount; therefore, the Committee recommends that the budget request be reduced. items less than $2,000,000 Within the ``Items Less Than $2,000,000'' program in the communications and electronics subaccount the Army requested no funds to provide the Theater Rapid Response Intelligence Package (TRRIP) to tactical forces. The Committee recommends $4,500,000 only to procure additional TRRIPs for tactical forces. Also, the Army requested no funds for continued procurement or replenishment of Improved Remotely Monitored Battlefield Sensor Systems or components. The Committee recommends $2,400,000 only to procure the non-expendable I- REMBASS components for divisions currently holding the older REMBASS components. The Committee recommends a total increase of $6,900,000 for the Items Less Than $2,000,000 program. jtt/cibs-m Within the JTT/CIBS-M program the Army requested $14,010,000 for 58 Commanders Tactical Terminals. The Committee recommends $19,010,000, an increase of $5,000,000 only to procure CTT3/CIBS-M systems. trojan spirit The Army requested $2,603,000 for Trojan Spirit. The Committee recommends $4,200,000, an increase of $1,600,000 only to procure three Trojan Switch Extensions for U.S. Forces Korea. AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY Modification of Aircraft p-3 series The Navy requested $128,560,000 for P-3 modifications. The Committee recommends $201,960,000, a net increase of $73,400,000. The Committee has provided an additional $87,000,000 for procurement of 11 additional ASUW Improvement Program (AIP) modifications and an additional $4,000,000 for procurement of 4 additional Sustained Readiness Program (SRP) modifications. It is the Committee's understanding that reserve P-3 squadrons will be included in the AIP force mix. The Committee denies the request of $17,600,000 to procure and integrate a roll on/off SIGINT system for the Navy's P-3C aircraft. The Committee believes that such funding would be better used by the specifically designed and designated SIGINT systems such as the EP-3E. OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes in the budget request, in accordance with House authorization action: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Committee Change from Item Budget request recommendation request ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Navy Tactical Data System.................................... 18,220 30,220 +12,000 Strategic Platform Support Equipment......................... 4,054 36,054 +32,000 TADIX-B...................................................... 4,243 15,243 +11,000 Surface Tomahawk Support Equipment........................... 75,574 85,574 +10,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Communications and Electronic Equipment c-3 countermeasures The Navy requested $556,000 for the C-3 Countermeasures program. The Committee recommends $16,556,000, an increase of $16,000,000. Details of the Committee's recommendation appear in the classified annex to this report. nccs ashore The Navy requested $6,264,000 for NCCS Ashore (Navy Command and Control System, Ashore). The Committee recommends $56,364,000, an increase of $50,100,000 to the budget request. These funds shall be used only to procure complete Mobile Inshore Undersea Warfare System (MIUW) upgrades including P3I for the underwater systems or to complete the procurement of the upgraded underwater systems. PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS Intelligence/Communication Equipment intelligence support equipment The Marine Corps requested $26,372,000 for intelligence support equipment. The Committee recommends $40,572,000, an increase of $14,200,000. Of this amount, $3,400,000 shall be used only to procure three Team Portable Communications Intelligence Systems; $5,000,000 shall be used only to purchase TACPHOTO cameras; $3,100,000 shall be used only to procure sixty-three Secondary Imagery Dissemination sets; and the remaining $2,700,000 shall be used only to complete the purchase of Radio Reconnaissance Equipment Program SIGINT systems. Items Less Than $2,000,000 (INTELL) The Marine Corps requested no funds for topographic sets to deploy with a topographic detachment. The Committee recommends $425,000 to purchase large format printers and software licenses. AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE Modification of In-Service Aircraft c-130 The Air Force requested $96,353,000 for C-130 modifications. The Committee recommends $97,853,000, a net increase of $1,500,000. The Committee recommendation includes an increase of $4,100,000 only for the Tactical Information Broadcast System. The Committee also recommends a reduction of $2,600,000 for spares and the associated $8,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, for operations of the C- 130 PACER COIN special mission aircraft. e-3 The Air Force requested $287,920,000 for AWACS modifications. The Committee recommends $266,420,000, a net reduction of $21,500,000. The Committee recommendation includes an increase of $11,500,000 only for integration of the Tactical Information Broadcast System (TIBS). The Committee recommendation also includes a reduction of $33,000,000 for unjustified program growth in several areas of the Radar System Improvement Program (RSIP) and the ESM program. The Committee notes that cost estimates for various hardware and support elements have varied as much as 65% from last year's budget submission. The Air Force explained these dramatic changes simply as ``reestimates.'' The Committee finds such explanations inadequate, and therefore has reduced the program for those cost elements that have significantly increased without clear justification. other aircraft The Air Force requested $14,871,000 for other aircraft modifications. The Committee recommends $36,071,000, an increase of $21,200,000 only for procurement of SATCOM terminals to meet shortfalls identified by the Air Force. gps/fdr The Committee recommends an additional $139,200,000 only for GPS and flight data recorder modifications for Air Force passenger carrying aircraft as discussed elsewhere in this report. defense airborne reconnaissance program RC-135. The Committee is concerned about the increasing requirement for the use of the RC-135 RIVET JOINT aircraft. DoD officials have testified that there is a requirement for twenty aircraft to support the tactical intelligence mission, however, the budget request only includes enough funds to procure the fifteenth aircraft. The Committee recommends an additional $119,000,000 to procure three additional RIVET JOINT aircraft. An additional $26,000,000 is provided in the Air Force operation and maintenance account for modification and installation support costs. To continue the ongoing RIVET JOINT reengining effort, the Committee also recommends an additional $193,000,000 to procure eight reengining kits. The Air Force should reengine the three additional aircraft prior to fielding to save costs. The Committee further recommends an additional $26,000,000 for sensor upgrades--$20,000,000 for the RIVET JOINT and $6,000,000 for the COMBAT SENT--in accordance with House authorization action. U-2. The Committee recommends an additional $5,000,000 for repairs of a U-2 aircraft damaged in a recent crash landing. MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE Other Support Space Programs global positioning system (gps) space segment The Air Force requested $171,135,000 for procurement of 3 GPS satellites. The Committee recommends $181,235,000, an increase of $10,100,000. The additional funds provided by the Committee will maintain a three satellite per year production profile and sustain the 24 satellite GSP constellation. space shuttle operations The Air Force requested $52,500,000 for space shuttle operations. The Committee recommends $47,700,000, a decrease of $4,800,000. According to the General Accounting Office, these funds are available for reduction because they are excess to requirements for the inertial upper stage program. titan iv/space boosters The Air Force requested $489,606,000 for Titan IV space boosters. The Committee recommends $405,806,000, a decrease of $83,800,000. The Committee has reduced the request for Titan IV lift vehicles by $30,800,000 due to the availability of additional funds reimbursed to the program from NASA for Air Force support to the Cassini mission. The Committee has also recommended an additional reduction of $53,000,000 for long- lead components for the follow-on buy of Titan IV launch vehicles. It is not known at this time whether there is a requirement for any of these heavy lift vehicles. Accordingly, the Committee believes it is premature to commit to the acquisition of an additional six Titan IV lift vehicles. medium launch vehicles The Air Force requested a total of $175,599,000 for procurement and advanced procurement of medium launch vehicles. The Committee recommends $161,899,000, a decrease of $13,700,000. According to the general accounting office, the Air Force has funds excess to program requirements for the Delta II medium launch vehicle and for launch pad repair work. The Committee recommends this reduction without prejudice. defense support program (dsp) The Air Force requested $70,967,000 for the Defense Support Program. The Committee recommends $45,967,000, a decrease of $25,000,000. The Committee notes that prior year funds are available for use by the DSP program in fiscal year 1997 due to the restructuring of the Block 18 production contract, reduced launch service requirements and the cancellation of laser cross-link capability. defense satellite communications system--space The Air Force requested $22,729,000 for the Defense Satellite Communications System (DSCS). The Committee recommends $25,529,000, an increase of $2,800,000 to modify existing DSCS satellites gain control and antenna connections. OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE navstar gps space The Air Force requested $3,308,000 for the Navstar GPS Space program. The Committee recommends $4,308,000, an increase of $1,000,000. The increase is for upgrades to the GPS program to enhance safety of DoD passenger aircraft as addressed elsewhere in the report. PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE This appropriation provides for the procurement of capital equipment for the Defense Communications Agency, the Defense Logistics Agency, the Defense Mapping Agency, and other agencies of the Department of Defense. The fiscal year 1997 program includes procurement of automatic data processing equipment, mechanized materials handling systems, general and special purpose vehicular equipment, communications equipment, chemical and biological defense equipment, and many other items. Committee Recommendations defense airborne reconnaissance program unmanned aerial vehicles (uav) Predator UAV. The budget request for the Predator UAV program is $57,791,000. The Committee recommends $107,791,000, an increase of $50,000,000 only to procure additional systems to meet the directives of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council in a more timely manner. The Committee believes that the Predator UAV units should operate in a joint environment with United States Atlantic Command as the force provider. The Predator should be available for use by all services in accordance with individual and collective requirements. The Committee understands that the Navy has a requirement for the capabilities and realtime information similar to that provided by Predator which could be achieved without modification of the aircraft. The Committee directs that the on-going Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office (DARO) study on UAVs include the feasibility of operating the Predator system from LHA/LHD and CV/CVN Class ships. If the DARO and the Navy determine that operating from naval vessels is feasible, the Committee directs that DARO and Navy jointly provide an assessment of their findings to the Committee by January 15, 1997. The report should address conditions of operating the Predator from naval vessels and estimated costs. The Committee further believes that there should be an operational coordinator between the Predator program office and operational users. This will ensure maximum utilization between the development community and operational user. Such coordination is viewed as critical for the effective utilization of these systems. Pioneer UAV. The budget request for the Pioneer UAV program is $10,600,000. The Committee recommends $40,600,000, an increase of $30,000,000 only for procurement of attrition spares and support kits. budget format The Committee directs that the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Program (DARP) procurement accounts be restructured into categories of accounts as shown below and separate program elements be established for each account. Further details of the budget restructure of the DARP are provided under the RDT&E, Defense-Wide, portion of this report. Committee directions addressed in the RDT&E section also apply to the procurement accounts of the DARP. Procurement programs I. Manned Reconnaissance Programs. a. U-2 b. RC-135 c. SR-71 d. EP-3E/ARIES e. REEF POINT II. Unmanned Airborne Reconnaissance Programs. a. Predator UAV b. Tactical UAV c. Pioneer UAV III. Common Dissemination and Ground Station Programs. a. Common Imagery Ground/Surface System b. Multi-Intelligence Reconnaissance Ground Systems. Major Equipment, DISA information systems security The budget requested $17,136,000 for information systems security. The Committee recommends $43,136,000, an increase of $26,000,000 to accelerate the procurement of network security hardware and software. Special Operations Command Aviation Programs ac-130 force structure The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to prepare a report on the current force structure and future requirements of the AC-130 gunship fleet. The report shall also include an assessment of the adequacy of the present fleet in meeting future deployment and training requirements. The report should be provided no later than January 31, 1997. C-130 Modifications The Committee recommends an increase of $18,100,000 only for modification of two C-130J aircraft to the EC-130J configuration for the Air National Guard. Funds to procure these aircraft are provided in the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account. Ammunition Programs sof individual weapons ammunition The budget recommended no appropriation for the Selectable Lightweight Attack Munitions (SLAM). The Committee recommends $1,500,000 only for the Selectable Lightweight Attack Munitions. Other Procurement Program Advanced Seal Delivery System The budget recommended no appropriation for the Advanced Seal Delivery System (ASDS). The Committee recommends $2,800,000 only for advance procurement of hull steel for the Advanced Seal Delivery System (ASDS). Chemical and Biological Defense Program individual protection The budget requested $53,785,000 for chemical and biological individual protection. The Committee recommends $140,085,000, an increase of $86,300,000. Studies done in the aftermath of the Gulf War have shown that the U.S. was ill- prepared to fight a war when faced with chemical and biological agents. A recent GAO report states: ``Although DoD is taking steps to improve the readiness of U.S. ground forces to conduct operations in a chemical or biological environment, serious weaknesses remain. Many early deploying active and reserve units do not possess the amount of chemical and biological equipment required by regulations, and new equipment development and procurement are often proceeding more slowly than planned.'' The Gulf War demonstrated significant weaknesses in our readiness. Units and soldiers often arrived in theater without required equipment and protective clothing. Protective clothing if available was ``problematic because it was heavy, bulky, and too hot for warm climates'' according to GAO. The recent GAO report also states that of the Army's five active divisions--which include the crisis response force--none had sufficient stocks of protective chemical/biological clothing. The Committee believes that this situation is intolerable and must be corrected. The Committee therefore recommends an increase of $86,300,000 only for Joint Service Lightweight Integrated Suits (JSLIST) which are lightweight and more effective than current stocks of protective clothing. These funds will buy out the current requirement and save $89,300,000 over the Future Years Defense Plan. chemical/biological response planning The Committee is greatly concerned about the Federal Government's ability to respond quickly and effectively to any potential domestic terrorist attack involving the use of chemical or biological agents. The Tokyo subway chemical attack should serve as a sober reminder that such irrational attacks can be carried out to great effect. Prudent plans must be in place to not only combat such acts before they are carried out, but to respond quickly and effectively to minimize damage if they are carried out. The Committee is concerned that overlapping responsibilities among federal, state, and local authorities combined with fragmented federal agency jurisdictions presents a significant challenge to meet this relatively new threat. In view of the Defense Department's considerable expertise in detecting, combating, and responding to chemical or biological incidents, the Committee wishes to be assured that this expertise can be appropriately and lawfully utilized should the need arise. The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to consult with appropriate federal officials and submit a classified report to the congressional defense committees outlining the plans and process in place to respond to a domestic chemical or biological incident; the planned role of Department of Defense and National Guard personnel in responding to such incidents; current legal and organizational hindrances that may obstruct the ability of Defense Department, National Guard, or other specialized personnel from effectively responding to such incidents; and identified shortfalls in training, funding, equipment, personnel, and organizational authority that need to be redressed. The Committee requests that this report expressly focus on the capabilities of the National Guard in assisting with this important activity. The Committee expects this report to be submitted not later than March 1, 1997. TITLE IV RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION cruise missile defense The Committee expressed its concern about the inadequacy of Department of Defense cruise missile defense programs in fiscal year 1992, long before the topic became popular. The need for cruise missile defense is now more widely accepted. Department of Defense witnesses at the highest levels testified to the Committee again this year on the effectiveness of the continuing financial investment in cooperative engagement, about which Secretary Perry described as ``the biggest breakthrough in warfare technology since stealth''. The Department's growing concern is defense against land- attack cruise missiles and the ability of third world nations to quickly acquire them, apply stealth technologies to them, and deliver warheads of mass destruction. The Department is addressing the priority and focus of cruise missile defense programs, and proposing new initiatives such as the supposedly joint service aerostat acquisition program. In the absence of a joint service architecture, however, the Department is building a house without a blueprint. The Committee is concerned that each of the services and DARPA is moving out on its own unique ``go it alone'' plan rather than building systems which are optimized to meet the needs of theater commanders in joint service operations. For example, while the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) touts the merits of DARPA-developed advanced sensors, the leadership of DARPA is actively curtailing the Agency's involvement in advanced sensor work supporting this program. The most pressing immediate issue requires resolution by OSD and the JCS Joint Requirements Oversight Council: whether cooperative engagement or the Joint Tactical Information Distribution Systems (JTIDS) will be the primary means of linking the individual service sensor and shooter systems together to provide theater commanders with integrated, seamless cruise missile defense. The Committee understands that JTIDS provides a limited capability for Army missiles and Air Force fighter aircraft to potentially acquire a small number of cruise missiles once detected by airborne sensors (such as E-2C, E-3A, or aerostats), but that JTIDS systems are overwhelmed by large size raids. Only the cooperative engagement system can meet mission requirements. CEC offers other advantages over JTIDS, such as reliable, realtime track of all friendly and enemy air targets. The Committee is very disappointed in the JROC's failure to resolve this long-standing technical issue, which in terms of its importance and joint-source nature is a core oversight requirement that is at the heart of the organization's purpose. The Committee again directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a joint service cruise missile defense architecture for a capability that is fully integrated with theater ballistic missile defense for theater air defense missions. It should include broad area defense through a layered system consisting of an outer layer of fighter aircraft with air-to-air weapons, a mid-layer composed of existing surface-to-air missiles which can shoot over the horizon when supported by advanced airborne sensors, and an inner self-defense layer composed of surface- to-air weapons using organic ground based sensors. DoD must take advantage of the large investment in existing air defense systems and those under development by the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. To be robust against large numbers of cruise missiles, joint service land attack cruise missile defense capability must be able to take advantage of high quality sensor data and fire control/weapons information among multiple units to permit engagement decisions to be automated, in real time, across the entire joint force. Effective networking of airborne and surface sensors is essential to provide fire control quality data to the shooter and continuously track all aircraft and missiles to allow identification based on point of origin, target and flight parameters, and identification sensor requirements. Of key importance, as threat enemy cruise missiles move into the low observable regime, measurements from many sensors will be necessary just to maintain continuous track of a target. In order to achieve this level of performance, the joint service network must be able to exchange large quantities of sensor data in jamming environments with extremely high reliability and with very low latency. Only the cooperative engagement system has demonstrated an ability to meet these multiple demanding requirements. The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a detailed joint service cruise missile defense master plan addressing these concerns to the congressional defense committees concurrent with submission of the fiscal year 1998 President's Budget. The Committee further directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to include in this plan a detailed description of the joint service cruise missile defense architecture and specifically how the CEC/JTIDS issue has been resolved. The master plan should identify every cruise missile defense program for which funding is sought in fiscal year 1998, and include a classified appendix if necessary. The Department should minimize expenditures for acquisition of new start upgrades to existing systems (such as E-2C or E-3A) or initiation of new systems until a comprehensive architecture has been developed and a master plan submitted to the Congress. B-1 congressional interest item Last year, the Air Force approached the Committee with a request for an additional $7,000,000 to accelerate JDAM integration on the B-1 aircraft. These additional funds were provided as part of the fiscal year 1996 Defense Appropriations Act. The additional $7,000,000 was identified as a congressional interest item and is thus subject to special procedures prohibiting any reprogramming or reallocation without the prior approval of the congressional defense committees. The Committee has recently learned that the Air Force obligated $2,000,000 of these funds for B-1 SATCOM upgrades and used the remaining $5,000,000 to offset the B-1 program's share of various undistributed reductions and DoD initiatives, including the Bosnia reprogramming. These actions have occurred despite Secretary Perry's letter of May 6, 1996 to the Committee assuring that, ``No program added by the Congress or designated as a Congressional interest item has been reduced disproportionately [for the Bosnia reprogramming].'' The Committee finds the actions of the Air Force on this matter totally unacceptable. Therefore, the Committee directs the Air Force to restore the funding for this congressional interest item immediately. Further, the Committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to report to the congressional defense committees no later than July 31, 1996 whether the Department intends to, (1) use the funds as intended by Congress, (2) submit a reprogramming request to Congress, or (3) submit the item for rescission. classified programs Adjustments to classified RDT&E programs are explained in the classified report accompanying this report. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, ARMY authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request in accordance with House authorization action: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Change from Item Budget request Committee recommended recommended request ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tractor Rose Exploratory Development......................... 2,131 3,131 +1,000 Tractor Hip.................................................. 8,152 9,152 +1,000 Tractor Hike................................................. 17,176 22,176 +5,000 Tractor Red.................................................. 5,125 8,625 +3,500 Tractor Rose Adv. Dev........................................ 5,078 6,778 +1,700 Missile/Air Defense Product Improvement Program.............. 30,959 50,959 +20,000 Special Army Program......................................... 10,185 12,485 +2,300 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Demonstration and Validation Tactical electronic support system The Army requested $2,025,000 for the Tactical Electronic Support System. The Committee recommends $9,825,000, an increase of $7,800,000 only to upgrade Block I hardware, procure four additional ASAS-Extended Systems and provide ASAS remote workstations for brigade and battalion staffs. Management Support dod high energy laser test facility The Army requested $2,967,000 for the DoD High Energy Laser Test Facility (HELSTF). The Committee recommends $91,700,000, an increase of $88,733,000. Of the additional funds, $21,733,000 is only for HELSTF; $55,000,000 is only for THEL/ NAUTILUS; and $12,000,000 is only for high energy solid state laser development. ; RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, NAVY Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with House authorization action: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Committee Change from Budget request recommendation request ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Surface/Aerospace Surveillance and Weapons Technology Exploratory Development..................................... 26,312 41,112 +14,800 Command, Control, and Communications Technology Exploratory Development................................................. 56,159 58,159 +2,000 Arsenal Ship (EMD)........................................... 25,000 0 -25,000 Standard Missile Improvements................................ 1,637 9,637 +8,000 Battle Group Passive Horizon Extension Program............... 3,704 4,704 +1,000 JSTARS Navy.................................................. 0 10,000 +10,000 Distributed Surveillance System.............................. 35,194 70,194 +35,000 Integrated Surveillance System............................... 14,033 36,133 +22,100 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Engineering and Manufacturing Development tactical command system The Navy requested $26,989,000 for the Tactical Command System. The Committee recommends $29,989,000, an increase of $3,000,000. Of this amount $1,000,000 is to be used only for the Navy Tactical Command System-Afloat to continue development of common architecture to support world-wide database access to all fleet users in support of the ``Efficient Information Pull'' tenet of the Joint Staff C4I for the Warfighter. An additional $2,000,000 has been provided only to support the efforts to proliferate the RADIANT MERCURY capabilities. navigation/id system The Navy requested $46,885,000 for Navigation and ID systems development. The Committee recommends $48,885,000, an increase of $2,000,000 only for GPS and Flight Data Recorder upgrades to Navy aircraft. The Committee has addressed its concerns regarding GPS and Flight Data Recorders elsewhere in this report. Operational Systems Development tomahawk The Navy requested $136,364,000 for Tomahawk development efforts. The Committee recommends $124,364,000, a net reduction of $12,000,000. Of the funds provided, $8,000,000 is only for the Joint Targeting Support Center. The Committee has learned that the Navy has restructured the Tomahawk Block IV development program, eliminating the seeker and man-in-the-loop data link based on technical and affordability concerns. This action has reduced the cost of the program starting in fiscal year 1996. The Navy plans to reinvest the savings in fiscal year 1998 and beyond in additional outyear missile procurements. Further, the Navy is currently evaluating ways to accelerate the restructured program by reapplying the fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 savings. However, the Committee is not convinced that the downscoped program can be accelerated significantly in these years and therefore recommends a reduction of $20,000,000. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, AIR FORCE Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with House authorization action: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Committee Change from Item Budget request recommendation request ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NPOESS....................................................... 34,024 19,024 -15,000 VISTA........................................................ 0 1,400 1,400 MILSTAR...................................................... 700,278 720,278 +20,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- program growth/budget execution adjustments The budget request included amounts for some programs which exceed by an unjustifiably large margin the amounts provided for fiscal year 1995 or 1996. Other programs had significant prior year unobligated balances, and budget adjustments are necessary due to poor budget execution. The Committee therefore recommends the following reductions: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Committee Change from Item Budget request recommendation request ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JSTARS....................................................... 207,284 203,784 -3,500 Navstar GPS.................................................. 32,450 24,950 -7,500 DSP.......................................................... 29,397 26,397 -3,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Basic Research defense research sciences The Air Force requested $234,475,000 for defense research sciences. The Committee recommends $234,475,000. The Committee's recommendation includes the requested amount of $650,000 for support to the Sacramento Peak Observatory. The Committee directs that the full amount be provided to Sacramento Peak and designates this project to be an item of specific Committee interest. phillips lab exploratory development The Air Force requested $121,107,000 for Phillips Lab exploratory development. The Committee recommends $148,007,000, an increase of $26,900,000. Within this amount, $7,000,000 is only for integrated high payoff rocket propulsion technology, $9,800,000 is only for the rocket system launch program, and $10,100,000 is only for the MightySat program. Advanced Development space and missile rocket propulsion The Air Force requested $15,740,000 for space and missile rocket propulsion. The Committee recommends $25,740,000, an increase of $10,000,000. Within this amount $5,000,000 in only for the integrated high payoff rocket propulsion technology initiative, $2,000,000 is only for the disposal of pentaborane rocket fuel at Edwards AFB, and $3,000,000 is only for the continuation of rocket engine testing efforts for the Scorpius low cost expendable launch vehicle technology project. advanced spacecraft technology The Air Force requested $39,637,000 for advanced spacecraft technology. The Committee recommends $70,637,000, an increase of $31,000,000. Within this amount, $25,000,000 is only for reusable launch vehicle technologies, $3,000,000 is only for the miniature threat satellite threat reporting system, and $2,000,000 is only for technology development efforts associated with power storage and distribution components for satellite systems. advanced weapons technology The Air Force requested $41,895,000 for advanced weapons technology. The Committee recommends $66,895,000, an increase of $25,000,000. Within this amount, $10,000,000 is only to allow for enhanced investigations of the utility of laser induced microwave emissions technology, and $15,000,000 is only for development of space laser imaging technology. Demonstration And Validation airborne laser technology The Air Force requested $56,828,000 for airborne laser technology (ABL). The Committee recommends $56,828,000 the amount of the budget request. The Committee recognizes the Air Force's commitment to this program and believes the Airborne Laser has the potential to offer an effective near-term boost- phase intercept missile defense capability. The Committee also directs that the Air Force provide a report on the total costs of the ABL program to include demonstration/validation, development, acquisition and deployment costs and an assessment of the possible Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty implications of developing and deploying an ABL system. polar adjunct The Air Force requested $62,387,000 for the polar adjunct communications system. The Committee recommends $22,387,000, a decrease of $40,000,000. The Committee's recommendation is discussed more fully in the classified annex to this report. space based infrared architecture--dem/val The Air Force budgeted $120,151,000 for the space based infrared system (SBIRS). The Committee recommends $249,151,000, an increase of $129,000,000. Within this amount, the Committee has provided an additional $134,000,000 only for the acceleration of the space missile and tracking system (SMTS). The Committee also recommends a reduction of $5,000,000 due to unwarranted program support cost growth on the SBIRS program. Engineering and Manufacturing Development joint tactical information distribution system (jtids) The Air Force requested $11,075,000 for the Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS). The Committee recommends $30,875,000, an increase of $19,800,000 only for air-to-ground Link-16 development common to the B-1, F-15E, and F-16. The Air Force has identified an unfunded requirement to integrate Link-16 on these platforms at an accelerated pace. Though the Committee believes Link-16 provides a significant warfighting capability, it is questionable whether the Air Force can afford the additional $335 million required to integrate the capability on all three platforms at the accelerated pace. Therefore, the Committee recommendation provides for the maximum level of funds identified by the Air Force as common to all three platforms. The Air Force is encouraged to budget for platform specific integration as part of its fiscal year 1998 budget submission. Operational Systems Development defense satellite communications system The Air Force requested $24,527,000 for the Defense Satellite Communications System (DSCS). The Committee recommends $28,127,000, an increase of $3,600,000 only to modify existing DSCS satellites gain control and antenna connections. satellite control network (SCN) The Air Force requested $89,960,000 for the satellite control network. The Committee recommends $86,960,000, a decrease of $3,000,000. According to the GAO, contract cost savings from prior years are available for fiscal year 1997 requirements for the SCN program. titan iv space launch vehicles The Air Force requested $105,472,000 for Titan IV space launch vehicles. The Committee recommends $102,472,000, a decrease of $3,000,000. The Committee understands that a delay in the awarding of a contract for a new guidance system has resulted in fiscal year 1996 funds being available for fiscal year 1997 requirements. arms control implementation The Air Force requested $26,786,000 for arms control implementation. The Committee recommends $31,386,000, an increase of $4,600,000. This increase provides a total of $11,100,000 for CTBT monitoring research. Of this amount $7,600,000 shall be available only for research efforts in the field of explosion seismology, and $3,500,000 shall be available for research efforts in complementary disciplines, such as hydroacoustics, infrasound and radionuclide analyses. The Committee directs that the $11,100,000 for CTBT monitoring research can be used only to support documented Air Force operational monitoring requirements. The Committee also directs the Department to provide sufficient funding in future year budget requests to provide for a stable and robust seismic research program. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE-WIDE Committee Recommendations Authorization Changes The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with authorization action: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Committee Change from Budget request recommendations request ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Medical Free Electron Laser.................................. 23,457 20,457 -3,000 Theater High-Altitude Area Defense........................... 481,798 621,798 +140,000 Navy Upper Tier.............................................. 58,171 304,171 +246,000 Corps Sam/MEADS.............................................. 56,232 ............... -56,232 National Missile Defense..................................... 508,437 858,437 +350,000 General Reduction............................................ ............... -15,000 -15,000 Technical Assistance......................................... 4,785 ............... -4,785 Defense Mapping Agency....................................... 100,997 90,997 -10,000 Special Operations Intelligence Systems...................... 1,315 2,315 +1,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Basic Research chemical and biological defense program The Department requested $28,739,000 for the chemical and biological defense program. The Committee recommends $30,939,000, an increase of $2,200,000 only for biological warfare countermeasures. internetted unattended ground sensors (iugs) The Committee believes that internetted unattended ground sensors (IUGS) could be extremely effective in responding to battlefield situations such as those faced in Desert Storm. The Committee urges the Department to fund this promising technology which consists of a distributed sensor and communications suite which detects and classifies enemy assets. chemical and biological defense program The Department requested $41,685,000 for the chemical and biological defense program. The Committee recommends $43,485,000, an increase of $1,800,000 only for biological warfare countermeasures. secures The Committee believes that Systems for the Effective Control of Urban Environmental Security (SECURES) may have substantial military application. SECURES is a technology that is being developed for the law enforcement community which uses a grid of sensors to detect the sound of gunfire and could be useful to military personnel in defending against snipers. The Committee directs the Department to examine this technology to determine its applicability for the military and report its findings within 60 days of the enactment of this act. ballistic missile defense The budget requested $2,534,182,000 for Ballistic Missile Defense in the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation title of this bill. The Committee recommends $3,238,950,000 for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization's (BMDO) research and development programs, an increase of $704,768,000, as proposed in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. The Committee recommends specific changes in Ballistic Missile Defense programs as detailed in the table below. BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Committee Change from Budget request recommendation request ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- National Missile Defense..................................... 508,437 858,437 +350,000 Theater High-Altitude Area Defense........................... 481,798 621,798 +140,000 Navy Upper Tier.............................................. 58,171 304,171 +246,000 Corps Sam (MEADS)............................................ 56,232 ............... -56,232 Support Technologies/Follow on Technologies.................. 132,319 172,319 +40,000 General Reduction Management................................. ............... ............... -15,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Theater Missile Defense The Department requested $481,798,000 for the Theater High- Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) program. The Committee recommends $621,798,000, an increase of $140,000,000. The Committee is concerned that the President's Budget request for THAAD is underfunded, a factor confirmed by Departmental witnesses in testimony before the Committee. The Department's proposed program would, solely because of a lack of funding, delay potential THAAD deployment to the field by years. The Committee's proposed increase in funding would accelerate the THAAD program to achieve a prototype capability by 1999, and a full operational capability by 2004. The Department requested $58,171,000 for the Navy Upper Tier system. The Committee recommends $304,171,000, an increase of $246,000,000. In the Administration's program, Navy Upper Tier is not a full-fledged development program. Instead, funding included in the 1997 budget provides for a ``technology demonstration.'' The Committee strongly believes that Navy Upper Tier must be developed and deployed as soon as possible and therefore recommends an increase in funds to accomplish this purpose. National Missile Defense The Department requested $508,437,000 for National Missile Defense. The Committee recommends $858,437,000, an increase of $350,000,000, as approved by the House in the recently-passed Defense Authorization bill. The Department's budget request does not provide sufficient funding to deploy a limited National Missile Defense (NMD) capability. The Committee believes that a NMD capability, sufficient to defend against a limited ballistic missile attack, should be developed and deployed by 2003. ramos The Committee recognizes that the Russian-American Observational Satellite (RAMOS) program offers significant benefits. The Committee urges continued funding of this successful cooperative effort between Russia and the United States. Engineering and Manufacturing Development chemical and biological defense program The budget requested $89,915,000 for the chemical and biological defense program. The Committee recommends $97,115,000, an increase of $7,200,000, only for biological warfare countermeasures. chemical and biological defense program The budget requested $16,708,000. The Committee recommends $22,708,000, an increase of $6,000,000, only for Pulsed Fast Neutron Analysis. Operational Systems Development defense airborne reconnaissance program program management Budget Format. The Committee remains a strong supporter of the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Program (DARP) and is fully committed to continuing enhancements and developments of airborne reconnaissance capability, but however, not at the expense of sustaining operational support to our forces deployed around the world. The Committee has a long standing concern about the single Program Element (PE) comprising all DARP research and development projects and four generic line items in the Air Force and Defense-Wide procurement accounts. The basis of this concern is the extraordinary latitude the single PE gives the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Organization (DARO) during the execution year, well after the appropriations process is concluded, to shift funding and implement significant program changes without obtaining formal consent or approval. Examples of this situation abound, i.e., SENIOR SMART restructured to JASA and the current acquisition strategy just recently undergone even further restructure; U-2 and RC-135 sensor development and modification terminated or delayed with funds being reprogrammed to UAV programs or other activities; HUNTER funding transfers to other programs and to the newly restructured Tactical UAV program; DARO ``taxes'' taken from programs to pay DARO overhead and management expenses. These instances of multimillion dollar reprogramming of appropriated funds after formal appropriations deliberations were concluded have clearly improperly circumvented the oversight authority of the Committee. To alleviate these concerns the Committee directs that the DARP be restructured into categories of accounts as shown below, and separate PEs be established for each account. The budget format for Procurement programs is shown under the Procurement, Defense-Wide, portion of this report. All future budget submissions shall use this new structure. The Committee further directs separate project numbers be assigned to any activity within these PEs having funding levels in excess of $5,000,000. Research and development programs I. DARP Management. (This account funds manpower, travel, supplies and equipment, Scientific, Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA)/FFRDC and other administrative and management costs.) II. Manned Reconnaissance Programs. a. U-2 b. RC-135 c. SR-71 d. EP-3E/ARIES e. REEF POINT III. Unmanned Airborne Reconnaissance Programs. a. Predator MAE UAV b. Global Hawk HAE c. Dark Star LO HAE d. Tactical UAV e. Pioneer UAV IV Advanced Sensor and Technology Programs. a. Advanced Imagery Sensors Project b. Advanced SIGINT Sensors Project c. Advanced Technology V. Common Dissemination and Ground Stations. a. Common Data Link b. Common Imagery Ground/Surface System c. Airborne Reconnaissance Ground SIGINT Systems d. Distributed Common Ground System e. Multi-Intelligence Reconnaissance Ground Systems f. High Altitude Endurance UAV Common Ground Station The Committee reiterates its intention to continue vigorous oversight over the DARP budget, and the language contained in the Committee's report accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 1995 remains in effect. The DARO is to continue to obtain written approval from the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate for all transfers of funds between the various programs and/or projects which exceed $2,000,000. DARP Management. The fiscal year 1997 budget request for DARP Integration and Support and DARO operations is $19,841,000. The Committee agrees to provide the budget request of $19,841,000 and directs that this amount be capped at this level. Any transfer of funds into this account requires prior approval from the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate. Program Execution. The Committee is concerned about the overall executability of a number of DARP programs. While technology demonstrations are useful, there comes a point where a transition must take place to move from ``demonstrating for demonstrations' sake'' to an emphasis on transitioning the technology into a fully operational military system. The key to this transition in successful programs has been a strong commitment by the Services to program funding for production system and to commit personnel resources to operate and maintain the system. The lack of Service commitment is conspicuous in a number of DARP programs, particularly the UAV ACTD programs and some advanced technology sensor programs, most notably the newly restructured Joint Airborne SIGINT Architecture. These shortfalls raise the question of program executability. If the Services are unable to execute DARP programs currently in development, then the DARO should restructure its efforts in line with the resources available. The Committee directs the DARO to report in future congressional justification book submissions production cost and manpower requirements for all DARP systems and detail shortfalls in these areas which may affect program execution. dark star uav The budget request includes $17,400,000 for the DARK STAR unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). The Committee recommends $59,900,000, an increase of $42,500,000. Of this amount, $17,000,000 shall be used only to procure a replacement air vehicle for the one that recently crashed during flight test, so that a total of four air vehicles will be available to conduct the advanced concept technology demonstration as planned. Of the remaining $25,500,000, $22,000,000 shall be used only to identify and fix technical problems which caused the crash of air vehicle #1, accomplish additional simulations and computational aerodynamic evaluations and restart the testing phase; and $3,500,000 shall be used only for integrating existing electro-optical framing camera technology into the aircraft and associated ground processing equipment. The Committee directs the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office to submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate that includes the results of the investigation of the crash of air vehicle #1 and an audit trail of all funds appropriated to date for the DARK STAR UAV program. The report must be submitted by July 1, 1996. electro-optical (eo) framing technology The Committee recommends $15,000,000 only for the continuation of EO framing technologies only with on-chip graded forward motion compensation (FMC). Of this amount, $2,000,000 shall be used to fund the testing, evaluation and concept design of a high quantum efficiency, large area EO framing, infra-red charged coupled device only with an on-chip graded forward motion compensation (FMC). The Committee believes the Predator UAV system will benefit from enhanced survivability due to greater stand-off range and higher resolution afforded by large area EO framing sensors, an additional $3,300,000 shall be used solely to upgrade existing Predator air vehicles with operational insertion of three 25- mega pixel EO framing sensors only with an on-chip graded FMC. USH-42 MISSION RECORDER The Committee expects the Department to establish a mission recorder acquisition plan to acquire a digital version of the Navy's USH-42 mission recorders for DARO reconnaissance and surveillance platforms as recommended in the fiscal year 1996 appropriations conference agreement and report the plan to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate prior to the conference on this year's Defense Appropriations bill. Additionally, as directed by the conferees, DARO shall use funds provided in fiscal year 1996 to continue the product improvement program during fiscal year 1997. AUTHORIZATION ADJUSTMENTS The Committee recommends the following adjustments in accordance with House authorization action: GLOBAL HAWK UAV......................................... -$10,000,000 U-2 Sensor Upgrades..................................... +57,000,000 Common Dissem & Ground/Surface System................... +11,000,000 Multi-function self aligned gate technology............. +8,000,000 special operations technology development The Department requested $4,083,000 for special operations technology development. The Committee recommends $6,083,000, an increase of $2,000,000 only for the Joint Ranger Anti-Armor Anti-personnel Weapon System (JRAAWS). Special Operations Tactical Systems Development The Department requested $83,923,000. The Committee recommends $89,323,000, an increase of $5,400,000. Within this increase $4,400,000 is only for Advanced Seal Delivery System (ASDS) shortfalls, and $1,000,000 is only for full authority digital electronic control. Special Operations Intelligence Systems JOINT THREAT WARNING SYSTEM The budget requested no funds for Joint Threat Warning System (JTWS) training development. The Committee recommends $1,000,000 only for the development of a training medium to support garrison, enroute and deployed JTWS operations. SPECIAL OPERATIONS ENHANCEMENTS The budget requested $23,216,000 for Special Operations Enhancements. The Committee recommends an additional $5,500,000 only to develop and test equipment which will be used to accomplish the mission of counterproliferation of weapons of mass destruction. quiet knight The budget request did not include funds for the continuation of the Quiet Knight advanced avionics technology demonstration program. The Committee understands that sufficient funds are available from prior years to support the completion of the advanced technology demonstration and that no additional funds are required for the program in fiscal year 1997. TITLE VI OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS Defense Health Program global infectious diseases The Committee notes the importance of monitoring global infectious diseases and urges the military services to evaluate the potential of establishing a global infectious diseases surveillance and response system. DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEFENSE Fiscal year 1996 appropriation.......................... $688,432,000 Fiscal year 1997 budget request......................... 642,724,000 Committee recommendation................................ 774,724,000 Change from budget request.............................. +132,000,000 This appropriation provides funds for Military Personnel; Operation and Maintenance; Procurement; and Research, Development, Test and Evaluation for drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the Department of Defense. Committee Recommendations The Department of Defense requested $642,724,000 for Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities. The committee recommends $774,724,000, an increase of $132,000,000. In April 1996 the President requested a supplemental appropriation including $132,000,000 for Defense Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities. The Committee welcomed this request since the President's Defense Counter- Drug budgets have been in steady decline since fiscal year 1994. Unfortunately, this request arrived too late to be dealt with during conference committee action on supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1996. In this bill, the Committee has increased the Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities account by $132,000,000. This increase funds all the defense counter-drug programs requested in the fiscal year 1996 supplemental. It does not, however, include funding for the requested retrofit of two P-3 aircraft which were proposed for transfer to the Customs Service. Since these assets would be used by another agency, the Committee does not believe funding should be provided in the Defense Appropriations bill. Instead the Committee has identified a number of alternative unfunded defense requirements for which it is providing funds over the budget request. national guard counter-drug program The Committee recommends an addition of $40,000,000 to the budget request for the National Guard Counter-Drug Support Program which has played a crucial role in the war on drugs. The budget request would fund less than half of the state and local law enforcement requests for National Guard Counter-Drug Support. The Committee's recommendation provides an increase of $56,300,000 in National Guard programs and the Committee directs that none of the funds provided for the National Guard shall be reduced unless the proper reprogramming procedures are followed. gulf states initiative The Committee recommends $8,500,000 above the budget request for the Gulf States Counter-drug Initiative (GSCI). Of this amount, $800,000 is for the Regional Counter-drug Training Academy. Of the remaining funds, $7,700,000 is provided in O&M for sustainment costs for the C4 network of GSCI, improvements to existing processing and analysis centers for the states, and as recommended in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill, start-up costs for including the state of Georgia in the network. civil air patrol The Committee recommends an additional $2,500,000 above the budget request for the Civil Air Patrol (CAP). Funds made available to the CAP in the fiscal year 1997 appropriation for Defense Department Drug Interdiction activities may be used for CAP's demand reduction program involving youth programs as well as operational and training drug reconnaissance missions for federal, state and local government agencies; for administrative costs, including the hiring of CAP employees; for travel and per diem expenses of CAP personnel in support of those missions; and for equipment needed for mission support or performance. The Department of the Air Force should waive reimbursement from the federal, state and local government agencies for use of these funds. army support to multi-jurisdictional task force The Committee recommends an additional $1,800,000 above the budget request for use by the Military Police (MP) School to provide for training by the Criminal Justice Institute in support of Multi-Jurisdictional Task Force activities. The Committee commends the Army MP school for the valuable training it provides to law enforcement personnel in support of the counter-drug effort. However, the Committee is aware that the capacity for training by the MP school at Fort McClellan is limited and unable to meet the demands of law enforcement. The Criminal Justice Institute is ideally suited to expand the course offerings provided by the MP school. southwest border states anti-drug information system The Committee recommends an additional $7,000,000 above the budget for the Southwest Border States Anti-drug Information System. The Committee expects these funds to be matched equally by local, state, or regional governments. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1997: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Committee Change from Budget recommended budget ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dismantling Cartels.......................................... 57,055 70,055 13,000 Signal Intelligence Equipment............................ ............... 3,000 3,000 Classified Programs...................................... ............... 10,000 10,000 Source Nation Support........................................ 139,619 172,019 32,400 Laser Strike............................................. ............... 11,000 11,000 Refurbish and Install TPS-70 Radar....................... ............... 15,000 15,000 Riverine Operations...................................... ............... 4,900 4,900 SOUTHCOM support......................................... ............... 1,500 1,500 Detection and Monitoring..................................... 134,198 137,998 3,800 Spare TARS............................................... ............... 3,800 3,800 Domestic Law Enforcement Support............................. 227,957 310,757 82,800 Marijuana Eradication.................................... ............... 3,000 3,000 Non-instrusive Inspection System......................... ............... 6,000 6,000 Southwest Border Support................................. ............... 2,500 2,500 Enhanced JTF-6 DLEA support.............................. ............... 5,000 5,000 Gulf States Counter-drug Initiative...................... ............... 8,500 8,500 Multi-Jurisdictional Task Force Activities............... ............... 1,800 1,800 C-26 Reconnaissance Upgrade.............................. ............... 3,500 3,500 National Guard State Plans............................... ............... 40,000 40,000 National Interagency Counternarcotics Institute.......... ............... 3,000 3,000 Southwest Border Information............................. ............... 7,000 7,000 Civil Air Patrol......................................... ............... 2,500 2,500 Demand Reduction............................................. 83,895 83,895 0 -------------------------------------------------- Total, Drug Interdiction............................... 642,724 774,724 132,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE VII RELATED AGENCIES NATIONAL FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM Introduction The National Foreign Intelligence Program consists of those intelligence activities of the Government which provide the President, other officials of the Executive Branch, and the Congress with national foreign intelligence on broad strategic concerns bearing on U.S. national security. The concerns are stated by the National Security Council in the form of long- range and short-range requirements for the principal users of intelligence, and include political and support to military theater commanders. The National Foreign Intelligence Program budget funded in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act consists primarily of resources of the Central Intelligence Agency; the Defense Intelligence Agency; the National Reconnaissance Office; the National Security Agency; the intelligence services of the Department of the Army, Navy and the Air Force; the Intelligence Community Management Account; and the CIA Retirement and Disability System Fund. classified report Because of the highly sensitive nature of intelligence programs, the results of the Committee's budget review are published in a separate, detailed and comprehensive classified report. The intelligence community, Department of Defense and other organizations are directed to comply fully with the recommendations and directions in the classified report accompanying the fiscal year 1997 Defense Appropriations bill. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM FUND Fiscal year 1996 appropriation.......................... $213,900,000 Fiscal year 1997 budget request......................... 196,400,000 Committee recommendation................................ 196,400,000 Change from budget request.............................................. This appropriation provides payments of benefits to qualified beneficiaries in accordance with the Central Intelligence Retirement Act of 1964 for Certain Employees (Public Law 88-643). This statute authorizes the establishment of a CIA Retirement and Disability System (CIARDS) for a limited number of CIA employees, and authorized the establishment and maintenance of a Fund from which benefits would be paid to those beneficiaries. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT Fiscal year 1996 appropriation.......................... $90,683,000 Fiscal year 1997 budget request......................... 91,739,000 Committee recommendation................................ 149,555,000 Change from budget request.............................. +57,816,000 This appropriation provides funds for the activities that support the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) and the Intelligence Community (IC). The Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) requested $91,739,000 for the Intelligence Community Management Account. The Committee recommends $149,555,000, an increase of $57,816,000. Further details are found in the Classified Report accompanying the fiscal year 1997 DoD Appropriations bill. Deep Attack Weapons Mix Study The Committee has included Section 8092 which directs the Secretary of Defense to establish an ad hoc committee to review the analytical methodologies to be used in the deep attack weapons mix study which the Department has undertaken at the direction of the President. The Committee believes it is essential that the study include a wide body of expertise and opinion to examine the important issue of the proper mix of bombers, stand-off precision munitions and other weapons systems for the conduct of strategic strike missions. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORTING REQUIREMENTS The following items are included in accordance with various requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives: Changes in Application of Existing Law In various places in the bill, the Committee has earmarked funds within appropriation accounts in order to fund specific programs and has adjusted some existing earmarkings. The bill includes a number of provisions which make portions of the appropriations subject to enactment of authorizing legislation. Those additional changes in the fiscal year 1997 bill, which might be interpreted as changing existing law, are as follows: appropriation language Language has been included in ``Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction'' which makes funds available for obligation until September 30, 1999. Language has been deleted in ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force'' concerning the Joint Seismic Program. General Provisions Section 8083 has been amended regarding prohibiting funds in the ``Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction'' appropriation for housing of Soviet Union military forces. Full Committee Votes Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2(l)(2)(b) of rule XI of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of those voting for and those voting against, are printed below: rollcall no. 1 Date: June 5, 1996. Measure: Fiscal year 1997 Defense Appropriations Bill. Motion by: Mr. Obey. Description of Motion: To place certain criteria on the development of a National Missile Defense System. Results: Rejected 14 to 32. Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay Mr. Coleman Mr. Bevill Mr. Dicks Mr. Bunn Mr. Fazio Mr. Chapman Mr. Foglietta Mr. Dickey Mr. Hefner Mr. Forbes Mr. Hoyer Mr. Hobson Ms. Kaptur Mr. Istook Mrs. Lowey Mr. Kingston Mr. Obey Mr. Knollenberg Mr. Sabo Mr. Kolbe Mr. Skaggs Mr. Livingston Mr. Stokes Mr. McDade Mr. Torres Mr. Miller Mr. Yates Mr. Mollohan Mr. Murtha Mr. Myers Mr. Nethercutt Mr. Neumann Mr. Packard Mr. Parker Mr. Porter Mr. Regula Mr. Rogers Mr. Serrano Mr. Skeen Mr. Thornton Mrs. Vucanovich Mr. Walsh Mr. Wicker Mr. Wilson Mr. Wolf Mr. Young DISSENTING VIEWS OF HON. DAVE OBEY This quarter of a trillion dollar bill spends over $11,000,000,000 more for the military than the Department of Defense says is needed. It spends more than twice as much as all of our potential adversaries combined. MAJOR PROGRAM DISAGREEMENTS In the full committee mark-up, I focused on three highly questionable items in this bill: (1) spending $504 million to support a Congressionally-sponsored plan to build a second prototype model of a new attack submarine that has very little to do with national defense, but much to do with jobs at a certain shipyard; (2) ensuring that the $350 million added to the President's request of $508 million for National Missile Defense would be used for an ABM Treaty- complaint system that could be deployed by 2003, and not for a multi-layered $60 billion dollar system that breaks the ABM Treaty and jeopardizes removal of 5,000 former-Soviet nuclear warheads under the START II Treaty; and (3) spending $2 billion to continue the fast track development of the F-22 fighter in order to deploy this aircraft a good seven years before it may be needed. National Missile Defense.--I offered an amendment in full committee to ensure that the extra $350 million added to the President's request of $508 million for National Missile Defense would be used to continue development of an ABM Treaty- compliant system that could be deployed by 2003. My concern was that the extra funds provided in the Committee bill were meant to correspond to the much more expensive crash National Missile Defense program espoused in the so-called ``Defend America'' bill that has run into so much difficulty. The ``Defend America'' bill calls for making the decision NOW to deploy a bare bones national missile defense system by 2003, and a full blown ``layered'' defense against ``larger'' targets costing $60 billion (and probably more) by 2013. Besides being wholly unaffordable, there is real concern that this approach will simply spark another huge arms race that leaves everyone worse off. Making the decision now to deploy the bare bones system spelled out in the ``Defend America'' bill by 2003 jeopardizes two major treaties (START II and ABM), and locks us into immature technology that the Pentagon tells us could be obsolete in a few short years. If the SALT II Treaty is put at risk, we also put at risk the retirement of 5,000 Russian nuclear warheads that could once again be aimed at the United States. The Administration has a much more cogent plan which calls for continuing work on a cheaper, more effective and ``Treaty- compliant'' system that could be deployed by 2003 as well. Under the Administration's so-called ``3 plus 3 plan'', the next three years would be used to develop and perfect appropriate technology to counter a limited ``rogue'' missile attack. The final decision to deploy this system by 2003 would be made in the year 2000 based on a more accurate assessment of the threat. So what does the difference boil down to between the Republican plan and the Clinton plan? Both propose to get the ``limited'' missile defense job done by 2003 if need be. But the Clinton plan promises a cheaper, better system that is compliant with the ABM Treaty and does not jeopardize retirement of 5,000 Russian warheads under the SALT II Treaty. My amendment would make it crystal clear that any limited NMD system being developed would be ABM Treaty-compliant thereby removing a significant potential obstacle against moving ahead with a two-thirds reduction in Russia's strategic nuclear arsenal. My amendment would also focus these funds on the near term system, ensuring that funds are not wasted on futuristic $60 billion systems that have no guarantee of ever working and may have the exact opposite effect than intended. <greek-d> <greek-d>

NEWSLETTER

Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)