S. Rpt. 104-267. NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997. REPORT

From the Senate Reports Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] Calendar No. 402 104th Congress Report SENATE 2d Session 104-267 _______________________________________________________________________ NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997 REPORT [to accompany s. 1745] on AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES together with ADDITIONAL VIEWS __________ COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES UNITED STATES SENATE <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> May 13, 1996.--Ordered to be printed NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997 Calendar No. 402 104th Congress Report SENATE 2d Session 104-267 _______________________________________________________________________ NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997 REPORT [to accompany s. 1745] on AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES together with ADDITIONAL VIEWS __________ COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES UNITED STATES SENATE May 13, 1996.--Ordered to be printed COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES (104th Congress, 2d Session) STROM THURMOND, South Carolina, Chairman SAM NUNN, Georgia JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia J. JAMES EXON, Nebraska WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine CARL LEVIN, Michigan JOHN McCAIN, Arizona EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico DAN COATS, Indiana JOHN GLENN, Ohio BOB SMITH, New Hampshire ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho CHARLES S. ROBB, Virginia KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania Les Brownlee, Staff Director Arnold L. Punaro, Staff Director for the Minority C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Purpose of the bill.............................................. 1 Committee overview and recommendations........................... 2 Explanation of funding summary................................... 4 Division A--Department of Defense Authorization Title I--Procurement............................................. 11 Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 12 Section 107. Chemical demilitarization program........... 12 Chemical Demilitarization Program.................... 12 Subtitle B--Army Programs.................................... 13 Section 112. Army assistance for chemical demilitarization citizens advisory commissions......... 24 Other Army Programs.......................................... 24 Army aircraft............................................ 24 C-XX medium range aircraft........................... 24 AH-64 Apache modifications........................... 24 CH-47 modifications.................................. 24 AH-64D attack helicopter............................. 25 OH-58D Kiowa Warrior................................. 25 Aircraft survivability equipment..................... 25 Army missile............................................. 25 Javelin medium anti-tank weapon...................... 25 Multiple Launch Rocket System rocket................. 26 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) launcher........ 26 Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS)................ 26 Patriot modifications................................ 27 Stinger missile modifications........................ 27 Avenger modifications................................ 27 TOW modifications.................................... 27 Dragon missile....................................... 28 Weapons and tracked combat vehicles...................... 28 Bradley fighting vehicle............................. 28 Field artillery ammunition support vehicle (FAASV)... 28 Carrier modifications (M113)......................... 28 M109A6 Paladin....................................... 29 Field artillery ammunition supply vehicle (FAASV) product improvement program (PIP) to fleet......... 29 Improved Recovery Vehicle............................ 29 M1 Abrams tank (modifications)....................... 29 Small arms programs.................................. 30 Army ammunition.......................................... 30 Procurement of ammunition--Army...................... 30 Armament retooling and manufacturing support (ARMS).. 31 Other army procurement................................... 31 High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV)... 31 Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV)............ 31 Family of heavy tactical vehicles (FHTV)............. 32 Enhanced position location reporting system (EPLRS).. 32 SINCGARS family...................................... 32 Army communications.................................. 32 All source analysis system (ASAS).................... 33 Forward area air defense (FAAD) ground based sensor.. 33 Night vision devices................................. 33 Advanced field artillery tactical data system (AFATDS)........................................... 34 Total distribution system............................ 34 Standard integrated command post system.............. 34 Inland petroleum distribution system................. 34 Construction equipment, items less than $2.0 million. 35 Base level communications equipment.................. 35 Subtitle C--Navy Programs.................................... 36 Section 121. EA-6B aircraft reactive jammer program...... 53 Section 122. Penguin missile program..................... 55 Section 123. Nuclear attack submarine programs........... 56 Section 124. Arleigh Burke class destroyer program....... 57 Other Navy Programs.......................................... 59 Navy aircraft............................................ 59 AV-8B remanufacture.................................. 59 F/A-18C/D............................................ 59 MV-22................................................ 59 Flight simulators.................................... 60 Restoration of E-2C procurement...................... 60 Airborne self-protection jammer (ASPJ)............... 60 Helicopter crash attenuating seats................... 61 Vertical replenishment helicopter replacement program 61 P-3 intelligence support............................. 61 P-3C anti-surface warfare improvement program........ 62 Navy weapons............................................. 63 Tomahawk land attack missile......................... 63 Standard missile procurement......................... 64 Navy and Marine Corps ammunition......................... 64 Procurement of ammunition--Marine Corps.............. 64 Navy shipbuilding and conversion......................... 64 Seawolf submarine.................................... 64 LPD-17 class amphibious ships........................ 65 Oceanographic survey ship............................ 66 SWATH oceanographic research ship.................... 66 Other Navy procurement................................... 66 WSN-7 inertial navigation system..................... 66 Mine warfare......................................... 67 AN/BPS-16 submarine navigation radar................. 68 Surface ship torpedo defense......................... 68 Shipboard integrated communications system........... 69 Challenge Athena..................................... 69 Global broadcast..................................... 70 Rolling air frame missile launcher for LSD-52........ 71 Afloat planning system............................... 71 NULKA decoy development.............................. 72 Elevated causeway (modular).......................... 72 Oceanographic equipment.............................. 73 Marine Corps Procurement................................. 73 Marine Corps Javelin missile......................... 73 AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder radar........................... 73 Joint task force deployable communications support... 74 Intelligence upgrades................................ 74 Telecommunications infrastructure.................... 74 Marine Corps combat operations centers............... 75 Marine Corps common end user computer equipment...... 75 Mobility enhancements................................ 75 Multiple integrated laser engagement system.......... 75 Combat vehicle appended trainer (CVAT)............... 76 Subtitle D--Air Force Programs............................... 77 Section 131. Multiyear contracting authority for the C-17 aircraft program....................................... 88 Other Air Force Programs..................................... 88 Air Force aircraft....................................... 88 B-2.................................................. 88 F-16................................................. 88 C-17 airlift aircraft................................ 89 WC-130J acquisition.................................. 89 Joint primary aircraft training system (JPATS)....... 90 Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS)........................................... 91 B-1B bomb modules.................................... 91 SR-71................................................ 91 AWACS re-engining.................................... 92 Satellite communications terminals................... 92 RC-135 re-engining................................... 92 Rivet Joint technology transfer...................... 92 KC-135 simulators.................................... 93 Aircraft budget exhibits............................. 93 Air Force missile........................................ 93 Precision guided munitions........................... 93 Space boosters....................................... 94 Air Force ammunition..................................... 94 Procurement of ammunition--Air Force................. 94 Other Air Force procurement.............................. 95 60K Loader........................................... 95 Joint force air component commander situational awareness system................................... 95 Defense-Wide Programs........................................ 96 Defense-wide............................................. 101 Common automatic recovery system..................... 101 C-130 aircraft modifications......................... 101 Advanced SEAL delivery system........................ 101 Special mission radio system......................... 102 SCAMPI communications system......................... 102 Briefcase multi-mission advanced tactical terminal... 102 Procurement of ammunition--Special Operations........ 102 Other items of interest.................................. 103 Individual body armor................................ 103 Procurement of recycled ammunition................... 103 C-130 remanufacture prototyping...................... 104 Predator UAV leasing................................. 104 National Guard and Reserve procurement reports....... 105 Title II--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation............ 107 Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 111 Section 203. Defense nuclear agency...................... 111 Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations................................................ 113 Section 211. Space launch modernization.................. 113 Section 212. Department of Defense Space Architect....... 113 Section 213. Space-based infrared system program......... 113 Section 214. Research for advanced submarine technology.. 114 Section 215. Clementine 2 micro-satellite development program................................................ 115 Section 217. (Includes Sections 216 and 217) Defense airborne reconnaissance program........................ 115 Section 218. Cost analysis of F-22 aircraft program...... 118 Section 219. F-22 aircraft program....................... 119 Section 220. Nonlethal weapons and technologies programs. 120 Section 221. Counterproliferation support program........ 122 Section 222. Federally funded research and development centers and university-affiliated research centers..... 125 Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense........................ 125 Section 231. United States compliance policy regarding development, testing, and deployment of theater missile defense systems........................................ 125 Section 232. Prohibition on use of funds to implement an international agreement concerning theater missile defense systems........................................ 127 Section 233. Conversion of ABM Treaty to multilateral treaty................................................. 127 Section 234. Funding for upper tier theater missile defense systems........................................ 127 Section 235. Elimination of requirements for certain items to be included in the annual report on the ballistic missile defense program...................... 128 Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 128 Section 241. Live-fire survivability testing of F-22 aircraft............................................... 128 Section 242. Live-fire survivability testing of V-22 aircraft............................................... 128 Subtitle E--National Oceanographic Partnership............... 128 Section 252. Matters relating to oceanographic partnership............................................ 128 Additional Matters........................................... 131 Army..................................................... 131 Basic research programs.............................. 137 High modulus polyacrylonitrile (PAN) carbon fiber.... 137 Hardened materials................................... 137 Liquid propellant technology......................... 137 Military engineering technology...................... 138 Wave net technology.................................. 138 Nautilus/Tactical High Energy Laser Program.......... 138 Missile and rocket advanced technology............... 138 Land mine detection technologies..................... 139 Battle Integration Center............................ 139 Next tank research and development................... 139 Night vision systems advanced development............ 140 Combat service support control system (CSSC)......... 140 Comanche helicopter.................................. 140 Javelin medium anti-tank weapon...................... 141 Heavy assault bridge................................. 141 Air defense command, control, & intelligence (C2I)... 141 Brilliant Anti-armor Technology (BAT) submunition.... 142 Longbow development/night vision systems............. 142 High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility.............. 142 Combat vehicle improvement program................... 143 Improved Cargo Helicopter............................ 143 Force XXI digitization............................... 143 Air Defense Alerting Device (ADAD)................... 144 Missile/air defense product improvement program...... 144 Other missile product improvement programs........... 144 Force XXI initiatives................................ 145 Navy..................................................... 146 Continuous wave superconducting radio frequency free electron laser..................................... 152 Power electronic building blocks..................... 152 Materials, electronics and computer technology....... 152 Undersea weapons technology.......................... 152 Navy affordability initiative........................ 153 Project M............................................ 153 Environmentally compliant torpedo fuel............... 153 Integrated combat weapons system..................... 154 Research for advanced submarine technology........... 154 Submarine towed array processing software............ 157 Aircraft carrier research and development............ 157 Navy surface combatant............................... 158 Intercooled recuperated gas turbine engine........... 158 Advanced amphibious assault vehicle.................. 159 Lightweight 155MM howitzer program................... 159 ``Smart Base'' technology demonstration.............. 159 Cooperative engagement capability.................... 160 Naval surface fire support........................... 160 Strike missile evaluation............................ 161 Light airborne multi-purpose system helicopter program............................................ 162 Joint maritime command information system/Navy tactical command system-afloat..................... 162 Smart Ship initiative................................ 163 Arsenal Ship......................................... 163 AQS-20 airborne minehunting sonar.................... 165 Airborne mine detection systems...................... 165 Multi-purpose processor.............................. 167 Seawolf shock test................................... 167 Infrared search and track............................ 168 Evolved sea sparrow missile.......................... 168 Quick reaction combat capability..................... 168 Fixed distributed system-1........................... 169 RDT&E science and technology management.............. 169 Sea Dragon initiative................................ 169 Nuclear powered ballistic missile submarine security. 169 Joint tactical combat training system................ 170 CINCs'' technology initiative........................ 170 Medium tactical vehicle remanufacturing.............. 170 GEOSAT follow-on..................................... 170 Manufacturing technology (MANTECH)................... 171 Acquisition center of excellence..................... 172 Air Force................................................ 173 Carbon/carbon nosetips............................... 179 Ejection seat development............................ 179 Thermally stable jet fuels........................... 179 High frequency active auroral research program....... 180 Airborne laser program............................... 180 National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System................................... 180 Joint Advanced Strike Technology Program............. 181 Hardened and deeply buried target technology demonstration...................................... 181 B-1 bomber virtual umbilical device.................. 181 B-1B upgrades........................................ 181 Variable Stability In-Flight Simulator Test Aircraft (VISTA)............................................ 182 Milstar automated communication management system.... 182 Global Positioning System............................ 182 Minuteman third stage upgrade........................ 182 Minuteman safety enhanced reentry vehicle............ 183 Rocket System Launch Program......................... 183 Data links........................................... 183 Theater Battle Management Core Systems (TBMCS)....... 184 Blade repair program................................. 184 Defense-Wide............................................. 185 Defense experimental program to stimulate competitive research (DEPSCoR)................................. 190 Small low-cost interceptor device.................... 190 Hard carbon-based coatings........................... 190 High temperature superconductivity................... 190 Diamond substrates................................... 191 Joint Department of Defense-Department of Energy munitions.......................................... 191 Cruise missile defense funding....................... 191 Large millimeter wave telescope...................... 192 Crown royal.......................................... 193 Thermophotovoltaics.................................. 193 Generic logistics R&D technology demonstrations...... 193 Rapid acquisition of manufactured parts (RAMP)....... 193 Integrated weapons system database................... 193 High performance computing modernization............. 194 Defense dual-use applications program................ 194 Non-acoustic antisubmarine warfare................... 195 Fuel cells........................................... 196 Commercial technology insertion program.............. 196 Ballistic missile defense funding and programmatic guidance........................................... 196 Data review and analysis monitoring aid.............. 203 Advanced SEAL delivery system........................ 203 M4A1 Carbine INOD, Special Operations Command........ 204 AC-130 aircraft enhancements, Special Operations Command............................................ 204 Other Items of Interest...................................... 204 Battle group airborne anti-submarine warfare............. 204 FFG-7 modernization...................................... 205 Integrated ship control systems.......................... 205 CV-22.................................................... 207 Parametric airborne dipping sonar........................ 208 National automotive center............................... 208 National Solar Observatory............................... 209 United States-Japan management training.................. 209 Totally integrated munitions enterprise (TIME)........... 209 Strategic deterrent development capability............... 210 Post-boost propulsion for strategic delivery systems..... 210 Chemical-biological defense program...................... 210 Title III--Operation and Maintenance............................. 215 Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 245 Section 304. Transfer from National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund....................................... 245 Section 305. Civil Air Patrol............................ 245 Section 306. SR-71 contingency reconnaissance force...... 245 Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations................................................ 245 Section 311. Funding for second and third maritime prepositioning ships out of National Defense Sealift Fund................................................... 249 Section 312. National Defense Sealift Fund............... 249 Section 313. Nonlethal weapons capabilities.............. 249 Section 314. Restriction on Coast Guard funding.......... 249 Subtitle C--Depot-Level Activities........................... 249 (Sections 321-330--Department of Defense depot maintenance and repair services)....................... 249 Subtitle D--Environmental Provisions......................... 254 Section 341. Establishment of separate environmental restoration transfer accounts for each military department............................................. 254 Section 342. Defense contractors covered by requirement for reports on contractor reimbursement costs for response actions....................................... 254 Section 343. Repeal of redundant notification and consultation requirements regarding remedial investigations and feasibility studies at certain installations to be closed under the base closure laws. 255 Section 344. Payment of certain stipulated civil penalties.............................................. 255 Section 345. Authority to withhold listing of Federal facilities on National Priorities List................. 256 Section 346. Authority to transfer contaminated Federal property before completion of required remedial actions 257 Section 347. Clarification of meaning of uncontaminated property for purposes of transfer by the United States. 258 Section 348. Shipboard solid waste control............... 258 Section 349. Cooperative agreements for the management of cultural resources on military installations........... 260 Section 350. Report on withdrawal of public lands at El Centro Naval Air Facility, California.................. 260 Section 351. Use of hunting and fishing permit fees collected at closed military reservations.............. 260 Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 260 Section 361. Firefighting and security-guard functions at facilities leased by the Government.................... 260 Section 362. Authorized use of recruiting funds.......... 261 Section 363. Noncompetitive procurement of brand-name commercial items for resale in commissary stores....... 261 Section 364. Administration of midshipmen's store and other Naval Academy support activities as nonappropriated fund instrumentalities................. 261 Section 365. Assistance to committees involved in inauguration of the President.......................... 261 Section 366. Department of Defense support for sporting events................................................. 262 Section 367. Renovation of building for Defense Finance and Accounting Service Center, Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana................................................ 262 Additional Matters of Interest............................... 263 Army..................................................... 263 Army strategic mobility.............................. 263 Ammunition management................................ 263 End Item Materiel Management Program................. 263 Power Projection C4I................................. 264 Navy..................................................... 264 Intermediate maintenance............................. 264 Ship depot maintenance............................... 264 Active and reserve component P-3 squadrons........... 264 Marine Corps............................................. 265 Personnel support equipment.......................... 265 Corrosion prevention and control..................... 265 Ammunition rework.................................... 265 Joint task force headquarters deployable communications support............................. 265 Commandant's warfighting laboratory.................. 266 Air Force................................................ 266 AWACS Extend Sentry.................................. 266 Air Force depot maintenance.......................... 266 Defense-Wide............................................. 266 Homeless support initiative.......................... 266 Federal Energy Management Program.................... 267 Office of the Secretary of Defense................... 267 Civilian personnel levels............................ 267 Real property maintenance............................ 267 Operation and maintenance, Special Operations Command 268 Other items of interest.................................. 268 United States Army marksmanship units................ 268 Quality of Life and the Military Traffic Management Command's Re-engineering Personal Property Initiative Pilot Program........................... 269 Aquifer study at Fallon Naval Air Station............ 270 Exclusion of uncontaminated parcels from the national priorities list.................................... 270 Kaho'olawe cleanup................................... 271 Proposed reduction of the current permissible exposure level for manganese....................... 271 Defense Commissary Agency designation as a Performance Based Organization..................... 272 Electronic warfare squadrons......................... 272 Revolving funds.......................................... 273 Reliability, Maintainability and Sustainability Program (RM&S)..................................... 273 Advance billing in Defense Business Operating Fund... 273 National defense features............................ 273 National defense reserve fleet....................... 274 Maritime training ship............................... 275 Title IV--Military Personnel Authorizations...................... 277 Subtitle A--Active Forces.................................... 277 Section 401. End strengths for active forces............. 277 Section 402. Temporary flexibility relating to permanent end strength levels.................................... 278 Section 403. Authorized strengths for commissioned officers in grades O-4, O-5, and O-6................... 278 Section 404. Extension of requirement for recommendations regarding appointments to joint 4-star officer positions.............................................. 278 Section 405. Increase in authorized number of general officers on active duty in the Marine Corps............ 279 Subtitle B--Reserve Forces................................... Section 411. End strengths for Selected Reserve.......... 279 Section 412. End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of the reserves................................ 280 Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 280 Section 421. Authorization of appropriations for military personnel.............................................. 280 Title V--Military Personnel Policy............................... 283 Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy......................... 283 Section 501. Extension of authority for temporary promotions for certain Navy lieutenants with critical skills................................................. 283 Section 502. Exception to baccalaureate degree requirement for appointment in the Naval Reserve in grades above O-2....................................... 283 Section 503. Time for award of degrees by unaccredited educational institutions for graduates to be considered educationally qualified for appointment as reserve officers in grade O-3.................................. 283 Section 504. Chief Warrant Officer promotions............ 283 Section 505. Frequency of periodic report on promotion rates of officers currently or formerly serving in joint duty assignments................................. 284 Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Reserve Components........... 284 Section 511. Clarification of definition of active status 284 Section 512. Amendments to Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act provisions.............................. 284 Section 513. Repeal of requirement for physical examinations of members of National Guard called into federal service........................................ 284 Section 514. Authority for a Reserve on active duty to waive retirement sanctuary............................. 284 Section 515. Retirement of Reserves disabled by injury or disease incurred or aggravated during overnight stay between inactive duty training periods................. 285 Section 516. Reserve credit for participation in the Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program................................................ 285 Section 517. Report on guard and reserve force structure. 285 Subtitle C--Officer Education Programs....................... 285 Section 521. Increased age limit on appointment as a cadet or midshipman in the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps and the service academies............... 285 Section 522. Demonstration project for instruction and support of Army ROTC units by members of the Army Reserve and National Guard............................. 286 Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 286 Section 531. Retirement at grade to which selected for promotion when a physical disability is found at any physical examination................................... 286 Section 532. Limitations on recall of retired members to active duty............................................ 286 Section 533. Disability coverage for officers granted excess leave for educational purposes.................. 286 Section 534. Uniform policy regarding retention of members who are permanently nonworldwide assignable.... 287 Section 535. Authority to extend period for enlistment in regular component under the delayed entry program...... 287 Section 536. Career service reenlistments for members with at least 10 years of service...................... 287 Section 537. Revisions to missing persons authorities.... 287 Section 538. Inapplicability of Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 to the period of limitations for filing claims for corrections of military records.. 288 Section 539. Medal of honor for certain African-American soldiers who served in World War II.................... 288 Subtitle E--Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service.. 288 Section 561. Applicability to Public Health Service of prohibition on crediting cadet or midshipmen service at the service academies.................................. 288 Section 562. Exception to grade limitations for Public Health Service officers assigned to the Department of Defense................................................ 289 Subtitle F--Defense Economic Adjustment, Diversification, Conversion, and Stabilization.............................. 289 Section 571. Authority to expand law enforcement placement program to include firefighters.............. 289 Section 572. Troops-to-teachers program improvements (Also refer to Section 1122)........................... 289 Subtitle G--Armed Forces Retirement Home..................... 289 Section 582. Acceptance of uncompensated services........ 290 Section 583. Disposal of real property................... 290 Section 584. Matters concerning personnel................ 290 Section 585. Fees for residents.......................... 291 Section 586. Authorization of appropriations............. 291 Other items of interest...................................... 292 Legislative fellows from the Department of Defense....... 292 Relocation assistance programs........................... 293 Review of opportunities for ordering individual reserves to active duty with their consent...................... 293 Title VI--Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits.............. 295 Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances............................... 295 Section 601. Military pay raise for fiscal year 1997..... 295 Section 602. Rate of cadet and midshipman pay............ 295 Section 603. Pay of senior noncommissioned officers while hospitalized........................................... 295 Section 604. Basic allowance for quarters for members assigned to sea duty................................... 296 Section 605. Uniform applicability of discretion to deny an election not to occupy government quarters.......... 296 Section 606. Family separation allowance for members separated by military orders from spouses who are members................................................ 296 Section 607. Waiver of time limitations for claim for pay and allowances......................................... 296 Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays........... 297 Section 611. Extension of certain bonuses for reserve forces................................................. 297 Section 612. Extension of certain bonuses and special pay for nurse officer candidates, registered nurses, and nurse anesthetists..................................... 297 Section 613. Extension of authority relating to payment of other bonuses and special pays...................... 297 Section 614. Increased special pay for dental officers of the armed forces....................................... 297 Section 615. Retention special pay for Public Health Service optometrists................................... 297 Section 616. Special pay for nonphysician health care providers in the Public Health Service................. 298 Section 617. Foreign language proficiency pay for Public Health Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration officers................................ 298 Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances............. 298 Section 621. Round trip travel allowances for shipping motor vehicles at government expense................... 298 Section 622. Option to store instead of transport a privately-owned vehicle at the expense of the United States................................................. 298 Section 623. Deferral of travel with travel and transportation allowances in connection with leave between consecutive overseas tours..................... 298 Section 624. Funding for transportation of household effects of Public Health Service officers.............. 299 Subtitle D--Retired Pay, Survivor Benefits, and Related Matters.................................................... 299 Section 631. Effective date for military retiree cost-of- living adjustment for Fiscal Year 1998................. 299 Section 632. Allotment of retired or retainer pay........ 299 Section 633. Cost-of-living increases in SBP contributions to be effective concurrently with payment of related retired pay cost-of-living increases........ 299 Section 634. Annuities for certain military surviving spouses................................................ 299 Section 635. Adjusted annual income limitation applicable to eligibility for income supplement for certain widows of members of the uniformed services................... 299 Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 300 Section 641. Reimbursement for adoption expenses incurred in adoptions through private placements................ 300 Section 642. Waiver of recoupment of amounts withheld for tax purposes from certain separation pay received by involuntarily separated members and former members of the armed forces....................................... 300 Other Items of Interest.................................. 300 Foreign Language Proficiency Pay Qualification....... 300 Special Duty Assignment Pay, Army Special Operations personnel.......................................... 301 Title VII--Health Care Provisions................................ 303 Section 701. Implementation of requirement for Selected Reserve dental insurance plan.......................... 303 Section 702. Dental insurance plan for military retirees and certain dependents................................. 303 Section 703. Uniform Composite Health Care System software............................................... 303 Section 704. Clarification of applicability of CHAMPUS payment rules to private CHAMPUS providers for care provided to enrollees in health care plans of uniformed services treatment facilities.......................... 304 Section 705. Enhancement of third party collection and secondary payer authorities under CHAMPUS.............. 304 Section 706. Codification of authority to credit CHAMPUS collections to program accounts........................ 304 Section 707. Comptroller General review of health care activities of the Department of Defense relating to Persian Gulf Illnesses................................. 304 Other Items of Interest.................................. 305 Portability and reciprocity for TRICARE Prime enrollees across regions........................... 305 Continuation of support for telemedicine initiatives. 306 Study of the extension of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) option to military retirees........................................... 306 Centers for Prisoners of War Studies................. 306 Dental readiness..................................... 307 Title VIII--Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and Related Matters................................................ Section 801. Procurement technical assistance programs... 309 Section 802. Extension of pilot mentor-protege program... 309 Section 803. Modification of authority to carry out certain prototype projects............................. 309 Section 804. Revisions to the program for the assessment of the national defense technology and industrial base. 309 Section 805. Procurements to be made from small arms industrial base firms.................................. 310 Section 806. Exception to prohibition on procurement of foreign goods.......................................... 310 Section 807. Treatment of Department of Defense cable television franchise agreements........................ 310 Section 808. Remedies for reprisals against contractor employee whistleblowers................................ 311 Section 809. Implementation of information technology management reform...................................... 311 Other Items of Interest.................................. 312 Procurement goals for small business concerns owned by women........................................... 312 Economy Act transfer regulatory implementation....... 313 Research projects: transactions other than contracts and grants......................................... 313 Title IX--Department of Defense Organization and Management...... 315 Subtitle A--General Matters.................................. 315 Section 901. Repeal of reorganization of the Office of the Secretary of Defense............................... 315 Section 902. Codification of requirements relating to continued operation of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences...................... 315 Section 903. Codification of requirement for United States Army Reserve Command............................ 316 Section 904. Transfer of authority to control transportation systems in time of war.................. 316 Section 905. Executive oversight of defense human intelligence personnel................................. 316 Section 906. Coordination of defense intelligence programs and activities................................ 316 Section 907. Redesignation of Office of Naval Records and History Fund and correction of related references...... 316 Subtitle B--National Imagery and Mapping Agency.............. 317 (Sections 911-934--Matters relating to National Imagery and Mapping)........................................... 317 Title X--General Provisions...................................... 321 Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................ 321 Section 1003. Authorization of prior emergency supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1996....... 321 Section 1004. Use of funds transferred to the Coast Guard 321 Section 1005. Use of military-to-military contacts funds for professional military education and training....... 321 Section 1006. Payment of certain expenses relating to humanitarian and civic assistance...................... 321 Section 1007. Prohibition on expenditure of Department of Defense funds by officials outside the department...... 322 Section 1008. Prohibition on use of funds for Office of Naval Intelligence representation or related activities 322 Section 1009. Reimbursement of Department of Defense for costs of disaster assistance provided outside the United States.......................................... 322 Section 1010. Fisher House Trust Fund for the Navy....... 322 Section 1011. Designation and liability of disbursing and certifying officials for the Coast Guard............... 323 Section 1012. Authority to suspend or terminate collection actions against deceased members of the Coast Guard............................................ 323 Section 1013. Check cashing and exchange transactions with credit unions outside the United States........... 323 Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards...................... 323 Section 1021. Authority to transfer naval vessels........ 323 Section 1022. Transfer of certain obsolete tugboats of the Navy............................................... 324 Section 1023. Repeal of requirement for continuous applicability of contracts for phased maintenance of AE class ships............................................ 324 Section 1024. Contract options for LMSR vessels.......... 324 Subtitle C--Counter-Drug Activities.......................... (Sections 1031-1033--Drug interdiction and counterdrug activities)............................................ 325 Subtitle D--Matters Relating to Foreign Countries............ 328 Section 1041. Agreements for exchange of defense personnel between the United States and foreign countries.............................................. 328 Section 1042. Authority for reciprocal exchange of personnel between the United States and foreign countries for flight training.......................... 329 Section 1043. Extension of counterproliferation authorities............................................ 329 Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Reporting Requirements............. 329 Section 1051. Annual report on emerging operational concepts............................................... 329 Section 1052. Annual joint warfighting science and technology plan........................................ 329 Section 1053. Report on military readiness requirements of the Armed Forces.................................... 330 Subtitle F--Other Matters.................................... 331 Section 1061. Uniform Code of Military Justice amendments 331 Section 1062. Limitation on retirement or dismantlement of strategic nuclear delivery systems.................. 331 Section 1063. Correction of references to Department of Defense organizations.................................. 332 Section 1064. Authority of certain members of the Armed Forces to perform notarial or consular acts............ 332 Section 1065. Training of members of the uniformed services at non-Government facilities.................. 332 Section 1066. Third-party liability to United States for tortious infliction of injury or disease on members of the uniformed services................................. 332 Section 1067. Display of State flags at installations and facilities of the Department of Defense................ 332 Section 1068. George C Marshall European Center for Strategic Security Studies............................. 333 Section 1069. Authority to award to civilian participants in the defense of Pearl Harbor the congressional medal previously authorized only for military participants in the defense of Pearl Harbor............................ 333 Section 1070. Michael O'Callaghan Federal Hospital, Las Vegas, Nevada.......................................... 333 Section 1071. Naming of building at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences............. 333 Other items of interest...................................... 333 Support for the Young Marines program................ 333 Support services at the Port of Haifa................ 334 U.S.-Asian military-to-military dialogue............. 334 Implementation of arms control agreements............ 335 Title XI--Department of Defense Civilian Personnel............... 337 Subtitle A--Personnel Management, Pay and, Allowances........ 337 Section 1101. Scope of requirement for conversion of military positions to civilian positions............... 337 Section 1102. Retention of civilian employee positions at military training bases transferred to National Guard.. 337 Section 1103. Clarification of limitation on furnishing clothing or paying a uniform allowance to enlisted National Guard technicians............................. 337 Section 1104. Travel expenses and health care for civilian employees of the Department of Defense abroad. 337 Section 1105. Travel, transportation, and relocation allowances for certain former nonappropriated fund employees.............................................. 337 Section 1106. Employment and salary practices applicable to Department of Defense overseas teachers............. 338 Section 1107. Employment and compensation of civilian faculty members at certain Department of Defense schools................................................ 338 Section 1108. Reimbursement of Department of Defense domestic dependent school board members for certain expenses............................................... 338 Section 1109. Extension of authority for civilian employees of Department of Defense to participate voluntarily in reductions in force..................... 338 Section 1110. Compensatory time off for overtime work performed by wage-board employees...................... 338 Section 1111. Liquidation of restored annual leave that remains unused upon transfer of employee from installation being closed or realigned................. 338 Section 1112. Waiver of requirement for repayment of voluntary separation incentive pay by former Department of Defense employees reemployed by the Government without pay............................................ 339 Section 1113. Federal holiday observance rules for Department of Defense employees........................ 339 Section 1114. Revision of certain travel management authorities............................................ 339 Subtitle B--Defense Economic Adjustment, Diversification, Conversion, and Stabilization.............................. 339 Section 1121. Pilot programs for defense employees converted to contractor employees due to privatization at closed military installations....................... 339 Section 1122. Troops-to-teachers program improvements applied to civilian personnel. (Refer to Section 572).. 341 Other Items of Interest.................................. 341 Flexible, compressed and alternative schedules....... 341 Authority to conduct civilian personnel demonstration projects........................................... 341 Title XII--Federal Charter for the Fleet Reserve Association..... 343 (Sections 1201-1216--Matters relating to the Federal Charter for the Fleet Reserve Association)............. 343 Division B--Military Construction Authorizations Title XXV--North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program........................................................ 375 Section 2503. Redesignation of North Atlantic Treaty Organization Infrastructure program........................ 375 Title XXVIII--General Provisions................................. 377 Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing Changes............................................ 377 Section 2801. Increase in certain thresholds for unspecified minor construction projects................ 377 Section 2802. Clarification of authority to improve military family housing................................ 377 Section 2803. Authority to grant easements for rights-of- way.................................................... 377 Subtitle B--Defense Base Closure and Realignment............. 377 Section 2811. Restoration of authority under 1988 base closure law to transfer property and facilities to other entities in the Department of Defense............ 377 Section 2812. Disposition of proceeds from disposal of commissary stores and nonappropriated fund instrumentalities at installations being closed or realigned.............................................. 378 Section 2813. Agreements for services at installations after closure.......................................... 378 Subtitle C--Land Conveyances................................. 378 Section 2821. Transfer of lands, Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, Virginia.......................... 378 Section 2822. Land transfer, Potomac Annex, District of Columbia............................................... 379 Section 2823. Land conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Montpelier, Vermont.................................... 379 Section 2824. Land conveyance, former Naval Reserve Facility, Lewes, Delaware.............................. 379 Section 2825. Land conveyance, Radar Bomb Scoring Site, Belle Fourche, South Dakota............................ 379 Section 2826. Conveyance of primate research complex, Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico.................... 380 Section 2827. Demonstration project for installation and operation of electric power distribution system at Youngstown Air Reserve Station, Ohio................... 380 Other Items of Interest.................................. 381 Improvements to military family housing units, Army.. 381 Planning and design, Army............................ 381 Report on the Fort Lawton Joint Armed Forces Reserve Center, Seattle, Washington........................ 381 Improvements to military family housing units, Navy.. 381 Planning and design, Navy............................ 381 Improvements to military family housing units, Air Force.............................................. 381 Planning and design, Air Force Family Housing Construction....................................... 382 Availability of funds for credit to Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund............. 382 Naval Air Station Sigonella.......................... 382 Report on the implementation of the Hawaiian Home Lands Recovery Act................................. 382 Planning and design, Guard and Reserve forces facilities......................................... 383 Division C--Department of Energy National Security Authorizations and Other Authorizations Title XXXI--Department of Energy National Security Programs...... 385 Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations........ 403 Section 3101. Weapons activities......................... 403 Section 3102. Environmental restoration and waste management............................................. 404 Section 3103. Other defense activities................... 405 Section 3104. Defense nuclear waste disposal............. 407 Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations................................................ 407 Section 3131. Tritium production......................... 407 Section 3132. Modernization and consolidation of tritium recycling facilities................................... 408 Section 3133. Modification of requirements for manufacturing infrastructure for refabrication and certification of nuclear weapons stockpile............. 408 Section 3134. Limitation on use of funds for certain research and development purposes...................... 408 Section 3135. Accelerated schedule for isolating high- level nuclear waste at the Defense Waste Processing Facility, Savannah River Site.......................... 409 Section 3136. Processing of high-level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel rods................................ 409 Section 3137. Fellowship program for development of skills critical to Department of Energy nuclear weapons complex................................................ 410 Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 410 Section 3151. Requirement for annual five-year budget for the national security programs of the Department of Energy................................................. 410 Section 3152. Requirements for Department of Energy weapons activities budgets for fiscal years after fiscal year 1997....................................... 411 Section 3153. Repeal of requirement relating to accounting procedures for Department of Energy funds... 411 Section 3154. Plans for activities to process nuclear materials and clean up nuclear waste at the Savannah River Site............................................. 411 Section 3155. Update of report on nuclear test readiness postures............................................... 412 Section 3156. Reports on critical difficulties at nuclear weapons laboratories and nuclear weapons production plants................................................. 412 Section 3157. Extension of applicability of notice-and- wait requirement regarding proposed cooperation agreements............................................. 413 Section 3158. Redesignation of Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Program as Defense Nuclear Waste Management Program....................... 413 Section 3159. Commission on Maintaining United States Nuclear Weapons Expertise.............................. 413 Section 3160. Sense of Senate regarding reliability and safety of remaining nuclear forces..................... 413 Other items of interest.................................. 414 Department of Energy work force reduction plan........... 414 Accelerating radioactive waste cleanup................... 415 Title XXXII--Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............. 417 Section 3201. Authorization.............................. 417 Title XXXIII--National Defense Stockpile......................... Section 3301. Authorized uses of stockpile funds......... 419 Title XXXIV--Naval Petroleum Reserves............................ 421 Title XXXV--Panama Canal Commission.............................. 423 Legislative Requirements..................................... 425 Departmental Recommendations................................. 425 Committee Action............................................. 425 Fiscal Data.................................................. 426 Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate.................... 428 Regulatory Impact............................................ 428 Changes in Existing Law...................................... 428 Additional views of Senator William S. Cohen................. 429 Additional views of Senator John McCain...................... 433 Additional views of Senator Bob Smith........................ 438 Additional views of Senator Carl Levin....................... 440 Additional views of Senator Edward M. Kennedy................ 448 Additional views of Senator John Glenn....................... 450 Additional views of Senator Joseph I. Lieberman.............. 454 104th Congress Report SENATE 2d Session 104-267 _______________________________________________________________________ AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES _______ May 13, 1996.--Ordered to be printed _______________________________________________________________________ Mr. Thurmond, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the following R E P O R T together with ADDITIONAL VIEWS [To accompany S. 1745] Committee overview and recommendations As the committee continued to carry out its legislative responsibilities for the 104th Congress pursuant to the Senate's rules and constitutional powers, the Chairman and the Members established priorities to guide the committee through the authorization process for fiscal year 1997. Finally, and importantly, the committee sought to accelerate development and deployment of missile defense systems to protect U.S. and allied forces against the growing threat of cruise and ballistic missiles. Accordingly, this bill supports expeditious deployment of land- and sea-based theater missile defense systems. The committee also makes clear that the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty of 1972 does not apply to the theater missile defense systems envisioned by the committee. DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS TITLE I--PROCUREMENT SUBTITLE B--ARMY PROGRAMS Army Missile Patriot modifications The budget request included $11.5 million to support fielding of anticipated materiel changes to the Patriot weapon system. The committee recognizes critical lessons learned during recent technology demonstrations that highlighted the benefits of digitizing the maintenance portion of battlefield operations. Future Patriot development activities provide the opportunity to develop and insert hardware that would support the fielding of an integrated diagnostic support system (IDSS). The committee is encouraged to note that insertion of IDSS into future Patriot modifications could result in $8.5 million in annual savings and would greatly reduce the need for an intermediate level of maintenance. The committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million for IDSS development and hardware procurement for a total of $23.5 million. All source analysis system (ASAS) The budget request included $12.3 million to replace selected, aging Block 1 workstations and to support digitization efforts. The committee recognizes the value to force capabilities by fielding ASAS workstations to tactical echelons below division level. The committee recommends an increase of $9.7 million to field workstations to maneuver brigade and battalion warfighters. The committee has also noted with great interest the work completed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in developing the first operational prototype of an intelligence fusion system known as the integrated battlespace intelligence server, or IBIS. This meritorious work would support Army efforts associated with ASAS. The committee directs that this work be integrated into the Army effort and recommends an increase of $2.0 million for PE 604321A to support technological transfer requirements. OTHER NAVY PROGRAMS P-3 intelligence support The budget request included $17.6 million within the P-3 aircraft modifications line to procure non-developmental, commercial off-the-shelf (COTS), roll-on/roll-off signals intelligence (SIGINT) sensors for use aboard P-3C aircraft. While budget documentation provides little information on this concept, it appears that the Navy intends to incorporate this capability as an adjunct to its P-3 anti-surface warfare (ASUW) improvement program (AIP). The committee is concerned that the Navy has not developed an operational concept for employing the SIGINT capability that it proposes to add to the P-3C aircraft. Nor is it clear that the Navy's proposal relates well to the capability already provided by its existing fleet of EP-3 aircraft. It would appear that the Navy is attempting to expand the scope of the P-3 AIP without first providing a sound rationale for doing so. Important questions that should be answered to address the committee's initial concerns would be: (1) to what degree would P-3C aircraft equipped with such a COTS SIGINT package be interoperable with other SIGINT platforms? (2) are sufficient specially trained personnel available to support both existing SIGINT systems and this one as well? The committee recommends against approving the procurement of COTS SIGINT sensors in fiscal year 1997, and that the budget request for P-3 modifications be reduced by $17.6 million. SWATH oceanographic research ship The Navy has well-documented requirements, approaching 240 ship-years of backlog, for additional oceanographic survey work, particularly in the littoral areas of the world. A substantial percentage of these requirements cannot be satisfied by the Navy fleet of seven survey ships that are either in service or under construction. Even if the Navy were to build additional ships for its own use, the Oceanographer of the Navy does not have sufficient operating funds programmed to pay for all of the additional survey work needed to eliminate his backlog. The committee has reviewed the matter and concluded that the Navy could pursue another approach to getting additional survey work performed. The committee has learned that there are currently five oceanographic research ships that are owned by the Navy and operated by a civilian university or research institute under the supervision of the Chief of Naval Research. One of these oceanographic research ships will soon be retired due to obsolescence. The committee believes that, when this ship is replaced, the Navy and the recipient could enter into an agreement whereby the Navy would provide the university or research institute a vessel, and the university or research institute would schedule and pay for some portion of its year's research work to support Navy oceanographic survey requirements. Such an arrangement could modernize an important capability and also reduce future demand for Navy operation and maintenance funding to pay for ship survey operations. The committee recommends an increase to the budget request of $45.0 million to provide the additional funding needed to build a small water plane area, twin-hulled (SWATH) oceanographic vessel based on the TAGOS-23 class of surveillance ships. The committee directs the Navy to negotiate a time sharing agreement with the university or institute that will operate it, whereby a certain portion of the ship's annual operating time would be dedicated to meeting the Navy's needs. The Navy should report to the congressional defense committees on its progress in achieving this agreement by December 15, 1997. Other Navy Procurement Challenge Athena The budget request included no funding for the Chief of Naval Operation's special project Challenge Athena. This budget decision was made despite a series of favorable reports by the Navy's operational commanders on the very significant contributions that Challenge Athena had made to the success of their operational deployments. As noted in its report to accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (S. Rept 104-112), the committee has followed the progress of several commercial satellite communications (SATCOM) technologies to evaluate how this technology could be best utilized to reduce the load on existing military systems and come closer to the goal of providing near real-time information to the warfighter. One such program, Challenge Athena, offers the technology to provide a communications data rate of greater than 1.554 Mbps. This data rate permits transmission of near real-time imagery for precision targeting and strike, video teleconferencing, telemedicine, and nearly transparent inter-theater communications. The committee has concluded that the additional capabilities provided by Challenge Athena are of sufficient priority that additional funding is warranted and recommends an increase of $41.7 million above the budget request for Challenge Athena, $14.7 million for procurement and $27.0 million for operation of the system. Global broadcast The budget request included $113.2 million for launch services for UHF follow-on (UFO) satellites 8, 9, and 10. These satellites will support UHF, EHF, and global broadcast service (GBS) communications. However, the budget request did not contain funding for the ground and sea-based equipment needed to implement the GBS capability. The committee has noted a tendency of defense acquisition to focus on procurement of major intelligence gathering and production systems and sophisticated weapons systems while not giving comparable attention to the communications and data links needed to support them. Given the fact that modern warfighting systems are inherently dependent on the transmission of vast amounts of data to realize their full potential, a lack of emphasis on the data links and communications pipelines that feed them is short-sighted. Under present conditions, for example, the existing network of military communications satellites is under great pressure from the growing demands of the nation's warfighters for detailed imagery, intelligence, and tactical information. A program to address these information demands emerged last year. It would involve the use of satellite direct broadcast technology. This technology is inherent in the design of commercial satellites and can be incorporated as an add-on package to military satellites, such as the UFO series. Suitably equipped commercial and military satellites will be capable of providing high capacity, one-way broadcast transmissions to very small terminals. For the military this capability has become known as the GBS. Because of its need to provide a wide-band communications capability to ships that are space constrained and widely distributed world-wide, the Navy has been particularly active in seeking to benefit from GBS. The Navy has identified two near-term phases that would first make use of commercial satellites to provide GBS support, then incorporate the capability into its UFO satellite series beginning in fiscal year 1998. However, the transition from concept to a concrete program has progressed at a more rapid pace than the Department of Defense's planning, programming, and budgeting cycle. As a consequence, while the space segment of GBS has received some measure of funding in the fiscal year 1997 budget request, the ground and afloat segment received none. Additional funding in fiscal year 1997 will ensure that GBS can be included in UFO satellites 8, 9, and 10. It would also procure a sufficient number of ship and shore terminals to provide GBS through the use of commercial satellites to a large cross section of the fleet and the Navy's ashore commanders even sooner. To ensure that the diverse requirements of the Navy's GBS program progress in a complementary manner, the committee recommends an increase of $50.5 million above the budget request as follows: (1) $39.0 million for the procurement and installation of shipboard GBS satellite terminals; (2) $7.0 million for the procurement and installation of shore GBS satellite terminals; and (3) $4.5 million to provide for launch services for UFO satellites 8, 9, and 10. Oceanographic equipment During its review of the fiscal year 1997 budget request, the committee determined that investment funding for oceanographic equipment was reduced significantly in both fiscal year 1996 and in the budget request. Naval oceanography employs equipment such as fathometers, global positioning satellite (GPS) receivers, recording equipment, and side-scan sonars to conduct ocean surveys. These are sensitive units that are used in the Navy's survey vessels or incorporated into travel packs for use by Navy oceanographers onboard foreign ships. They can be easily affected or damaged by rough handling or extended exposure to a marine environment. Replacement on a regular basis is necessary. It would appear that funding in fiscal year 1996 and in the budget request is not sufficient to maintain an adequate replacement program The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million above the budget request to provide additional funding for procurement of oceanographic survey equipment. Marine Corps Procurement Joint task force deployable communications support The committee supports Marine Corps efforts to enhance its communications support capabilities. The committee recognizes the outstanding requirement for a deployable satellite communications system and recommends an increase of $1.7 million to procure this system for the Marine Corps joint task force headquarters. Intelligence upgrades The committee is concerned about the modernization of Marine intelligence support capabilities and notes outstanding requirements in two separate areas: tactical photography and communications intelligence dissemination. The tactical photography (TACPHOTO) camera system is a state-of-the-art imagery collection device that greatly enhances the real time tactical intelligence products needed by Marine Corps field commanders. The committee recommends an increase of $11.2 million to accelerate the initial operational capability date for this system by one year and to procure all 509 TACPHOTO systems required. The committee also recommends an increase of $3.4 million to procure three team portable communication intelligence systems (TPCS), which will meet the acquisition objective and provide the Marine air ground task force (MAGTF) commander with a vital intelligence tool. SUBTITLE D--AIR FORCE PROGRAMS Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) The budget request contained $417.8 million for the procurement of two E-8C aircraft, and $111.1 million for advanced procurement for two E-8Cs in fiscal year 1998, and $30.2 million for initial spares. Trainers and support equipment were included in the procurement. Funding in the amount of $207.3 million for follow on development and testing was also requested in PE 64770F. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force has testified that accelerating the procurement of the JSTARS aircraft is the top unfunded priority of the Air Force. The committee understands that accelerating delivery of one JSTARS aircraft will provide significant cost savings/avoidance. The JSTARS effectiveness has been proven during Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, and also recently in Bosnia. The battlefield awareness provided by the JSTARS to combat commanders is critical to rapid reaction and operational success. Consequently, the committee is convinced that acceleration of one JSTARS aircraft from fiscal year 2005 to 2001 is a cost-effective way to acquire effective operational capability. The committee recommends an increase of $240.0 million for the procurement of one aircraft, including an additional $30.0 million for initial spares. SR-71 The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 provided $5.0 million for costs associated with the refurbishment of SR-71 aircraft. The budget request for fiscal year 1997 did not include funding for SR-71 modifications. The committee understands that a prudent modification program can be incorporated into the SR-71 to improve its effectiveness as a hedge until unmanned aerial vehicles become widely available. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million for ELINT system reinstallation, clip in kits, navigation/GPS, and an on board processor and data link study. Satellite communications terminals The Joint Chiefs of Staff have mandated that ultra-high frequency (UHF) satellite communications users implement the demand assigned multiple access (DAMA) capability for all users. The Air Force is procuring DAMA ground terminals but has not requested funding for airborne terminals in the budget request. Without these airborne terminals, aircraft will not be able to effectively communicate with other platforms. Accordingly, the committee recommends $21.2 million in aircraft procurement funding to begin procuring these UHF airborne DAMA terminals. The committee understands that additional funds will be required in the out years to complete this effort and directs the Air Force to include sufficient funding in future years budget requests. RC-135 re-engining Last year the committee recommended an increase of $79.5 million for re-engining RC-135 aircraft. Providing modern, efficient engines for these heavily used aircraft allowed for a rapid recapture of the investment involved, while avoiding the costs of supporting out of production engines. The committee understands that the Air Force is programming resources for continuation beyond fiscal year 1998 to complete the entire fleet of aircraft. Under the assumption that the Air Force will program the required funding to complete the program past fiscal year 1997, the committee recommends an increase of $145.2 million to procure engine kits for six aircraft. Rivet Joint technology transfer The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million to the budget request for defense airborne reconnaissance program (DARP) to migrate medium wave infrared acquisition technology from the Cobra Ball program to the Rivet Joint RC-135 tactical reconnaissance fleet. The committee understands that the Air Force is reordering priorities to fund the Rivet Joint technology transfer program in fiscal years 1998 and 1999. Funds authorized in fiscal year 1997 would allow the Air Force to maintain a schedule to field upgraded systems that would enhance theater missile defense surveillance activities beginning in 1997. Space boosters The budget request included $489.6 million in Missile Procurement, Air Force, for space boosters. The committee understands that a portion of the request may not be needed as a result of funding received from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The budget request also appears to contain a larger amount of advance procurement than required. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $40.8 million. DEFENSE-WIDE PROGRAMS Defense-Wide Procurement Common automatic recovery system The committee is encouraged by the actions taken by the Department of the Navy and the Joint Program Office to meet the integration and fielding requirements of the common automatic recovery system (CARS) into the Pioneer unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) system and with the planned initiatives to field CARS in all UAVs. The committee believes that this low cost system will reduce mishaps and improve operational effectiveness. Accordingly, the committee directs the integration of CARS into both the tactical unmanned aerial vehicle (TUAV) and the Predator systems as soon as practicable and recommends an increase of $8.0 million in Procurement, Defense-Wide, Line 7 (DARP). C-130 aircraft modifications The U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) has an ongoing program to incrementally modify its special mission aircraft to incorporate mature technology and preserve their capability to counter evolving threats. The committee has learned that additional funding in fiscal year 1997 would make possible improvements to USSOCOM's AC-130U gunships and the MC- 130H Combat Talon II aircraft that would upgrade display generation units, suppress the infrared signature of aircraft engines, and improve sustainment for certain weapon systems. Funding for these improvements could not be accommodated within the budget request because of resource constraints. The committee recommends an increase of $23.8 million for survivability and sustainment improvements to the USSOCOM's fleet of AC-130U Gunships and the MC-130H Combat Talon II aircraft. Advanced SEAL delivery system The budget request contains no procurement funding for the advanced SEAL delivery system (ASDS) for the special operations forces. The committee has learned that a changing interpretation of administrative procedures between preparation of the fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 budget requests caused $4.4 million of advance procurement funding for the ASDS to be deleted from the fiscal year 1997 budget request at the last minute. In fact, initial printed budget justification materials that the committee received from the Department of Defense still included this advance procurement in their tabular displays. The consequence of this cut in funding would be a one year delay in fielding the ASDS system. To restore the ASDS program to its original schedule, the committee recommends an increase of $4.4 million over the budget request for the procurement of long-lead steel and integrated control and display consoles needed for fabrication of the first production ASDS. The U.S. Special Operations Command estimates that acceleration of this funding from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 1997 will avoid costs of about $10.0 million. Special mission radio system The U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) has a program to procure a special mission radio system (SMRS). SMRS is needed to satisfy long-range communications requirements of the special forces. The operational requirements document for SMRS was approved in May 1995, and the program is included in the future years defense program. The committee has been informed by USSOCOM that accelerated procurement could save $11.3 million through avoidance of future costs. The committee recommends an addition of $9.4 million for procurement of the SMRS. SCAMPI communications system The budget request contained no funding for procurement of the SCAMPI communications system for the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). Additional funding in fiscal year 1997 would enable USSOCOM to procure the equipment necessary to relocate and modernize three principal SCAMPI hubs to accommodate bandwidth requirements. The committee recommends an increase of $3.7 million to complete hub relocation for USSOCOM's SCAMPI communications system. Briefcase multi-mission advanced tactical terminal The U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) has been engaged in an ongoing program to develop and procure the briefcase multimission advanced tactical terminal (BMATT). This program responds to a validated requirement for BMATT that is contained in an October 1995 joint operational requirements document. Procurement for BMATT is included in the future years defense program. The Special Operations Command has informed the committee that accelerated procurement of this proven, operationally effective system will save $0.5 million and enable the special forces to access, in near-real time, intelligence information that is very important for mission planning and execution. The committee recommends an addition of $4.5 million to accelerate the procurement of BMATT. Procurement of ammunition--Special Operations The committee is concerned with the inadequate funding for ammunition that was contained in the President's budget request. Ammunition is an important contributor to military readiness, for training and in anticipation of conflict. The committee recommends the following adjustments to the budget request for Special Operations Forces ammunition procurement: Item Millions Selectable Lightweight Attack Munitions........................... $5.0 Time Delay Firing Device.......................................... 8.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________ Total....................................................... 13.0 Other Items of Interest Individual body armor The committee is aware that current funding constraints prevent the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) from procuring and issuing a set of individual body armor to each member of special forces units that should use such equipment. Special forces members who deploy for operational missions are required to draw body armor from common stocks and turn it in upon return. The rationale for this system appears to be that: (1) it would be too expensive to issue an individual set of body armor to each person; and (2) more advanced equipment cannot be procured because of the cost to replace all equipment at the same time. The committee has been informed that USSOCOM's current system for management of individual body armor is unpopular among special forces units because SEALs and other individuals are often compelled to use equipment that is heavily soiled from having been worn next to the body by other personnel for long periods of time under demanding circumstances. The committee understands that there is a different system for similar equipment in conventional units, where troops, such as infantrymen, are issued a helmet upon being assigned to the unit for their exclusive use while assigned. Upon completion of a tour of duty with their unit, infantrymen clean their helmets and turn them in for reissue. The committee would support a similar system for individual body armor for special forces. The committee also notes that the current system appears shortsighted and counterproductive, because the wear and tear from repeated readjustment of the equipment to fit numerous individuals is likely to be greater than if the equipment were used by one person. Also, contrary to USSOCOM's apparent procurement assumption, the committee finds no compelling reason why all individual body armor must be replaced at the same time for special forces personnel. It would seem that advanced equipment could be procured annually, at a rate sufficient to replace older equipment as it wears out. The committee has learned that the estimated cost of furnishing appropriate special forces with a set of individual body armor is approximately $3.0 million. However, this estimate lacks sufficient precision to merit a specific recommendation by the committee in fiscal year 1997 to implement such a program. Consequently, the committee directs the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Special Operations Command to report to the congressional defense committees, not later than March 3, 1997, on the advisability of changing the current system and the associated costs of implementing any proposed changes. Predator UAV leasing The committee is aware of the successful results of the Predator UAV advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD) program, and the role the Predator has played during the crisis in Bosnia. The Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) has established a requirement for 16 Predator systems, but fewer than three systems are now available in the inventory. As a way of providing commanders in the field with additional Predator systems in the most timely fashion, the committee believes that the Department of Defense should consider the option of leasing a small number of Predator systems. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees by November 1, 1996 on the feasibility, desirability, cost- effectiveness, and net benefits of proceeding with near-term, full service leasing of the Predator UAV system. TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION SUBTITLE A--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS Section 203. Defense Nuclear Agency. The budget request included $314.3 million for the Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA) for operation and maintenance ($85.1 million), procurement ($7.9 million) and research and development ($221.3 million). The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million to the DNA budget request. The committee directs that the funds be used: to increase the frequency of nuclear weapons incident field training exercises ($3.0 million for operations and maintenance); to leverage DNA capabilities developed to combat nuclear threats during the Cold War by establishing a counter terrorism technology support program; and to establish a nuclear weapon delivery sustainment program which, in conjunction with the military services, will provide affordable technologies, manufacturing processes, and test and evaluation techniques to maintain nuclear delivery systems over their anticipated extended life cycles ($12.0 million). SUBTITLE B--PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, AND LIMITATIONS Section 211. Space launch modernization. The committee supports the Department of Defense's Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program because of the potential for significant near-term reductions in launch cost and improvements in responsiveness. However, the committee believes that the Department should also begin planning for how it would use a reusable launch vehicle (RLV). Well before we have an operational RLV, the Department of Defense (DOD) will have to rethink its technological and operational approaches to the use of space for meeting communications, reconnaissance, and other military requirements. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in PE 63401F to begin the necessary technical and operational developments that will be required for the Department to fully utilize RLV systems once they become operational. The committee notes that the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Space has expressed serious interest in coordinating the efforts within the Department of Defense and between the Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on RLV development and planning. The committee applauds this initiative. The committee recommends a provision that would not permit the use of DOD funds for RLV in an amount in excess of that dedicated to the program by NASA. The provision also prohibits the obligation of funds authorized for EELV in fiscal year 1997 until the Secretary of Defense certifies that the DOD plans to obligate the funds authorized for RLV in a manner consistent with this Act. Section 212. Department of Defense Space Architect. The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to include the kinetic energy tactical anti-satellite (ASAT) program in the space control architecture that will be developed by the Department's new Space Architect. The provision would prohibit the use of fiscal year 1997 defense funds to support the Space Architect until the Secretary certifies that he will include the ASAT program in the space control architecture and that he has obligated fiscal year 1996 funds and will obligate fiscal year 1997 funds appropriated for the kinetic energy ASAT, consistent with congressional guidance. Section 213. Space-based infrared system program. Section 216 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) requires the Secretary of Defense to prepare and submit to Congress a new program baseline for the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) program, including an accelerated schedule for development and deployment of the Space and Missile Tracking System (SMTS). The committee has been disappointed by the Department's delay in responding to this statutory guidance and reluctance to obligate funds appropriated for SMTS in fiscal year 1996. Due to this lack of responsiveness, the committee recommends a provision that would provide for the conditional transfer of SMTS back to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), where the program had previously resided. The committee is aware, however, that the Department of the Air Force and the Office of the Secretary of Defense have instituted a process that will purportedly bring the Department of Defense into compliance with section 216 (Public Law 104- 106). Based on assurances to this effect, the committee has decided to condition the transfer of the SMTS program. If, within 30 days after enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that the requirements of section 216 (Public Law 104-106) have been carried out, then the requirement to transfer SMTS to BMDO shall cease to be effective. The committee notes that the Air Force has informed the committee that the program baseline required by section 216 (Public Law 104-106) is achievable at a reasonable level of risk. The committee has been in regular contact with the Air Force to review in detail draft schedules for the new program baseline. The committee also notes that its desire to foster greater competition in the SMTS program has been endorsed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Air Force. The committee has been informed by senior Department of Defense officials that the Department's decision to recommend rescission of $51.0 million of the fiscal year 1996 SMTS appropriation was a mistake based on incomplete information, and that the Department is eager to obligate such funds for the purpose for which they were originally authorized and appropriated. Finally, the committee notes that both the Air Force and the Office of the Secretary of Defense unofficially recommended an increase of $134.0 million in fiscal year 1997 to enhance competition in the SMTS program and to preserve the option of accelerating the SMTS schedule, consistent with section 216 (Public Law 104-106). The committee recommends sufficient funding in fiscal year 1997 for the overall SBIRS program to implement the program baseline established in section 216(a) of P.L. 104-106. Since the budget request is deficient for both the space segment high and the space segment low (SMTS), the committee recommends an increase of $134.0 million in PE 63441F to support SMTS acceleration, and an increase of $19.1 million in PE 64441F to restore SBIRS high to the baseline program previously approved by the committee and to preclude a slip in fielding one or both of the overseas relay ground stations supporting the 1999 Defense Support Program consolidation. Section 215. Clementine 2 micro-satellite development program. In fiscal year 1996, the Air Force Space Command, in conjunction with the Air Force Phillips Laboratory, initiated a Clementine 2 micro-satellite program as a follow-on to the highly successful Clementine 1 mission. The Clementine 2 program will develop, test, and flight-validate a variety of miniaturized spacecraft technologies with applications to a wide number of military and intelligence space programs. By using near-earth asteroids as sensor demonstration targets, the mission will also provide benefits to the civil science community. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million in PE 63401F to continue this effort under the control of the Space Warfare Center, with execution by the Clementine team (Phillips Laboratory, the Naval Research Laboratory, and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory). The committee also recommends a provision that would prohibit the use of funds authorized in this Act for the Global Positioning System Block IIF satellite system until the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that: (1) funds appropriated for fiscal year 1996 for the Clementine 2 micro- satellite program have been obligated; and (2) the Secretary has made available for obligation funds appropriated for fiscal year 1997 for the Clementine 2 micro-satellite program. Section 217. Defense airborne reconnaissance program. The budget request for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) included $438.6 million for research and development for a variety of reconnaissance programs within the defense airborne reconnaissance program (DARP) as listed below: DARP RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT [Dollars in millions] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Program Purpose Amount Change ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tactical UAV (TUAV)......................... Provide warfighters with day/night aerial $64.6 -12.8 reconnaissance to support combat operations. Endurance UAV (EUAV)........................ Provide wide area reconnaissance support with 176.4 ........ the following UAV systems: ``Predator'' (Tier II) medium altitude endurance (MAE); ``Global Hawk'' (Tier II+) conventional, high altitude endurance (CONV HAE); and ``Dark Star'' (Tier III-) low observable, high altitude endurance (LO HAE). Manned Reconnaissance Program............... Support the entire range of users from 28.3 +42.7 tactical to National Command Authority. Distributed Common Ground System............ Provide a system capable of receiving and 55.3 ........ processing data from multiple airborne platforms. Airborne Reconnaissance Program (ARP)....... Respond to evolving threats by funding and 114.0 -6.5 coordinating other advanced airborne reconnaissance technologies. ------------------- Total................................. .............................................. 438.6 +23.4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Program The committee applauds the attempts by the Department of Defense to rationalize programs for meeting the requirements of users at the tactical level. The committee believes that the Department has offered a reasonable plan to move toward a set of systems to meet requirements in the long-term. However, the committee remains concerned about the pressure to proliferate systems to meet particular niche markets. This makes the tactical UAV development program all the more important. The Department has proposed to manage the tactical UAV program as an advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD). This proposal differs from previous ACTDs, however, in that the budget supports an immediate transition into production of the candidate system that wins the tactical UAV competition. The committee understands that a request for proposals (RFP) has been released, and contract award is expected within one month of this report. The restructuring of the program and the creation of an ACTD has resulted in an excess of unexpended funds from fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996; accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction of $12.8 million and encourages the Department to reprogram any remaining funds within the DARP. The committee notes the success achieved in the Predator ACTD, which has achieved many operational successes in Bosnia. The Predator program is the first ACTD that will ``graduate'' from development status into production. There has been sufficient time to operationally test the Predator before we committed resources in the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) to any major production program. This is in stark contrast to the Hunter UAV program, where production began much too soon. In a rush to production and deployment, the Department now owns multiple Hunter systems that will be stored for potential future use. This presents both a problem and an opportunity. We will be saddled with a one-of-a-kind system and storage costs. Nevertheless, having the Hunter systems available (and the Pioneer and Predator UAV systems) means that we do not need to rush to production of the tactical UAV. Therefore, the committee directs the Department of Defense not to enter into any limited production for tactical UAVs beyond the number required to conduct the core ACTD program. Dark Star UAV The committee is encouraged that the Dark Star UAV has finally achieved first flight. Unfortunately, achieving this milestone was delayed by more than six months from the date estimated by the contractors last year, and the aircraft crashed on its second flight. This is in direct contrast to the pleas that the program was ahead of schedule and could use additional funds in fiscal year 1996 for additional air vehicles. The committee understands that this delay was caused by deficiencies in the avionics system, resulting from software problems. A problem with software has been an all too common problem in other programs and has frequently been a harbinger of even bigger problems later. The committee believes that achieving theater-level support promised by the Dark Star is too important to have this program burdened by the problems deriving from too much production with too little progress in the air. While the specific causes of a recent Dark Star crash are as yet unknown, the committee views with concern the headlong rush to accelerate the program. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision to direct the Department of Defense to refrain from awarding contracts for additional air vehicles beyond the original ACTD proposal, or any other work related to additional air vehicles, as a hedge against further program surprises. Predator The Predator UAV, formerly known as the Tier II, has enjoyed significant success in Bosnia operations. The committee understands the Department is interested in procuring a substantial number of Predator systems for future fielding. The Predator was itself an ACTD, as is the Dark Star. Full scale acquisition of Predators will be a benchmark for ACTDs, since no other ACTDs have gone to full production. ACTDs are designed for limited scale demonstrations, rather than as acquisition programs, and are hence free from various acquisition regulations. The committee is gratified by the Predator's successes, and interested in a comparison of Predator's capabilities versus those of the Tier III- . The committee has frequently noted concern over the number of UAV types and apparent mission overlap between the various programs. Specifically, could the Predator be a substitute for the Tier III- if the Dark Star endured further program setbacks? If Predator can successfully transition to production, it may be a near-term solution while other UAVs are in development. Conversely, if the Predator does not have sufficient capability for future missions, the resources devoted to Predator acquisition might be better used for the developing Dark Star program. Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision to direct the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office (DARO) to withhold Predator acquisition until 60 days after submitting a report that compares the capabilities and costs of the two programs and makes recommendations for the future of the two programs should funding for only one program be available. Manned Reconnaissance Upgrades While there have been strides made in UAV's and there are promising developmental programs in progress for sensor integration, the committee notes the gap between fielded UAV's and required capabilities. In order to ensure continuing reconnaissance capacity, the committee recommends close attention be paid to U-2 capabilities, payloads and training now. SIGINT payloads Last year the committee recognized the need for incremental upgrades to the SIGINT capabilities of the U-2. Noting the development of the joint airborne SIGINT architecture (JASA) as an important initiative for future intelligence gathering, the committee also acknowledges the need to remain capable in the near-term, while awaiting JASA development. The committee is aware that the DARO has listed U-2 recapitalization, specifically procurement of two additional Senior Glass payloads, as their top unfunded priority. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $32.7 million to procure and integrate two additional Senior Glass payloads. Also, the committee is aware of an initiative within the DARO to reprogram excess funds from the cancelled Hunter UAV program which contains additional Senior Glass payloads for the U-2. The committee expects to receive such a request in the near future. Senior Year electro-optical reconnaissance system (SYERS) The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 recommended an increase in the DARO budget for U-2 sensor upgrades, including the SYERS. The SYERS provides the U-2 with its only operational real- time imaging system. Following the Gulf War, the DARO initiated a program to enhance SYERS capabilities to provide wide area coverage, geolocation ability, multi-spectral imaging capability, and simultaneous operation with other sensor packages. However, the program has not been funded to completion, leaving a final package upgrade, the U-2000 program, unfunded. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to repackage the SYERS sensor for simultaneous operation with other sensors, and to begin the effort to add geolocation and broad area coverage, and multi spectral capabilities. U-2 simulator The committee appreciates the fact that U-2 operational tempo is demanding of both equipment and crews, leaving little opportunity for training new crews or ensuring proficiency in all aspects of operations. The unique nature of the U-2's aerodynamics demands precise flying that can only be perfected through practice. The lack of training time available for the aircraft, as well as the advances now available in simulation at modest cost, combine to suggest the need for simulator training for U-2 crews. The committee is persuaded that training costs could be reduced and safety enhanced through the use of simulation. The committee encourages the Air Force to begin a program to acquire a motion-based flight simulator for U-2 flight crews, and directs the Secretary of the Air Force to report to the congressional defense committees on the feasibility of U-2 simulation, to include the funding required, realistic completion date, and a net benefit analysis of acquiring a U-2 flight simulator. Airborne Reconnaissance Program (ARP) Common data link The common data link is an effort to define and implement an interoperable command, control, and communications capability. The committee understands that the program has not been able to execute fully in fiscal year 1996, and accordingly recommends a reduction of $6.5 million in the program. Section 220. Nonlethal weapons and technologies programs. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $15.0 million for a joint service research and development program for non-lethal weapons technologies capabilities to be administered by the executive agent. Additionally, the committee recommends authorization of $3.0 million in the operation and maintenance account for the Marine Corps and $2.0 million in the operation and maintenance account for the Army to fulfill immediate procurement needs for non-lethal weapons to correct inventory deficiencies. The committee also recommends a provision that would limit the use of funds authorized in program element 605130D (foreign comparative testing) and program element 603790D (NATO research and development) until funds authorized for the non-lethal weapons program element authorized in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, and funds authorized for fiscal year 1997, are released to the executive agent of the program. Lastly, the committee is aware that the budget request for fiscal year 1996 also includes funds in the budget request for the Department and separate defense agencies in program elements 603220E and 602715H for research and development of non-lethal weapons technologies. The committee requests that research and development efforts funded by these program elements be coordinated with the executive agent for the non-lethal weapons technology program. Since 1990, the role of U.S. military forces in peacekeeping and operations other than war has increased dramatically. Examples of operations where U.S. military forces have been deployed include evacuation operations in politically unstable areas, disaster relief, humanitarian assistance in response to internal political upheavals, and peace enforcement and peacekeeping. These deployments, in varied and non- traditional missions, have placed our military forces in potentially dangerous noncombat situations involving civilians and terrorists. The fielding of non-lethal capabilities in Somalia and Haiti, while modest in scope, provided U.S. military forces with increased flexibility in the force continuum, where previously the only options available were either to do nothing or to use deadly force. It is likely that U.S. military forces will continue to be confronted by unorthodox military challenges in the future, and the committee strongly believes that non-lethal capabilities are necessary to manage, contain, and defuse certain volatile and low intensity situations. The committee sought to ensure that the military services possess the technologies, systems and munitions necessary to perform peacekeeping missions and operations other than war by authorizing $41.0 million in fiscal year 1995. In fiscal year 1996, the Congress directed the Department to centralize funding for non-lethal weapons and technologies, and to assign management of the program to an executive agent, preferably a user of the technologies, such as a military service. This executive agent would be in a position to identify and prioritize service requirements for non-lethal research and development efforts based on operational experience and needs. In recent testimony before the committee, the Department announced that the Commandant of the Marine Corps, along with the Director of the Commandant's War Fighting Laboratory, had been designated as the executive agent for the Department's non-lethal weapons program. As outlined to the committee, the Marine Corps will coordinate activities of the services, defense agencies and the U.S. Special Operations Command, but would exercise direct control only over the Marine Corps activities. According to DOD, all budgetary oversight and direction for research, development, and procurement of non- lethal weapons technologies would remain the responsibility of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition. The committee is deeply concerned by the Department's decision not to comply with direction provided last year. Additionally, the committee has learned that $37.2 million authorized last year for the non-lethal weapons technologies program has been withheld from the executive agent by the Department. The committee directs the Department to comply with section 219 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 and release funds authorized for the non- lethal weapons technologies to the executive agent for implementation of the program. Finally, the committee understands that the military services have identified the need for additional funding in fiscal year 1996 to reduce development risk in a number of areas such as kinetics, entanglements and acoustics. Additionally, the committee has learned that the military services have identified $26.0 million in shortfalls in the current non-lethal weapons inventory. The committee recommends that the Department seek to reprogram $26.0 million from funds authorized in fiscal year 1996 for research and development of non-lethal weapons to be used for the procurement of non-lethal weapons to meet inventory deficits. Section 221. Counterproliferation support program. The fiscal year 1997 budget request included $93.7 million for the Counterproliferation Support Program to accelerate the development and deployment of essential military counterproliferation technologies and capabilities in the Department of Defense (DOD) and the military services. The committee recommends an increase of $75.0 million to the budget request for the continuation of the Army's tactical antisatellite (ASAT) technologies program. Proliferation of Space Technology The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 included $30.0 million for the Army's tactical antisatellite technologies program. The committee is concerned with the Department's decision to include the funds authorized and appropriated for the Army's tactical antisatellite technologies program on the rescission list. The Commander in Chief of Space Command has testified before the committee of the importance of space and the inherent advantage of controlling this operational medium for the military. General Ashy testified that, ``the use of space and control of this space medium are essential to today's military operations.'' The committee understands that the Army's Space and Strategic Defense Command did not agree with the decision to rescind the funds authorized for the tactical ASAT program because it believes that the kinetic energy technology will prove to be a vital capability for the future and may have applicability to other programs. In order to avoid significant delays and increased costs in developing this capability, the Congress directed the Department to build on the Army's tactical antisatellite technology program. However, the Department's decision to include the funds authorized for this program in a rescission package may have caused the program to be delayed by a year, and potentially increased the cost of the program. The committee directs DOD to release the funds authorized for this program and comply with section 218 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996. Underground and Deep Underground Structures In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, the Congress recommended that $1.5 million be made available from the counterproliferation support program for the exploration of a ``deep digger'' concept for hard target characterization. The committee believes that the Department must continue to focus its research and development efforts aggressively on programs to detect and discriminately attack and destroy underground facilities. The ``deep digger'' concept could possibly address a critical gap in our armed forces' capabilities. The committee understands that only a small portion of funds has been released to conduct a feasibility study for theoretical validation of the program. Deep digger has the potential for use in a variety of missions because it could be delivered either by ground forces or by aircraft. The committee directs the Department to release the remainder of fiscal year 1996 funds and recommends that $3.0 million of the funds authorized for the counterproliferation support program in fiscal year 1996 be made available for the continuation of the proof of principle concept and for the design and testing of a prototype. Chemical and Biological Detection The committee recommends that the Department continue to place increased emphasis in this area. The potential use of biological agents continues to be a powerful threat to national security. The committee continues to believe that bolder research and development efforts are needed and strongly recommends that the program manager for the chemical and biological defense program, as well as the program manager for the counterproliferation support program, take a more proactive position on working closely with universities and industry, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), to take advantage of technologies that show potential for biological detection. In particular, the committee endorses efforts undertaken by DARPA to conduct research on unique means of detecting biological agents, such as upconverting phosphors. The committee supports the Department's efforts to support programs that improve our ability to detect and identify chemical agent production and storage facilities. The committee understands that $7.9 million from funds authorized in fiscal year 1996 for the counterproliferation support program were used to support an effort known as SAFEGUARD that employs ultra-spectral imaging to detect trace amounts of chemical agent. The committee recommends that the Department provide a similar level of support for this program in fiscal year 1997. With regard to chemical and biological research conducted by DARPA, the committee directs DARPA to consult and coordinate more closely with the executive agent for the chemical- biological defense program. Likewise, the committee emphasizes its concern that both the chemical-biological defense program and the counterproliferation support program work closely with DARPA to leverage all existing technologies and capabilities to their fullest extent. Emergency preparedness and response The administration has placed a high priority on preventing and combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In particular, considerable concern has arisen regarding the potential terrorist use of chemical or biological agents as a result of the nerve agent attack last year in Japan. Following the end of the Cold War, the committee expressed its concerns about these potential threats through a number of legislative provisions. In fiscal year 1994, the committee included a provision expressing its concerns and directing that the President direct the Departments of Defense and Energy, and other appropriate federal agencies, to report to Congress on their plans and programs to respond to the potential use of chemical, biological, nuclear or radiological agents or weapons against civilian populations. Recently, administration witnesses have testified to the Congress that there is a coordinated effort within the government to manage the consequences of the terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against the United States. Despite these assurances, the committee remains concerned that interagency conflicts are impacting the government's ability to assess the threat, identify the available capabilities and develop and implement procedures for responding to these threats. The committee understands that the President signed a Presidential Decision Directive in June 1995, outlining the interagency process and directing lead agency responsibilities to support the requirements of responding to the terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction both here in the United States and overseas. Further, the committee understands that the directive includes a requirement for coordination of crisis response and consequence management, with DOD providing response assistance to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for crisis response and providing support to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for consequence management. The committee believes that greater efforts are necessary to prevent the terrorist use of WMD, and in particular, the use of chemical or biological agents against the United States, and to prepare the necessary response. Despite the June 1995 presidential directive, the committee is not sure that a coherent plan exists to establish the lines of authority between the various federal agencies and departments, as well as the state and local authorities, to prepare properly for this threat. The committee recommends authorization of $5.0 million, in defense-wide operations and maintenance, for a comprehensive assessment to address the responsibilities and potential contributions of each federal agency and department. The committee directs the Department to comply with section 379 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, to report to the committee on the Department's plans and programs to respond to the terrorist use of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons and agents. Mission planning and analysis The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction will remain an enduring national security concern and challenge for the longterm. To address this challenge, the committee believes that U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) mission planning analysis must be a permanent element of U.S. defense capabilities. The committee recommends that $4.0 million from funds authorized for the Air Force operation and maintenance account be made available for USSTRATCOM mission planning and analysis. The committee further recommends that USSTRATCOM mission planning and analysis be included as an element of the future years defense program beginning in fiscal year 1998. Joint DOD/FBI training program The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 included authority and funding for a training program to be carried out jointly by DOD and the FBI to assist law enforcement agencies in Central Europe, the Baltic countries and the former Soviet Union, and to improve their efforts to deter the possible proliferation and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. The committee is disturbed by the lack of progress in this area by the Department, and concerned about the Department's reluctance to carry out direction provided by Congress, which could possibly prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The committee understands that only a small portion of the funds have been used to establish a joint DOD/FBI working relationship to date. The committee believes that both DOD and the FBI have had more than enough time to work out the formal interagency working relationship and directs the Department to provide the report required by section 1504(e)(B)(3)(B) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995. Transfer authority The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Department of Defense to transfer up to $50.0 million from fiscal year 1997 defense-wide research and development accounts for counterproliferation support activities that are determined by the Counterproliferation Review Committee to be necessary and in the national security interests. SUBTITLE C--BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE Section 231. United States compliance policy regarding development, testing, and deployment of theater missile defense systems. For the last 24 years, since the ABM Treaty entered into force, the United States has lived with a broad set of legal obligations regarding the development, testing, and deployment of theater missile defense (TMD) systems and other non-anti- ballistic missile (ABM) systems. Under article VI(a) of the ABM Treaty, the United States undertakes ``not to give missiles, launchers, or radars, other than ABM interceptor missiles, ABM launchers, or ABM radars, capabilities to counter strategic ballistic missiles or their elements in flight trajectory, and not to test them in an ABM mode.'' Pursuant to these obligations, the United States has promulgated a unilateral compliance policy and specific compliance standards by which all non-ABM systems are evaluated for treaty compliance. There has never been any doubt that this unilateral activity is a sovereign right and obligation. As strategic and technological circumstances have changed, so have U.S. compliance standards. For at least five years, it has been clear that the United States must again update its compliance standards to accommodate new strategic and technological circumstances. On this point there has been very little disagreement, virtually none between Congress and the Executive Branch. There has also been basic agreement on what the new standard should be. The debate has been over the form that this new compliance standard should assume and whether the United States must also assume new obligations under the ABM Treaty regarding TMD systems. The administration has attempted to codify the new compliance standard in what amounts to a new treaty, while Russia has attempted to impose new TMD-related restrictions regarding basic ABM treaty obligations. Both of these approaches depart dramatically from past practice and are legally unnecessary. The committee believes that the United States must unilaterally update its own internal compliance standards, as has been done in the past. This would not entail a new interpretation of the treaty or a change in our basic legal obligations under the treaty. For purposes of article VI(a) the United States simply needs to provide a current definition of a ``strategic ballistic missile'' and establish criteria for judging whether non-ABM systems have been given capabilities to counter such missiles or have been tested against them. This standard exists today and has existed since the administration officially proposed it at the Standing Consultative Commission in November 1993. The committee recommends a provision that would codify this so-called ``demonstrated capabilities'' standard. Such a codification would clarify U.S. compliance policy for the Department of Defense and other interested parties. It would add a large measure of stability to critical U.S. TMD systems, including the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system and the Navy Upper Tier system. Specifically, the new standard would state that until a TMD system is tested against a ballistic missile that exceeds a range of 3,500 kilometers or a velocity of 5 kilometers per second it will not be judged to have been given capabilities to counter a strategic ballistic missile or to have been tested in an ABM mode. In practical terms, this means that the United States would never be able to gain any confidence that its TMD systems possessed operationally relevant ABM capabilities. The compliance policy language recommended by the committee is identical to sense of Congress language contained in section 235 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104- 106), which itself was derived from the administration's own expressed position. Section 232. Prohibition on use of funds to implement an international agreement concerning theater missile defense systems. Section 235 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) prohibited the use of fiscal year 1996 funds by the Department of Defense to implement a so-called theater missile defense (TMD) demarcation agreement unless such agreement was consistent with the so- called ``demonstrated capabilities'' standard, was approved in a statute, or was approved through the treaty-making powers under the Constitution. This means that any agreement would have to be approved by a majority of both Houses of Congress, by a two-thirds vote in the Senate, or be consistent with a pre-approved standard. Unfortunately, subsequent to enactment of Public Law 104-106, Congress was informed that the ``pre- approved'' approach would likely be employed even for an agreement, or elements of an agreement, that has been viewed by Congress as beyond the pre-approved definition. Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision modeled on section 235 (Public Law 104-106) that would prohibit the use of funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense to implement any TMD demarcation agreement unless approved in statute or pursuant to the treaty making power under the Constitution. Section 233. Conversion of ABM Treaty to multilateral treaty. The committee is aware that the Executive Branch is engaged in negotiations to change the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty from a bilateral treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union to a multilateral treaty that includes several of the independent states of the former Soviet Union. The committee believes that such a change would constitute a substantive change requiring Senate advice and consent. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would specify that the United States shall not be bound by any international agreement entered into by the President that would add one or more countries as signatories to the ABM Treaty or would otherwise convert the treaty from a bilateral treaty to a multilateral treaty, unless the agreement is entered pursuant to the treaty making power under the Constitution. Section 234. Funding for upper tier theater missile defense systems. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize funds for the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system and the Navy Upper Tier theater missile defense (TMD) system. The provision would also prohibit the use of funds during fiscal year 1997 by the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology for official representation activities until the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that: (1) fiscal year 1997 funds for THAAD and Navy Upper Tier have been made available for obligation; and (2) the Navy Upper Tier system has been included in the core TMD program. Section 235. Elimination of requirements for certain items to be included in the annual report on the ballistic missile defense program. Section 224(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 established a reporting requirement for the Strategic Defense Initiative. With the changed focus of this program, several of the reporting requirements are no longer valid. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would update the requirement for the annual ballistic missile defense report to Congress. SUBTITLE E--NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PARTNERSHIP Section 252. National Oceanographic Partnership Program. The committee believes that a strong national oceanography program is essential not only for long-term national security, but for other areas of national interest as well. For several years the committee has expressed concern that a window of opportunity currently exists to obtain access to littoral waters previously closed for oceanographic survey during the Cold War. The committee remains concerned that instead of taking advantage of this situation, the nation's oceanographic capabilities are being reduced rather than increased. While the basic science budget of the federal government has increased over the last 14 years, the percentage of the budget devoted to ocean research has declined steadily over the same period. The committee's concern for the relative importance of oceanographic survey and research is based on the value of this information to the warfighter. Oceanographic survey data is essential for successful littoral operations, whether in support of amphibious landings, submarine operations in shallow littoral regions or in application of data on currents, water temperature or bottom characteristics which affect sound propagation in such areas. In addition, many advanced weapon systems in use today require accurate and timely environmental data to strike military targets effectively. In each instance, oceanographic survey and research data contribute directly to the successful conduct of these military operations. By staying on the leading edge of oceanography and leveraging national oceanography programs, naval forces can better use the ocean environment to military advantage. The committee recommends a provision to establish a National Oceanographic Partnership program for the purpose of leveraging all U.S. oceanographic efforts in the Navy, in industry and in academia to benefit national security. The committee finds that it is important that the components of the oceanography community within the United States, including the Navy, industry and academia maintain a close working relationship to meet our national goals and provide new capabilities. The program therefore provides for the establishment of a National Ocean Research Leadership Council, chaired by the Secretary of the Navy or his designee and composed of representatives of federal agencies, industry and academia, to coordinate national oceanography programs, partnerships and facilities. In order to revitalize the current oceanography program and capitalize on past investments in infrastructure and equipment, the committee also recommends an increase of $13.0 million in the Navy's Oceanographic and Atmospheric Technology program (PE 62435N) for support of the National Oceanography Partnership Act to be allocated as follows: $0.5 million for the establishment and operation of the National Ocean Research Leadership Council; $5.0 million for the conduct of a partnership program among the Navy, university research groups and other federal data users in support of the goals outlined in the program. Such partnerships shall be established using merit-based competitive procedures and shall require cost-sharing by non-federal participants on at least a one-for-one basis. $2.0 million for the creation of a Federal Ocean Data and Remote Sensing Center to ensure a centralized database for all sensor information (classified and unclassified) for ocean analysis and modeling by federal agencies and federally-sponsored researchers. Site selection shall be determined by the council using merit-based competitive procedures. $2.0 million for the establishment of a National Littoral Warfighting Laboratory to coordinate Navy modeling and oceanographic analysis in support of unique and emerging littoral warfare requirements. Site selection shall be determined by the council using all applicable merit-based competitive procedures. $1.0 million for the continued operation in fiscal year 1997 of the government-industry MEDEA Ocean Panel. $2.5 million for the establishment and support of education and training programs in support of military and civilian oceanography education with at-sea training and experience on Navy and university oceanographic survey and research ships. Participation in such programs shall be determined using a merit- based selection process. ADDITIONAL MATTERS Army Nautilus/Tactical High Energy Laser Program The committee continues to support the joint Army-Israeli Ministry of Defense Nautilus testing program to assess the potential of high energy lasers to meet tactical threats. The highlight of the test series was the intercept in February of an operational short range rocket. This success has paved the way for a Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) Rapid Acquisition Demonstrator Program. The Army has identified this program as a potential shortfall in the fiscal year 1997 budget request. The committee, therefore, recommends an increase of $50.0 million to a new program element to support the Nautilus/Tactical High Energy Laser Program and the associated design verification testing. The committee understands that the government of Israel is prepared to devote significant resources to this effort and the committee urges the administration to seek a rapid conclusion of a memorandum of agreement (MOA) on the THEL program with Israel. The committee fully expects that additional funding to implement such an MOA will be included in future Army budget requests. Battle Integration Center The committee is aware of the importance of the missile defense Battle Integration Center (BIC) in accomplishing the integration of the Army's theater missile defense program. The BIC has been a critical participant in numerous exercises and experiments in fiscal year 1996 and has supported combat material developers with a synthetic battlefield environment. The committee recommends an increase of $27.0 million in PE 63308A to continue this important capability. Air defense command, control, & intelligence (C2I) The budget request included $20.5 million to begin fielding a new air defense tactical operations center for air defense artillery brigade headquarters. This new C2I center would provide current software and communications equipment and begin retiring the AN/TSQ-73 that utilizes 1960's technology. Air and missile defense continues to be a major concern both to this committee and to the Department of Defense and it is imperative that new C2I systems be developed to support fielding of new air and missile defense systems. The committee notes the successful development and use of a state-of-the-art Force Projection Tactical Operation Center (FPTOC) that effectively integrates theater missile defense activities and provides a deploying theater level (contingency) commander with a vital tool to protect a deployed force. Successful use of the FPTOC in exercises such as Roving Sands, Bright Star, and Internal Look has proven the utility of this new missile defense command, control and intelligence concept at both theater and joint task force levels. The committee believes that the Army, as the developer of this element, has underfunded this promising concept and should review service priorities and provide a baseline level of funding to maintain and further develop the capabilities of this system. Force protection is a battlefield imperative that must be a focal point while making key resourcing decisions. The committee, therefore, recommends an increase of $46.0 million for PE 604741 to field the new brigade tactical operations center to each of the five air defense brigades and replace the aging AN/TSQ-73 system. The committee also recommends an increase of $15.8 million to develop a second FPTOC system, providing the ability to support two separate deployments at the same time and to provide for necessary technical enhancements to both systems. High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility The committee continues to support the operation of the High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility (HELSTF) as the central test facility to support the nation's high energy laser development. The committee is disappointed with the $2.9 million request for HELSTF (PE 65605A), which would be insufficient to support Army plans to restructure the facility. This facility supports the Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser (MIRACL) program and test programs such as Nautilus, Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) and the Air Force Airborne Laser. The committee reiterates the view that it does not make sense to shut down the MIRACL when prior legislative constraints on testing the laser against objects in space have finally been lifted. The committee also notes that the Air Force Science Board's New World Vistas study has recently recommended a ground-based directed energy approach to space control. The committee recommends an increase of $21.7 million for the continued operation and upgrade of the facility. Missile/air defense product improvement program The committee recommended an additional $35.0 million to the fiscal year 1996 budget request to address the cruise missile threat and develop alternatives based on potential modifications to PAC-1 Patriot missiles. The committee recognizes that the cruise missile threat is growing and requires the immediate attention of developmental efforts to ensure that Army forces are protected. The committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million in PE 23801A for fiscal year 1997 to complete this analysis and provide the results to the Army for consideration. The committee also supports Army efforts to evaluate the Starstreak missile alongside the Stinger missile as potential candidates for the air-to-air missile system required for the Apache helicopter. Noted is the outstanding funding requirement for $15.0 million in PE 23801A to support completion of the Army effort to conduct a robust test of both missiles, along with a corresponding cost-effectiveness analysis addressing the full integration of each system on the Apache helicopter. The committee, therefore, recommends an increase of $40.0 million to support Patriot cruise missile seeker development and an additional $15.0 million to complete evaluation of the Starstreak missile. Navy Cooperative engagement capability The budget request contained $164.5 million in PE 63755N and $9.9 million in PE 24152N for continued development of the Navy's cooperative engagement capability (CEC). CEC is designed to enhance the warfighting capabilities of ships and aircraft by combining the data derived from various sensors into a single common representation that is available with the same positional accuracy to all participating ships. The Navy reports that a challenging cruise missile defense exercise, which relied heavily on CEC position information, was held earlier this year in Hawaii. The exercise involved over- the-horizon detection, tracking, and engagement of a variety of difficult targets. The Navy currently projects that initial operational capability of the system will be achieved by September 1996. During testimony at this year's defense posture hearing, the Secretary of Defense singled out CEC as a program of high priority that he chose to accelerate because of its great potential for linking units from more than one service together and greatly increasing their warfighting ability. Despite relatively robust funding for CEC in this year's budget request, it contains no funding to pursue joint service integration efforts that were begun last year. Successful consummation of these efforts, in consonance with the Navy's baseline program, could greatly leverage the capability of the services to conduct joint operations and provide ballistic missile defense. Another area not addressed by the budget request, an issue raised in committee hearings this year, is reported interference between CEC and other data links currently in use in the fleet. The committee recommends an increase of $63.0 million above the budget request for CEC in PE 63755N to permit continued pursuit of a number of promising efforts, including CEC integration with AWACS and national sensors, and to accelerate development of an airborne capability for the system. Of this amount, $8.0 million would be available to address the issue of CEC interference with other fleet data links, particularly the link installed on the SH-60B. The committee also directs that the Secretary of the Navy prepare a detailed report, for submission no later than March 15, 1997, on issues that surfaced during committee hearings this year: (1) progress made in resolving the issue of spectrum interference as a result of the reallocation under title VI of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993 of the spectrum in which CEC operates; and (2) steps that the Secretary has taken to address and resolve harmful interference between CEC and other fleet weapons systems and data links. Naval surface fire support The budget request included $42.2 million for gun weapons system technology. Of this amount, $20.2 million is for the continued development of a 5-inch extended range guided munition (ERGM) round. The Navy is developing this round to address a gap in its ability to provide accurate naval surface fire support (NSFS) during an amphibious assault at the ranges dictated by current requirements. Of the $20.2 million, no funds have been budgeted for risk mitigation in the development of a GPS/INS guidance unit for the projectile, the component judged to have the greatest technical risk. The committee has learned that a modest increment of additional funding for risk mitigation in fiscal year 1997 could have very high leverage in successfully completing development of the GPS/INS guidance unit on schedule. Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million above the budget request in PE 63795N for risk mitigation in development of the 5-inch ERGM. Consistent with direction provided in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, the committee also recommends an increase of $0.4 million above the budget request to support the retention of two Iowa class battleships on the naval register in an inactive status until the Navy is able to replace their potential NSFS capability. Joint maritime command information system/Navy tactical command system- afloat The budget request included $43.7 million for development and procurement associated with the Navy tactical command system afloat (NTCS-A) and the joint maritime command information system (JMCIS). NTCS-A is the primary command, control, and intelligence (C2I) system in the fleet. It is installed in over 240 ships and is fielded on a series of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) based tactical computers. It also forms the architectural basis for the Joint Chiefs of Staff's global command and control system (GCCS). NTCS-A provides a common standard in order to integrate individual subsystems into a common operating environment, the JMCIS. New, user-specific software applications for individual weapons and communications systems must be developed with an interface that is compliant with NTCS-A. The Navy has also embarked on a major effort to ensure that legacy systems that are not presently compliant with NTCS- A are adapted to it as quickly as possible. While the Navy considers this effort of great importance to its ability to realize the full fighting potential of its fleet units, competing demands for resources in a constrained budget environment have slowed the development of NTCS-A/JMCIS. The committee recommends an increase of $23.0 million above the budget request to field the following additional capabilities for JMCIS/NTCS-A: (1) development of integrated two-way Link 16 processing capability in JMCIS software; (2) incorporation of the Air Force's contingency theater automated planning system (CTAPS) into JMCIS; (3) upgrading to permit data exchange between the joint surveillance target attack radar system (JSTARS) and the Navy's afloat planning system (APS); (4) fielding of the afloat automated sanitization system, commonly known as Radiant Mercury; and (5) development of the tools and architecture to allow users to selectively request, filter, and process supporting databases without being overwhelmed by unneeded data. Of the amount recommended, $19.5 million would be for research and development in PE 64231N and $3.5 million would be for procurement. Arsenal Ship The Navy budget request contained $25.0 million for development of an arsenal ship. During the past year, the Department of the Navy has developed a new concept for an arsenal ship. Key elements of the concept include: (1) providing approximately 500 vertical launch system (VLS) cells, with the capability to launch Navy and joint weapons to support the land campaign; (2) integrating the combat system with cooperative engagement capability to provide for off-board control of weapons; (3) incorporating the flexibility to include ship design features for survivability and self defense at a later date; (4) minimizing ownership costs; and (5) limiting crew size to no more than 50. The arsenal ship concept could satisfy the basic joint naval requirements to provide the theater commander with: (1) massive firepower, (2) long-range strike, and (3) flexible targeting of that firepower. The arsenal ship program may also support theater air defense by providing hundreds of VLS cells for air defense missiles. The Navy has testified that it will emphasize simplicity of design for the arsenal ship. In an innovative approach to exploring the arsenal ship concept, the Navy has signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for conducting a joint development program. The objective of the MOA is to: (1) produce an operational demonstrator that could be converted to a fleet asset at a future date; (2) incorporate cost as an independent variable; (3) share the cost of the first demonstrator between the Navy and DARPA; (4) spend no more than $520.0 million on the first demonstrator; (5) use exclusively off-the-shelf systems; and (6) create a joint arsenal ship advanced technology demonstrator office to manage the effort. The committee explored this arsenal ship concept for the first time at a hearing on March 12, 1996. Based on its initial review, the committee believes that the concept shows promise for providing both flexible response and early massive firepower in the event of a crisis. The committee understands that the program is in the earliest of conceptual stages. However, there are a number of questions that must be addressed concerning integration of the arsenal ship with other existing and developmental weapons systems, and concerning other possible missions that have evolved since the memorandum of agreement was signed. Relevant matters for resolution as development proceeds include: (1) how will the arsenal ship system and its operational employment concept satisfy the basic objectives of providing accurate, long-range strike and flexible targeting? (2) does the Navy have, or is it planning to develop, the right kinds of weapons systems that would provide an effective anti-armor capability at ranges consistent with long range strike? (3) has the Navy identified what modifications to existing vertical launchers may be necessary to accommodate the Army tactical missile system (ATACMS)? (4) how will the Navy integrate the arsenal ship into existing or planned surveillance and targeting systems, such as JSTARs, to tap into sensor-to-shooter links that provide accurate real-time targeting for long- range weapons? (5) to what extent might the arsenal ship system be able to provide a shore fire support capability, a potential additional mission that is not mentioned in the developmental objectives of the MOA? (6) what self-defense systems might be necessary to meet the operational objectives set for the ship? and (7) what is the view of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) regarding the need for additional sea-based, long-range, precision surface fire support in the form of an arsenal ship? Based on its initial evaluation, the committee supports the Navy's concept for an arsenal ship. However, the committee believes that the questions listed above are all valid and must be addressed as part of the development program. The arsenal ship concept should be developed as a weapons system, not just as a ship. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $147.0 million in PE 64310N to accelerate development of the arsenal ship weapons system and to accelerate finding answers to the questions that would allow the Navy to develop a system, not just a ship. The committee expects the Navy to address this matter in the preparation of its fiscal year 1998 budget and be prepared to discuss its various developmental and resource implications before the request is submitted. GEOSAT follow-on The Navy has been conducting a research and development effort for a space-borne sensor to determine wind speed and direction. The Navy has budgeted funds for a wind speed and direction sensor that was intended to take advantage of the opportunity to launch on the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) Block VI spacecraft in the fiscal year 2000-2004 time frame. Now that DMSP Block VI has been merged with the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS), the committee recommends that the Navy meet its requirements for both radar altimetry and wind data by building a second GEOSAT Follow-On (GFO-2) that would also include a new wind sensor payload in fiscal years 2001-2002. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE 35160N to begin this effort. Air Force High frequency active auroral research program The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million for the high frequency active auroral research program, $7.5 million in PE 62601F and $7.5 million in PE 63160D. Airborne laser program The budget request included $56.8 million in PE 63319F for the Airborne Laser (ABL) program. Although the committee agrees to authorize the full budget request for ABL, it has serious reservations and concerns related to this program. The Air Force currently plans to spend $682.6 million in the future years defense program (fiscal years 1997-2001) on an ABL demonstration and validation (Dem/Val) program. The committee does not believe that the Air Force has adequately demonstrated the feasibility of the necessary technology to justify beginning such a significant investment. The committee is also not convinced that the ABL concept of operations will allow the system to be cost and operationally effective. Under any serious threat scenario, the ABL aircraft will be required to stand off approximately 90 kilometers from the forward edge of the battle area. Yet the ABL will have a range well below 500 kilometers (in most cases against most threats probably less than 300 kilometers). This means that the ABL will have very little capability against short-range missiles and longer-range missiles launched from significant distances behind the forward edge of the battle area. Moreover, the 747-400F aircraft that the Air Force plans to use as the ABL platform will be an extremely vulnerable and lucrative target for enemy air defense systems. The committee notes that the Air Force is planning to acquire a 747-400F aircraft as the ABL test platform through multi-year incremental funding. The committee views this acquisition as inconsistent with the Department of Defense's policy on incremental funding. The committee will not support incremental funding of a 747-400F aircraft while the Department opposes incremental funding of other major platforms, such as ships. Notwithstanding the reservations expressed above, the committee does support a robust technology development and risk reduction effort for ABL. The committee strongly supports the development of directed energy systems for ballistic and cruise missile defense applications. Nonetheless, the committee remains skeptical about making a commitment to a significant ABL Dem/Val program at this time. This skepticism has been heightened by the fact that the Department of Defense's recent BMD Program Update Review recommended significant reductions in other key theater missile defense programs. The committee does not understand how the administration can justify a $2.0 billion reduction in the Theater High Altitude Area Defense system, for which we have a critical near-term requirement, and at the same time dedicate approximately $700.0 million for a system that may not work or make operational sense. National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System The National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) is a joint weather satellite development program involving the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The budget request included $34.0 million for NPOESS. Since the development program has recently been stretched-out by three years, the committee recommends a reduction of $15.0 million to PE 63434F. Hardened and deeply buried target technology demonstration The committee understands that the Air Force Air Combat Command and the U.S. Strategic Command have submitted mission need statements for capabilities to defeat hardened and deeply buried targets, and that these were validated by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and approved by the Defense Acquisition Board for acquisition phase 0 efforts. The committee also understands that the Air Force Space Command has submitted an advanced technology concept demonstration proposal to develop a capability to defeat hardened and deeply buried targets. The committee endorses this effort and recommends an increase of $19.1 million in PE 63851F. Milstar automated communication management system The budget request included $700.3 million for the Milstar satellite communications system. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE 64479F for the automated communication management system (ACMS), which will perform essential network planning and management of Milstar communications resources for a wide range of users. The Army's tactical terminal field operators and planners, in particular, will benefit from an ability to directly task the satellite constellation, move antennas, and change network configurations. ACMS will enable all users to fully utilize the flexibility and responsiveness of the Milstar system. Global Positioning System The committee supports the Global Positioning System (GPS) and the Air Force's acquisition strategy for the Block IIF satellite. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $7.1 million in PE 64480F to sustain the development and support a production rate of three Block IIF satellites per year, which will be required to maintain a full 24-satellite constellation. Section 279 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-106) established a requirement for the Department of Defense to prepare and present to Congress a plan for dealing with GPS jamming and denial. The committee remains strongly interested in quickly resolving GPS vulnerabilities related to use in battlefield jamming environments, and the growing potential for GPS exploitation by adversaries. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 35164F to accelerate activities necessary to ensure effective use of high-precision GPS signals by United States forces, and the means to deny access to those signals by hostile forces. Rocket System Launch Program Systems to defeat hardened and deeply buried targets share many of the same technical challenges faced by kinetic energy boost-phase missile defense systems. Both require technologies for high speed in-atmosphere vehicles, precise guidance, plasma attenuation, and advanced vehicle antennas and materials. Several programs address these technologies in coordinated efforts but lack experimental flight testing capabilities. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $25.1 million in PE 65860F to fund two atmospheric interceptor technology, plasma attenuation, and materials demonstration flights coordinated by the Air Force Ballistic Missile Technology Program and flown by the Rocket System Launch Program. Data links Last year, the committee applauded the Air Force's decision to equip its air superiority fighters (F-15Cs) with the data link called ``Link-16.'' Nevertheless, the committee does not believe that the budget invests heavily enough in proliferating this important capability to other parts of the Air Force. The committee believes that the added situational awareness resulting from sharing data among various platforms has real potential for making our forces more effective warfighters. The committee believes that the Air Force should accelerate its plan to install Link-16 on F-16, F-15E, and RC-135 aircraft, complete installation in the modular air operation centers, and expand Link-16 capability to the B-1 fleet. Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $65.9 million for the Air Force as follows: DATA LINK INITIATIVE [Dollars in millions] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Request Recommended Change Ref ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Procurement................................... 114.2 124.4 10.2 --------------------------------- DARP...................................... 66.2 74.2 +8.0 APAF line 59 RC-135 Rivet Joint Mods............... ........ ........... +8.0 ............................... Theater battle management................. 48.0 50.2 +2.2 OPAF line 56 ================================= Research and Development...................... 506.2 561.9 55.7 Defense-Wide Cruise missile defense funding Section 274 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) directs the Secretary of Defense to strengthen and coordinate the Department's cruise missile defense programs and activities. Public Law 104-106 also provides significant increases in funding for this effort. For fiscal year 1997, the committee recommends a continuation of this effort and a net increase of $170.0 million for this purpose. None of these funds may be obligated, however, until the committee receives the implementation plan specified in section 274 (Public Law 104-106). For fiscal year 1997, the committee recommends four programmatic initiatives. First, to enhance the ability of United States forces to detect rapidly the launch of cruise missiles across the breadth and width of the battlefield, the committee recommends an increase in funding to transition surveillance technology developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to aerostats and the Airborne Warning Command and Control System (AWACS). To begin a program to modify four-to- five AWACS aircraft by fiscal year 2000, the committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million in PE 63226E and $30.0 million in PE 27417F. Since Aerostats are not as far along in the development cycle and require that DARPA's technologies undergo more significant modifications to be hosted on them, the committee recommends a measured risk reduction effort prior to a development program. The committee notes that the Department of Defense is considering upgrades to the E-2C aircraft in a manner similar to AWACS to support the Navy. Given the challenge associated with accommodating such a sensor on the E-2C, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide Congress a report on the technical, engineering, operational, and programmatic issues associated with this effort. The report should include an analysis of alternative solutions based on the same criteria used to evaluate the E-2C. The report should recommend a solution that has an acceptable degree of risk in terms of cost, schedule, and performance. The report should be provided to Congress not later than March 1, 1997. The committee also urges DARPA, in collaboration with the Air Force, to evaluate innovative airborne sensor platforms that could offer significant gains in power-aperture at airplane altitudes and speeds, including flying-wing designs. The second initiative supported by the committee would ensure that we have adequate fire control and identification once cruise missiles are detected. The committee believes that improvements to the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) are promising. These improvements will allow JSTARS to identify and track cruise missiles with sufficient accuracy to vector air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles, among other capabilities. The committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million for this effort ($20.0 million in PE 63226E and $20.0 million in PE 64770F). This effort should produce four to five upgraded aircraft by fiscal year 2003. The additional funds should be equally divided between efforts to insert DARPA's sensor technology and efforts to add synthetic aperture radar technology for imaging and geolocation. The third initiative supported by the committee would ensure that our inventory of air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles are capable of intercepting cruise missiles. The committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million ($10.0 in PE 63746N, $10.0 million in PE 63009A, and $10.0 million in PE 27163F) to address this issue. The committee also recommends an increase of $40.0 million in PE 23801A to complete the development of the Patriot anti-cruise missile program, which was started in fiscal year 1996. Large millimeter wave telescope As the committee noted last year, the large millimeter wave telescope (LMT) design project has significant potential for advancing the state of the art for radio telescopes through the use of intelligent structures. The design could greatly improve capabilities for acquisition and recognition of targets in space, as well as demonstrate the feasibility of long range directed energy devices. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for the continuation of the LMT program in the Advanced Space Technology Project within the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency's Experimental Evaluation of Major Technologies program (PE 63226E). The committee directs that cost sharing requirements for non-federal participants be utilized under the program where appropriate. Crown Royal The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 63226E for the continuation of the Crown Royal program. Ballistic missile defense funding and programmatic guidance The fiscal year 1997 budget request for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) was $2.8 billion, including research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E), procurement, and military construction. The committee notes with concern that the budget request is over $200.0 million less than the administration's own recommendation of one year ago, and approximately $700.0 million less than the level authorized for fiscal year 1996. This continuing trend of sharply cutting funding for ballistic missile defense (BMD) programs has now jeopardized critical theater missile defense (TMD) programs, just as national missile defense (NMD) and advanced technology programs were previously undermined by the administration's BMD funding cuts. The committee finds these actions at odds with the administration's own stated position that TMD is a high priority. The committee is also concerned by the administration's apparent willingness to disregard legal requirements to accelerate several TMD programs. Section 234 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104- 106) establishes clear objectives for development and deployment of a core TMD program--consisting of the Patriot PAC-3 system, the Navy Lower Tier system, the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, and the Navy Upper Tier system. The Department of Defense's budget request and BMD program satisfy only one of the seven key milestones mandated by section 234, even though these milestones were derived directly from the Department's own fiscal year 1996 proposal and information provided to the committee by the Department of Defense. In order to satisfy the requirements established in section 234 (Public Law 104-106), to the maximum extent possible, and to correct other deficiencies in the budget request regarding BMD programs, the committee recommends a total BMDO authorization of $3.6 billion, an increase of $855.9 million. As a point of comparison, the committee notes that the administration's Bottom-Up Review of September 1993 recommended a BMDO budget of $3.4 billion for fiscal year 1997, approximately $600.0 million more than the administration has requested. The committee's recommended funding allocations for BMDO in fiscal year 1997 are summarized in the following table. Additional programmatic and funding guidance are also provided below. BMDO FUNDING ALLOCATION [In millions of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Program Request Change Recommendation ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Support Technology............ 226.3 +150.0 376.3 THAAD......................... 481.8 +140.0 621.8 Hawk*......................... 19.4 19.4 TMD-BM/C3*.................... 19.3 19.3 Navy Lower Tier**............. 310.7 310.7 Navy Upper Tier............... 58.2 +246.0 304.2 Corps SAM..................... 56.2 -10.8 45.4 BPI........................... +24.3 24.3 NMD........................... 508.4 +300.0 808.4 Joint TMD***.................. 521.5 +6.4 527.9 PAC-3**....................... 596.9 596.9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ BMDO Total................ 2,798.7 +855.9 3,654.6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Procurement only. **Procurement and RDT&E. ***RDT&E and Military Construction. Support technology The budget request for BMDO's support technology programs (PE 62173C/63173C) was $226.3 million. The committee notes that the Director of BMDO has testified repeatedly in recent years regarding the shortfall in BMDO's advanced technology investment. The committee supports the Director's desire to increase the level of investment in advanced BMD technology and, therefore, recommends a net increase of $150.0 million for support technology. The committee supports BMDO's efforts in the area of wide bandgap electronics that are funded in the Innovative Science and Technology program (project 1651). The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 62173C to facilitate a wide bandgap electronics program specifically targeting gallium nitride and silicon carbide as the major semiconductor technologies to be developed. The program should be affiliated with an academic institution involving a research and development facility for material growth, material characterization (including material surface behavior), and wide bandgap semiconductor device development. In testimony before the committee this year, the Director of BMDO specified several basic technology projects that require additional funding. Based on BMDO's stated priorities, the committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million in PE 63173C for advanced radar transmit/receive modules, advanced interceptor satellite communications, and advanced image processing. Although the committee recommended the termination of BMDO's kinetic boost-phase intercept (BPI) program in fiscal year 1996, the committee continues to strongly support BMDO's development of the Atmospheric Interceptor Technology (AIT) program. The AIT program is designed to develop advanced kill vehicle technologies for future hypersonic hit-to-kill interceptors, and for applications as potential product improvements to a wide range of TMD programs, including THAAD, Navy Upper Tier, Patriot PAC-3, and Corps SAM. The budget request includes only $7.4 million for the AIT program as part of the Applied Interceptor Materials and Systems Technology program (project 1270). This level of funding is inadequate to support any significant degree of progress. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million in PE 63173C to support the AIT program. The committee continues to support development of the Space-Based Laser (SBL) program. SBL offers the potential for a high leverage system to deal with ballistic missiles of virtually all ranges. The SBL appears to be by far the most effective boost-phase intercept system being developed by the Department of Defense. In testimony before the committee on March 25, 1996, the Director of BMDO characterized SBL as ``the next real quantum jump'' in active BMD development. Given the importance of this program and its high potential payoff, the committee is disappointed that the budget request contained only $30.0 million for SBL. The committee recommends an increase of $70.0 million in PE 63173C to continue the SBL effort. The committee believes that the Air Force should begin to take a much more active role in developing the SBL program. Specifically, the committee believes that the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center should play a key role in designing a demonstrator spacecraft and providing detailed cost estimates for completion of such a demonstration program. Theater high altitude area defense system The budget request included $481.8 million to complete THAAD demonstration and validation (Dem/Val) and to begin engineering and manufacturing development (EMD). The committee continues to support the development, production, and fielding of THAAD as a matter of highest priority. To reflect the priority attached to the THAAD program by Congress, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 mandated in section 234 that the system achieve a first unit equipped (FUE) not later than fiscal year 2000. Despite this clear congressional direction, the Department of Defense has proposed a restructuring of the THAAD program as part of its BMD Program Update Review that is inconsistent with the law and congressional intent. There are two important aspects of this proposed restructuring. First, the Department proposed streamlining the planned EMD phase for THAAD by proceeding with production of the so-called user operational evaluation system (UOES) configuration. Subsequent improvements to enhance overall THAAD system robustness would be pursued in the future as warranted by threat developments. The committee supports this particular recommendation, which is consistent with the programmatic guidance it provided to the Department last year. Aside from yielding significant savings by simplifying the EMD phase of the program, this action could also be used to facilitate earlier fielding of the THAAD system. The committee strongly disagrees with the second element of the Department's proposed restructuring of the THAAD program. This involves delaying the initiation of low-rate initial production (LRIP), and hence achievement of the FUE until fiscal year 2004, at the earliest. This proposal to delay LRIP reflects the administration's budgetary priorities, not military or technical considerations. The committee rejects this prioritization. If adopted, the administration's recommendation would mean that THAAD would be fielded 12 or more years after the program was initiated on a virtual ``crash'' basis to address the inadequacies in U.S. TMD capabilities that were illustrated during Operation Desert Storm. Furthermore, after fielding the UOES system in fiscal year 1998, there would be a four year delay before beginning LRIP, which would almost certainly lead to a shutdown of the production facility. This not only stretches the development phase of a system that would otherwise be ready for production, but shutting down the production facility is untenable from an industrial base perspective. For these reasons, the committee believes that the proposed delay is unacceptable. The committee remains committed to fielding the THAAD system as quickly as technically feasible. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to structure the THAAD program to begin LRIP in fiscal year 1999 and to adjust the future years defense program accordingly. The committee recommends an increase of $75.0 million in PE 63861C and an increase of $65.0 million in PE 64861C, an overall increase of $140.0 million for the THAAD program. The committee also attaches importance to the UOES system, which will be delivered to the United States Army in fiscal year 1998. This system will provide valuable opportunities for training and testing. Most importantly, it will provide some limited operational capability in the event of a crisis. The committee questions the adequacy of a UOES capability based on 40 interceptor missiles. This would provide for just one load- out of missiles for each of the four THAAD UOES launchers. Once these missiles are used for testing purposes, or launched during a crisis, no reloads would be available. In this regard, the committee notes that 36 Patriot missiles were expended on the first day of combat during Operation Desert Storm. Accordingly, the committee believes that a total of 80 missiles is more appropriate, and directs the Secretary of Defense to include funding to acquire these additional 40 UOES missiles in the fiscal year 1998 budget request. The administration's proposed program for THAAD does not include funding for a second EMD radar until very late in the program. The committee believes that there are many compelling reasons to fund this radar earlier. Specifically, a second EMD radar would reduce overall THAAD system development and production risk. The first EMD radar will be used primarily for flight testing at the Kwajalein test range. A second radar would be able to support operational ground testing, and could serve as a back-up asset in the event of unforeseen problems during the test program or to support testing activities at two locations (e.g., White Sands missile test range and Kwajalein). Procuring this second EMD radar beginning with long-lead funding in fiscal year 1997 would avoid disruption to the production line and hence would be more cost effective. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to proceed with acquisition of a second EMD radar in fiscal year 1997 and provides $65.0 million in long-lead funding for this purpose. The committee has been concerned by the operational limitations of testing the THAAD system at the White Sands range. Numerous delays have already been imposed on the program due to these limitations. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to transition to flight testing at the Kwajalein range at the earliest practical opportunity. The committee is also concerned about the fact that the EMD request for proposal (RFP) has still not been finally issued. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to issue the EMD RFP as soon as possible. Navy upper tier (theater wide) The budget request included $58.2 million for continued development of the Navy Upper Tier (Theater Wide) TMD system. This is a significant reduction from the $200.4 million authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 1996, and reflects the low priority that the administration attaches to this program. The committee does not support the Department's recommendation to delay the development and deployment of the Navy Upper Tier system and strenuously objects to the Department's disregard of requirements set forth in the law. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 mandates that the Navy Upper Tier system become the fourth ``core'' TMD system and establishes accelerated milestones for this program. Specifically, a UOES capability was to be achieved in fiscal year 1999 and a FUE by fiscal year 2001. Under the administration's proposed program, these milestones would be delayed well into the next century. There is no technical reason why a Navy Upper Tier capability cannot be fielded on a much more aggressive schedule than proposed by the administration. The committee continues to support the Navy Upper Tier system as a matter of priority. Sea-based upper tier TMD capability provides an important complement to ground-based systems, and each has unique attributes. Sea-based upper tier systems can provide initial protection to facilitate the insertion of ground forces, including ground-based TMD systems, which in turn provide the firepower needed for sustained operations. A sea-based upper tier system would also offer the possibility of defending large areas where it may not be possible to insert ground-based TMD assets. Deployed together, ground-based and sea-based TMD can provide very robust protection through multiple engagement opportunities. The committee believes that both systems are essential. The Statement of Managers (H. Rest. 104-450) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 required the Director of BMDO to provide a report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 1996, detailing the Department's plan for Navy Upper Tier, including options to reduce risk. Although the Department recently recommended that several kill vehicle options be considered, the budget request does not support an aggressive effort to identify and develop the most effective options for the Navy Upper Tier mission. Accordingly, the committee recommends a net increase in PE 63868C of $246.0 million to support an accelerated Navy Upper Tier effort and to thoroughly evaluate the Lightweight Exoatmospheric Projectile (LEAP) and a modified version of the THAAD kill vehicles. For the modified THAAD kill vehicle, the committee directs BMDO to begin funding the key modifications required to support the Navy Upper Tier mission, including a solid divert and attitude control system and AEGIS weapon system/vertical launch system integration activities. The committee recommends the use of $50.0 million to support this effort in fiscal year 1997 from the overall amount authorized for the Navy Upper Tier program. The committee believes that the Navy, in conjunction with BMDO, should assess the potential that development of a new second stage motor for the Standard Missile could have for a range of missile defense and other applications. The committee believes that a new second stage motor could provide improved performance for sea-based BMD and could also support enhanced deep and fast strike missile options for the Naval Surface Fire Support mission. A new second stage could simplify integration issues associated with kill vehicle options for Navy Upper Tier and other BMD missions, thereby reducing the cost and complexity of the kill vehicle development program. In addition, such a new second stage could support future growth options for sea-based BMD. Accordingly, the committee recommends the use of $25.0 million of the funds authorized for Navy Upper Tier to initiate this second stage motor development effort. Corps Sam/medium extended air defense system The budget request included $56.2 million for the Corps surface-to-air missile (SAM)/Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) program. Because of remaining concerns about the long- term viability and cost of this program, especially in light of the questionable European commitment to the program, the committee recommends two actions. First, the committee recommends a reduction of $10.8 million in PE 63869C. The committee notes that the General Accounting Office has reviewed the Corps SAM budget request and concluded that such a reduction is in order. Second, the committee directs that none of the funds authorized for Corps SAM/MEADS for fiscal year 1997 be obligated until: (1) the MEADS Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is signed by all parties; (2) the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that, pursuant to the MOU, the U.S. share of the costs for the MEADS program will not exceed 50 percent; and (3) the Secretary submits to the congressional defense committees the report on options associated with the use of existing systems, technologies, and program management mechanisms to satisfy the Corps SAM requirement specified in the Statement of Managers accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996. United States-Israel Boost Phase Intercept Program In the Statement of Managers accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 1996, the conferees endorsed a cooperative program between the United States and Israel to develop a kinetic energy boost-phase intercept program based on an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). The committee maintains its strong support for this concept. The budget request included $9.3 million in the Joint TMD program element (PE 63872C) to continue this effort. The committee recommends that these funds be transferred to the BPI program element (PE 63870C) and that this amount be increased by $15.0 million for a total authorization of $24.3 million. The committee believes that the first step of this U.S.- Israel BPI program should be a joint technology risk mitigation effort, aimed at reducing technological uncertainties and developing, to the extent possible, a common set of user requirements. If this proves successful, it can be followed by an advanced technology demonstration to validate the technical feasibility of the concept and the major system elements. This would enable the United States and Israel to evaluate the potential for a joint acquisition program or one in which both countries continue to collaborate on separate but mutually reinforcing efforts. National Missile Defense The budget request included $508.4 million for National Missile Defense (NMD) to support the administration's so-called deployment readiness program known as ``3+3''. Based on information received from the Department of Defense, the committee does not believe that the administration's proposed budget and program plan for NMD are adequate even to meet the stated purpose of its ``deployment readiness'' program. As acknowledged by the Director of BMDO in congressional testimony, the planned test program for the exoatmospheric kill vehicle (EKV) is inadequate to support a deployment decision within the framework of the ``3+3'' program. The administration's proposed NMD program consists of just five EKV flights: two in fiscal year 1997; two in fiscal year 1998; and one in fiscal year 1999. Under this plan, an NMD deployment decision supposedly could be made at the end of fiscal year 1999; however, such a decision would be based on a single integrated interceptor test. Furthermore, the test booster would not represent an operational configuration. To support a lower risk and more robust NMD program, the committee believes that additional EKV flight tests are required. Specifically, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to restructure the EKV program to support two flight tests in fiscal year 1997, three in fiscal year 1998, and four in fiscal year 1999. This requires the acquisition of additional kill vehicle and test booster hardware. Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary to upgrade the Payload Launch Vehicle (PLV) system to provide a more representative velocity regime and test environment for NMD system tests. To accomplish these objectives, and to ensure that other aspects of the NMD program are able to support an initial operational capability (IOC) in fiscal year 2003 (which the administration's proposal supposedly protects), the committee recommends an increase of $300.0 million in PE 63871C. The committee recommends the use of $50.0 million to begin upgrading the PLV and whatever funds are necessary to support the EKV flight profile specified above. Joint theater missile defense The budget request included $521.5 million in BMDO's Joint TMD program element (formerly known as Other TMD). The committee recommends a net increase of $6.4 million in PE 63872C, including the following adjustments: (1) a transfer of $9.3 million to the BPI program element for the U.S.-Israel Joint BPI program; (2) an increase of $3.7 million for the Arrow Deployability Project (ADP), for a total authorization of $35.0 million to fully fund the U.S. share of the program envisioned in the recently completed Memorandum of Agreement between the United States and Israel; (3) an increase of $7.0 million for the Army's Advanced Research Center (ARC), for a total authorization of $15.0 million; and (4) an increase of $5.0 million for BMDO to ensure that the Navy's Cooperative Engagement Capability is compatible with all of BMDO's core TMD programs. Data review and analysis monitoring aid The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for Defense Support Activities (PE 605798S) specifically for continuation of the Data Review and Analysis Monitoring Aid (DRAMA) program, which is designed to reduce duplication in the supply system. Advanced SEAL delivery system The committee has learned that additional development funding in fiscal year 1997 could provide a significant improvement in the acoustic characteristics of the advanced SEAL delivery system (ASDS) before procurement begins. The committee recommends an increase of $2.8 million above the budget request in PE 116404BB to provide quieter pumps and motors for the base design of the ASDS. M4A1 Carbine INOD, special operations command The Special Operations Command is developing the integrated night/day observation/fire device (INOD) for the M4A1 carbine. The INOD will enable special forces to use a single rifle sight for both night and day operations. Such a capability would be particularly useful for special forces, who must currently carry two sights and frequently cannot boresight and zero a sight during operations without compromising their position. The committee recommends an increase of $1.9 million in PE 1160404BB to accelerate completion of engineering analysis and initiate engineering design for the INOD for the M4A1 carbine. AC-130 aircraft enhancements, special operations command The committee recommends an increase of $5.8 million in PE 1160404BB for enhancements to the AC-130 aircraft. These enhancements would upgrade AC-130 lethality and the accuracy of weapons systems for use in special operations. National Solar Observatory The National Solar Observatory (NSO), formerly known as the Sacramento Peak Observatory, is internationally recognized as the world's best site for studying the sun. NSO scientists carry out frontier research in solar physics. On a practical level, however, its scientists work to understand and predict the occurrences and effects of solar flares and other bursts of radiation. Understanding solar activity is increasingly vital for global communications, military surveillance, and navigation. The Air Force supports NSO operations through its Science and Technology program in the amount of $650,000 that is transferred to the National Science Foundation, which operates the NSO. The committee supports the continuation of this annual contribution for the support of the National Solar Observatory. Strategic deterrent development capability The committee recognizes the Department of Defense's progress in identifying and establishing programs to protect the key sectors of the strategic deterrent force industrial base. The Department has funded programs to preserve critical strategic deterrent development activities in the areas of reentry vehicles and precision long-range inertial guidance systems. The committee strongly supports this process, especially with regard to technology applications and components that may be required to maintain and replace existing strategic forces. In several of these areas no other commercial or governmental market exists. The committee is concerned, however, that certain critical technologies, materials, or processes may still be excluded from this process. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a plan to Congress, not later than March 15, 1997, for the preservation of all elements necessary for development of the next generation of strategic deterrent forces. The plan should include technology applications and selective component development, as well as the practice of the systems engineering and integration disciplines required to develop and to maintain a responsive strategic deterrent system development capability. Post-boost propulsion for strategic delivery systems The Air Force is beginning the third year of research and development investment in its Minuteman post-boost system. This investment is necessary to ensure the continuing readiness and effectiveness of United States strategic ballistic missile forces. Both the Air Force and the Navy rely on the same down- sized corporate pool of specialists who have unique capabilities and qualifications derived from twenty-five years of direct experience with the data and tests to assure reliability and affordability. Under present and foreseeable circumstances, the committee endorses retention of a consolidated corporate pool and recommends that the Department of Defense continue to support the post-boost system infrastructure at budgeted or increased levels. Chemical-biological defense program The committee recommends authorization of the budget request of $505.6 million for the Department of Defense chemical-biological defense program for research and development ($296.8 million) and procurement ($208.2 million). The committee is disturbed with the findings in a March 1996 Government Accounting Office (GAO) report on chemical and biological defense, and wishes to express its general and growing unhappiness with the Department's management and oversight of the chemical-biological defense program. According to the President's 1996 National Security Strategy, a key part of United States strategy is to stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and to develop effective capabilities to deal with these threats. U.S. national security strategy requires that U.S. military forces be prepared to respond, in the United States as well as abroad, to the danger posed by weapons of mass destruction. Since 1990, the Congress has expressed concern about the conduct of the chemical and biological defense program and the readiness of the U.S. military forces to operate in a chemically or biologically contaminated environment. In 1993, concerned that the overall defense budget was declining and wanting to ensure that requirements for an effective chemical and biological defense program not be ignored, the Congress took steps to strengthen the chemical and biological defense program. To meet the potential threat of the proliferation of chemical and biological agents, the Congress directed the Secretary of Defense to fund the chemical and biological defense program in a DOD budget account. This DOD chemical and biological defense program was to be assigned to a single office in the Office of the Secretary, and reflect a coordinated and integrated chemical and biological defense program for the military departments, with the Army as the executive agent. Despite the increased attention since the Gulf War by the Department and the Congress to the potential threat of the use of chemical or biological agents against U.S. military forces, the committee is disturbed with the findings of a March 1996 Government Accounting Office (GAO) report on DOD's chemical and biological defense program. The GAO report notes improvement in the readiness of U.S. military forces to operate in a chemical or biological environment. However, the report also identifies continued deficiencies in the areas of: chemical-biological defense training; inadequacy of the biological vaccine stockpile; development and implementation of a DOD immunization policy; and adequacy of training and equipment for medical personnel. In testimony before the Congress on the fiscal year 1997 budget request, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Commanders in Chief of our regional commands highlighted the chemical and biological threat as a priority. However, despite the high priority and emphasis placed on combating this threat, the committee is disturbed with the GAO findings that chemical and biological training and preparedness have been assigned a lower priority by the Commanders in Chief. Additionally, the committee is disturbed that DOD has been unable to make a decision with regard to the development and implementation of a DOD immunization policy. As a result of lessons learned from the Gulf War, it is essential that a decision be made on the vaccines to be stockpiled and on an immunization policy. In the event of a crisis, it is imperative that forces deployed to a high threat area receive the necessary medical protection to protect them against biological agents. In that same regard, it is essential that medical personnel assigned to deploy with the forces have the necessary training and equipment to treat casualties in a chemically or biologically contaminated area. For the past three years, the Congress has increased funding for the chemical and biological defense program above the President's request. For example, in fiscal year 1996, the Congress authorized a $24.0 million increase to augment and accelerate research and development in medical and non-medical chemical and biological defense, and an increase in the military service operations and maintenance accounts of $50.0 million for chemical defense training and chemical medical defense training. The committee directs the Deputy Secretary of Defense to review and report back prior to the conclusion of the House and Senate conference on the fiscal year 1997 defense authorization bill on steps the Department has taken to correct the deficiencies highlighted by the GAO report, and on the use of the increased funding provided to the Department in the fiscal year 1996 for the chemical and biological defense program and on the use of the operations and maintenance funds for increased chemical defenses training, as well as the use of these funds for the procurement of chemical-biological defense equipment. Biological and medical defense technologies As noted elsewhere in the report, the committee recommends that the Department continue to place increased research and development efforts in the area of biological detection. Those efforts should include working with the national laboratories, universities and, where appropriate, industry. Additionally, the committee believes that the Department needs to increase research and development in the area of biological medical technologies. Detection of biological agents and physical protection of our military forces are essential. These two elements should not be relied upon as a sole means of defense. A third element which is essential in the defense of our military services against biological agents are vaccines, toxoids, antitoxins and antibodies. It is critical that our biological defense include medical technologies. The committee believes that increased emphasis is necessary in the area of prophylaxis and specific therapies to protect against potential biological pathogens which would be used offensively against our military forces. In the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996 the committee highlighted concerns about the progress in bio-technology that could lead to the development of new biological warfare agents and requested the Department to report to Congress by March 1, 1996 (which was extended by 45 days) on the national security threats posed by these new advances in bio-technology and genetic engineering. To date, the committee has not received this report. The committee directs the Department to submit the report expeditiously so that consideration may be given to its findings during the conference on the defense authorization bill between the House and Senate. Additionally, the committee intends to review possible benefits of increasing the chemical-biological defense program for the conduct of research and development on human monoclonal antibodies as medical defenses against biological agents. The committee recommends that the Department report to the committee on the utility and possible benefits of this medical technology program in reducing the threat of the use of biological agent. This report should include input by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) The committee directs the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to consult and coordinate their chemical and biological research and development programs more closely with the Department's executive agent for the chemical- biological defense program. In addition to leveraging existing technologies, it is important that the capabilities of all contributing agencies be utilized to their fullest extent. SUBTITLE A--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS Section 306. SR-71 contingency reconnaissance force. The committee is pleased that the Department of Defense has been able to reactivate the SR-71 aircraft for substantially less than the original estimate. The Deputy Secretary of Defense has informed Congress that the Department will modify the SR-71 aircraft in fiscal year 1996 as directed by Congress. However, since the Department views the SR-71 as an intelligence program, the Department interpreted language in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 as prohibiting expenditures from within operation and maintenance accounts to operate the aircraft. Therefore, the committee has included a provision that clarifies the intent of the Defense authorization committees, the committees of jurisdiction, with regard to operating and supporting this important capability. Section 313. Nonlethal weapons capabilities. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to the operations and maintenance accounts for the military services, $3.0 million for the Marine Corps and $2.0 million for the Army, to fulfill immediate procurement needs for nonlethal technologies. Section 314. Restriction on Coast Guard funding. The committee notes that funds provided to federal agencies from the 054 budget account are supposed to be used for national security activities. This year the administration requested $119.0 million in this account to support the operations of the Coast Guard. The committee is concerned that these are not national security operations and that this is a direct subsidy to the Department of Transportation using funds that are intended for the Department of Defense; a violation of the Senate rule on fire walls between the Defense budget and the budgets of civilian agencies. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision which will prevent the payment of funds to the Coast Guard out of funds authorized to be appropriated in the 054 budget account. This reduction was used to fund an increase in the Department of Defense's drug interdiction and counter narcotics activities account in order to fund important counter narcotics initiatives. SUBTITLE E--OTHER MATTERS End Item Materiel Management Program The committee is concerned that System Technical Support (STS) for all post-production major weapons systems is funded at 70 percent of critical requirements in fiscal year 1997. STS is the post-production sustainment phase of the integrated logistics support life-cycle of a weapon system. STS encompasses the engineering and design involved in configuration management; engineering change proposals; technical data packages which constitute a system's specification database; technical manuals; modification work orders; depot maintenance work requests; production improvements; testing; stockpile reliability; and logistics assistance and contractor field service representatives to the field soldier. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million to fund requirements including: (1) Apache, contracts for design and modernizations, fatigue testing; (2) Kiowa, Force XXI planned improvements for Embedded Global Positioning Integration, Improved Computer Processing Units, and Improved Data Modem Standard Improvements ground to air communications; and (3) Abrams, testing of nuclear hardening components, software updates for test sets, live fire, and engine fire. Active and reserve component P-3 squadrons The services of P-3 squadrons have historically been in very high demand by the unified commanders. In recent years, that demand has increased dramatically as the ability of the P- 3 aircraft to carry out littoral warfare missions has become more apparent. Simultaneously, however, budget pressures have forced the Navy to cut P-3 force structure in its budget request. The current maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) force structure consists of 22 squadrons composed of 13 active and 9 reserve squadrons (13/9). The budget request reflected the Navy's resource-constrained plans to reduce MPA force structure to 20 squadrons composed of 12 active and 8 reserve (12/8). The committee believes MPA make an invaluable contribution to surveillance, antisurface, and antisubmarine warfare missions. The committee also recognizes that MPA are ideally suited to a variety of littoral warfare missions. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $45.3 million above the budget request to sustain the MPA force structure at 13/9 in fiscal year 1997. Joint task force headquarters deployable communications support The committee is concerned with the inadequate communications bandwidth necessary to support the Joint Task Force Headquarters while deployed to a theater of operation. Current military satellite communications (SATCOM) assets are not able to provide the data rates required by the new Marine Air-Ground Task Force C4I System. The committee understands that there is a contract available to purchase a commercial SATCOM system capable of providing the necessary bandwidth; however, there is insufficient funding for training and connectivity expenses. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to support training and connectivity expenses for the Commandant's Planning Guidance initiative for JTF Headquarters. Operation and maintenance, Special Operations Command The committee recommends an increase of $15.3 million to the operation and maintenance account of the Special Operations Command in order to fund the following: flying hours program ($3.4 million); depot-level repairables, parts and supplies ($2.0 million); aircrew training system ($3.4 million); SCAMPI communications support ($2.5 million); steaming hour program for patrol coastal craft ($2.0 million); and counter- proliferation equipment ($2.0 million). TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS SUBTITLE E--OTHER MATTERS OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST Foreign Language Proficiency Pay Qualification The committee has been advised that some service members attempt to circumvent the qualification procedures established to determine who may receive foreign language proficiency pay and the amount of that pay. In order to qualify for foreign language proficiency pay, a service member, in a speciality and duty assignment requiring language proficiency, must be certified by the service secretary as being proficient in the language. This certification is normally granted following successful completion of a test. In addition, the monthly amount may be determined according to how well the service member does on the test. It has come to the committee's attention that some service members are taking the certification tests multiple times at different testing sites in an attempt to qualify and/or to artificially raise their scores to qualify for higher monthly pays. The committee believes that, as a minimum, this behavior is outside the spirit of the Foreign Language Proficiency Pay authority. The integrity of any service member who attempts such activities is compromised. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with the secretaries of the military services, to review the policies and procedures relating to certification for foreign language proficiency pay to ensure that the integrity of the process has not been compromised and to confirm that those certified to receive foreign language proficiency pay really merit such pay. The Secretary of Defense is directed to report the results of the review and any recommended corrective action to the Congress not later than February 1, 1997. Special Duty Assignment Pay, Army Special Operations personnel The committee recommends an increase of $6.4 million in the Military Personnel, Army appropriation in order to fund Special Duty Assignment Pay (SDAP) for Army Special Operations Forces. It is the intent of the committee that this increase, funded from within the Special Operations Command operation and maintenance account at the Commander-in-Chief, Special Operations Command's request, be used to pay Army Special Forces and Ranger personnel Special Duty Assignment Pay. Army Special Operations Forces are the only component of Special Operations Command who do not receive SDAP. The committee understands that the Army has programmed funds to support SDAP for Special Operations Forces in fiscal year 1998 and beyond. . TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS SUBTITLE A--GENERAL MATTERS Section 905. Executive oversight of defense human intelligence personnel. The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 193 of title 10, United States Code, to provide that the Secretary of Defense shall exercise oversight of the clandestine activities of Department of Defense human intelligence personnel, and that such responsibility may only be delegated to the Deputy Secretary of Defense. Section 906. Coordination of defense intelligence programs and activities. The committee recommends a provision that would add a new section 203 of title 10, United States Code, to designate the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency as the Director of Military Intelligence (DMI) and would provide that the DMI manages the General Defense Intelligence Program and chairs the Military Intelligence Board (MIB). The provision would also designate the members of the MIB and provide that the MIB shall be the principal forum for the coordination of the intelligence programs and activities of the Department of Defense. SUBTITLE B--NATIONAL IMAGERY AND MAPPING AGENCY Sections 911 through 934 National Imagery and Mapping Agency The Executive Branch has recommended the establishment of a new Combat Support Agency within the Department of Defense called the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) to provide a single agency focus for imagery and geospacial information within the United States Government. The committee strongly supports this initiative and recommends a provision that would establish this new organization. NIMA would: (1) be the focal point for the growing and diverse number and types of customers of imagery and geospacial information; (2) ensure visibility and accountability for imagery and geospacial resources; (3) harness, leverage, and focus rapid technological developments to serve imagery, imagery intelligence, and geospacial information customers; and (4) solicit and advocate customer needs for this growing and diverse customer pool. The term ``imagery,'' as defined and used in this Act, includes products produced from space-based national intelligence reconnaissance systems, in accordance with Executive Order 12951 and any successor or superseding Orders. Although NIMA would carry out its mission responsibilities under the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense, with the advice of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it would have a vital ``national'' mission to serve the imagery and geospacial information needs of consumers outside the Department of Defense. It would carry out its responsibilities to national intelligence customers in accordance with the policies and priorities of the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI). The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) would have clear, affirmative authorization to provide administrative and contracting services to the NIMA to insure accomplishment of the national mission of the NIMA or the performance of intelligence community activities of common concern, notwithstanding provisions of law that would otherwise limit such an authorization. The CIA also would be permitted to provide security police services for NIMA facilities, notwithstanding any limitations on jurisdiction of such personnel contained in section 15 of the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949. NIMA would be established by bringing together various agencies and organizations already in existence within the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community. Specifically, NIMA would be made up of: the Defense Mapping Agency; the Central Imagery Office; other elements of the Department of Defense identified in the classified annex to this Act; the National Photographic Interpretation Center of the CIA; and other elements of the CIA identified in the classified annex to this Act. NIMA would be responsible for imagery requirements management, exploitation, dissemination, and archiving. It would define and recommend policies on imagery and geospacial information, and coordinate requirements for an end-to-end architecture, integrated into the National and Defense Information Infrastructure, to satisfy customer needs and to ensure appropriate interoperability. NIMA would not be responsible for developing, procuring, or operating imagery collection systems, which are responsibilities currently held by the National Reconnaissance Office, the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office, and the intelligence elements of the military services. Nor would NIMA include or replace current organizations for tactical military exploitation and use of imagery products. In effect, NIMA would provide a coherent and uniform linkage between these two ends of the imagery spectrum. NIMA would not replace or diminish the current responsibilities of federal civilian agencies for mapping, charting, and geodesy, or change their existing responsibilities for disaster or emergency response or civil imagery archives. Rather, NIMA would facilitate their access to critical national security information, when appropriate, and promote technology exchange through established interagency mechanisms, such as the Civil Applications Committee. The ability of all members of the intelligence community to obtain both imagery intelligence support regarding matters of common concern and support necessary for individual agency requirements would be maintained and expanded, as appropriate. The committee believes that the legislative charter for NIMA contained in this Act strikes an appropriate balance between the needs of ``national'' intelligence and combat support. As a Combat Support Agency, NIMA must be under the clear authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense. But the charter also provides for a clear and prominent role for the DCI to task imagery systems and exploit imagery products in support of the national mission. The committee notes that the Director of Central Intelligence strongly supports establishment of NIMA as a Combat Support Agency in Title 10, United States Code. The DCI has testified that his peacetime imagery tasking authorities are protected under this arrangement and that he does not believe that support to national customers will be in any way jeopardized. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, establishment of NIMA will not derogate from the existing authorities of the Secretary of Defense or the DCI. The committee also notes that the Commission on the Roles and Capabilities of the United States Intelligence Community strongly endorsed the establishment of NIMA as a combat support agency within the Department of Defense. The committee shares the Commission's conclusion that NIMA will significantly improve imagery support to both military operations and planning, as well as to national consumers of intelligence. The committee notes that limited collective bargaining would be permitted in NIMA. Collective bargaining units that were recognized by the Defense Mapping Agency at the time its employees and positions were transferred to NIMA would continue to represent the same categories of employees in the NIMA, although expansion of those units or the creation of new bargaining units in NIMA would be prohibited. Positions determined at any time to be engaged in intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or security work directly affecting national security would be excluded, at the discretion of the NIMA Director. Permitting continuation of limited collective bargaining in NIMA would not be intended to be a precedent affecting current or future employees or agencies of the Intelligence Community. It would be a one-time solution to a unique situation. The same would be true for the granting of statutory adverse action due process rights, including the right to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board, to NIMA employees. TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS SUBTITLE A--FINANCIAL MATTERS Section 1007. Prohibition on expenditure of Department of Defense funds by officials outside the department. The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2215 of title 10, United States Code, to provide that funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for intelligence activities may not be obligated or expended by an officer or employee of the United States who is not an officer or employee of the Department of Defense. The provision would also provide that an officer or employee of the Department of Defense may not delegate the authority to obligate or expend funds appropriated for the Department of Defense for intelligence activities to an officer or employee of the United States who is not an officer or employee of the Department of Defense. Section 1008. Prohibition on use of funds for Office of Naval Intelligence representation or related activities. The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the use of funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for the Navy for fiscal year 1997 for use by the Office of Naval Intelligence for official representation or related activities. SUBTITLE C--COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES Sections 1031-1033 Drug interdiction and counterdrug activities The budget request for drug interdiction and other counterdrug activities of the Department of Defense totals $814.1 million. This includes the $642.7 million drug interdiction account, $32.1 in the National Foreign Intelligence Program for the National Drug Intelligence Center and Throttle Car, and $139.5 million in the military services' operating budgets for counterdrug operations. This compares with a total of $810.9 million for these activities during fiscal year 1996, including $679.4 million for the drug interdiction account and $131.5 million in the services'' operating budgets. The committee is concerned with the continued support of the National Drug Intelligence Center through funds appropriated to the Department of Defense. The committee notes that the National Drug Intelligence Center is an activity operated by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and principally staffed by the DOJ, but totally financed by DOD, including the salaries and travel of DOJ employees. The committee notes that a recent letter to the Congress from the Deputy Attorney General stated that ``NDIC shall remain under the direction and control of the Attorney General, which it must as a law enforcement agency.'' Therefore, the committee recommends a provision which would prohibit further DOD funding of NDIC. If the Attorney General chooses to operate NDIC with DOJ funds, the Secretary of Defense may continue to provide DOD intelligence personnel to support intelligence activities at NDIC as long as the number of personnel provided by DOD does not exceed the number provided to support intelligence activities at NDIC on the date of enactment of this bill. The committee is further concerned with the recent decision by the administration to transfer this program from the drug interdiction account to accounts normally under the control of the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The National Security Act of 1947 prohibits the Director of Central Intelligence from having any control over domestic law enforcement operations such as NDIC. The committee is concerned that funding NDIC in this manner may lead to an inappropriate relationship between the foreign intelligence community and domestic law enforcement. Therefore, the committee includes a provision directing the General Accounting Office and other investigatory agencies to review the operation of NDIC to ensure that there are no inappropriate activities taking place. Funding adjustments The committee recommends an increase of $119.0 million for the counterdrug initiatives of the Office of National Control Policy. This increase would provide $15.0 million for the refurbishment and installation of an TPS-70 radar, $98.0 million for the retrofitting of two P-3B AEW aircraft to be used in counter narcotics activities, and $6.0 million for the purchase of non-intrusive inspection systems. The increase in funding for these items would be offset by a reduction in the DOD budget request of $119.0 million for the Coast Guard. The budget request has not been justified by an explanation as to how these funds will be used by the Coast Guard in support of America's national security. These increases will support important counter narcotics activities. The retrofitting of the P-3B aircraft will provide the U.S. Customs Service with two additional detection and monitoring aircraft by installing airborne radars on excess Navy P-3 aircraft. This initiative will provide increased pressure against the narcotrafficker air bridge in the source countries. Since these aircraft will assume much of the tracking responsibility, this initiative will also reduce the OPTEMPO, operating costs, and personnel stress that is placed on high-demand USAF E-3 AWACS. The installation of the TPS-70 radar will assist the Department, and those cooperative governments of the source nations, in efforts to further reduce the amount of drugs that smugglers are moving using aircraft. The committee has long supported the Department's prototype development plan for non-intrusive inspection of cargo containers for contraband drugs. This effort reached partial fruition last year with a decision by the U.S. Customs Service to deploy 12 fixed-site backscatter x-ray systems along the southwest border for the detection of contraband drugs in empty or lightly loaded trucks and cargo containers. As stated above, the committee recommends an additional $6.0 million for the purchase of these devices in fiscal year 1997. Unfortunately, the high energy x-ray system that was developed by DOD and fully tested at Tacoma, Washington for inspection of loaded cargo containers was not economically feasible for use by Customs. The Committee understands that the Pulsed Fast Neutron Activation (PFNA) system, a prototype of which has been successfully tested by DOD, has also been determined by Customs to be economically infeasible for the counter-drug mission because of the expense required to deploy such a system at every major seaport. This year, $6.5 million has been made available under the Technical Support Working Group (TSWG) program to further develop the PFNA system for explosives detection. However, despite the potential multi- mission use of the PFNA system, its relatively high cost as a fixed-site system may still cause it to be economically infeasible. Accordingly, the committee recommends the addition of $9.0 million to make the PFNA prototype system relocatable for potential use at high-threat seaports for the detection of contraband drugs and explosives. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense, through normal reprogramming procedures, to provide any additional funds necessary for this effort. The committee recognizes that a substantial quantity of the narcotics entering the United States from South America continues to come across the southwest border. Some reports put this quantity as high as 70 percent. The committee urges the Department to increase its efforts in stemming the flow of narcotics across this border and recommends a provision, section 1031, that would grant the Secretary of Defense the authority to provide additional support for counter-drug activities of the Government of Mexico. In addition, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in fiscal year 1997 to be used for this purpose. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to notify the Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committees on National Security and International Relations of the House of Representatives each time the Department provides such assistance pursuant to the provision. Further, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for the purchase of signal intelligence equipment to be used for communications intercept activities along the southwest border. The committee is aware that the Department's request is insufficient to provide full funding of Operation Laser Strike in fiscal year 1997. Laser Strike will build on the success of Operation Green Clover and involves a sustained level of U.S. detection, monitoring and tracking resources, as well as assessments and training, to support expanded interdiction and law enforcement efforts by nations of the source region. The committee supports this important operation and recommends an increase of $8.0 million in order to provide full funding. The committee is also aware that drug traffickers are making greater use of the vast river network in the Andean region to transport processed cocaine and pre-cursor materials. Currently, the governments in the source nations are ill- equipped and ill-trained to interdict drug trafficking on their rivers and waterways. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for assistance to the governments of the source nations in their efforts to stem the flow of narcotics moving on these rivers. The committee has learned that the number of OH-58D helicopters in the Army National Guard will be reduced dramatically under the Army's Aviation Restructure Initiative. These helicopters, with their forward looking infrared radar (FLIR), are particularly useful in the National Guard's detection of illicit marijuana fields. The committee has been advised that the Department of Defense's Office of Drug Enforcement Policy and Support is reviewing this situation with a view towards the retention of additional OH-58D helicopters, as appropriate, within existing funding resources. The committee strongly supports this initiative and directs that Office, in coordination with the Department of the Army and the National Guard Bureau, to ensure the allocation of additional helicopters to those states that have historically used these assets for the detection and destruction of illicit marijuana fields. Drug Interdiction & Counterdrug Activities, Operations and Maintenance \1\ Thousands Fiscal Year 1997 Drug and Counterdrug Request................. $814,100 Source Nation Support..................................... 154,000 Detection and Monitoring.................................. 232,100 Disruption of Drug Mafia Organizations.................... 57,100 Law Enforcement Agency.................................... 255,000 Demand Reduction.......................................... 84,000 National Drug Intelligence Center and Throttle Car........ 32,100 Reductions: National Drug Intelligence Center (NFIP).................. 29,000 Throttle Car (NFIP)....................................... 3,100 Increases: Throttle Car.............................................. 3,100 Pulsed Fast Neutron Activation............................ 9,000 Support for Military Counterdrug Units of Mexico.......... 8,000 Laser Strike.............................................. 8,000 Riverine Operations in South America...................... 2,000 Signal Intelligence Equipment for Southwest Border........ 2,000 Refurbish and Install TPS-70 Radar........................ 15,000 P-3B AEW Retrofit (2 a/c)................................. 98,000 Non-Intrusive Inspection Systems.......................... 6,000 Recommendation............................................ 933,100 \1\ May not add due to rounding. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBTITLE D--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES Section 1043. Extension of counterproliferation authorities. The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1505 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484) to extend the authority of the Department of Defense to provide support to the United Nations Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) through the end of fiscal year 1998. The provision would also revise funding restrictions in a manner consistent with the original legislation. Such authority is especially important given ongoing concerns over Iraq's continued possession of weapons of mass destruction and missile delivery systems. The Department of Defense, including its executive agent for matters regarding UNSCOM, the On-Site Inspection Agency (OSIA), requires the authority to continue much of its current activities in support of UNSCOM. SUBTITLE F--OTHER MATTERS Section 1062. Limitation on retirement or dismantlement of strategic nuclear delivery systems. Section 1404 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) prohibits the use of funds during fiscal year 1996 for the retirement of B-52H bombers, Trident ballistic missile submarines, Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles, or Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missiles, or preparing to retire or dismantle such systems. The Statement of Managers accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 emphasized the need not to begin reducing strategic delivery systems until the future of the START II Treaty became clearer. It also emphasized the need to maintain 94 B-52H bomber aircraft in the active inventory (partly in an attrition reserve status) until all issues related to conventional bomber requirements had been thoroughly studied and resolved. The committee recommends a similar provision for fiscal year 1997 and notes that the budget request does not include funds to support the 28 B-52H aircraft that the Air Force was planning to retire. Therefore, the committee recommends a net increase of $58.8 million to retain these aircraft in attrition reserve status, including $11.5 million in Air Force aircraft procurement funds, $42.9 million in Air Force operation and maintenance funds, and $4.4 million in Air Force military personnel funds. In making this recommendation, the committee does not intend to alter the Air Force's ongoing effort to consolidate B-52 squadrons. The committee also does not intend to preclude long-range pre-planning, design, or evaluation efforts to allow the Navy and the Air Force to be ready to execute various retirement and dismantlement options in an efficient manner. The committee does not intend to preclude the implementation of the START II Treaty should it enter into force during fiscal year 1997. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of Defense to waive the funding restrictions on retiring or dismantling strategic nuclear delivery systems, other than for B-52H bombers, to the extent necessary to implement the START II Treaty. Section 1063. Correction of references to Department of Defense organizations. The committee recommends a provision that would amend the reference to North American Air Defense Command in title 10, United States Code, to conform to the new name as the North American Aerospace Defense Command. The provision also would change all references to ``Anniston Army Depot'' each place it appears in the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety Act to ``Defense Distribution Depot, Anniston''. OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST U.S.-Asian military-to-military dialogue The United States has significant political, economic, and security interests in Asia that are growing as a result of rapid economic growth in Asia. The stability provided by U.S. security alliances and other military relationships with Asian countries has promoted Asian economic development to the mutual benefit of the United States and Asia. Preserving stability in Asia remains a major objective of U.S. policy. The People's Republic of China (PRC) continues to grow economically and to modernize its military forces. Efforts by the PRC to enhance its naval and air capabilities, combined with recent PRC military activities, have raised questions regarding their military and foreign policy objectives. The growth of PRC military power is the subject of major interest, and potentially of concern, for the other nations of Asia and for the United States. In light of these developments, continued dialogue on security matters between the United States and Asian countries, including the People's Republic of China, is critical to promoting stability in the region and protecting and promoting U.S. interests and the interests of our Asian allies. The committee therefore encourages the Department of Defense to engage PRC defense officials, at all levels, in exchanges and other forms of dialogue. Implementation of arms control agreements The budget request included $282.3 million in the procurement, operation and maintenance, and research and development accounts for the Department of Defense and the Military Services for implementation of arms control agreements. The budget request for this account is based on anticipated dates of implementation of the various arms control treaties. The committee recommends authorization of the requested amount. Due to possible changes in the assumptions on the dates of entry into force of the arms control treaties, it is the intention of the committee to review the budget request during the conference between the House and Senate, as there is a potential for reduced funding requirements, resulting in cost-savings for the program. The Congress included a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) that limits the expenditure of defense funds for the reimbursement for arms control implementation inspection costs borne by the inspected party to a treaty or agreement. In order to continue its oversight of the use of these funds, the committee requests that the Department continue to provide a report on the use of defense funds to reimburse our treaty partners for inspected party reimbursement costs. The committee has been informed by the Department of Defense that the On Site Inspection Agency (OSIA) has been directed by the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) for purposes of implementing Annex 1-B of the General Framework for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina Agreement (also known as the Dayton Agreement). As the committee understands it, OSIA will participate in the planning and conduct of confidence building and arms control measures to reduce the risk of conflict in the Balkans. Specifically, OSIA's role will be to train international inspectors, who will monitor and verify compliance with the confidence building and arms control measures, as well as participate in the conduct of these inspections. The committee understands that there could be further refinement of OSIA's role in the implementation of Annex 1-B of the Dayton Accord. The committee is concerned about the assignment of this mission to OSIA and the potential impact on the ability of OSIA to conduct monitoring and verification inspections required by other arms control treaties to which the United States is a party. The committee requests that the Department keep the committee informed on the status of this new mission, and any impact this mission may have on the ability of OSIA to conduct its other arms control inspection responsibilities. DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS SUBTITLE A--NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS AUTHORIZATIONS Section 3103. Other defense activities. Nonproliferation and verification research and development The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to the budget request for fiscal year 1996 for the nonproliferation, verification research and development program, for a total of $204.9 million. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, Congress provided $3.0 million for the development of a forensic analytic capability to detect and track shipments of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons materials. Additionally, the Congress directed the Department to broaden the involvement in this area throughout the entire laboratory complex, to include production sites such as Savannah River, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory, and where appropriate, industry. The committee understands that $1.3 million in fiscal year 1996 funds have been spent by the Department on research and development efforts at Oak Ridge, Sandia, Livermore and Pacific Northwest National laboratories. The committee also understands that $5.6 million in fiscal year 1996 funds have been expended to support radiation detection technologies to inhibit nuclear smuggling. The committee recommends a $10.0 million increase to the President's budget request to accelerate the Department's forensic analytical program, authorized by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, and for capabilities to address the prevention, detection, interception and attribution of international nuclear smuggling events. In order to leverage existing capabilities, the committee urges the Department and the laboratory complex to coordinate closely with defense agencies, such as the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA), in the conduct of this program. Arms Control and nonproliferation The President's budget request included $181.2 million for the arms control and nonproliferation program. The committee recommends a $35.0 million increase to the budget request for the Industrial Partnership Program (IPP). The committee is supportive of the cost share partnerships with U.S. industry. The IPP was established in 1993 to stabilize the technology base in scientific and engineering institutes associated with weapons of mass destruction in the newly independent states (NIS) of the former Soviet Union, in order to prevent and reduce the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. While the Congress authorized funds for this program in fiscal year 1996, no funds were appropriated. There were no funds allocated to this program in fiscal year 1995 and funds authorized in fiscal year 1994 have now been fully obligated. Therefore, the committee believes it is necessary to increase the budget request for this program. The budget request for fiscal year 1997 included $5.0 million to complete implementation of North Korean Agreed Framework. The committee recommends that $7.9 million be made available from funds authorized for the arms control and nonproliferation program to complete the canning of spent fuel rods in North Korea, pursuant to the Agreed Framework, and to initiate post-canning technical activities. International Nuclear Safety The budget request includes $66.2 million for the International Nuclear Safety and Chernobyl Initiative. The committee recommends a reduction of $51.0 million to the budget request. Funds for this program have previously been included in the Department's budget request for nuclear energy program. It is the committee's belief that budget responsibility should be returned to the Department's program for nuclear energy. Alternatively, it may be more appropriate to seek funds for this program through the foreign assistance bill. Recognizing that the safety of the aging Soviet-designed nuclear power plants is questionable, it would seem that improving the safety of these plants is also in the interest of the international community. The committee directs the Department to report to the committee on the financial contribution to this initiative by the international community. Intelligence The committee recommends authorization of $35.2 million for the intelligence program, a $6.0 million increase to the budget request for fiscal year 1996, to create a full-time counterintelligence team at each of the national laboratories. The committee authorizes $1.6 billion for other defense activities, reflecting increases and decreases related to the fiscal year 1997 DOE request. The programs authorized are: Verification and control technology..................... $456,348,000 Nuclear safeguards and security......................... 47,208,000 Security investigations................................. 22,000,000 SUBTITLE C--PROGRAM AUTHORIZATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, AND LIMITATIONS Section 3133. Modification of requirements for manufacturing infrastructure for refabrication and certification of nuclear weapons stockpile. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 directed the Department of Energy (DOE) to initiate a program to modernize the four nuclear weapons production plants. Citing other priorities, DOE did not comply with congressional direction. The committee believes that this initiative is not only prudent but essential to maintaining nuclear weapons core competence to repair and refabricate weapons at a START I or START II stockpile level. The committee finds that the ``technology capability alone'' approach to the nuclear weapons infrastructure reconstitution requirement of the Nuclear Posture Review is insufficient to meet national security requirements. The committee directs the Department to pursue this modernization approach within the stockpile management program to assist in assuring near-term confidence in the nuclear stockpile. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR JOHN McCAIN ON THE COMMITTEE-REPORTED FY 1997 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL Another questionable add-on in this bill is a $15 million increase for the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, or HAARP. This program has benefited from Congressional add-ons since 1990, costing a total of $76 million in just seven years, with another $115 million required before the project can be completed in 2001. Yet it remains unclear what military benefit might accrue from the construction of a facility to study the aurora borealis. Proponents of the program argue that it should be a part of the counter-proliferation program of the Department of Defense because it will be able to detect underground tunnels and structures. However, the Air Force, which manages the program for the Department of Defense, noted in April of last year that ``the research is not sufficiently mature to warrant its inclusion in the nonproliferation and counter-proliferation program.'' Proponents also argue that the program will have application for communications, navigation, and surveillance missions. Yet, the Department of Defense did not include this $15 million in its budget request for FY 1997, and it was not included on their priority lists for additional funds. That indicates to me that, in competition with other militarily relevant programs, HAARP is not a high priority for the military. In my view, the Congress should stop compelling the military Services to pursue research programs that do not meet their requirements. Spending hundreds of millions of defense dollars to study the energy of the aurora borealis is, in my view, an unconscionable waste of taxpayer dollars. This program should be turned over to a privately funded university, research institution, or other organization where it could be pursued as a purely scientific endeavor. John McCain. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN This bill adopts policies that could increase the risk to the U.S. by undermining nuclear arms reduction agreements and provoking proliferation. It also continues a disturbing trend begun in last year's authorization act, providing the Pentagon with funding for weapons not requested by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense and the President, and at a time when there is no sudden increase in the external military threat to the U.S. Missile Defense This bill threatens our security arrangements with the Russians by unilaterally interpreting the ABM Treaty's demarcation between long and short-range missile defense systems, and it does so even as the U.S. and Russia are trying to negotiate that issue. This decision by a majority of the committee will undermine the treaty relationship between the U.S. and Russia that permits large reductions in nuclear weapons. The majority does so in order to commit to a premature and costly deployment of a ``Star Wars'' missile defense system. That decision is a mistake. By insisting that the Senate must re-ratify the ABM Treaty if that treaty is extended to the Soviet successor states of Ukraine, Belarus and Khazakhstan, the majority will put at risk the deep reductions in former-Soviet nuclear warheads that would make the U.S. safer. Those three former-Soviet republics agreed to give up their nuclear weapons with our encouragement, and did so with the expectation that they would be permitted to join the ABM Treaty as successor states. If we raise questions now about their joining, they will not feel bound to continue their nuclear reductions. This could unravel the whole structure of ongoing nuclear arms reductions and the security improvements to the U.S. that have come with the end of the Cold War, which would decrease our security dramatically. That could well also play into the hands of anti-democratic and ultra-nationalist forces in Russia who might want to resume aggressive policies against the West. On April 8, President Clinton wrote back to Senator Thurmond and other Republican leaders about this issue of multilateralizing the ABM Treaty, and explained that Congress had urged him to do so: You indicate in your letter that you oppose our efforts to multilateralize the Treaty to include those former republics of the former Soviet Union that, like Russia, are successors to the Soviet Union and chose to participate in this Treaty. As you know, Congress in 1993 adopted legislation urging me ``to pursue immediate discussions with Russia and other successor states of the former Soviet Union'' on clarifying and updating the Treaty. Indeed, the Ballistic Missile Defense Act of 1995, which Congress approved and I signed into law last month, includes provisions on the demarcation issue that apply to any agreement or understanding between the United States and ``any of the independent states of the former Soviet Union.'' More fundamentally, though, refusing to recognize Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan as coequal successors to the Soviet Union with regard to the ABM Treaty would undermine our own interest in seeing that these countries carry out their obligations as successors to the Soviet Union under other arms control treaties, such as START I and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. The huge increases in funding for missile defense programs in this bill are unsupported by any urgent emerging threat, but despite the testimony of the JCS and the Secretary of Defense, a majority on the Committee has decided now to fund deployment by the year 2003. They are pushing a crash program which is likely to crash and harm American security in the process. We should reject that plan and pursue a more prudent program, the one proposed by the Defense Department and supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In a letter dated May 1, 1996 to Sen. Nunn, Gen. John Shalikashvili--the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff-- explained his view of the issue of pursuing an ABM Treaty- compliant national missile defense system: * * * efforts which suggest changes to or withdrawal from the ABM Treaty may jeopardize Russian ratification of START II and, as articulated in the Soviet Statement to the United States of 13 June, 1991, could prompt Russia to withdraw from START I. I am concerned that failure of either START initiative will result in Russian retention of hundreds or even thousands more nuclear weapons thereby increasing both the costs and risks we may face. We can reduce the possibility of facing these increased cost and risks by planning an NMD system consistent with the ABM Treaty. The current National Missile Defense Deployment Readiness Program (NDRP), which is consistent with the ABM Treaty, will help provide stability in our strategic relationship with Russia as well as reducing future risks from rogue countries. * * * I have discussed the above position with the Joint Chiefs and the appropriate CINCs, and all are in agreement. Our intelligence agencies estimate that there will be no new countries that can build missiles that could reach the continental United States for 15 years, and the Administration's plan is to develop our missile defense technology so that we can make a deployment decision in three years if needed, and then be able to deploy a system after three more years (as early as 2003) if there is a threat that warrants deployment. This so-called ``3 plus 3'' plan makes no commitment now to deploy, but does commit us to improve significantly our missile defense technology and capability so we could deploy if and when that makes sense in terms of threat and costs. Pursuing a crash missile defense program, with plans to violate the ABM Treaty, not only would jeopardize START I and START II nuclear arms reductions, it could also threaten other important arms control and security efforts we have undertaken with Russia. For example, the Nunn-Lugar ``Cooperative Threat Reduction'' program is helping to secure, store and dismantle Russian nuclear warheads so they cannot again threaten any nation. And Russia is working with the United States to negotiate a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty that seeks to ban all nuclear weapon tests. This treaty will help prevent the development of new nuclear weapons. Russia is also in a position to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) in the foreseeable future. This is important because Russia has the world's largest stockpile of chemical weapons and will have to eliminate them completely under the CWC. Today, no U.S. or Russian nuclear missile is targeted on the other's soil. If there were an accidental missile launch, which our intelligence community believes to be a remote prospect, the missiles would land in the open ocean away from each other's countries. Our military is also engaged in a program of direct contacts with their Russian counterparts, a program that permits our military to demonstrate the qualities of civilian control, and to cooperate on such important matters as joint peacekeeping missions. These efforts all help improve U.S. security--a crash program on missile defense could relegate them to the scrap heap. The Administration's funding request was premised on that plan. The Committee added nearly $900 million to move at a more reckless pace, including funding for systems that would eventually violate the ABM Treaty. Earlier this year the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, made up of the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Vice Chiefs of Staff, wrote to Paul Kaminski, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology concerning the funding levels for missile defense. They prioritized Theater Missile Defense capability over a National Missile Defense capability. They also stated their belief that the funding level for NMD should not exceed $500 million per year, and that TMD funding should not exceed $2.3 billion per year over the course of the next five years. The JROC memorandum stated: ``These funding levels will allow us to continue to field critical TMD/NMD systems to meet the projected threats and, at the same time, save dollars that can be given back to the Services for critical recapitalization programs.'' In the view of the JROC, there are more important programs in which to invest defense resources. The JROC memo concludes: ``We believe the proposed TMD/NMD acquisition levels are balanced and proportional and offer great potential for achieving an affordable ballistic missile defense architecture that meets our joint warfighting needs.'' This is a clear indication that our senior military commanders believe that the Administration's requested level for missile defense is the right level. ASAT Program The Committee included several provisions related to the kinetic energy anti-satellite (ASAT) program. One provision directs that the Defense Department's Space Architect shall include this ASAT system as part of our space control program. This direction is given before the Space Architect completes a comprehensive study of the systems needed for the space control mission. So the Committee is telling the Department what the answer will be--include the kinetic energy ASAT--even if the Space Architect determines it is not appropriate to do so. This is an unwise and inappropriate approach. Two other provisions would withhold funding from certain DOD programs until the Secretary of Defense certifies that he has obligated the $30 million added by Congress last year and also the $75 million added in this bill. These provisions are intended to force the Department to proceed with a program it does not support and which could cause problems for the United States. The United States depends more on the use of space than any other nation; this is especially true for our military forces. If the U.S. commits to this ASAT program it could well serve as the impetus for other nations to do likewise, which could put our satellite systems at risk. We should not be interested in starting an ASAT competition, since we have the most to lose if our satellites are destroyed. The Committee majority places this ASAT program under the Counter Proliferation Support Program. There are more pressing proliferation issues that require the attention and resources of the Department of Defense than the increase in satellite systems of foreign nations. The $75 million added to this ASAT program would be better spent on more serious proliferation problems, like improving the security of nuclear weapon materials in the states of the former Soviet Union, dismantling former Soviet nuclear warheads and countering nuclear smuggling. Senator Bingaman offered a very reasonable substitute amendment to the majority's ASAT provisions, but it was defeated on a straight party-line vote. Space based laser This bill provides $70 million for continued research and development of a space-based laser system that could be used to shoot down intercontinental ballistic missiles. Deploying such a system is strictly prohibited by the ABM Treaty. There is no need to build such a system and we could not deploy it without violating the ABM Treaty, which would bring on a host of serious security problems for the U.S. The Department of Defense should explain clearly its view of this space-based laser anti-missile system so the Senate is clear on the implications of this bill's provisions. Carl Levin. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY Among these central weaknesses are the bill's provisions dealing with the ABM Treaty. Once again, the Majority has chosen to include provisions which undermine the ABM Treaty, the cornerstone of all strategic arms control between the U.S. and Russia. Failure to delete these provisions may doom the bill. One of these provisions would write into statute technical standards demarcating the performance boundary between strategic missile defenses and theater missile defenses. Writing this dividing line into U.S. law ignores a central facet of the ABM Treaty, its ability to adapt to changing technical and political realities over time. The treaty negotiators purposely left ambiguous the dividing line between strategic and theater systems to allow the two sides to adapt and revise the standard as missile defense technologies developed and advanced. They also provided ample means for the signatories to revise standards that need change through discussions and clarifications in the Standing Consultative Commission, through amendments negotiated at treaty-mandated 5- year review conferences, or through special negotiating sessions. The Clinton Administration is using these features to negotiate a demarcation standard with the Russians. The President has committed to achieving a standard which will allow the Department of Defense to deploy the tactical missile defense our military leaders believe are necessary to defend U.S. troops in the field. Apparently, this commitment is not sufficient for the Majority, which chooses to write a demarcation standard into law. To do so would undermine the cooperative spirit of the negotiations which will endanger not only this treaty, but any future arms control agreements we seek to conclude with Russia. The Senate should stick to its role of advise and consent to treaties and not try to negotiate them through statute. The other objectionable provision in the bill dealing with the ABM Treaty is the requirement for the President to submit the treaty for Senate ratification if additional countries are added as parties to the treaty. With this provision, the Senate presumes that the addition of new states to the treaty, most likely Soviet successor states in addition to Russia, would necessarily represent a substantive change to the agreement. This is not necessarily the case, since these additional states might enter the treaty regime as adjuncts, not as principals with full rights to deploy 100 interceptors or to veto other amendments to the treaty negotiated between the U.S. and Russia. When and if this or another Administration agrees to add new states to the Treaty, it will determine whether or not a substantive change has taken place and submit to the Senate if appropriate. If at that time the Senate disagrees with the Administration's action, it has many options for expressing and enforcing its view. This provision should be removed from the bill. Ed Kennedy. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR JOHN GLENN The Committee proposes to place in statutory form a unilateral U.S. interpretation of the demarcation line between theater and strategic missiles for purposes of implementing the ABM Treaty. While I agree that this Treaty must adapt to technological change, the treaty has a formal bilateral procedure for amendments which the Senate, having voted to ratify the treaty, should respect. I do not believe that unilateral national legislation is the way to go about altering an interpretation of a key arms control agreement. If enacted, the proposal could open up a Pandora's box of new Russian unilateral interpretations not just of this treaty but of virtually any Russian arms control, disarmament, or nonproliferation convention. Second, I see no compelling rationale to support the Majority's proposed $885 million increase in the missile defense budget over the level requested by the Administration. I believe the Administration's budget reflects a proper ranking of our missile defense priorities--it focuses on (a) reducing the strategic nuclear threat by continued progress on strategic arms reductions and assistance in removing the Russian strategic threat at its source, (b) developing defenses (fully allowed by the ABM Treaty) against current threats from theater missiles, and (c) preserving the technological capability to deploy a national missile defense system in the event a new missile threat should arise in the years ahead. Third, the bill contains language requiring the re- ratification of the ABM Treaty if it is expanded to include additional countries formerly in the Soviet Union. It is my understanding that any such change of the treaty would not incur any new obligations for the United States, nor would it authorize new members to develop or deploy ABM systems. Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan have obligations under START I and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty--we should similarly treat these states as coequal successors to the Soviet Union with respect to the ABM Treaty. Fourth, I am uneasy with provisions in this bill dealing with the development of antisatellite (ASAT) weapons and the space-based laser. I believe that the Committee is pushing these systems along far faster than their technology justifies. I further believe that their deployment would have arms control implications that have not been fully considered by the Committee. John Glenn. <greek-d>

NEWSLETTER

Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)