[DOCID: f:hr206.105] From the House Reports Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] 105th Congress Report HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 105-206 _______________________________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1998 __________ R E P O R T of the COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Together with DISSENTING VIEWS [To accompany H.R. 2266] <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> July 25, 1997.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Bill Totals...................................................... 1 Committee Budget Review Process.................................. 4 Introduction................................................. 4 Quadrennial Defense Review................................... 5 Rationale for the Committee Bill............................. 6 Major Committee Recommendations.................................. 6 Addressing High Priority Unfunded Shortfalls................. 6 Ensuring a Quality, Ready Force.............................. 7 Modernization Programs....................................... 8 Reforms/Program Reductions................................... 9 U.S. Forces in Bosnia........................................ 11 NATO Expansion............................................... 12 Budget Formulation Issues.................................... 13 Abuse of Traditional Acquisition and Appropriations Practices 14 Ship Self-Defense............................................ 16 Chemical and Biological Defense Programs..................... 17 Committee Recommendations by Major Category...................... 19 Active Military Personnel.................................... 19 Guard and Reserve............................................ 19 Operation and Maintenance.................................... 19 Procurement.................................................. 20 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation................... 20 Forces to be Supported........................................... 21 Department of the Army....................................... 21 Department of the Navy....................................... 21 Department of the Air Force.................................. 22 Special Interest Items........................................... 23 Government Performance and Results Act........................... 23 Title I. Military Personnel...................................... 25 Programs and Activities Funded by Military Personnel Appropriations............................................. 25 Summary of Military Personnel Recommendations for Fiscal Year 1998....................................................... 25 Overall Active End Strength.............................. 26 Overall Selected Reserve End Strength.................... 26 Adjustments to Military Personnel Account.................... 27 Overview................................................. 27 Special Pays and Allowances.............................. 27 End Strength Adjustments................................. 27 Temporary Early Retirement Authority..................... 27 Foreign Currency......................................... 27 Contingency Operations Funding........................... 27 Military Personnel Compensation.......................... 28 Personal Financial Management Training................... 28 ``Aim High'' Program..................................... 28 Full-Time Support Strengths.............................. 28 Military Leave for Reservists............................ 29 Military Personnel, Army..................................... 29 Military Personnel, Navy..................................... 30 Military Personnel, Marine Corps............................. 30 Military Personnel, Air Force................................ 30 Reserve Personnel, Army...................................... 31 Reserve Personnel, Navy...................................... 31 Magic Lantern............................................ 31 Navy Reserve Forces...................................... 32 Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps.............................. 32 Reserve Personnel, Air Force................................. 32 National Guard Personnel, Army............................... 33 National Guard Personnel, Air Force.......................... 33 Title II. Operation and Maintenance.............................. 35 Operation and Maintenance Overview........................... 35 Real Property Maintenance................................ 38 Flying Hour Shortfall.................................... 38 Readiness Training....................................... 38 Depot Maintenance........................................ 39 Quadrennial Defense Review Reductions.................... 39 Headquarters and Administrative Costs.................... 39 Industrial Preparedness.................................. 39 Contingency Operations Funding........................... 40 Reprogramming in Operation and Maintenance Accounts...... 40 Reporting on the Execution of Real Property Maintenance Funding................................................ 41 Budget Justification and Execution Data.................. 41 Purchases of Foreign Made Goods.......................... 41 Environmentally Safe Fuel Storage Tanks.................. 41 Federal Firefighting Pay................................. 42 Recruiting and Advertising............................... 42 Classified Programs...................................... 42 Operation and Maintenance, Army.............................. 42 Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) for Abrams XXI........ 42 Depot Maintenance........................................ 43 National Training Center Rotations....................... 43 Army Logistics Automation................................ 43 High Risk Automation Systems............................. 43 Program Recommended...................................... 43 Operation and Maintenance, Navy.............................. 46 CNET Distance Learning................................... 46 National Oceanography Partnership Act.................... 47 Software Program Managers Network........................ 47 High Risk Automation Systems............................. 47 Asbestos Eradication..................................... 47 Electrotechnologies...................................... 47 Program Recommended...................................... 47 Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps...................... 50 Program Recommended...................................... 50 Operation and Maintenance, Air Force......................... 52 Instrument Routes 102 and 141............................ 52 Air Force Manufacturing Technology Assistance Pilot Program................................................ 52 Misawa Antennas.......................................... 52 Children's Association for Maximum Potential............. 53 REMIS.................................................... 53 High Risk Automation Systems............................. 53 Air Force Institute of Technology........................ 53 Malmstrom Air Force Base................................. 53 Program Recommended...................................... 53 Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide...................... 56 JCS Exercises............................................ 56 Special Operations Command............................... 57 Within-Grade Increases................................... 57 Defense Finance and Accounting Service................... 57 Defense Human Resources Field Activity................... 58 White House Communications Agency........................ 58 Automated Document Conversion............................ 58 Improved Cargo Methods and Technologies.................. 58 DLA-DWCF Transfer........................................ 59 Security Locks........................................... 59 Federal Energy Management Program........................ 59 Military Personnel Information System.................... 59 Environmental Restoration................................ 59 OSD Commissions and Studies.............................. 60 Travel Reengineering..................................... 60 High Risk Automation Systems............................. 60 Quadrennial Defense Review--Defense Agency Reduction..... 60 QDR Restructuring Reserve................................ 60 Use of Re-Refined Oil.................................... 61 Nutrition................................................ 61 Vint Hill Farms.......................................... 61 Department of Defense Dependents Schools................. 61 Adjustments.......................................... 61 Family Counseling and Crisis Services................ 61 Social Work Fellowship Program....................... 62 Program Recommended...................................... 62 Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve...................... 64 Program Recommended...................................... 64 Commercial Construction and Material Handling Equipment.. 66 Reserve Units in Central Florida......................... 66 Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve...................... 66 Program Recommended...................................... 66 NSIPS.................................................... 68 Navy Reserve Center in Mansfield, Ohio................... 68 Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve.............. 68 Program Recommended...................................... 68 Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve................. 70 Program Recommended...................................... 70 WC-130 Weather Reconnaissance Mission.................... 72 March Air Reserve Base................................... 72 Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard............... 73 Program Recommended...................................... 73 Domestic Chemical/Biological Counter Terrorism Mission Planning............................................... 75 Software Acquisition and Security Training............... 76 Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard................ 77 Program Recommended...................................... 77 159th Air National Guard Fighter Group................... 79 Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund................ 79 United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.......... 79 Environmental Restoration, Army.............................. 79 Rocky Mountain Arsenal................................... 79 Environmental Restoration, Navy.............................. 80 Naval Air Station Bermuda................................ 80 Environmental Restoration, Air Force......................... 80 Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide...................... 80 Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites....... 80 Newmark................................................. 81 Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid............... 81 Humanitarian Demining................................... 81 Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction......................... 81 Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense........................ 82 Title III. Procurement........................................... 83 Estimates and Appropriation Summary.......................... 83 Reduced Use of Solvent Adhesives......................... 85 Alternative Fueled Vehicles.............................. 85 Commander's Tactical Terminal/Joint Tactical Terminal.... 85 Classified Programs...................................... 85 Aircraft Procurement, Army................................... 85 Committee Recommendations................................ 86 Authorization Changes.................................... 86 Fixed Wing Aircraft...................................... 86 Guardrail Common Sensor.............................. 86 Rotary Wing Aircraft..................................... 86 UH-60 Blackhawk...................................... 86 Kiowa Warrior........................................ 87 EH-60 Quickfix Modifications......................... 87 ASE Modifications.................................... 87 Other Support Equipment.................................. 87 Training Devices..................................... 87 Common Ground Equipment.............................. 87 Program Recommended...................................... 87 Missile Procurement, Army.................................... 89 Committee Recommendations................................ 89 Authorization Changes.................................... 89 Other Missiles........................................... 89 Patriot.............................................. 89 Hellfire............................................. 89 MLRS Rocket.......................................... 90 MLRS Launcher Systems................................ 90 BAT.................................................. 90 Modification of Missiles................................. 90 Patriot Mods......................................... 90 Program Recommended...................................... 90 Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army..... 92 Committee Recommendations................................ 92 Authorization Changes.................................... 92 Tracked Combat Vehicles.................................. 92 Bradley Base Sustainment............................. 92 Field Artillery Ammunition Support Vehicle........... 92 Modification of Tracked Combat Vehicles.................. 92 Carrier Modifications................................ 92 Howitzer, 155MM M109A6 (Mod)......................... 92 Program Recommended...................................... 92 Procurement of Ammunition, Army.............................. 94 Committee Recommendations................................ 94 Authorization Changes.................................... 94 Ammunition Shortfalls.................................... 94 Mortar Ammunition........................................ 94 120mm Full Range Practice (M931)..................... 94 Tank Ammunition.......................................... 95 120MM Heat-MP-T M830A1............................... 95 Artillery Ammunition..................................... 95 105MM DPICM XM915.................................... 95 Rockets.................................................. 95 Bunker Defeating Munition............................ 95 Ammunition Production Base Support....................... 95 Provision for Industrial Facilities.................. 95 Program Recommended...................................... 95 Other Procurement, Army...................................... 97 Committee Recommendations................................ 97 Authorization Changes.................................... 97 Tactical and Support Vehicles............................ 97 Semi-Trailer, Container Transporter.................. 97 Semi-Trailer, Tank, 5000 Gallon...................... 97 Semi-Trailer, Tank 7500 Gallon....................... 98 Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles................... 98 Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles.................... 98 Armored Security Vehicles............................ 98 Truck, Tractor, Line Haul............................ 98 Self-Loading/Off-Loading Trailer..................... 98 Communications--Satellite Communications................. 99 Defense Satellite Communications System.............. 99 Satellite Terminals, EMUT............................ 99 NAVSTAR Global Positioning System.................... 99 SCAMP................................................ 99 Global Broadcast Service............................. 99 Communications--Combat Communications.................... 99 Army Data Distribution System........................ 99 SINCGARS Family...................................... 100 Combat Survivor Evader Locator....................... 100 Electronic Equipment, TIARA.............................. 100 All Source Analysis System........................... 100 IEW--Ground Base Common Sensors...................... 100 Electronic Equipment--Electronic Warfare................. 100 Shortshop............................................ 100 Sentinel............................................. 100 Night Vision Devices................................. 100 Electronic Equipment--Tactical C2 Systems................ 101 Maneuver Control System.............................. 101 Standard Integrated Command Post System.............. 101 Electronic Equipment--Automation......................... 101 Automated Data Processing Equipment.................. 101 Reserve Component Automation System.................. 101 Electronic Equipment--Test Measurement Equipment......... 101 Integrated Family of Test Equipment.................. 101 Maintenance Equipment.................................... 101 Items Less Than $2.0 Million......................... 101 Rail Float Containerization Equipment.................... 102 Railway Car, Flat, 100 Ton........................... 102 Training Equipment....................................... 102 SIMNET/Close Combat Tactical Trainer................. 102 Tactical Facsimile System............................ 102 Gun Laying Positioning System........................ 102 Radio Frequency Technology........................... 102 Lightweight Laser Designator/Range Finder............ 102 Combat Synthetic Training Assessment Range........... 103 Airborne Command and Control System.................. 103 Avenger Slew to Cue.................................. 103 Palletized Loading System Enhanced................... 103 Program Recommended...................................... 103 Aircraft Procurement, Navy................................... 106 Committee Recommendations................................ 106 Authorization Changes.................................... 106 Combat Aircraft.......................................... 106 F/A-18E/F Hornet..................................... 106 Modification of Aircraft................................. 107 EA-6 Series.......................................... 107 H-1 Series........................................... 107 P-3 Series........................................... 107 E-2 Series........................................... 107 Common Avionics Changes.............................. 107 Aircraft Support Equipment and Facilities................ 107 Common Ground Equipment.............................. 107 Program Recommended...................................... 108 Weapons Procurement, Navy.................................... 110 Committee Recommendations................................ 110 Authorization Changes.................................... 110 Ballistic Missiles....................................... 110 Trident Advance Procurement.......................... 110 Other Missiles........................................... 110 ESSM................................................. 110 Standard Missile..................................... 111 Aerial Targets....................................... 111 Spares and Repair Parts.................................. 111 Program Recommended...................................... 111 Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps............. 113 Committee Recommendations................................ 113 Authorization Changes.................................... 113 Ammunition Shortfalls.................................... 113 Navy Ammunition.......................................... 113 Practice Bombs....................................... 113 5 Inch/ 54 Gun Ammunition............................ 113 20MM PGU-28.......................................... 114 Program Recommended...................................... 114 Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................ 116 Committee Recommendations................................ 116 Authorization Changes.................................... 116 Other Warships........................................... 116 CVN Refueling Overhauls.............................. 116 CVN Refueling Overhauls--Advance Procurement......... 117 DDG-51............................................... 117 Cruiser Overhauls.................................... 117 Auxiliaries, Craft, and Prior Year Program Costs......... 117 LCAC Landing Craft................................... 117 ADC(X)............................................... 118 Program Recommended...................................... 118 Other Procurement, Navy...................................... 120 Committee Recommendations................................ 120 Authorization Changes.................................... 120 Ships Support Equipment.................................. 120 LM-2500 Gas Turbine.................................. 120 Navigation Equipment..................................... 120 Other Navigation Equipment........................... 120 Other Shipboard Equipment................................ 120 Firefighting Equipment............................... 120 Pollution Control Equipment.......................... 121 Submarine Batteries.................................. 121 Strategic Platform Support Equipment................. 121 Communications and Electronic Equipment.................. 121 Radar Support........................................ 121 Ship Sonars.............................................. 121 AN/SQQ-89 Surface ASW Combat System.................. 121 SSN Acoustics........................................ 121 Carrier ASW Module................................... 121 Electronic Warfare Equipment............................. 122 C3 Countermeasures................................... 122 Reconnaissance Equipment................................. 122 Combat Direction Finding Equipment................... 122 Battle Group Passive Horizon Extension (BGPHES)...... 122 Other Ship Electronic Equipment.......................... 122 Navy Tactical Data System............................ 122 Advanced Tactical Data Link Systems.................. 122 Aviation Electronic Equipment............................ 122 Automatic Carrier Landing System..................... 122 ID Systems........................................... 122 Other Shore Electronic Equipment......................... 122 JMCIS Tactical/Mobile................................ 122 Submarine Communications................................. 123 Submarine Communication Equipment.................... 123 Shore Communications..................................... 123 NSIPS................................................ 123 JEDMICS.............................................. 123 Aviation Support Equipment............................... 123 Sonobouys............................................ 123 AN/SQQ-53 (DIFAR).................................... 123 AN/SQQ-62 (DICASS)................................... 123 Aircraft Support Equipment............................... 123 Aviation Life Support................................ 123 LAMPS MK III Shipboard Equipment..................... 123 Ship Missile Systems Equipment........................... 124 NATO Seasparrow...................................... 124 Ship Self-Defense System............................. 124 AEGIS Support Equipment.............................. 124 Surface Tomahawk Support Equipment................... 124 Fleet Ballistic Missile Support Equipment................ 124 Strategic Missile Systems Equipment.................. 124 Other Ordnance Support Equipment......................... 124 Unmanned Seaborne Target............................. 124 Other Expendable Ordnance................................ 124 Surface Training Device Modifications................ 124 Civil Engineering Support Equipment...................... 125 Construction and Maintenance Equipment............... 125 Amphibious Equipment................................. 125 Pollution Control Equipment.......................... 125 Command Support Equipment............................ 125 Other.................................................... 125 Spares and Repair Parts.............................. 125 Program Recommended...................................... 125 Procurement, Marine Corps.................................... 129 Committee Recommendations................................ 129 Authorization Changes.................................... 129 Weapons and Combat Vehicles.............................. 129 Items Under $2 Million (Tracked Vehicles)............ 129 Other Communications and Electronics Equipment........... 129 Intelligence Support Equipment....................... 129 Tactical Vehicles........................................ 129 High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles......... 129 General Property......................................... 129 Field Medical Equipment.............................. 129 Program Recommended...................................... 130 Aircraft Procurement, Air Force.............................. 132 Committee Recommendations................................ 132 Authorization Changes.................................... 132 Combat Aircraft.......................................... 132 Advanced Tactical Fighter (F-22) Advance Procurement. 132 F-16................................................. 133 Airlift Aircraft......................................... 133 C-17................................................. 133 C-17 Advance Procurement............................. 133 Civil Air Patrol..................................... 133 Other Aircraft........................................... 134 E-8C................................................. 134 Modification of Inservice Aircraft....................... 134 B-52 Modifications................................... 134 F-15 Modifications................................... 134 F-16 Modifications................................... 135 C-130 Modifications.................................. 135 Aircraft Support Equipment and Facilities................ 135 F-15 Post Production Support......................... 135 War Consumables...................................... 135 Miscellaneous Production Charges..................... 135 Program Recommended...................................... 136 Missile Procurement, Air Force............................... 139 Committee Recommendations................................ 139 Authorization Changes.................................... 139 Other Missiles........................................... 139 AMRAAM............................................... 139 Modification of Inservice Missiles....................... 139 Conventional ALCM.................................... 139 Space Programs........................................... 139 Global Positioning System (GPS) Space Segment........ 139 Medium Launch Vehicles............................... 140 Defense Support Program.............................. 140 Special Programs..................................... 140 Program Recommended...................................... 140 Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force......................... 142 Committee Recommendations................................ 142 Authorization Changes.................................... 142 Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser................... 142 Cartridges............................................... 142 20MM PGU-28.......................................... 142 Program Recommended...................................... 142 Other Procurement, Air Force................................. 144 Committee Recommendations................................ 144 Authorization Changes.................................... 144 Cargo and Utility Vehicles............................... 144 Items Less than $2 Million........................... 144 Special Purpose Vehicles................................. 144 HMMWV, Armored....................................... 144 Items Less Than $2 Million........................... 144 Materials Handling Equipment............................. 145 60K A/C Loader....................................... 145 Intelligence Programs.................................... 145 Intelligence Data Handling System.................... 145 Electronic Programs...................................... 145 Strategic Command and Control........................ 145 Special Communications-Electronics Projects.............. 145 C-3 Countermeasures.................................. 145 Air Force Communications................................. 145 Base Information Infrastructure...................... 145 Air Force Satellite Control Network.................. 146 Organization and Base.................................... 146 Items Less Than $2 Million........................... 146 Personnel Safety and Rescue Equipment.................... 146 Night Vision Goggles................................. 146 Electrical Equipment..................................... 146 Floodlights Set Type NF2D............................ 146 Base Support Equipment................................... 146 Medical/Dental Equipment............................. 146 Program Recommended...................................... 146 Procurement, Defense-Wide.................................... 149 Committee Recommendations................................ 149 Authorization Changes.................................... 149 Major Equipment...................................... 149 Automated Document Conversion........................ 149 Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO)........ 149 Special Operations Command............................... 149 PC, CYCLONE Class.................................... 149 SOF Intelligence Systems............................. 149 Chemical and Biological Defense Program.................. 150 Individual Protection................................ 150 Collective Protection................................ 150 Program Recommended...................................... 150 National Guard and Reserve Equipment......................... 152 Committee Recommendations................................ 152 MELIOS AN/PVS-6...................................... 152 T-39 Replacement Aircraft............................ 152 Program Recommended...................................... 152 Miscellaneous Equipment.................................. 154 Information Resources Management............................. 154 REMIS.................................................... 155 JEDMICS.................................................. 155 Sustaining Base Information Services..................... 155 Army Logistics Automation................................ 155 Automated Document Conversion............................ 155 Military Personnel Information Systems................... 156 Software Program Managers Network........................ 157 High Risk Automation Systems............................. 157 Title IV. Research, Development, Test and Evaluation............. 159 Estimates and Appropriation Summary.......................... 159 Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs)............................................... 161 Basic Research........................................... 161 NATO Research and Development............................ 162 Tactical Radios.......................................... 162 Special Access Programs.................................. 162 Combat Survivor Evader Locator (CSEL) Survival Radio..... 163 Institute for Defense Analyses........................... 163 Classified Programs...................................... 163 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army............. 163 Committee Recommendations................................ 164 Authorization Changes.................................... 164 Basic Research........................................... 164 In-House Laboratory Research......................... 164 Defense Research Sciences............................ 164 University and Industry Research Centers............. 164 Army Research Institute for Behavioral and Social Sciences........................................... 164 Exploratory Development.................................. 164 Sensors and Electronic Survivability................. 164 Aviation Advanced Technology......................... 165 Combat Vehicle and Automotive Technology............. 165 Chemical, Smoke and Equipment Defeating Technology... 165 Joint Service Small Arms Program..................... 165 Weapons and Munitions Technology..................... 165 Electronics and Electronic Devices................... 165 Countermine System................................... 166 Human Factors Engineering Technology................. 166 Environmental Quality Technology..................... 166 Military Engineering Technology...................... 166 Medical Technology................................... 166 Neurofibromatosis.................................... 166 Prostate Disease..................................... 167 Advanced Development..................................... 167 Medical Advanced Technology.......................... 167 Aviation Advanced Technology......................... 167 Weapons and Munitions Advanced Technology............ 168 Missile and Rocket Advanced Technology............... 168 Landmine Warfare and Barrier Advanced Technology..... 169 Line-of-Sight Technology Demonstration............... 169 Demonstration and Validation............................. 169 Army Missile Defense Systems Integration............. 169 Aviation Advanced Development........................ 170 Artillery Systems Development........................ 170 Engineering and Manufacturing Development................ 170 EW Development....................................... 170 Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles.................... 170 Air Traffic Control.................................. 170 Light Tactical Wheeled Vehicle....................... 171 Combat Feeding, Clothing and Equipment............... 171 Automatic Test Equipment Development................. 171 Combined Arms Tactical Trainer....................... 171 Landmine Warfare/Barrier Engineering Development..... 171 Sense and Destroy Armament Missile................... 172 RDT&E Management Support................................. 172 DoD High Energy Laser Test Facility.................. 172 Materiel Systems Analysis............................ 172 Support of Operational Testing....................... 173 Program Wide Activities.............................. 173 Munitions Standardization, Effectiveness and Safety.. 173 Environmental Compliance............................. 173 Aerostat Joint Project Office........................ 174 Combat Vehicle Improvement Program................... 174 Digitization......................................... 174 Missile/Air Defense Product Improvement Program...... 175 Joint Tactical Ground System......................... 175 End Item Industrial Preparedness Activities.......... 175 Force XXI Initiative................................. 175 Striker.............................................. 176 Mortar Fire Control.................................. 176 Theater Precision Strike Operations.................. 177 Program Recommended...................................... 177 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy............. 181 Committee Recommendations................................ 181 Authorization Changes.................................... 181 Basic Research........................................... 181 In-House Independent Laboratory Research............. 181 Defense Research Sciences............................ 181 Exploratory Development.................................. 181 Surface/Aerospace Surveillance and Weapons Technology 181 Surface Ship Technology.............................. 182 Aircraft Technology.................................. 182 Command, Control and Communications Technology....... 182 Readiness, Training and Environmental Quality Technology......................................... 182 Materials, Electronics and Computer Technology....... 182 Electronic Warfare Technology........................ 183 Undersea Surveillance Weapon Technology.............. 183 Oceanographic and Atmospheric Technology............. 183 Undersea Warfare Weaponry Technology................. 183 Advanced Development..................................... 183 Air Systems and Weapons Advanced Technology.......... 183 Precision Strike and Air Defense..................... 183 Advanced Electronic Warfare Technology............... 184 Ship Propulsion System............................... 184 Marine Corps Advanced Technology Demonstration....... 184 Medical Technology................................... 184 Manpower, Personnel and Training..................... 184 Environmental Quality and Logistics.................. 184 Undersea Warfare Advanced Technology................. 185 Shallow Water MCM Demonstrations..................... 185 Advanced Technology Transition....................... 185 C3 Advanced Technology............................... 185 Demonstration and Validation............................. 185 Aviation Survivability............................... 185 Surface and Shallow Water Mine Countermeasures....... 185 Advanced Submarine System Development................ 185 Advanced Surface Machinery Systems................... 186 Conventional Munitions............................... 186 Advanced Warhead Development......................... 186 Cooperative Engagement............................... 186 Environmental Protection............................. 187 Facilities Improvement............................... 187 Land Attack Technology............................... 187 Joint Strike Fighter................................. 187 Engineering and Manufacturing Development................ 187 Other Helo Development............................... 187 Aircrew Systems Development.......................... 188 Electronic Warfare................................... 188 Surface Combatant Combat System Engineering.......... 188 Arsenal Ship......................................... 188 LPD-17 Class Systems Integration..................... 189 TSSAM................................................ 189 VLA Upgrade.......................................... 189 Airborne Mine Countermeasures........................ 189 SSN-688 and Trident Modernization.................... 189 Submarine Combat System.............................. 189 New Design SSN....................................... 189 SSN-21 Developments.................................. 189 Ship Contract Design/Live Fire Testing............... 190 Navy Tactical Computer Resources..................... 190 Lightweight Torpedo Development...................... 190 Ship Self-Defense.................................... 190 Medical Development.................................. 190 Distributed Surveillance System...................... 190 RDT&E Management Support................................. 191 Target Systems Development........................... 191 Major T&E Investment................................. 191 Technical Information Services....................... 191 Studies and Analysis Support......................... 191 Management, Technical and International Support...... 191 Science and Technology Management.................... 191 Test and Evaluation Support.......................... 192 Marine Corps Program Wide Support.................... 192 Operational Systems Development.......................... 192 HARM Improvement..................................... 192 Aviation Improvements................................ 192 Marine Corps Communications Systems.................. 192 Marine Corps Ground Combat/Support Arms.............. 192 Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (Space)..... 192 Manufacturing Technology............................. 193 Program Recommended...................................... 193 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force........ 197 Committee Recommendations................................ 197 Authorization Changes.................................... 197 Air Force and Army Laboratory Restructuring.............. 197 Basic Research........................................... 197 Defense Research Sciences............................ 197 Exploratory Development.................................. 198 Materials............................................ 198 Aerospace Avionics................................... 198 Phillips Lab Exploratory Development................. 198 Advanced Technology Development.......................... 198 Advanced Materials for Weapons Systems............... 198 Aerospace Propulsion Subsystems Integration.......... 198 Aerospace Structures................................. 198 Crew Systems and Personnel Protection Technology..... 198 Flight Vehicle Technology Integration................ 198 Electronic Combat Technology......................... 199 Space and Missile Rocket Propulsion.................. 199 Ballistic Missile Technology......................... 199 Advanced Spacecraft Technology....................... 199 Conventional Weapons Technology...................... 199 Advanced Weapons Technology.......................... 199 Airborne Laser....................................... 199 Demonstration and Validation............................. 200 Advanced MILSATCOM................................... 200 Polar Adjunct........................................ 200 National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS).......................... 200 Space Based Infrared Architecture--DEM/VAL........... 200 Warfighter-1......................................... 201 Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program (EELV)..... 202 Global Broadcast Service............................. 202 Engineering and Manufacturing Development................ 203 Integrated Avionics Planning and Development......... 203 B-1B................................................. 203 Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training............. 203 F-22................................................. 203 EW Development....................................... 203 Munitions Dispenser Development...................... 203 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM).................. 204 Life Support System.................................. 204 Computer Resource Technology Transition.............. 204 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM)........ 205 JSLAM................................................ 206 RDT&E Management Support................................. 206 Theater Simulator Development........................ 206 Major T&E Investment................................. 206 Test and Evaluation Support.......................... 206 Operational Systems Development.......................... 206 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM).... 206 Aircraft Engine Component Improvement Program........ 206 AGM-86C Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missile System............................................. 207 Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS).......... 207 Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS)........................................... 207 World-Wide Military Command and Control System....... 207 Security and Investigative Services.................. 207 Air Cargo Material Handling.......................... 207 Industrial Preparedness.............................. 207 Productivity, Reliability, Availability, Maintainability Program (PRAM)..................... 208 NATO Joint Stars..................................... 208 Program Recommended...................................... 208 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide..... 212 Committee Recommendations................................ 212 Authorization Changes.................................... 212 Basic Research........................................... 212 In-House Independent Research........................ 212 Defense Research Sciences............................ 212 University Research Sciences......................... 212 Government and Industry Cosponsorship of University Research........................................... 213 Chemical and Biological Defense Program.............. 213 Exploratory Development.................................. 213 Next Generation Internet............................. 213 Support Technologies--Applied Research............... 214 Lincoln Laboratory Research Program.................. 214 Computing Systems and Communications Technology...... 214 Chemical and Biological Defense Program.............. 214 Tactical Technology.................................. 215 Integrated Command and Control Technology............ 215 Materials and Electronics Technology................. 215 Defense Special Weapons Agency....................... 215 Advanced Development..................................... 215 Explosives Demilitarization Technology............... 215 Counterproliferation Support......................... 215 Automatic Target Recognition......................... 215 Chemical and Biological Defense Program.............. 216 Special Technical Support............................ 216 Verification Technology Demonstration................ 216 Nuclear Monitoring Technologies...................... 216 Seismic Monitoring................................... 217 Generic Logistics R&D Technology Demonstrations...... 217 Strategic Environmental Research Program............. 217 Advanced Electronics Technologies.................... 218 Maritime Technology.................................. 218 Electric Vehicles.................................... 218 Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations........... 218 Commercial Technology Insertion Program.............. 218 Electronic Commerce Resource Centers................. 218 High Performance Computing Modernization Program..... 218 Sensor and Guidance Technology....................... 219 Marine Technology.................................... 219 Land Warfare Technology.............................. 220 Dual-Use Programs.................................... 220 Joint Wargaming Simulation Management Office......... 220 Demonstration and Validation............................. 220 Physical Security Equipment.......................... 220 Joint Robotics Program............................... 220 CALS Initiative...................................... 220 Ballistic Missile Defense Organization................... 220 Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)........... 221 Navy Lower Tier...................................... 221 Navy Upper Tier...................................... 221 Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) and Boost Phase Intercept (BPI).............................. 222 National Missile Defense............................. 222 Engineering and Manufacturing Development................ 222 Chemical and Biological Defense Program.............. 222 Technical Studies.................................... 223 Defense Support Activities........................... 223 Management Headquarters.............................. 223 Tactical UAVs........................................ 223 Endurance UAVs....................................... 223 Airborne Reconnaissance Systems...................... 224 Special Operations Advanced Technology Development... 224 Special Operations Intelligence Systems Development.. 224 SOF Operational Enhancements......................... 224 Casting Emission Reduction Program................... 224 Program Recommended...................................... 225 Developmental Test and Evaluation, Defense................... 228 Committee Recommendations................................ 228 Program Recommended...................................... 228 Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense..................... 230 Committee Recommendations................................ 230 Program Recommended...................................... 230 Live Fire Testing........................................ 232 Title V. Revolving and Management Funds.......................... 233 Defense Working Capital Funds................................ 233 Transition to the Working Capital Funds.................. 233 Military Commissary Fund, Defense............................ 234 National Defense Sealift Fund................................ 234 Large Medium Speed Roll-On/Roll-Off (LMSR) Ships......... 234 Lighterage............................................... 234 Title VI. Other Department of Defense Programs................... 235 Defense Health Program....................................... 235 Medical Research......................................... 235 Breast Cancer............................................ 236 Gulf War Illness......................................... 236 TRICARE.................................................. 237 Bone Marrow Research..................................... 237 Smoking Cessation........................................ 237 Diabetes................................................. 237 Minimally Invasive Research.............................. 237 Air Force Neuroscience................................... 238 Central Nervous System Injury Research................... 238 Walter Reed Army Institute of Research................... 238 Mobile Breast Care Center................................ 238 Peer Review Panels....................................... 238 Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense........... 239 Committee Recommendations................................ 239 Program Reductions................................... 239 Storage Facilities................................... 239 Program Recommended...................................... 239 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense....... 241 Committee Recommendations................................ 241 National Guard Counter-Drug Program...................... 241 LEA Support.............................................. 241 Gulf States Initiative................................... 241 HIDTA Crack House Demolition............................. 242 Civil Air Patrol......................................... 242 C-26 Aircraft Photo Reconnaissance Upgrades.............. 242 Multijurisdictional Task Force Training.................. 242 Program Recommended...................................... 242 Office of the Inspector General.............................. 243 Title VII. Related Agencies...................................... 245 National Foreign Intelligence Program........................ 245 Introduction............................................. 245 Classified Annex......................................... 245 Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund....................................................... 245 Intelligence Community Management Account.................... 246 Committee Recommendation................................. 246 National Security Education Trust Fund....................... 246 Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance and Environmental Restoration Fund........................................... 246 Title VIII. General Provisions................................... 247 Definition of Program, Project and Activity.................. 247 Military Personnel Budget Justification...................... 247 Limitation on Headquarters Activities........................ 248 Warranties................................................... 248 National Imagery and Mapping Agency.......................... 248 Navigation and Safety Equipment.............................. 249 TACWAR....................................................... 249 House of Representatives Reporting Requirements.................. 251 Changes in Application of Existing Law....................... 251 Appropriations Language.................................. 251 General Provisions....................................... 253 Appropriations Not Authorized by Law......................... 256 Transfer of Funds............................................ 257 Rescissions.................................................. 258 Constitutional Authority..................................... 258 Comparison With Budget Resolution............................ 258 Five-Year Projection of Outlays.............................. 259 Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments.......... 259 105th Congress Report HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 105-206 _______________________________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1998 _______ July 25, 1997.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed _______________________________________________________________________ Mr. Young of Florida, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following R E P O R T [To accompany H.R. 2266] The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense, and for other purposes, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998. Bill Totals Appropriations for most military functions of the Department of Defense are provided for in the accompanying bill for the fiscal year 1998. This bill does not provide appropriations for military construction, military family housing, civil defense, or nuclear warheads, for which requirements are considered in connection with other appropriations bills. The President's fiscal year 1998 budget request for activities funded in the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill totals $243,923,541,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The amounts recommended by the Committee in the accompanying bill total $248,335,303,000 in new budget authority. This is $4,411,762,000 above the budget estimate and $3,868,897,000 \1\ above the sums made available for the same purposes for fiscal year 1997. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ This amount includes $1,846,200,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense enacted into law in Public Law 105-18. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In terms of overall defense spending for fiscal year 1998, when the amounts in this bill are combined with proposed defense funding in other annual appropriations bills the Committee's recommendations are approximately equal to the $269 billion in discretionary appropriations for the National Defense Function (050) agreed to by the Congress and the President in April 1997, and subsequently approved by Congress in the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Years 1998-2002. Despite the proposed increase over the President's request, however, the Committee notes that with this recommendation funding in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1998 will still fail to keep pace with inflation. Total funding in the bill is 0.6 percent, or $1.5 billion, less than what would be required to freeze funding at the fiscal year 1997 level, adjusted for inflation. As a consequence, if enacted into law, the Committee's recommendations would result in the thirteenth straight year of real, inflation-adjusted reductions in defense spending. The new budget authority enacted for the fiscal year 1997, the President's budget estimates, and amounts recommended by the Committee for fiscal year 1998 appear in summary form in the following table: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Committee Budget Review Process During its review of the fiscal year 1998 budget, the Subcommittee on National Security held a total of 19 hearings during the time period of February 26, 1997 to June 11, 1997. Testimony received by the Subcommittee totaled 1,625 pages of transcript. Approximately half of the hearings were held in open session. Executive or closed sessions were held only when the security classification of the material to be discussed presented no alternative. Introduction The bill reported by the Committee reflects its obligation to provide adequate resources for the nation's defense while attempting to strike a balance between the many competing challenges confronting the armed forces of the United States. The international environment remains uncertain and potentially explosive. Political instability remains on the rise, as does the threat posed by the proliferation of technology, giving even small nations or groups the ability to threaten entire populations. Transnational issues such as ethnic conflicts, terrorism, the international drug trade, and ``information age'' threats continue to loom while more traditional regional threats, such as those posed by North Korea, Iraq, and Iran still must factor prominently in U.S. military planning. Despite having been drawn down to the lowest force levels since the end of World War II, U.S. armed forces remain forward deployed and continue to sustain high rates of operation, a condition exacerbated by the deployment of U.S. forces on non- traditional peacekeeping missions, such as the Bosnia deployment. These frequent deployments have led to a host of problems including hardships for service members and their families, disruptions in standard rotation and training schedules, and the need to finance the substantial costs of such operations. The President's fiscal year 1998 budget proposal for the Department of Defense clearly reflects the tensions inherent in trying to cope with such existing, ongoing demands while living within the fiscal constraints dictated by the Administration's overall budget priorities. The combination of self-imposed defense spending limits, the spiraling cost of overseas contingency operations, and the need to maintain forces subject to deployment at high rates of readiness, has resulted once again in major funding shortfalls throughout other portions of the defense budget proposed by the President. The Committee notes that subsequent to transmittal of the President's budget, the Military Services identified high priority, unfunded shortfalls for fiscal year 1998 totaling nearly $11 billion. In addition, the Secretary of Defense has called to the Committee's attention nearly $1.5 billion in additional unbudgeted fiscal year 1998 requirements involving defense health care, missile defense and chemical/biological defenses, and a sizable shortage in funding for flying hour support and related spare parts. Running the gamut from quality of life programs, medical care, training and operating budgets, and weapons modernization and research programs, the fiscal year 1998 defense budget submission demonstrably falls short of meeting both the immediate and long-term requirements of the U.S. armed forces. Quadrennial Defense Review These problems are not new, and were the driving force behind Congress' mandate last year for an in-depth review of U.S. military strategy, force structure and deployments, and competing budget priorities. The result was the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which combined with the appointment of a new Secretary of Defense resulted in a fresh look at the many competing and difficult demands confronting U.S. military planners. The Committee is aware of, and in some instances sympathetic to, the criticisms levied at the QDR since its results were announced in May 1997. For example, the QDR has been criticized for not being daring enough, particularly with respect to its rejection of force structure cuts well beyond the roughly one-third reduction already levied since the fall of the Berlin Wall. However, the Committee does not find such critiques persuasive in the face of continued regional threats on both the Korean Peninsula and in the Persian Gulf region which, of necessity, drive near-term manpower and forward deployment requirements. The Committee does find more substance in the claim that the QDR was a fiscally-constrained exercise. Yet, the announcement of the QDR's findings occurred almost simultaneously with the agreement reached between the President and the Congressional leadership on a balanced budget agreement. This resulted in a long-term budget plan for defense which, from fiscal years 2000-2002, approximates that used as the basis for QDR planning (namely, the President's proposed defense program). While there is merit to the charge that the Secretary of Defense should have conducted solely a strategy and requirements driven review, in hindsight the Secretary's decision that the QDR should reflect current fiscal realities as well as strategic considerations must be viewed as being both pragmatic and practical. Nonetheless, despite giving the Department relatively high marks on the broad aspects of its QDR recommendations, the Committee is troubled by the many optimistic assumptions embedded in its recommendations. The Committee is highly skeptical, for example, about whether the military services can successfully draw down planned force structure by an additional 60,000 active duty and 55,000 Reserve personnel, while maintaining forward presence deployments and high OPTEMPO rates, without sacrificing the quality of the force and adversely affecting the combat capability of front-line units. Of more proximate concern to the Committee in its budgetary role is the degree to which the Department is relying on QDR recommendations which forecast sizable budget savings. These savings are intended to finance the Department's many unfunded outyear requirements, especially those involving the development and eventual production of the new generation of major weapons systems. The Committee's concern has already been substantiated by the admission by senior Department of Defense officials that most of the non-personnel savings assumed in the QDR (amounting to approximately $7-8 billion per year by the year 2002) are premised on yet-to-be determined reductions in headquarters, duplicative organizations, and improved business practices. These fiscal concerns are central in that, if not dealt with successfully as the QDR recommendations are implemented, they threaten to undermine one of the core objectives of the QDR itself: Freeing up resources to enable the overdue modernization of many components of the military's existing weaponry and equipment. Rationale for the Committee Bill When considering its fiscal year 1998 recommendations, the Committee was therefore confronted with two overriding concerns. First, the fiscal year 1998 budget request (prepared before the QDR), while including many noteworthy aspects, still proposed funding levels for many activities and programs which the Secretary of Defense has himself conceded are inadequate, particularly in light of subsequent QDR decisions. Second, the QDR itself has now become the basis for outyear defense planning, and therefore presents both a guide and an opportunity for the Committee in making its recommendations for fiscal year 1998. In fashioning this bill, the Committee took both these factors into account while remaining committed to several key objectives: (1) Ensuring an adequate level of readiness, training and quality of life for all service members, both in the Active and Reserve components; (2) Providing for a modernization program which both meets today's requirements and the security needs of the future; (3) Giving special priority to redressing shortfalls in less visible, yet mission-essential programs and equipment; and finally, (4) Cutting, reforming, or eliminating programs or activities with little military utility, or which have not shown demonstrable success or have encountered delays in development or production, or are duplicative, excessive or unnecessary. In particular, given the Committee's deep concern that many of the QDR's cost-saving assumptions may prove to be highly optimistic, the Committee believes it cannot wait until the fiscal year 1999 budget cycle to begin to implement QDR- sanctioned reforms or cost-cutting. The Committee has made a concerted effort to reduce and in some instances cancel funding for programs or functions which, while meritorious, are simply of lower priority, can be performed at a lower cost, are as ``nice to have'' rather than essential. The following section of the report details major Committee recommendations in support of these objectives. Major Committee Recommendations Addressing High Priority Unfunded Shortfalls The Committee bill fully funds the unbudgeted shortfalls identified by the Secretary of Defense with respect to defense medical programs, National Missile Defense, and Navy and Air Force flying hours. The Committee also recommends increases over the budget request of $107,650,000 for improved chemical and biological defensive technologies, equipment and training. Finally, the Committee also recommends additions over the budget request which address more than one-third (by dollar amount) of the unbudgeted shortfalls identified by the military Service Chiefs. Specific details are cited throughout this report. ensuring a quality, ready force Personnel Issues: The Committee has recommended fully funding the 2.8 percent military pay raise as requested by the Department, and has added $60,000,000 above the budget request for housing and family separation allowances in conformance with House authorization action. For the Reserve components, the Committee recommends restoral of $85,000,000 deleted in the budget request in order to fully fund the Reserves' pay accounts. The Committee has fully funded all child care and family support programs. Finally, the Committee has added $22,900,000 over the budget request for military recruiting, to ensure new accessions are of the highest possible quality. Military Medical Programs: The Committee has included $274,000,000 above the amounts originally requested by the President to fully fund unbudgeted shortfalls in the Defense Health Program. The Committee has added $125,000,000 over the request to continue the Army's highly successful peer-reviewed breast cancer research program as well as the Committee's ongoing efforts to specifically improve breast cancer detection and treatment for both service personnel and dependents. Training/OPTEMPO: The Committee has fully funded the requested amounts for all the Services' training and OPTEMPO accounts and has added $99,013,000 over the request in those areas where the services identified shortfalls. Emergent flying hour/spare parts shortfall: Following submission of the budget, the Secretary of Defense notified the Committee of significant unfunded shortfalls which had emerged in the flying hour and associated maintenance programs of the Navy and Air Force. The Committee recognizes the immediate impact these shortfalls will have on readiness and therefore recommends an increase of $622,000,000 over the budget request to fully fund Navy and Air Force requirements. Equipment repair/maintenance: The Committee is distressed over the continuing existence of substantial unfunded backlogs in the Services' depot maintenance accounts and has added $473,300,000 over the budget request to meet the most urgent unfunded equipment maintenance requirements. Real property maintenance: For years the Committee has expressed its concern over the growing backlog in real property maintenance accounts used to support the Department's base infrastructure, including barracks and mission-essential facilities. The Committee recommends an increase of $924,840,000 over the budget request for real property maintenance, including an additional $360,000,000 for barracks and living facilities, continuing the Committee's commitment to revitalizing the Department's base infrastructure. Defense Drug Interdiction: The Committee recommends an increase over the budget request of $60,500,000 for Department of Defense counter-drug and drug interdiction programs, nearly a 10 percent increase over the Department's proposed fiscal year 1998 levels. ``Contingency'' operations: The fiscal year 1997 Department of Defense Appropriations Act created a separate appropriations account for operation and maintenance costs resulting from major contingency deployments. The Committee recommends similar action this year and consolidates all requested operation and maintenance funding for the Bosnia operation, as well as continued sanctions enforcement around Iraq, into one single account. The Committee has also provided military personnel funding associated with these operations, but has funded these requirements in the regular appropriations accounts. In all, the Committee recommends total funding of $2,145,100,000 for these operations ($1,467,500,000 for Bosnia, as requested by the President; and $677,600,000 for Southwest Asia). Modernization Programs Department of Defense officials freely admit that the most serious shortcoming in the budget proposal is in those accounts providing for procurement and research and development of new equipment and technologies. Based on extensive testimony and a concerted effort to identify critical shortfalls in existing requirements, the Committee is recommending increases to the budget request specifically targeted at meeting existing equipment/capability shortfalls as well as providing for the projected military requirements of the future. In all, the bill recommends increases over the budget request of $4.7 billion for modernization programs, including net increases of over $3.9 billion for procurement and $770 million for research and development. The most significant recommendations include: Missile defense: The Committee recommends total funding of $3,673,659,000, a net increase of $707,115,000, for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. The Committee bill includes a total of $978,090,000 ($474,000,000 over the budget request) for national missile defense and $2,695,568,000 (a net increase of $233,115,000 over the budget request) for theater systems. The Committee has fully funded the budget request for the joint U.S.-Israel ARROW missile defense program, and has added $41,500,000 over the budget request for the joint U.S.- Israel ``Nautilus'' Tactical High-Energy Laser program. The Committee has also fully funded the Air Force's Airborne Laser program at the requested amount ($157,136,000). Ship Self-Defense/Cooperative Engagement: Mindful of the growing threat to U.S. forces posed by both theater ballistic and cruise missiles, the Committee has continued its long- standing emphasis on ship self-defense and ``cooperative engagement'' (the sharing of tracking and targeting information among many different platforms), and has added $401,800,000 over the budget for these efforts. Major weapons programs: The Committee recommends fully funding the budget request for: The Army's Comanche helicopter, Crusader next-generation artillery system, and Force XXI/ digitization initiatives (although the Committee has realigned requested funding to more appropriate accounts); the Navy's production of 20 new F/A-18 E/F fighters, three DDG-51 destroyers, one New Attack Submarine, the overhaul of the U.S.S. Nimitz aircraft carrier, and the procurement of two LMSR sealift ships; and the Air Force's F-15 fighter and F-22 fighter programs. The Committee has also funded the requested number of Air Force C-17 transport aircraft; provided an additional nine C-130J variants over the budget request for the Marine Corps, Air Force, and Air National Guard, pursuant to House authorization action; and the budget request for the Joint Strike Fighter. The Committee has added funds over the request for: Army Blackhawk helicopters (a total of $309,231,000 for 30 helicopters, $126,000,000 and 12 helicopters more than requested) and Kiowa Warrior helicopters ($151,700,000); the Navy E-2C airborne early warning aircraft (a total of $304,474,000 for four aircraft, $68,000,000 and one aircraft over the budget request); the Marine Corps V-22 tactical transport (a total of $661,307,000 for seven aircraft, $189,300,000 and two aircraft more than in the budget request), and advance procurement for the second LPD-17 amphibious ship (an increase of $185,000,000 over the budget request); and the Air Force B-2 bomber (a total of $505,286,000, an increase over the budget request of $331,200,000, consistent with House authorization action), and F-16 fighter programs ($82,500,000 and three aircraft more than the budget request). Mission-essential shortfalls: The Committee has always emphasized less-glamorous, yet mission-essential items which are critical to the troops in the field. The Committee bill recommends increases over the budget request for such items as: Additional combat communications systems ($32,000,000), night vision devices ($14,400,000), and Bradley fighting vehicle upgrades ($115,000,000) for the Army; new and remanufactured trucks and HMMWV's for the Army and Marine Corps ($156,700,000); Army, Navy and Marine Corps ammunition (a net increase of $258,900,000); modifications and upgrades for EA-6B ($83,000,000) and P-3 aircraft ($129,000,000) for the Navy; initial issue gear ($40,700,000) and base telecommunications for the Marine Corps ($42,600,000); and additional aging aircraft and engine reliability enhancements ($33,000,000), force protection measures ($27,800,000) and base information systems protection ($51,000,000) for the Air Force. The Committee also provided $31 million for development and procurement of lighterage systems to support joint service strategic sealift operations. Guard and Reserve Components: The Committee bill for fiscal year 1998 continues its support of the Guard and Reserve, with a recommended increase of $274,189,000 over the budget request for the personnel and operation and maintenance accounts. With respect to modernization programs, the Committee has fully funded those programs requested in the budget for Guard and Reserve equipment ($968,500,000, requested in the active services' accounts) and has provided an additional $1,651,800,000 throughout the bill for additional aircraft, tactical vehicles, and various miscellaneous equipment and upgrades to existing equipment for the Guard and Reserve components. Reforms/Program Reductions As mentioned earlier in this report, the Committee has always sought to reduce excess or unnecessary funding when possible. The Department of Defense is no more sacrosanct than any other portion of the Federal government in terms of its need to be constantly reviewed, assessed, and improved. This year the Committee's efforts to reduce unnecessary spending in the Department of Defense are even more important. This is due to the need to address critical unfunded shortfalls in the fiscal year 1998 budget submission, many directly affecting readiness and quality of life programs, as well as the Committee's broader concerns about whether the savings forecast from implementation of the Quadrennial Defense Review can realistically be expected to materialize. Accordingly, a major priority throughout the Committee's budget oversight process has been the identification of lower priority programs which, although they contribute to the military mission, can be cut or eliminated in order to fund higher priority programs and activities. The Committee has also recommended many budget reductions intended to reform and streamline existing Department of Defense structure or operations, and in so doing the Committee intends to accelerate already-planned QDR initiatives. Finally, the Committee has identified budget savings stemming from audits by the General Accounting Office, the Department's audit and inspector general functions, and the Committee's Surveys and Investigations staff, as well as changes in program status identified by the military departments. Budget execution/lower-priority programs: The following table shows selected programs in the budget request which the Committee has eliminated or reduced funding based on its having a relatively low priority or where the requested funding was considered excessive. Program Reduction Civilian personnel overbudgeting........................ -$245,500,000 Consultants and advisory services....................... -$210,000,000 Defense dual use and commercialization programs......... -187,602,000 Growth in automated data processing programs............ -110,000,000 Excess inventory........................................ -100,000,000 Inappropriate budgeting/working capital funds........... -127,654,000 Joint Aerostat Program.................................. -93,193,000 Environmental fund recoupment........................... -73,000,000 Growth in FFRDC's....................................... -55,000,000 NATO RDT&E.............................................. -53,479,000 Growth in civilian employee travel...................... -51,990,000 JCS Exercises........................................... -50,000,000 OSD administrative savings.............................. -20,000,000 Reform/restructuring: The Committee notes that DoD, with a decade of reduced budgets and downsizing behind it, has already implemented or is well into implementing a series of management and organizational reforms. Among other things, these initiatives have already resulted in the defense civilian workforce being reduced by nearly 30 percent with significant additional reductions projected in the near future. While DoD is to be commended for such moves, and although it intends to make even additional reductions associated with implementation of the QDR, the Committee believes more must and can be done. Accordingly, it has recommended a number of budget reductions intended to further streamline and rationalize operations. Program Reduction QDR-related civilian personnel reductions............. -$253,273,000 Other headquarters reductions......................... -149,443,000 Joint standoff missile program consolidation.......... -140,321,000 Defense Agencies (QDR Task Force)..................... -72,000,000 Using RDT&E funding for production.................... -70,875,000 Acquisition reform (warranties)....................... -50,000,000 Overseas disaster aid................................. -24,573,000 Program/budget execution: In addition to the reductions cited above, the Committee proposes more than 150 other reductions to budgeted items based on delays in program execution, contract savings, or other events resulting in the requested amount being clearly excessive to program needs. These reductions have resulted in over $2.5 billion in savings in this legislation. U.S. Forces in Bosnia The fiscal year 1998 budget request includes, and the Committee recommends in this bill, a total of $1,467,500,000 in order to finance the additional incremental military personnel and operation and maintenance costs resulting from the continued U.S. participation in the NATO-led Stabilization Force in Bosnia, through June 1998. With this appropriation, the Committee notes it will have provided roughly $6.5 billion in either supplemental appropriations acts, approved reprogramming actions or annual Department of Defense Appropriations Acts for the additional costs associated with U.S. military operations in and around the former Yugoslavia since October 1995. The Committee has on numerous occasions expressed its commendation for the professional and expert manner in which U.S. forces involved in the Bosnia operation have carried out their missions, and does so once again. These forces and their commanders have performed in an exemplary manner, as have all coalition military participants, in an uncertain and dangerous environment. Even before a decision was made to deploy U.S. forces to Bosnia, the Committee had expressed its concern and disappointment over the failure of the Administration to adequately consult with the Congress regarding peacekeeping operations. The mission change in Somalia, and Presidential commitments to deploy forces to Rwanda, Haiti and Bosnia all were undertaken after little, if any, advance consultation with the Congress. While having repeatedly admonished the Administration for failing to adequately seek Congressional advice and consent, the Committee has also consistently expressed its willingness to work constructively with the Administration to try and find consensus over how best to carry out these missions while addressing the Nation's overall foreign policy objectives. And despite the political controversy surrounding the Bosnia deployment--beginning with the initial decision to deploy American forces, to the mission extension announced by the President last November, and now, concerns over a possible second mission extension as well as possible expanded roles for U.S. forces on the ground--the Committee observes that it has in each and every instance provided the funds deemed necessary by the Department of Defense to support this mission. The Committee's record of ``supporting the troops'' cannot be questioned. Regrettably, the Administration has yet to adequately address the key issues initially raised by the Committee and others nearly two years ago with respect to the Bosnia deployment. These include questions about the exact mission of U.S. forces and other Stabilization Force participants; what, if any exit strategy or criteria have been established for the withdrawal of American forces; and the ultimate duration of the U.S. deployment, the make-up of any international force in Bosnia after June 1998, and the overall long-term commitment which the U.S. intends to make to the region (both in terms of military support and deployments as well as other U.S. aid and assistance programs). The Committee recognizes these are difficult issues, made more complex due to the international involvement in the region and the fragile peace within the former Yugoslavia. Yet it is precisely because these issues are difficult that the Administration's continued refusal to engage the Congress in efforts to seek a consensus for future policy decisions cannot be understood. The Committee believes it is imperative for the Administration to address these policy questions, both through consultation with Congress and openly with the American people. The Committee recognizes that the course of future Bosnia policy carries with it significant implications for NATO as well as European security in general. In addition, the Committee understands that using the legislative ``power of the purse'' to prohibit or limit prospective military operations has been and will no doubt continue to be one of the supreme tests between the executive and legislative branches. The Committee does not take lightly any use of this prerogative. The Committee still expresses its willingness to work with the Administration on seeking solutions to the immediate and longer term issues involving policy towards Bosnia. However, in the absence of any declared post-June 1998 plan for the NATO-led peacekeeping and peace enforcement operation in the former Yugoslavia, the Committee recommends for inclusion in this bill the provision passed by the House on June 23, 1997 during consideration of the Defense Authorization bill (H.R. 1119), providing that no funds available to the Department of Defense may be used to support the deployment of U.S. ground forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzogovina after June 30, 1998 (the current mission limit set by the President), unless specifically prescribed by law. NATO Expansion With the recent Madrid Summit and through other policy pronouncements, the Administration has clearly expressed its intent to expand the number of nations in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Unfortunately, the financial impact of this expansion on the Department of Defense budget is not yet clear as no funds have been requested in the fiscal year 1998 budget request. The Committee is dubious regarding current estimates of the cost of NATO expansion, which according to the Administration will be approximately $200 million per year. The estimate is significantly lower than that of most observers, and the Committee notes it is premised on only three new member nations. In order to gain better insight into the financial requirements for an expanded NATO, the Committee recommends a new general provision (Section 8101) requiring that, in future budget requests, DoD establish a new budget subactivity in the Operation and maintenance request that isolates incremental costs associated with NATO expansion. The Committee directs that this new budget entry shall display all future costs funded through annual Department of Defense Appropriations Acts relating to NATO expansion. To the degree such costs may be more properly carried in other titles of the Act, such as Military personnel or Procurement, the Committee directs that these costs be displayed in their entirety in a separate budget subactivity in the appropriate appropriations account, as needed. The Committee further directs that detailed justification materials be included in future budget requests to support any cost estimates. Budget Formulation Issues The Committee is increasingly concerned about a number of practices which have become more prevalent in both the Department of Defense's annual budget submissions as well as the execution of funding once it has been provided by the Congress. The first issue involves the underbudgeting of many critical programs and activities, particularly those which are known to enjoy support in Congress, in an evident attempt to elicit the required funding through the annual defense authorization and appropriations process. Examples include the now routine underbudgeting of real property and depot maintenance accounts, as well as conventional ammunition, tactical vehicle and missile programs, equipment needs of the Guard and Reserve components, and of particular concern to the Committee, funding for defense medical programs. Over the past three years, as it became apparent that Congress was inclined to add substantial sums to the President's programmed defense budgets, this practice has become more rampant with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the Military Departments appearing to willfully delete or refuse to commit funding for other high priority programs such as national and theater missile defense programs, Navy ship self-defense initiatives, and aircraft navigational and safety upgrades. The Committee believes these actions are clearly unconscionable given the direct threat to the lives of service personnel should such programs not be adequately funded or ultimately fielded. They are even less supportable when viewed in the context of the Department's overall fiscal year 1998 budget request. This budget proposes that the Congress ignore these high priority programs and, instead, approve sizable budget increases for efforts less relevant to immediate military requirements, such as consultants, basic research, and generic technology demonstrations. (One such effort, the Joint Aerostat Program discussed later in this report, is estimated to require over $600,000,000 over the next few years yet has no validated mission nor user requirement.) The Department has in place processes and organizations, such as the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC), which were expressly created to ensure that warfighting requirements are rationalized and given due regard in budget deliberations. Given this, the Committee is puzzled why it is being asked to approve a budget which fails to adequately fund programs needed by deployed forces, and which still falls short when it comes to choosing among competing service programs and initiatives. A related issue is the Department's budget proposal in each of the past two years to transfer proceeds from asset sales from the National Defense Stockpile to fund either operation and maintenance or procurement programs. Under the Budget Act such practices are not allowed unless the sales in question are consistent with historical levels. Despite knowing this both DoD and the Office of Management and Budget have persisted in forwarding requests to the Congress which rely on generating sales revenue from the National Defense Stockpile in excess of Budget Act limits. As a consequence, over the past two years the President's defense budgets have actually contained $800,000,000 more in proposed spending that could actually be made available in appropriations bills without running afoul of Budget Act scorekeeping conventions. The Committee wishes to serve notice to OSD, the Military Departments, and OMB the obvious fact that such misallocation of resources and budget gamesmanship will simply be self defeating in the future. As a result of the recently approved budget agreement, beginning in fiscal year 1999 the Congress has agreed to the same defense budget topline as has the President, and therefore deliberations over the content of future defense bills will by definition be a zero-sum game. This problem will only become more intense should anticipated savings from the QDR and other reforms fall short of expectations. Should OSD and the Services, with the knowledge of OMB, persist in underfunding critical programs or resorting to budget gimmicks in anticipation that the Committee and Congress will ``fix the problem'', they should do so knowing full well that these problems will be corrected only through reductions to other budgeted programs. Abuse of Traditional Acquisition and Appropriations Practices The Committee is similarly concerned about what, from its perspective, is a breakdown of existing and longstanding procedures regarding the institution of multiyear contracting for major weapons systems, as well as a fundamental breach of appropriations discipline whereby the Department is using funds provided for research, development, test and evaluation of weapons programs to instead initiate production contracts, in many instances without the knowledge of OSD or the Congress. With respect to multiyear contracting, the Committee remains convinced that when used appropriately, multiyear contracts offer substantial benefits in terms of both cost savings and program stability. However, another aspect of multiyear contracting is that once initiated for a particular program, funding for that program is basically committed for several years, and unlikely to be reduced because of the termination liability costs associated with failure to adequately fund the multiyear program. The Committee is aware of instances where the military services have sought multiyear contracting authority from the Congress even though the current defense program does not contain enough funding to actually execute the contract, evidently in an effort to leverage increased budget allocations from OSD. Over the past two years the Committee has witnessed a significant increase in efforts by the military services to importune the Congress to grant their favored programs multiyear contracting authority. Given the major restructuring of Departmental spending priorities associated with implementation of the QDR, as well as the need of OSD to maintain at least some degree of management control over future defense spending decisions, the Committee believes it appropriate to require that the Secretary of Defense, approve all major multiyear contract initiatives and therefore has recommended amending an existing general provision (Section 8008) to require that no multiyear contracts over a certain threshold may be requested unless that program is specifically identified in official budget documents transmitted to the Congress by the President, or through written communication from the Secretary. This should not be perceived as the Committee losing favor with multiyear contracting as a means to achieve cost savings; rather, the Committee's intent is to give the Secretary of Defense as well as the Congress greater opportunities to carefully review any proposed multiyear program acquisition. With respect to the abuse of RDT&E appropriations, the Committee is concerned about what appears to be an increasing lack of discipline within the Department of Defense in budgeting programs in the proper appropriations, especially among acquisition programs. The Committee is aware of desires within the DOD acquisition community to merge development and procurement funding into a single appropriation as a convenience to program managers. Such a change to fundamental budget practices would severely impede oversight by both senior managers in the Department as well as Congress. The Department has declined to make any such formal recommendations to the Congress; however, the Committee has become convinced the Department has instead placated its acquisition community by allowing program managers, under the guise of acquisition reform, to blur distinctions between appropriations. The Committee has identified a number of instances in this report in which the Department has requested funding in the research and development accounts to initiate production, and production funding to initiate development. Most notable are the cases of EFOG-M, LOSAT, WCMD, WRAP initiatives, and F-22 discussed at length elsewhere in this report. The Committee is particularly disturbed over a trend in missile programs to initiate production to provide an ``interim warfighting capability'' using research and development funding, contrary to Committee direction and DOD policy on the use of such funding. The Committee takes its oversight responsibilities seriously and will not tolerate lax observance of the long- standing policies on the proper use of appropriations. Accordingly, the Committee has included a general provision (Section 8100) which prohibits the Department from using funds provided in Title IV of the bill (funding for research, development, test, and evaluation) to procure end-items of any DoD system unless said items are physically utilized in test and evaluation activities which lead to a production decision for the system. This provision exempts programs funded in this bill under the National Foreign Intelligence Program, and also includes limited waiver authority should the Secretary of Defense determine it is in the national security interest. Ship Self Defense In fiscal year 1992, the Committee discovered that the Navy's ship self-defense programs were in disarray and it began an initiative to fix the problem. In every fiscal year since 1992, the Committee has recommended significant funding increases for ship self-defense programs. The Committee was vindicated when former Secretary of Defense William Perry witnessed at sea tests of the cooperative engagement capability, a main target of the Committee's interest. He called cooperative engagement ``the most significant technological development since stealth'' and directed that the program be accelerated. In the most recent tests using cooperative engagement, 17 of 19 missile shots were direct hits, at much farther distances than can be achieved by Aegis ships today, and in one case the ship firing its missiles in self-defense could not even see the target due to radar jamming. In hearings during the past few years, the Committee has commended Navy officials for their attention to committee direction on ship self defense programs. In the fiscal year 1998 budget, something went awry. The Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition testified to the Committee this year that the Navy's budget continues ``an all out effort to protect our Sailors and Marines serving aboard ships against missile attack''. Yet, the Navy's budget is a considerable step backward in terms of achieving this objective. Many ship defense programs that have longstanding yet unfulfilled warfighting requirements and which have successfully completed R&D have no funds requested in the fiscal year 1998 budget ostensibly due to lack of funds. Among those are installation of cooperative engagement capability on two surface battle groups, ship self defense upgrades on two amphibious assault ships, and CIWS surface mode gun upgrades on 8 combatant ships to protect them against the terrorist patrol boat threat identified in the early 1990s. The Committee wonders how the Navy can rationalize no production funds for a system declared to be ``the most significant technological development since stealth'', after the system successfully reached initial operating capability and whose fielding was directed by the Secretary of Defense to be accelerated. The Navy also proposes to overhaul the U.S.S. Nimitz aircraft carrier without including $120,000,000 of necessary equipment that directly contributes to the ability of the ship to perform its mission and to defend thousands of her sailors against cruise missile attack, ostensibly due to lack of funds. The Navy also proposes a multiyear contract for 12 new DDG-51 destroyers which would be delivered to the fleet as late as 2006 without either cooperative engagement or theater ballistic missile defense capability, again ostensibly due to lack of funds. It is apparent to the Committee that ship self-defense and theater ballistic missile defense programs were given short shrift in the Navy's fiscal year 1998 budget due to the propensity of the Navy to request budget growth in (1) lower priority programs such as basic research, NATO R&D, studies, and (2) R&D for new platforms for every Naval community. The Committee's bill rectifies this misallocation of resources by providing an increase of $401,800,000 in R&D and procurement appropriations for ship self-defense and DDG-51 theater ballistic missile defense related programs, with attendant reductions to lower priority programs requested by the Navy. chemical and biological defense programs The Committee has expressed its concern for several years about the Department's slow response to organize more effectively and to provide adequate resources to combat the growing threat posed by the potential use of chemical and biological agents--both at home and abroad. The serious nature of this threat was well stated in the discussion of biological weapons contained in the 1997 Strategic Assessment report issued by the National Defense University: Biological Weapons--the New Weapon of Choice? Although often treated as less threatening than nuclear weapons, increased attention is now being given to the biological threat. Many of the Cold War assumptions about the strategic and tactical utility of biological weapons (BW) no longer appear valid. In fact, given the diffusion of the dual-use technologies involved, the pursuit of BW is now recognized as a relatively cheap and easily available path to acquire a weapon of mass destruction--the poor man's atomic bomb. * * * It is possible for BW agents to inflict massive casualties against soft targets such as cities to an extent that rivals megaton nuclear weapons. Further, because only small quantities of these highly lethal agents are needed to achieve significant effects, an aggressor can choose between multiple delivery modes and attack options. Moreover, as the number of states engaged in BW research has grown, the sophistication of their work has also grown, leading to technical advances (e.g., microencapsulation to produce more stable agents for use over longer periods) that may permit biological agents and toxins to be used in more controlled fashion to advance military goals. The threat from chemical weapons, employed by organized militaries or by terrorist groups is also significant and growing. According to the same 1997 Strategic Assessment report: Chemical weapons are currently possessed by more states than either biological or nuclear weapons, and are the only one of the three to be used in the post- World War II era. * * * some experts tend to minimize the potential consequences of CW use, arguing that CW does not merit consideration as a weapon of mass destruction. In fact, analysis suggests that CW use against U.S. and allied forces and critical infrastructure facilities can have a major impact on the outcome of a major regional conflict. The danger that a terrorist group could acquire the capability to launch a CW or BW attack continues to exist. According to the May 1997 Report to Congress on the Activities and Programs for Countering Proliferation and NBC Terrorism, by the multiagency Counterproliferation Program Review Committee: U.S. Intelligence continues to assess and analyze the threat of terrorist CW and BW attack, a threat that remains ever present. The Aum Shinrikyo attacks in June 1994, in Matsumoto, Japan which killed seven and injured 500, and on the Tokyo subway in March 1995, which killed 12 and injured 5,500, were the first instances of large scale terrorist use of CW agents, but a variety of incidents and reports over the last two years indicate continuing terrorist interest in these weapons. * * * The fact that only 12 Japanese died in the Tokyo subway attack has tended to mask the significance of the 5,500 people who were treated or examined at medical facilities. Such a massive influx of injured--many critically--has the potential to overwhelm emergency medical facilities, even in a large metropolitan area. The Committee realizes that providing an effective chemical/biological defense program to combat both the military threat and the domestic terrorist threat is highly challenging. Effective action requires a multipronged approach that coordinates disparate activities within the Department and within other federal, state and local agencies in such areas as foreign and domestic intelligence; enforcement of counterproliferation policies and programs; medical research into vaccines, antidotes, and treatments; development and deployment of detection, warning and decontamination equipment; development of individual protection suits and collective shelters; training of military personnel and of federal, state and local ``first responders''; and systems to find and destroy CW and BW delivery systems. For the last several years, the Committee has added funding above the budget and mandated special studies to advance this effort. While progress has been slower than the Committee would have liked, the Committee is encouraged by the new emphasis being given to countering the threat of chemical and biological weapons in the Quadrennial Defense Review. The Secretary of Defense has committed in the QDR to spending an extra $1 billion over the Future Years Defense Plan for nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons counterproliferation programs and to task the National Guard with a new mission for chemical/ biological defense in the United States. Just as important as these initiatives is the stated goal in the QDR of ``institutionalizing counterproliferation as an organizing principle in every facet of military activity''. This is a key element of improving our CBW defenses. The Committee is pleased with the direction outlined in the QDR and will continue to press the Department to follow through with these commitments. In addition to fully funding the budget request on high priority chemical/biological defense programs, the Committee recommends increasing the budget request by $107,650,000 for various high priority research and development, procurement, and study requirements. This includes: $10,000,000 for procurement of chemical/biological detection and treatment equipment for the Marine Corps Chemical/Biological Incident Response Force; $1,300,000 for training and assistance to ``first responders'', bring the total recommended in the bill for this purpose to $50,000,000; $8,000,000 to develop new biological defense vaccines and antisera against botulinum toxins; $10,000,000 to develop advanced technologies for wide area decontamination and other decontamination priorities; $12,850,000 to purchase additional JSLIST individual protection suits and perform related research; $2,000,000 for research into novel nerve agents leading to antidotes and pretreatments. $20,000,000 for various types of special equipment for decontamination, collective protection, and treatment; $10,000,000 for detailed planning and concept studies to support a comprehensive effort to expand the National Guard mission into the area of chemical/biological domestic defense; $10,000,000 for high priority equipment needs identified by the Air Force Pacific Command; $17,700,000 for Air Force medical research into vaccines and antidotes; and $5,800,000 for the SAFEGUARD chemical warfare detection and monitoring system. Committee Recommendations By Major Category active military personnel The Committee recommends a total of $60,136,801,000 for active military personnel, a reduction of $158,729,000 below the budget request. The Committee agrees with the authorized end strength as requested in the President's budget, and has also fully funded the proposed pay raise of 2.8 percent. In keeping with the emphasis on the quality of life initiatives started in fiscal year 1996, the Committee recommends an increase of approximately $56,000,000 for certain Pays and Allowances for active personnel, such as the Basic Allowance for Quarters and Family Separation Allowance. guard and reserve The Committee recommends a total of $9,206,393,000, an increase of $90,161,000 above the budget request for Guard and Reserve personnel. The Committee agrees with the authorized end strength as requested in the President's budget for Selected Reserve, and has also fully funded the proposed pay raise of 2.8 percent. The Committee recommends an increase of approximately $4,000,000 for Basic Allowance for Quarters for Reserve personnel. In addition, the Committee restores $85,000,000 in the Reserve accounts for pay of reservists who are also Federal civilian employees. operation and maintenance The Operation and Maintenance appropriation provides for the readiness of U.S. forces as well as the maintenance of facilities and equipment, the infrastructure that supports the combat forces and the quality of life of Service members and their families. The Committee recommends $82,925,753,000, an increase of $644,813,000 above the fiscal year 1998 budget request. As described elsewhere in this report, this increase is driven primarily by the need to address shortfalls in: readiness training, Navy and Air Force flying hours, facility and infrastructure maintenance and repairs, and equipment maintenance. The Committee has also recommended budget reductions that can be taken by the Department as a result of the Quadrennial Defense Review and in such areas as headquarters and administrative operating costs and by taking advantage of fact of life changes since preparation of the budget request. procurement The Committee recommends $45,515,962,000 in new obligational authority for Procurement, an increase of $3,930,784,000 over the fiscal year 1998 budget request. Major programs funded in the bill include: $309,231,000 for 30 UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters $474,832,000 for upgrades and modifications to Apache helicopters $228,287,000 for 1,056 Hellfire missiles $143,112,000 for 1,080 Javelin missiles $240,591,000 for Bradley vehicle industrial base sustainment $594,856,000 for upgrades to Abrams tanks $209,446,000 for medium tactical vehicles $302,164,000 for SINCGARS radios $2,101,100,000 for 20 F/A-18 E/F fighter aircraft $661,307,000 for 7 V-22 (Osprey) aircraft $304,474,000 for 4 E-2C early warning aircraft $243,960,000 for 12 T-45 trainer aircraft $1,632,544,000 for the modification of naval aircraft $181,092,000 for 127 Standard missiles $2,314,903,000 for 1 new SSN attack submarine $1,628,403,000 for 1 carrier refueling overhaul $2,695,367,000 for 3 DDG-51 destroyers $505,286,000 for B-2 aircraft $159,000,000 for 3 F-15 fighter aircraft $1,914,211,000 for 9 C-17 airlift aircraft $1,464,861,000 for modification of Air Force aircraft $107,168,000 for 173 AMRAAM missiles $384,600,000 for Ballistic Missile Defense research, development, test and evaluation The Committee recommends $36,704,924,000 in new obligational authority for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, an increase of $770,433,000 from the fiscal year 1998 budget request. Major programs funded in the bill include the following: $324,380,000 for artillery system development $282,009,000 for the Comanche helicopter $202,302,000 for the Brilliant Anti-Armor Submunition $930,807,000 for the Joint Strike Fighter $396,500,000 for the New Attack Submarine $2,077,234,000 for the F-22 tactical aircraft $676,690,000 for the MILSTAR communications satellite $3,289,059,000 for Ballistic Missile Defense Forces to be Supported department of the army The fiscal year 1998 budget is designed to support active Army forces of 10 divisions, 3 armored cavalry regiments, and reserve forces of 8 divisions, 3 separate brigades, and 15 enhanced National Guard brigades. These forces provide the minimum force necessary to meet enduring defense needs and execute the National Military Strategy. A summary of the major active forces follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal year-- -------------------------- 1996 1997 1998 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Divisions: Airborne................................. 1 1 1 Air Assault.............................. 1 1 1 Light.................................... 2 2 2 Infantry................................. 0 0 0 Mechanized............................... 4 4 4 Armored.................................. 2 2 2 -------------------------- Total.................................. 10 10 10 -------------------------- Non-divisional Combat units: Armored cavalry regiments................ 3 3 3 Separate brigades........................ 0 0 0 -------------------------- Total.................................. 3 3 3 -------------------------- Active duty military personnel, end strength (thousands)................................. 495 495 495 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ department of the navy The fiscal year 1998 budget supports battle forces totaling 346 ships at the end of fiscal year 1998, a decrease from fiscal year 1997. Forces in fiscal year 1998 include 18 strategic ships, 11 aircraft carriers; 262 other battle force ships, 324 support ships, reserve force ships, 1,746 Navy/ Marine Corps tactical/ASW aircraft, 673 Undergraduate Training aircraft, 443 Fleet Air Support aircraft, 480 Fleet Air Training aircraft, 443 Reserve aircraft, 177 RDT&E aircraft and 470 aircraft in the pipeline. A summary of the major forces follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal year ----------------------------------- 1996 1997 1998 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Strategic Forces.................... 17 18 18 ----------------------------------- Submarines...................... 17 18 18 Other........................... 0 0 0 =================================== SLBM Launchers (MIR)................ 408 432 432 =================================== General Purpose..................... 301 297 297 Aircraft Carriers............... 11 11 11 Surface Combatants.............. 116 119 116 Submarines...................... 80 73 66 Amphibious Warfare Ships........ 42 43 41 Combat Logistics Ships.......... 41 40 41 Other........................... 11 11 11 =================================== Support Forces...................... 29 24 24 ----------------------------------- Mobile Logistics Ships.......... 6 4 4 Support Ships................... 23 20 20 =================================== Mobilization Category A............. 18 18 18 ----------------------------------- Aircraft Carriers............... 1 1 1 Surface Combatants.............. 10 10 10 Amphibious Warfare Ships........ 2 2 2 Mine Warfare.................... 5 5 5 =================================== Total Ships, Battle Force..... 365 357 346 =================================== Total Local Defense/Misc. Forces....................... 159 165 167 ----------------------------------- Auxiliaries/Sealift Forces.......... 135 143 144 Surface Combatant Ships............. 5 3 2 Coastal Defense..................... 13 13 13 Research and Development........ 191 228 .......... Mobilization Category B............. 3 6 8 Surface Combatants.............. 0 0 0 Mine Warfare Ships.............. 3 6 8 Support Ships................... 0 0 0 =================================== Naval Aircraft: Primary Authorized (Plus-Pipe).. 4,130 4,072 4,104 ----------------------------------- Authorized Pipeline............. 464 465 470 Tactical/ASW Aircraft........... 1,756 1,730 1,746 Fleet Air Training.............. 474 475 480 Fleet Air Support............... 323 303 292 Training (Undergraduate)........ 654 654 673 Reserve......................... 459 445 443 =================================== Naval Personnel: Active.......................... 602,000 580,900 564,082 ----------------------------------- Navy.......................... 428,000 406,900 390,082 Marine Corps.................. 174,000 174,000 174,000 =================================== Reserve: Navy............................ 96,608 95,941 94,294 ----------------------------------- SELRES........................ 80,920 79,285 78,158 Sea/Air Mariners.............. 198 150 .......... TARS.......................... 17,490 16,506 16,506 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ department of the air force The fiscal year 1998 Air Force budget was designed to support a total active inventory force structure of 51 fighter and attack squadrons, 10 Air National Guard air defense interceptor squadrons and 9 bomber squadrons, including B-2s, B-52s, and B-1s. The Minuteman and Peacekeeper ICBM forces will consist of 700 active launchers. A summary of the major forces follows: FISCAL YEAR 1998 MAJOR FORCES [Includes only Combat Coded Squadrons] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1996 1997 1998 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ USAF fighter and attack (Active)....... 51 52 51 USAF fighter and attack (ANG and AFRC). 36 36 36 Air defense interceptor (ANG).......... 10 10 10 Strategic bomber (Active).............. 8 9 9 Strategic bomber (ANG and AFRC)........ 3 3 3 ICBM launchers/silos................... 700 700 700 ICBM missile boosters.................. 580 580 580 USAF airlift squadrons (Active): Strategic airlift.................. 15 13 13 Tactical airlift................... 11 11 9 -------------------------------- Total airlift.................... 26 24 22 -------------------------------- Total Active Inventory \1\....... 6,369 6,337 6,242 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ Includes Primary, Backup, and Attrition Reserve Aircraft for all Purpose Identifiers for Active, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ End strength 1997 1998 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Active Duty................................... 381,087 371,577 Reserve Component............................. 182,489 180,786 Air National Guard............................ 109,178 107,355 Air Force Reserve............................. 73,311 73,431 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Special Interest Items Items for which funds have specifically been provided in any appropriation in this report using the phrases ``only for'' or ``only to'' are congressional interest items for the purpose of the Base for Reprogramming (DD Form 1414). Each of these items must be carried on the DD Form 1414 at the stated amount, or a revised amount if changed during conference action on this bill, unless the item is denied in conference or if otherwise specifically addressed in the conference report. Government Performance and Results Act The Committee considers the full and effective implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act, P.L. 103-62, to be a priority for all agencies of government. Starting with fiscal year 1999, the Results Act requires each agency to ``prepare an annual performance plan covering each program activity set forth in the budget of such agency''. Specifically, for each program activity the agency is required to ``establish performance goals to define the level of performance to be achieved by a program activity'' and ``performance indicators to be used in assessing the relevant outputs, service levels, and outcomes of each program activity''. The Committee takes this requirement of the Results Act very seriously and plans to carefully examine agency performance goals and measures during the appropriations process. As a result, starting with the fiscal year 1999 appropriations cycle, the Committee will consider agencies progress in articulating clear, definitive, and results- oriented (outcome) goals and measures as it reviews requests for appropriations. The Committee suggests agencies examine their program activities in light of their strategic goals to determine whether any changes or realignments would facilitate a more accurate and informed presentation of budgetary information. Agencies are encouraged to consult with the Committee as they consider such revisions prior to finalizing any requests pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1104. The Committee will consider any requests with a view toward ensuring that fiscal year 1999 and subsequent budget submissions display amounts requested against program activity structures for which annual performance goals and measures have been established. TITLE I MILITARY PERSONNEL Programs and Activities Funded by Military Personnel Appropriations The President's budget request reflects a continuation in the drawdown of military personnel and force structure. The budget proposes a decrease of 21,000 active duty personnel, and 10,000 Reserve and Guard personnel from fiscal year 1997 levels. The Department's reductions in active end strength is about 98.8 percent complete at the end of fiscal year 1998. The Committee recommends to fully fund the proposed 2.8 percent pay increase, and includes an increase of approximately $60,000,000 over the budget request for Basic Allowance for Quarters and Family Separation Allowance. SUMMARY OF MILITARY PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 Fiscal year 1997..................................... $70,016,500,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request...................... 69,411,762,000 Fiscal year 1998 recommendation...................... 69,343,194,000 Change from budget request........................... -68,568,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $69,343,194,000 for the Military Personnel accounts. The recommendation is a decrease of $673,306,000 below the $70,016,500,000 appropriated in fiscal year 1997. These military personnel budget total comparisons include appropriations for the active, reserve, and National Guard accounts. The following tables include a summary of the recommendations by appropriation account. Explanations of changes from the budget request appear later in this section. SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT OF THE FISCAL YEAR 1998 MILITARY PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATION [In thousands of dollars) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Account Budget Recommendation Change from budget ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Military Personnel: Army............................................ $20,492,257 $20,445,381 -$46,876 Navy............................................ 16,501,118 16,504,911 +3,793 Marine Corps.................................... 6,147,599 6,141,635 -5,964 Air Force....................................... 17,154,556 17,044,874 -109,682 ----------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal, Active.............................. 60,295,530 60,136,801 -158,729 Reserve Personnel: Army............................................ 2,024,446 2,045,615 +21,169 Navy............................................ 1,375,401 1,377,249 +1,848 Marine Corps.................................... 381,070 391,953 +10,883 Air Force....................................... 814,936 814,772 -164 National Guard Personnel: Army............................................ 3,200,667 3,245,387 +44,720 Air Force....................................... 1,319,712 1,331,417 +11,705 ----------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal, Guard and Reserve................... 9,116,232 9,206,223 +90,161 =========================================================== Total, Title I................................ 69,411,762 69,343,194 -68,568 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The fiscal year 1998 budget request included a decrease of 20,721 end strength for the active forces and a decrease of 10,781 end strength for the selected reserve over fiscal year 1997 authorized levels. The Committee recommends the following levels highlighted in the tables below. Overall Active End Strength Fiscal year 1997 estimate............................. 1,452,100 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 1,431,379 Fiscal year 1998 House authorization.................. 1,445,000 Fiscal year 1998 recommendation....................... 1,431,379 Compared with Fiscal year 1997.................... -20,721 Compared with Fiscal year 1998 budget request..... ................ Overall Selected Reserve End Strength Fiscal year 1997 estimate............................. 902,399 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 891,618 Fiscal year 1998 House authorization.................. 891,618 Fiscal year 1998 recommendation....................... 891,685 Compared with Fiscal year 1997.................... -10,781 Compared with Fiscal year 1998 budget request..... +67 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year 1998 Fiscal year ---------------------------------------------------------- 1997 Budget House Change from estimate request authorization Recommendation request ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Active Forces (end strength): Army............................... 495,000 495,000 495,000 495,000 ............ Navy............................... 402,013 390,802 395,000 390,802 ............ Marine Corps....................... 174,000 174,000 174,000 174,000 ............ Air Force.......................... 381,087 371,577 381,000 371,577 ............ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Active Force.............. 1,452,100 1,431,379 1,445,000 1,431,379 ............ ======================================================================== Guard and Reserve (end strength): Army Reserve....................... 215,254 208,000 208,000 208,000 ............ Navy Reserve....................... 95,898 94,294 94,294 94,326 +32 Marine Corps Reserve............... 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 ............ Air Force Reserve.................. 73,311 73,431 73,431 73,466 +35 Army National Guard................ 366,758 366,516 366,516 366,516 ............ Air National Guard................. 109,178 107,377 107,377 107,377 ............ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Guard and Reserve......... 902,399 891,618 891,618 891,685 +67 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjustments to Military Personnel Account overview special pays and allowances The Committee recommends a total increase of $35,000,000 for Basic Allowance for Quarters, a housing allowance, to help offset the ``out-of-pocket'' costs to service members when they change duty stations, and for living in high-cost geographical areas. In addition, the Committee recommends an increase of $25,000,000 for Family Separation Allowances, an allowance paid to members on temporary duty (TDY) status. The House-passed Defense Authorization bill approved an increase in the monthly rate of this allowance from $75 to $100 per month. end strength adjustments The Committee agrees with the fiscal year 1998 budget request on active and Reserve end strength levels, a reduction of approximately 31,000 over fiscal year 1997 authorized personnel levels. In addition, based on the latest end strength levels provided by the Department, the Services, primarily the Army and Navy, will begin fiscal year 1998 with approximately 12,000 fewer military personnel on-board than budgeted, which means the 1998 pay and allowances requirements are overstated. Therefore, the Committee recommends an understrength reduction of $214,700,000 to the budget request. temporary early retirement authority The Committee recommends a total reduction of $184,738,000 to the Army and Air Force budget requests as a result of the suspension of the 15-year Temporary Early Retirement Authority during fiscal year 1998, as proposed in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. foreign currency The President recently submitted a fiscal year 1998 budget amendment, which reduced the active duty military personnel accounts by a total of $62,000,000 for foreign currency savings. This amendment to the budget was proposed in order to cover a shortfall in the Defense Health Program. The Committee agrees there are more savings due to favorable fluctuations in overseas exchange rates and recommends a total reduction of $68,000,000 for foreign currency, an additional reduction of $6,000,000 to the Services' personnel accounts. contingency operations funding The budget request recommends $213,600,000 for pay and allowances of military personnel in the ``Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund'', for cost of operations in Bosnia during fiscal year 1998. The Committee does not agree to the realignment of these funds, and has increased the Services military personnel accounts by this amount. military personnel compensation The House-passed Defense Authorization bill has included numerous recommendations that would affect military personnel compensation and benefits for fiscal year 1998. The Committee supports the intent of the House National Security Committee's recommendations which raises rates for current allowances; however Committee's practice has been not to appropriate funds for pending changes to entitlements. Implementation of these changes is usually left to the discretion of the Department, and the precise costs during the initial year of implementation are not known as a result. The Committee will entertain a prior-approval reprogramming action if the Department decides to implement any recommendations which are enacted into law. personal financial management training The Committee believes that an increasing number of young men and women joining the Services have inadequate knowledge and understanding of the skills required for personal financial management and fiscal responsibility. Many recruits lack the basic skills required for checkbook or credit card management resulting in growing levels of bankruptcy and indebtedness. This lack of knowledge can have a significant impact on the readiness of the force when individuals leave the military or suffer family troubles due to financial problems. The Committee believes that the Department should develop and implement a standardized course curriculum for all new officers and enlisted personnel in all Services covering the basic skills of personal financial management. The Committee directs the Department to report by December 15, 1997 on actions taken to correct this problem. ``aim high'' program The ``Aim High'' program in eastern Washington state promotes citizenship and scholarship while reducing drug use among youths through interaction with military facilities. The Committee believes that the military services can provide an excellent model of self-discipline and responsibility for students, and opportunities to visit military installations can be an effective recruiting tool, as well as a powerful incentive for students to refrain from illegal drug use. The Committee urges the Department to continue to support similar initiatives within the constraints of available resources. full-time support strengths There are four categories of full-time support in the Guard and Reserve components: civilian technicians, active Guard and Reserve (AGR), non-technician civilians, and active component personnel. Full-time support personnel organize, recruit, train, maintain and administer the Reserve components. Civilian (Military) technicians directly support units, and are very important to help units maintain readiness and meet the wartime mission of the Army and Air Force. Full-time support end strength in all categories totalled 152,950 in fiscal year 1997. The fiscal year 1998 budget request is 150,484. The following table summarizes Guard and Reserve full-time support end strengths: GUARD AND RESERVE FULL-TIME END STRENGTHS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY 1997 Budget House Change from estimate request authorization Recommendation request ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Army Reserve: AGR................................... 11,804 11,500 11,500 11,500 ........... Technicians........................... 6,799 6,501 6,799 6,501 ........... Navy Reserve TAR.......................... 16,626 16,136 16,136 16,168 +32 Marine Corps Reserve...................... 2,559 2,559 2,559 2,559 ........... Air Force Reserve: AGR................................... 655 963 748 963 ........... Technicians........................... 9,802 9,622 9,802 9,638 +16 Army National Guard: AGR................................... 22,798 22,310 22,310 22,310 ........... Technicians........................... 25,500 25,250 25,384 25,250 ........... Air National Guard: AGR................................... 10,403 10,616 10,616 10,616 ........... Technicians........................... 23,274 22,968 23,247 22,968 ........... --------------------------------------------------------------------- Total AGR/TAR............................... 64,845 64,084 63,869 64,116 +32 Technicians........................... 65,375 64,341 65,232 64,357 +16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MILITARY LEAVE FOR RESERVISTS The budget request recommended a reduction to the Reserve personnel accounts pursuant to a legislative proposal placing a limitation on military basic pay of Federal civilian employees who are Reservists. The House-passed Defense Authorization bill did not contain this proposal, and therefore, the Committee recommends restoring $85,000,000 to the Reserve personnel accounts to fully fund their basic pay. MILITARY PERSONNEL, ARMY Fiscal year 1997 appropriation...................... $20,633,998,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request..................... 20,492,257,000 Committee recommendation............................ 20,445,381,000 Change from budget request.......................... -46,876,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,445,381,000 for Military Personnel, Army. The recommendation is a decrease of $188,617,000 below the $20,633,998,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1997. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1998 budget request are as follows: [In thousands of dollars] Basic Allowance for Quarters.......................... +10,326 Foreign Currency Savings.............................. -4,000 Temporary Early Retirement Authority.................. -36,902 Service Academies Foreign Students.................... -1,000 Personnel Understrength Savings....................... -183,100 Family Separation Allowance........................... +9,600 Contingency Operations Transfer--Bosnia............... +158,200 ----------------- Total........................................... -46,876 MILITARY PERSONNEL, NAVY Fiscal year 1997 appropriation...................... $16,986,976,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request..................... 16,501,118,000 Committee recommendation............................ 16,504,911,000 Change from budget request.......................... +3,793,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $16,504,911,000 for Military Personnel, Navy. The recommendation is a decrease of $482,065,000 below the $16,986,976,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1997. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1998 budget request are as follows: [In thousands of dollars] Basic Allowance for Quarters.......................... +9,393 Foreign Currency Savings.............................. -1,000 Service Academies Foreign Students.................... -1,000 Personnel Understrength Savings....................... -10,000 Unemployment Compensation Savings..................... -10,000 Family Separation Allowance........................... +9,300 Contingency Operations Transfer--Bosnia............... +7,100 ----------------- Total........................................... +3,793 MILITARY PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS Fiscal year 1997 appropriation...................... $6,111,728,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request..................... 6,147,599,000 Committee recommendation............................ 6,141,635,000 Change from budget request.......................... -5,964,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,141,635,000 for Military Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an increase of $29,907,000 above the $6,111,728,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1997. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1998 budget request are as follows: [In thousands of dollars] Basic Allowance for Quarters.......................... +2,736 Personnel Understrength Savings....................... -3,600 Unemployment Compensation Savings..................... -10,000 Family Separation Allowance........................... +3,600 Contingency Operations Transfer--Bosnia............... +1,300 ----------------- Total........................................... -5,964 MILITARY PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE Fiscal year 1997 appropriation...................... $17,069,490,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request..................... 17,154,556,000 Committee recommendation............................ 17,044,874,000 Change from budget request.......................... -109,682,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $17,044,874,000 for Military Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is a decrease of $24,616,000 below the $17,069,490,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1997. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1998 budget request are as follows: [In thousands of dollars] Basic Allowance for Quarters.......................... +8,654 Foreign Currency Savings.............................. -1,000 Temporary Early Retirement Authority.................. -147,836 Service Academies Foreign Students.................... -1,000 Personnel Understrength Savings....................... -18,000 Family Separation Allowance........................... +2,500 Contingency Operations Transfer--Bosnia............... +47,000 ----------------- Total........................................... -109,682 RESERVE PERSONNEL, ARMY Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $2,073,479,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 2,024,446,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 2,045,615,000 Change from budget request............................ +21,169,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,045,615,000 for Reserve Personnel, Army. The recommendation is a decrease of $27,864,000 below the $2,073,479,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1997. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1998 budget request are as follows: [In thousands of dollars] Unit Readiness/Training............................... +8,000 Basic Allowance for Quarters.......................... +569 Reserve Duty Drill Pay................................ +20,400 Health Scholarship Stipend............................ -7,800 ----------------- Total........................................... +21,169 RESERVE PERSONNEL, NAVY Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $1,405,606,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 1,375,401,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 1,377,249,000 Change from budget request............................ +1,848,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,377,249,000 for Reserve Personnel, Navy. The recommendation is a decrease of $28,357,000 below the $1,405,606,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1997. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1998 budget request are as follows: [In thousands of dollars] Basic Allowance for Quarters.......................... +648 Reserve Duty Drill Pay................................ +8,500 Magic Lantern Aircraft................................ +1,700 Health Scholarship Stipend............................ -9,000 ----------------- Total........................................... +1,848 magic lantern The Committee recommends an increase of $1,700,000 over the request in ``Reserve Personnel, Navy'', and $1,300,000 in ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'' to provide additional personnel, and operational and training costs in support of the Magic Lantern airborne mine detection system. NAVY RESERVE FORCES The Committee is very concerned about possible Navy Program Review 99 (PR-99) recommendations that would make major reductions in Navy Reserve hardware and combat/warfare missions. The Committee would find such recommendations unacceptable and continues to believe the Navy Reserve and other Reserve components should remain a viable component of the Total Force. The Navy Reserve and other Reserve components are able to retain force structure and equipment at lower cost than their active counterparts. The Navy Reserve consumes only three percent of the ``total Navy's'' budget, yet comprises nearly 20 percent of the force structure. Elimination of or serious reductions in the remaining Navy Reserve Air Wing, or the reliance on ``augment'' crews with no hardware for Navy Reserve Air Wing, or the reliance on ``augment'' crews with no hardware for Navy Reserve P-3 squadrons, would result in detrimental problems for active and reserve Navy forces, seriously increase active PERSTEMPO, and result in the loss of an experienced cadre of Reserve personnel. Reductions in the Navy Reserve surface fleet, or denying new surface fleet missions to the Navy Reserve, would adversely impact active fleet manning and surface warfare capabilities. The Committee is aware that the Navy Reserve continues to right-size its forces in lean budget years, and urges the Secretary of the Navy not to further reduce Navy Reserve forces. The Navy Reserve has already downsized more and faster than any active or Reserve component, having reduced force structure well over 30 percent since 1990. The Committee strongly supports the current Navy Reserve missions, and fully expects the Secretary of the Navy to consult with Congress prior to any final recommendations that may further reduce Navy Reserve forces. RESERVE PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $388,643,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 381,070,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 391,953,000 Change from budget request............................ +10,883,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $391,953,000 for Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an increase of $3,310,000 above the $388,643,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1997. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1998 budget request are as follows: [In thousands of dollars] Annual Training/School Tours.......................... +7,000 Basic Allowance for Quarters.......................... +183 Reserve Duty Drill Pay................................ +3,700 ----------------- Total........................................... +10,883 RESERVE PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $783,697,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 814,936,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 814,772,000 Change from budget request............................ -164,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $814,772,000 for Reserve Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of $31,075,000 above the $783,697,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1997. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1998 budget request are as follows: [In thousands of dollars] Basic Allowance for Quarters.......................... +266 Reserve Duty Drill Pay................................ +8,200 Health Scholarship Stipend............................ -8,800 WC-130 Weather Reconn................................. +170 ----------------- Total........................................... -164 NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, ARMY Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $3,266,393,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 3,200,667,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 3,245,387,000 Change from budget request............................ +44,720,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,245,387,000 for National Guard Personnel, Army. The recommendation is a decrease of $21,006,000 below the $3,266,393,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1997. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1998 budget request are as follows: [In thousands of dollars] School/Special Training............................... +10,000 Basic Allowance for Quarters.......................... +1,520 Reserve Duty Drill Pay................................ +33,200 ----------------- Total........................................... +44,720 NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $1,296,490,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 1,319,712,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 1,331,417,000 Change from budget request............................ +11,705,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,331,417,000 for National Guard Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of $34,927,000 above the $1,296,490,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1997. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1998 budget request are as follows: [In thousands of dollars] Basic Allowance for Quarters.......................... +705 Reserve Duty Drill Pay................................ +11,000 ----------------- Total........................................... +11,705 TITLE II OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE The fiscal year 1998 budget request for Operation and maintenance is $82,280,940,000 in new budget authority, which is an increase of $3,117,718,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1997. The request also includes a $150,000,000 cash transfer from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund. The accompanying bill recommends $82,925,753,000 for fiscal year 1998, which is an increase of $644,813,000 from the budget request. In addition, the Committee recommends that $150,000,000 be transferred from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund. These appropriations finance the costs of operating and maintaining the Armed Forces, including the reserve components and related support activities of the Department of Defense (DoD), except military personnel costs. Included are pay for civilians, services for maintenance of equipment and facilities, fuel, supplies and spare parts for weapons and equipment. Financial requirements are influenced by many factors, including force levels such as the number of aircraft squadrons, Army and Marine Corps divisions, installations, military personnel strength and deployments, rates of operational activity, and the quantity and complexity of equipment such as aircraft, ships, missiles and tanks in operation. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OVERVIEW While the Department has provided robust funding in the Operation and maintenance accounts to maintain the combat readiness of U.S. forces, the Committee notes that there are critical funding shortfalls in the fiscal year 1998 budget request. Further, the Committee is concerned that these shortfalls may pose a serious near term risk to the capabilities of U.S. forces. These shortfalls are evident in a number of functions financed by the Operation and maintenance accounts including readiness related training, operating tempo programs, weapons system maintenance, and real property maintenance. To correct these deficiencies, the Committee recommends increased funding over the budget request in a number of areas including: Navy and Air Force flying hours, depot maintenance, real property maintenance, training rotations, force protection, and inclement weather gear and other initial issue equipment. The Committee also notes that there are areas in the Operation and maintenance accounts where substantial savings are achievable. Given the widely recognized need to modernize the equipment available to U.S. forces by increasing funding in the procurement, and research and development accounts, the Committee believes it is imperative that the Department use its Operation and maintenance funding as efficiently as possible. Therefore, the Committee recommends certain reductions based on recent DoD policy changes, particularly those emphasized in the Quadrennial Defense Review, and fact of life changes that have occurred since preparation of the budget request. The table summarizes the Committee's recommendations: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> real property maintenance The Committee has continuing concerns about the state of the facilities in DoD, and the effect that such facilities have on the quality of life of U.S. service personnel. The overview of the DoD Operation and maintenance accounts indicates that in fiscal year 1998, the backlog of real property maintenance and minor construction will total over $16,000,000,000. The overview also shows the backlog growing by over $1,600,000,000 from fiscal year 1997 to 1998. In order to arrest the growth in the backlog of RPM and address the shortfalls identified by the Services and the Reserve components, the Committee recommends an increase over the budget request of $924,840,000. Of this amount, the Committee directs that the Department obligate not less than $360,000,000 for the maintenance and repair of barracks, dormitories, and related facilities. flying hour shortfall In the letter transmitting the Quadrennial Defense Review, the Secretary of Defense highlighted a significant shortfall in the budget request associated with Navy and Air Force flying hours. The Committee understands that this shortfall stems primarily from significantly higher than anticipated failure rates for a number of critical parts. To ensure that an adequate supply of parts is available to support the operational and readiness training requirements of the Navy and Air Force, the Committee recommends an increase over the budget request totaling $622,000,000. The Committee also directs that the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the Air Force each provide a report to the congressional defense committees not later that December 1, 1997. In addition to providing the data provided pursuant to the issues raised in the report accompanying the fiscal year 1998 Defense Authorization bill, this report should identify the specific causes of this shortfall, the method used to estimate the cost of flying hours, the measures that will be taken to correct this situation in the fiscal year 1999 budget request and over the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), and any proposed measures that may be needed to improve the models used to estimate spare and repair parts usage and flying hour costs. readiness training The budget request for readiness related training in both the Army and the Marine Corps has significant shortfalls addressed by the Committee's recommendations. The Army budget request calls for units that are scheduled to conduct rotations at the National Training Center (NTC) to absorb the cost of such rotations. In the Committee's view this is a significant policy change that has the effect of reducing funding to maintain the readiness of the Army's combat units. To address this situation as well as shortfalls identified by the Marine Corps, the Committee recommends an increase totaling $99,013,000 above the budget request. In addition, the Committee directs that the Army fully fund rotations to the NTC in the fiscal year 1999 and subsequent years budget requests. DEPOT MAINTENANCE The Committee continues to have concerns about DoD practices for the funding of depot maintenance. For example, in the fiscal year 1998 budget request, the financial backlog of depot maintenance totals nearly $1,500,000,000, and grows by $180,000,000 from fiscal year 1997 to 1998. Further, the Services continue to routinely fund significantly less than the minimum amounts needed to meet depot maintenance requirements; for example, the Army budget request for fiscal year 1998 funds only 58 percent of required depot maintenance. To address these shortfalls, the Committee recommends an increase of $473,300,000 above the budget request. QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEW REDUCTIONS The Committee notes that the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) proposes reducing the civilian workforce by 80,000 personnel from fiscal year 1998 through 2003. The Committee also recognizes that, due to the timing of the completion and release of this study, the Department did not have an opportunity to incorporate the results into the fiscal year 1998 budget request. The Committee commends the Department for embarking on a serious effort to reduce the size of the DoD support infrastructure and accordingly recommends a net reduction of $307,273,000 from the budget request for the Services and Defense-Wide activities in anticipation of several QDR-related savings initiatives described in detail in subsequent portions of this report. The Committee also recommends a restructuring reserve, discussed elsewhere in this report, to ease the burden of reducing the size of the civilian workforce. HEADQUARTERS AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS In addition to the QDR initiatives discussed elsewhere in this report, the Committee notes that the Department of Defense continues to maintain an excessive administrative and headquarters infrastructure. Based on fiscal year 1998 budget justification materials, the Department reports that it maintains a headquarters and administrative staff totaling over 42,000 personnel and costing nearly $3 billion per year. The Committee also observes that the number of personnel assigned to administrative and headquarters activities is relatively constant compared to the overall 3.5 percent reduction proposed for DoD civilian personnel from fiscal year 1997 to 1998. To equalize the rate of reduction in the headquarters and administrative activities as compared to other activities in the Department, the Committee recommends a reduction of $149,443,000 from the budget request. INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS The Committee observes significant growth in the industrial preparedness subactivity in the Operation and maintenance accounts of the Army, Navy and Air Force. Based on the recommendations of the Quadrennial Defense Review to significantly reduce the infrastructure maintained by the Department of Defense, the growth in these subactivities appears to be out of step with the DoD strategy. Therefore, the Committee recommends a reduction of $52,602,000 from the budget request. CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS FUNDING The Committee notes the Department's decision to exclude operations in Southwest Asia from the ``Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund''. The Department realigned funding for these operations on the grounds that they have become part of the recurring base of DoD activity. While the Committee recognizes that U.S. operations in Southwest Asia do not have a definitive end date, the Committee believes that separately identifying the cost of such operations provides valuable insight into the amount budgeted to meet U.S. commitments. Therefore, the Committee has realigned the Operation and maintenance budget authority requested to support Southwest Asia, and placed these funds in the ``Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund''. The Committee directs that DoD budget for all future operations costs for Southwest Asia, and all other contingency operations in the ``Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund''. Further, the Committee directs that in all future budget requests, DoD shall support the request for all contingency operations by detailing the amount required in each appropriation account for each operation within each theater of operations. In addition, the Committee directs that in all future supplemental requests the Department provide detailed data on the incremental funding required for each appropriation account for each operation within each theater of operations. reprogramming in operation and maintenance accounts The Committee supports the concerns on the reprogramming of Operation and maintenance funds as expressed in the report accompanying the House-passed Defense Authorization bill for fiscal year 1998 (House Report 105-132). In particular, the Committee is concerned by the mounting volume of audit materials prepared by the General Accounting Office and other audit organizations which highlights the annual migration of Operation and maintenance funds from those budget activities and subactivities that have the most direct relationship to the readiness of U.S. forces to other accounts that are required to fund the support infrastructure. The Committee is also disturbed by the Department's inability to provide prior notification to the Committee, as required by the House report accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997 (House Report 104-208), on the movement of funds from the readiness related activity and subactivity groups. Therefore, the Committee supports the provision included in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill for fiscal year 1998 requiring DoD to follow customary reprogramming procedures for all Operation and maintenance subactivity groups, and directs that the Department comply with this provision. reporting on the execution of real property maintenance funding The Committee reiterates the recommendations contained in the report accompanying the Military Construction Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998 on the need to develop better information on DoD expenditures for major real property maintenance, and the relationship of these expenditures to major military construction projects. Therefore, the Committee directs that the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) provide a report to the Committee not later than April 30, 1998, detailing all proposed major RPM projects expected to exceed $10,000,000 to complete. budget justification and execution data The Committee continues to require detailed data in support of the Department's proposed Operation and maintenance budget such as the O-1 presentation of the Operation and maintenance budget, including the revisions to Budget Activity 1, Operating Forces, as reflected in the fiscal year 1998 budget request for the Army. However, the Committee also agrees with the observations of the House National Security Committee in the report accompanying the House-passed Defense Authorization bill that there are certain inconsistencies that should be remedied in upcoming budget submissions. In addition, the Committee directs the Department to continue the submission of O-1 budget execution data for each O-1 subactivity group. The Department shall provide such data to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 60 days of the end of each quarter of the fiscal year. purchases of foreign made goods The Committee has become aware of an apparent increase in the amount of foreign made goods acquired by the Department of Defense through small purchase procedures at bases throughout the U.S. Because the Department does not have in place a system to track such small purchases, the Committee directs the DoD Inspector General to conduct random audits of small-purchases at U.S. military bases to determine how often foreign made products are acquired through the use of small-purchase, local purchase, or micro-purchase procedures. The DoD Inspector General should report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations with its findings not later than April 30, 1998. environmentally safe fuel storage tanks The Committee is aware of the continuing problem of underground fuel storage tank leakage. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the Department of Defense proceed with the program for above-ground, environmentally-safe fuel storage tanks as described in the recommendations of the report accompanying the House-passed Defense Authorization bill for fiscal year 1998, and directs that $2,000,000 be made available for this purpose within funds available for both the Marine Corps and the Air Force. federal fire fighter pay The Committee is disturbed about the continuing lack of progress to resolve the question of pay inequities between the fire fighters employed by the federal government and their counterparts employed by states and localities. The large majority of the approximately 10,000 full-time federal fire fighters work for the Department of Defense protecting military installations. According to information supplied to the Committee, a typical municipal fire fighter earns 89 percent more per hour than a comparable federal fire fighter. The Committee understands that the Office of Personnel Management has undertaken staff studies of this issue substantiating the claim that there are inequities in the pay calculation and supporting the proposition that pay adjustments are warranted. Proposals to rectify this situation have not moved forward due, in part, to past opposition from the Department of Defense. The Committee believes these inequities hinder the federal government's ability to recruit and retain qualified fire fighters putting the safety of our service members and billions of dollars of investment at risk. The Department is directed to reevaluate its position on this issue with the primary goal of ensuring pay equity for these employees and preserving a high quality fire fighting force. The Department shall report to Congress no later than December 31, 1997 on the results of this evaluation which shall include recommended legislation to correct this situation. recruiting and advertising The Committee recognizes that the military's recruiting mission is becoming increasingly difficult and recommends an increase of $22,900,000 over the budget request to support the Department's efforts in recruiting and advertising. classified programs Adjustments to classified operation and maintenance programs are addressed in a classified annex accompanying this report. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $17,519,340,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 17,049,484,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 17,078,218,000 Change from budget request............................ 28,734,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $17,078,218,000 for Operation and maintenance, Army. The recommendation is a decrease of $441,122,000 below the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1997. low rate initial production (lrip) for abrams xxi The Committee supports the action taken by the House National Security Committee on this program in its recommendations for the fiscal year 1998 Defense Authorization bill. The Committee urges the Department to consider a plan for the refurbishment of M1A1 tanks under the Department of the Army's Abrams Integrated Management XXI (AIM XXI) program if the Secretary of Defense determines that the program is cost effective. In addition, if this program is successfully validated, the Committee expects the Army to include adequate funding in the fiscal year 1999 budget request. depot maintenance The Committee recommends increasing Army depot maintenance funding by $169,700,000 above the budget request. The Committee remains concerned about backlogs in the repair and maintenance of communications and electronic equipment. Accordingly, $53,000,000 of the total depot maintenance increase is allocated to the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command Battlefield Communications Review program, for performance at Army depots, of the following workloads: $25,000,000 for repair/maintenance of Mobile Subscriber Equipment shelters, prime movers, and accessories or support equipment; $20,000,000 for the repair/maintenance of Non-Integrated Communications Secure and Integrated Communications Secure SINCGARS radios and accessories or support equipment; and $8,000,000 for the repair, maintenance or modification of the AN/TS-85 and AN/TSC- 93 Tactical Satellite Communications Terminals, associated antenna systems, accessories or support equipment. national training center rotations As expressed elsewhere in this report, the Committee is troubled by the reduced level of funding requested by the Army in fiscal year 1998 for rotations at the National Training Center (NTC). In addition, the Committee is concerned that the Army's decision to reduce the number of annual troop rotations at the National Training Center from 12 to 10 could adversely affect readiness. The Committee will be closely monitoring this change for any adverse effects on the readiness of Army units. army logistics automation Information on this project can be found in the Information Resources Management section of this report. high risk automation systems Information on this project can be found in the Information Resources Management section of this report. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Army are shown below: Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:s of dollars] 250 Readiness Training--NTC Rotation Shortfall............ 60,213 250 Parachute Maintenance and Repair...................... 2,000 250 Flying Hour Efficiencies.............................. -17,000 650 Depot Maintenance--Other.............................. 111,000 650 Depot Maintenance--Communications and Electronics..... 53,000 650 Depot Maintenance--Aviation Depot Maintenance Plan Equipment............................................... 5,700 750 Organizational Clothing and Equipment (Increment I)... 20,000 750 Range Safe System..................................... 2,700 750 Ft. Irwin, George AFB Airhead......................... 1,300 950 Fort Gordon Center for Total Access (Telemedicine).... 5,400 Budget Activity 2: Mobilization: 1300 Industrial Preparedness--Nominal Growth.............. -19,004 Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting: 1500 Service Academies--Foreign Students.................. -1,400 2200 Recruiting and Advertising........................... 7,000 2350 Civilian Education and Training...................... -2,852 2400 Indian University Northwest JROTC Mentoring Program.. 750 Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: 2850 Central Logistics--SSTS, Depot Maintenance, SDT...... 22,000 2850 Army Logistics Automation............................ 11,200 3000 Headquarters and Administrative Activity Reduction... -48,001 3200 Eisenhower Center.................................... 2,000 3350 Laser Leveling....................................... 1,500 3350 FEMP................................................. -45,000 Other Adjustments: 3710 Classified Undistributed............................. -6,895 3715 Civilian Personnel Understrength..................... -33,300 3730 Foreign Currency Fluctuation......................... -19,000 3770 High Risk Automation Systems......................... -25,000 3785 Real Property Maintenance............................ 232,000 3790 TDY Expenses......................................... -19,930 3795 QDR--Civilian Personnel Reductions................... -140,347 3800 Contingency Operations Transfer--Southwest Asia...... -80,300 3815 Non-BRAC Caretaker Status............................ -51,000 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $20,061,961,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 21,508,130,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 21,779,365,000 Change from budget request............................ 271,235,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $21,779,365,000 for Operation and maintenance, Navy. The recommendation is an increase of $1,717,404,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1997. cnet distance learning The Committee directs that the Chief of Naval Education and Training (CNET), as the Navy's organization responsible for training technology, continue efforts that will lead to maximizing returns on technology investment in distance learning and computer mediated learning. This would include developing more efficient use of the Internet for training requirements, developing models for appropriate applications of training technologies and developing models to assess leadership training effectiveness. The Committee recommends adding $2,000,000 above the budget request for this effort. national oceanography partnership act The Committee encourages DoD efforts to implement the goals of the National Oceanography Act by addressing the backlog of military hydrographic survey requirements. Accordingly, the Committee directs that within available funds, the Navy apply $7,500,000 for additional ship-years as directed by the House report accompanying the House-passed Defense Authorization bill for fiscal year 1998. software program managers network Information on this project can be found in the Information Resources Management section of this report. high risk automation systems Information on this project can be found in the Information Resources Management section of this report. asbestos eradication The Committee is concerned about the environmental challenge associated with the disposal of large volumes of asbestos from the Navy's surface fleet and submarine inactivation programs. The Committee is aware of an asbestos disposal process that offers great potential for solving this current problem, a mineral conversion process that changes the asbestos to a stable non-hazardous mineral. This thermochemical conversion process has been tested on a variety of asbestos- containing materials from actual abatement sites with great success. A commercially viable transportable production system, capable of processing substantial amounts of asbestos per day has been demonstrated with the Department of Energy and approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. Accordingly, the Committee provides $2,000,000 only for the development of an asbestos thermochemical conversion pilot plant, to be used in conjunction with the ongoing submarine inactivation program at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. electrotechnologies The Committee recommends an increase of $5,500,000 in Environmental Compliance only for evaluating and demonstrating electrotechnologies and other environmental technologies at Naval Station Mayport as the East Coast demonstration base for the Navy Environmental Leadership Program. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Navy are shown below: Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:s of dollars] 4400 Flying Hour Program Shortfalls....................... 322,000 4600 Depot Maintenance--Aviation Backlog.................. 149,000 5000 Depot Maintenance--Unfunded Ship Availabilities...... 75,000 5550 Reverse Osmosis Desalinators--Refurbishment.......... 500 5950 Gun Weapon Overhaul and Support, Louisville.......... 15,900 5950 Ship Self Defense System (SSDS) Equipment--Wallops Island.................................................. 6,000 Budget Activity 2: Mobilization: 6650 Industrial Preparedness--Nominal Growth.............. -28,493 Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting: 6900 Service Academies--Foreign Students.................. -1,400 7100 Bancroft Hall Renovation Program..................... -31,500 7300 Naval Postgraduate School--Laboratory Improvements... 2,000 7300 Professional Development Education--Nominal Growth... -5,973 7350 CNET--Distance Learning.............................. 2,000 7550 Recruiting and Advertising........................... 7,000 7650 Civilian Education and Training...................... -1,022 Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: 8000 Defense Computer Investigations Training Program/ Computer Forensics Lab.................................. 8,500 8000 Headquarters and Administrative Activity Reduction... -47,580 8300 FEMP................................................. -25,000 8600 ATIS................................................. 4,000 Other Adjustments: 9360 Classified Undistributed............................. 1,902 9365 Software Program Managers Network.................... 6,000 9365 High Risk Automation Systems......................... -25,000 9390 Civilian Personnel Understrength..................... -108,300 9415 Electrotechnologies.................................. 5,500 9420 Other Contracts--Program Growth...................... -29,719 9425 Real Property Maintenance............................ 98,540 9430 TDY Expenses......................................... -12,060 9435 QDR--Civilian Personnel Reductions................... -34,960 9440 Asbestos Eradication................................. 2,000 9445 Contingency Operations Transfer--Southwest Asia...... -84,900 9450 Magic Lantern........................................ 1,300 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $2,254,119,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 2,301,345,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 2,598,032,000 Change from budget request............................ 296,687,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,598,032,000 for Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an increase of $343,913,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1997. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: 10050 Readiness Training--Operating Forces Training Support................................................. 38,800 10050 Initial Issue (Clothing/Body Armor/Bivouac gear).... 20,700 10150 Depot Maintenance Backlog Reduction................. 25,000 10200 Personnel Support Equipment......................... 25,400 10200 Base Support........................................ 10,000 Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting: 10700 Base Support........................................ 10,000 11050 Base Support........................................ 10,000 11200 Recruiting and Advertising.......................... 4,400 Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: 11800 Base Support........................................ 10,000 11800 FEMP................................................ -10,000 Other Adjustments: 11935 Real Property Maintenance........................... 154,100 11940 QDR--Civilian Personnel Reductions.................. -1,713 Environmentally Safe Fuel Storage Tanks............. (2,000) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $17,263,193,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 18,817,785,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 18,740,167,000 Change from budget request............................ -77,618,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $18,740,167,000 for Operation and maintenance, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of $1,476,974,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1997. INSTRUMENT ROUTES 102 AND 141 The Committee recognizes the need for Air Force low altitude training and strongly supports this requirement. The Committee urges the Air Force to give every consideration to public comments and community concerns in the impacted areas when utilizing Instrument Routes 102 and 141 for such training. The Air Force should report to the congressional defense committees by March 31, 1998 on possible alternative routes. air force manufacturing technology assistance pilot program The Air Force Manufacturing Technology Assistant Pilot Program (MTAPP) will strengthen and expand the service's manufacturing supplier base by improving the manufacturing skills and business practices of small to medium sized businesses, particularly those with an established non-defense background. Accordingly, the Committee supports the Air Force MTAPP program and recommends that the service allocate $2,000,000 of available funds for this program. misawa antennas The Committee directs the Air Force to allocate $300,000 of the additional infrastructure funding provided in this bill to the repair and maintenance of the antennas at the Misawa Cryptologic Operations Center. children's association for maximum potential The Committee recommends an increase of $500,000 above the budget request to support completion of the CAMP facility at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, and directs that this increase in funding be used only for the purpose of supporting this program. remis Information on this project can be found in the Information Resources Management section of this report. high risk automation systems Information on this project can be found in the Information Resources Management section of this report. air force institute of technology The Air Force proposes eliminating new student starts at the in-residence programs of the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) in fiscal year 1998. Although the Air Force proposal is explained for budgetary reasons, no comprehensive cost-benefit study has been undertaken recently. Therefore, the Committee includes a general provision (Section 8086) prohibiting the Air Force from sending to civilian institutions graduate students who would otherwise attend AFIT. The Committee further directs that the National Academy of Sciences do a complete cost-benefit analysis including the value of research done by faculty and graduate students, to be provided to the Committee not later than April 1, 1998. malmstrom air force base The Committee believes that the Air Force should maintain the airfield at Malmstrom AFB, Montana including the runways at the airfield. The existing runway and facilities at Malmstrom are in excellent condition and, for that reason, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has identified this site as a possible facility for future testing and program development. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Air Force are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: 12600 Flying Hour Program Shortfalls...................... 300,000 12600 Battle Labs......................................... 1,000 12850 Force Protection--Base Physical Security............ 12,100 12850 Force Protection--Air Base Ground Defense........... 5,800 12850 Force Protection--Antiterrorism..................... 5,300 12850 Force Protection--NBC Defense Program............... 3,100 12850 Force Protection--Contingency Operations............ 1,500 13100 SIMVAL.............................................. 2,800 13250 JFACC Situational Awareness System (JSAS)........... 3,000 Budget Activity 2: Mobilization: 13850 Depot Maintenance--KC-135 DPEM...................... 54,600 13950 Industrial Preparedness--Nominal Growth............. -5,105 Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting: 14300 Service Academies--Foreign Students................. -1,400 14700 Professional Development Education--Nominal Growth.. -20,466 14950 Recruiting and Advertising.......................... 4,500 15100 Civilian Education and Training..................... -2,351 Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: 15350 Supply Asset Tracking System (SATS at ACC Installations).......................................... 5,000 15500 FEMP................................................ -33,000 15650 Defense Computer Investigations Training Program/ Computer Forensics Lab.................................. 2,700 15650 Headquarters and Administrative Activity Reduction.. -53,862 15950 CAMP................................................ 500 16050 Civil Air Patrol.................................... 800 Other Adjustments: 16410 Classified Undistributed............................ 8,500 16415 Civilian Personnel Understrength.................... -70,000 16430 Foreign Currency Fluctuation........................ -10,000 16475 REMIS............................................... 8,900 16475 High Risk Automation Systems........................ -25,000 16490 Other Contracts--Program Growth..................... -93,981 16495 Chemical/Biological Defense--PACOM.................. 10,000 16500 Contingency Operations Transfer--Southwest Asia..... -459,900 16505 Real Property Maintenance........................... 358,200 16510 TDY Expenses........................................ -20,000 16515 QDR--Civilian Personnel Reductions.................. -76,253 Environmentally Safe Fuel Storage Tanks......... (2,000) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $10,044,200,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 10,390,938,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 10,066,956,000 Change from budget request............................ -323,982,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,066,956,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide. The recommendation is an increase of $22,756,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1997. jcs exercises In the Quadrennial Defense Review, DoD announced its plans to decrease the number of man-days required for joint exercises in fiscal year 1998 to 15 percent below the level of fiscal year 1996. Given the high demands of ongoing operations, this reduction is a prudent step to avoid overstressing the military forces required to perform these operations. The Committee supports this measure and recommends a reduction of $50,000,000 to the budget request, consistent with the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. special operations command The Committee recommends an increase of $43,100,000 above the budget request for the United States Special Operations Command. These additional funds will meet the unfunded requirements for counterproliferation, readiness and OPTEMPO. The Committee also recommends $3,300,000 within this amount only to outfit Special Operations Forces aircrews with Goretex- Nomex flight suits. within-grade increases In the budget request, the Defense Contract Audit Agency requested an increase to cover ``within-grade increases''. While individual employees are entitled to within-grade or ``step'' increases, for an agency those increases are usually offset by employees who are promoted and go back to step one, or retire at a high step and are replaced by new employees at step one. Thus the average ``step'' within an agency, like the average grade, should not be gradually increasing over time. The DCAA request is therefore unique among all DoD activities. The Committee denies this increase and reduces the DCAA budget request by $2,500,000 accordingly. defense finance and accounting service The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) is financed through the Defense Working Capital Fund (DWCF). The fund is designed to capture all the relevant costs to run DFAS and to reflect those costs in the prices that DFAS charges its customers. The Committee is concerned that the budget request proposes to shift out of the DWCF costs that are part of DFAS operating costs. DFAS developed, designed and fielded its Property Accountability System using resources from the DWCF. The Committee believes that any upgrade to this system should also be paid for out of the DWCF and reduces the request accordingly by $16,500,000. The Executive and Professional Training program primarily pays for the training of employees who are paid from the DWCF. While the Committee supports having a highly trained workforce, it believes that training is an inherent part of any organization's operating costs and thus should be paid for from within the DWCF. The Committee therefore reduces the request by $30,154,000. Finally, the budget requests $45,000,000 as the first increment of a $117,000,000 renovation project. The Committee notes that DoD and the General Services Administration have not yet reached the agreement that is necessary to begin this project. In addition, the budget proposes to pay for the renovation using appropriated funds even though the payback on this renovation will be directly to the DWCF. The Committee also notes the concern expressed in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill, which denied authorization for this request and noted that a renovation of this size is likely to be outside the scope of a standard maintenance and repair project and may need to be funded as a military construction project. As a result, the budget request is reduced by $45,000,000. defense human resources field activity To improve operating efficiency and reduce costs, DoD combined the former Defense Civilian Personnel Management Service with the Defense Manpower Data Center to form the Defense Human Resources Field Activity (DHRFA). The budget request for the new DHRFA is $138,935,000, the sum of the two activities' individual budgets. The Committee believes that the budget for the new organization should reflect at least some of the savings expected to result from the reorganization and thus recommends a reduction of $2,000,000. white house communications agency The budget requested $63,945,000 for the White House Communications Agency (WHCA), which is managed by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA). The Committee agrees to the realignment of $7,200,000 from Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide to Procurement, Defense-Wide as requested by the Director, DISA. After accounting for inflation, the shift of funds to procurement, and other program realignments, the requested funding for this activity still shows net growth of $4,910,000, only a portion of which WHCA has been able to adequately justify. The Committee therefore recommends a reduction of $8,200,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Defense- Wide and an increase of $7,200,000 in Procurement, Defense- Wide. automated document conversion Information on this project can be found in the Information Resources Management section of this report. improved cargo methods and technologies The Committee believes cost saving opportunities exist to integrate the latest private sector logistics research, transport technology, and security developments into the practices and procedures for moving military cargo around the United States and around the world. The bill includes $3,000,000 only to continue work initiated in fiscal year 1997 in conjunction with a not-for-profit foundation operating exclusively as a trucking research institute to: (1) continue the examination of private sector practices as they may relate to the transport of containerized ammunition, to include the development of multi-modal standards, and ammunition configuration requirements; (2) evaluate U.S. commercial third- party logistics providers to determine the most efficient public-private partnership structures to meet readiness requirements and to identify ways to streamline the third-party selection process by the Department; and (3) study the current cargo security environment in the context of national defense and assess the feasibility of implementing an efficient information partnership between motor carriers, the Department, and the law enforcement community to include development of a nation-wide cargo theft reporting system modeled after the real time database, Cargo Tips. dla--dwcf transfer Within the Defense Logistics Agency, the budget requests $42,900,000 to cover the cost of transferring certain programs from the Defense Working Capital Fund (DWCF) to Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide. A review of these programs indicates, however, that only those items related to hazardous waste handling are appropriate to transfer out of the DWCF. The Committee therefore recommends a reduction of $36,000,000. security locks The Committee recommends an addition to the budget request of $25,000,000 only for the Security Lock Retrofit program. The Committee understands that these funds are sufficient for DoD to meet all validated requirements for this upgrade. federal energy management program The Committee is concerned that the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) within the Department of Defense has been seriously eroded. Estimates show that only a fraction of the funds provided for this function were actually used to reduce energy use and costs. The Department of Defense is central to the government's efforts to reduce energy costs. Over 70 percent of the energy consumed by the Federal Government is used to heat, light, cool and operate Department of Defense facilities at a cost of nearly $3 billion a year. Energy efficiency improvements can save DoD almost $2 billion per year in utility bills and energy system maintenance operations. The Committee believes that the focus on energy efficiency should not be limited to FEMP projects, but should be a consideration in every maintenance and repair project. The Committee therefore provides $15,000,000 to the central FEMP account to assist DoD in reducing its energy costs. military personnel information system Information on this project can be found in the Information Resources Management section of this report. environmental restoration The United States government has recently completed an exchange of letters with the Canadian government regarding the return of several U.S. military facilities in Canada. Consistent with this agreement, the budget requests $10,200,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide for the first in a series of payments to cover the cost of environmental restoration at those sites. Since this expense deals with environmental restoration at what were mostly Air Force sites, the Committee believes that it is more appropriate to pay for it out of the Environmental Restoration, Air Force account. The Committee therefore recommends a reduction of $10,200,000 to Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide and has adjusted the general provision proposed in the budget request accordingly. osd commissions and studies The Committee is very disappointed to learn that special studies and commissions initiated by the Office of the Secretary of Defense are not subject to the same level of fiscal review as normal funding requests. Although this problem pre-dates the current DoD leadership, the Committee is concerned that this problem will continue absent senior management attention. The Committee therefore directs the Department to report no later than November 30, 1997 on the steps it is taking to correct this deficiency. travel reengineering The Travel Project Management Office (TPMO) was created in fiscal year 1997 to reengineer the DoD's temporary duty (TDY) travel process. Under the proposed reengineering concept all temporary duty travel functions are to be processed through a highly integrated management information system. While the Committee supports the reengineering effort, it is concerned that this project is moving ahead without taking the necessary steps, such as a formal cost effectiveness study. The Committee therefore recommends a reduction of $14,300,000 to the budget request to continue this effort, but at its fiscal year 1997 level. high risk automation systems Information on this project can be found in the Information Resources Management section of this report. quadrennial defense review--defense agency reductions In the Quadrennial Defense Review, the Department proposed reducing all defense agencies ``by 6 percent, as a down payment until a detailed follow-up review is completed by November 30, 1997''. The Committee supports this effort, currently being carried out by the Task Force on Defense Reform and includes a reduction to the budget request of $72,000,000 or two percent in fiscal year 1998 as an initial increment. The Committee recommendation specifically excludes the National Foreign Intelligence Program, Special Operations Command and the Department of Defense Dependents Schools from its calculation and directs the Department not to apply any of the $72,000,000 reduction to those activities. This does not prohibit the Task Force from including those organizations in its study. qdr restructuring reserve The Committee recognizes that there is an up-front cost to any major restructuring effort and therefore recommends an increase of $18,000,000 to the budget request to be used only for facilitating the downsizing of defense agencies and headquarters' activities pursuant to the findings of the Task Force on Defense Reform cited above. The Committee further directs that the Department provide 30 days prior notification to the Committee on any proposed use of these funds. use of re-refined oil The Committee notes that the statistics compiled by the Federal Environmental Executive, established by Executive Order 12873, shows that during fiscal years 1994 and 1995, the Department of Defense's re-refined oil purchases were only 1.5 percent of its total oil purchases for those years. The Committee notes that using re-refined oil conserves valuable natural resources, protects the environment and reduces U.S. dependence on imported fuels. The Committee therefore encourages the Department of Defense to increase its use of re- refined fuels to the maximum extent practical. nutrition The Committee believes that proper diet and nutrition play an important role in providing for a high quality of life in the military. In order to enhance our military's diet, the Committee requests the Department report on the potential benefits of increasing the quantity of beef, lamb and chevon meats in meals provided servicemembers. vint hill farms The Committee is concerned about the costs associated with building demolition and asbestos removal at Vint Hill Farms in Fauquier County, Virginia, an Army facility closing as a result of the 1993 Base Realignment and Closure Commission. It is estimated that 49 percent of the existing structures at Vint Hill Farms do not meet current standards and require remediation estimated at $30,000,000. The Committee urges in the strongest possible terms that the Department of Defense assist the community with said demolition and asbestos removal. Department of Defense Dependents Schools adjustments The Committee recommends a net increase of $4,000,000 over the budget request for the Department of Defense Dependents Schools (DoDDS). The Committee agreed to several adjustments based on the Committee's Survey and Investigative (S&I) staff's survey of the fiscal year 1998 budget request. The Committee recommends a reduction of $11,000,000 from the budget request for an error to the fiscal year 1997 baseline, which had the effect of increasing the fiscal year 1998 request by this amount. In addition, the Committee recommends a reduction of $10,000,000 for unliquidated balances. The S&I staff reported that there has been a trend in the increase of unused obligations from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 1997, even though the DoDDS school program has been relatively stable over the years. Finally, the Committee recommends an increase of $20,000,000 to be applied to the backlog of Real Property Maintenance. family counseling and crisis services In addition to the adjustments above, the Committee recommends an increase of $5,000,000 to the budget request in the Department of Defense Dependents Schools (DoDDS) account only for enhancements to Family Advocacy programs. The Committee directs the Department to use these additional funds for expansion of counseling and crisis services, treatment options and solutions for children of active duty members between the ages of 7-18 years who have emotional and behavioral problems. The Committee recommends that these services be provided by organizations accredited with commendation from the Joint Commission on Accreditation Health Care Organizations, and that have associated research centers and offer a full continuum of care. Social Work Fellowship Program The Committee urges the Department to fund predoctoral or postdoctoral fellowships for social work researchers to examine the process, outcome, and cost-effectiveness of military family advocacy programs, with particular attention to issues of family violence and child maltreatment. The Department of the Air Force's current postdoctoral initiative with the Department of Agriculture and the Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research is a model for this type of cooperative sponsorship program. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide are shown below: Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:s of dollars] 17050 JCS Exercises....................................... -50,000 17100 SOCOM............................................... 43,100 Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting: 17400 DAU--Continuing Acquisition Education............... -3,900 Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: 17800 Classified and Intelligence......................... -98,261 17900 DCAA--Within Grade Increases........................ -2,500 17950 DFAS--Property Accountability System................ -16,500 17950 DFAS--Executive and Professional Training........... -30,154 17950 DFAS--Facility Renovation........................... -45,000 18000 DHRFA--Operations................................... -2,000 18050 DISA--White House Communications Agency............. -8,200 18200 DLA--Automated Document Conversion.................. 30,000 18200 DLA--Security Locks................................. 25,000 18200 DLA--Procurement Technical Assistance Program....... 17,000 18200 DLA--DPSC Demolition................................ 15,000 18200 DLA--Cargo Methods and Technologies................. 3,000 18200 DLA--Blankets....................................... -2,400 18200 DLA--DWCF transfer.................................. -36,000 18500 DoDDS--Real Property Maintenance.................... 20,000 18500 DoDDS--Family Counseling and Crisis Services........ 5,000 18500 DoDDS--Unobligated Balances......................... -10,000 18500 DoDDS--Baseline Adjustment.......................... -11,000 18550 Federal Energy Management Program................... 15,000 18600 JCS--Travel and Administrative Costs................ -2,000 18650 Monterey Institute Counter-Proliferation Analysis... 9,000 18700 OSD--Military Personnel Information System.......... 5,000 18700 OSD--First Responder Training....................... 1,300 18700 OSD--C3I Mission and Analysis Fund.................. -10,000 18700 OSD--Environmental Restoration...................... -10,200 18700 OSD--Administrative Savings......................... -20,000 18700 OSD--Civil/Military Programs........................ -31,867 18800 OSIA--Treaty Requirements........................... -11,200 18900 WHS--Travel Reengineering........................... -14,300 Other Adjustments: 18970 Civilian Personnel Understrength.................... -33,900 18980 Impact Aid.......................................... 35,000 19010 High Risk Automation Systems........................ -15,000 19030 Pentagon Renovation Fund--Swing Space Costs......... -9,500 19045 Defense Automated Printing Service.................. -15,000 19065 Center for the Study of the Chinese Military........ 5,000 19085 Contingency Operations Transfer--Southwest Asia..... -9,500 19090 QDR Defense Agency Reductions....................... -72,000 19095 QDR Restructuring Reserve........................... 18,000 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY RESERVE Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $1,119,436,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 1,192,891,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 1,207,891,000 Change from budget request............................ +15,000,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,207,891,000 for Operation and maintenance, Army Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $88,455,000 above the $1,119,436,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1997. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Army Reserve are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: 19700 Maintenance of Real Property................ +5,000 19850 Training Operations, Ground OPTEMPO......... +10,000 commercial construction and material handling equipment The Committee understands that a large amount of the Commercial Construction and Material Handling Equipment inventory, such as motor graders and scrapers, for the Army Reserve is approaching the fifteen year service life threshold. The Committee is aware of the significant cost savings and readiness improvements that can be gained with the Extended Service Program of older items of equipment in the inventory, and urges the Army Reserve to continue the rebuild program. reserve units in central florida The Committee understands that once the Orlando Naval Training Center is closed that several Army, Navy and Marine Corps Reserve units residing on this base will have to be moved to other locations in Central Florida. The Committee directs the Department to report to the Committee, by March 1, 1998, detailing the individual Reserve units involved, and the possibility of constructing a joint complex. In addition, the report should provide details on the resulting cost savings to be achieved by co-locating units. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY RESERVE Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $886,027,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 834,711,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 924,711,000 Change from budget request............................ +90,000,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $924,711,000 for Operation and maintenance, Navy Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $38,684,000 above the $886,027,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1997. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Navy Reserve are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: 21200 Aircraft Depot Maintenance................. +10,000 Other Adjustments: 22760 NSIPS...................................... +43,500 22765 Contingency Operations Transfer--SWA....... -500 22770 Maintenance of Real Property............... +37,000 nsips Information on this project can be found in the Information Resources Management section of this report. navy reserve center in mansfield, ohio The Committee understands that the Navy Reserve has included funds in the fiscal year 1998 budget request for remediation activities at the former Naval Reserve Center in Mansfield, Ohio. The Committee directs the Navy to proceed with the site-cleanup of these vacant buildings during fiscal year 1998. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS RESERVE Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $109,667,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 110,366,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 119,266,000 Change from budget request............................ +8,900,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $119,266,000 for Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $9,599,000 above the $109,667,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1997. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: 23450 Training, M1A1 tank........................ +3,900 23500 Operating Forces, Initial Issue............ +5,000 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE RESERVE Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $1,496,553,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 1,624,420,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 1,635,250,000 Change from budget request............................ +10,830,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,635,250,000 for Operation and maintenance, Air Force Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $138,697,000 above the $1,496,553,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1997. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Air Force Reserve are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: 25050 Maintenance of Real Property............... +10,000 Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: 25510 WC-130 Weather Reconnaissance.............. +830 wc-130 weather reconnaissance mission The Committee continues to strongly believe that the weather reconnaissance mission is critical to the protection of Defense installations and the entire population living along the east and Gulf coasts of the United States. Section 8026 has been included which prohibits funds to reduce or disestablish the operation of the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron (Hurricane Hunters) of the Air Force Reserve if such action would reduce the Weather Reconnaissance mission below the levels funded in this Act. The level specifically funded in this Act is to support a stand alone squadron with dedicated 10 PAA aircraft, 20 line assigned aircrews, evenly divided between Air Reserve Technician (ART) and Reserve aircrews. The Committee directs the Air Force to provide a minimum of 3,000 flying hours to perform tropical cyclone and winter storm reconnaissance missions, aircrew training, counterdrug support, and airland missions in support of contingency operations during the non-hurricane season or slow periods during the season. The Committee insists that this important mission and flying hours be provided and funded in accordance with this direction. The Committee has also provided an additional $1,000,000 in the personnel and operation and maintenance accounts, and directs that these funds be used for additional manning for this squadron to meet maintenance shortfalls. The Committee directs the Air Force to submit future budget requests reflecting this year's direction. The Committee is aware that advancements in two pilot cockpit technology do not provide an adequate margin of safety in the unique and dangerous hurricane reconnaissance missions that range from tropical storms to category 5 hurricanes which have winds in excess of 200 miles per hour. The Committee is pleased that the Air Force agrees with user recommendations to include a fully equipped augmented crew station to be manned by a navigator in all WC-130J aircraft and directs that the final operational requirements document reflect this decision. march air reserve base The Committee understands that an agreement was recently signed between the Department of the Air Force and the March Joint Powers Authority to form a joint use airport. In addition, the community is discussing with the Air Force the possibility of making improvements to the existing navigational aids and construction of a commercial jet fuel project at this airport. The Committee directs the Air Force to report to the Committee by December 15, 1997, on the need and military necessity for the improved navigational aids and construction of a commercial jet fuel capability to March Air Reserve Base, the funding required, and whether these improvements are warranted in order to accommodate commercial aircraft at this airport. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $2,254,477,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 2,258,932,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 2,313,632,000 Change from budget request............................ +54,700,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,313,632,000 for Operation and maintenance, Army National Guard. The recommendation is an increase of $59,155,000 above the $2,254,477,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1997. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Army National Guard are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: 26250 Training Operations, Ground OPTEMPO........ +20,000 26250 Training Operations, Angel Gate Academy.... +4,200 26250 Training Operations, Laser Leveling........ +500 26400 Depot Maintenance.......................... +5,000 26500 Maintenance of Real Property............... +10,000 Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: 26910 Chemical/Biological Mission Studies........ +10,000 26915 Software Acquisition and Security Training. +5,000 domestic chemical/biological counter terrorism mission planning The Committee strongly supports the recommendations of the Secretary of Defense in the May 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review to assign the National Guard with the new role of countering chemical and biological terrorism in the United States. The Committee believes this mission is a natural complement to other current National Guard missions such as disaster assistance and counter-drugs which have given the Guard the ability to develop effective working relationships with state and local officials in the law enforcement, firefighting, and emergency medical communities. The National Guard is the ideal organization to transfer specialized military knowledge and expertise to the local domestic level according to long standing norms and practices in this country. The Committee expects this mission to be comprehensively and aggressively pursued. This will require a detailed planning effort to develop a comprehensive program that is fully coordinated and integrated with other relevant organizations within the Department of Defense, with other federal agencies, and with state and local authorities. In this respect, the Committee believes it is important that each state be given the opportunity and resources to develop detailed components of this plan relating to their own special circumstances under the overall guidance the National Guard Bureau. The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for detailed planning and concept studies that will assist the National Guard to: (1) define and clarify the National Guard mission compared to the roles of other federal/state and local authorities with similar responsibilities; (2) develop a capability to understand the threat; (3) train Guard personnel and state/local first responders; (4) evaluate and acquire new chemical/biological defense technology; and (5) develop appropriate response plans. Mission Definition. Currently, many federal, state, and local agencies have fragmented and sometimes overlapping responsibilities for different aspects of domestic emergency preparedness. Federal agencies with significant responsibilities range from FEMA, to HHS, to DOE, to the FBI. There are, of course, literally thousands of state and local law enforcement agencies, emergency medical departments, and fire departments with different levels of expertise and responsibility that play the primary role in responding to emergencies. A first critical stage for the National Guard will be to sort out its roles and responsibilities compared to all other relevant organizations in accordance with applicable law. Threat Assessment. Funds should be used to develop detailed plans to determine what information is routinely required to understand the threat posed by different terrorist groups that may operate in the U.S., the capabilities of different chemical and biological weapons they may come to possess, what vulnerability assessments on key local facilities such as subways should be conducted, and other key data. This effort should also catalog and identify who can provide key information on a routine and ongoing basis, how such information is to be collected and disseminated, and what new capabilities are required. Training. Funds should be used to devise a comprehensive, long term training regimen for appropriate Guard personnel, law enforcement personnel, firefighters, emergency medical personnel and other federal, state and local officials on all aspect of chemical/biological defense, including field training exercises. Rather than creating an entirely new training establishment for this mission, the Committee believes the existing National Guard training structure for the counter-drug mission in conjunction with enhanced use of the distance learning network would be cost effective and should be used to the maximum extent possible. This effort must also be fully coordinated with the plans and programs of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, the DoD Office of Emergency Preparedness, the Army Chemical and Biological Defense Command, and the Marine Corps' Chemical Biological Incident Response Force. Technology. Funds should be used to structure a continuing National Guard program for testing and evaluating chemical/ biological defense equipment that is available to the National Guard and to state and local authorities as well as to determine specific requirements for new technology. Response Plans. Funds should be used to assess the quality of existing chemical/biological incident response plans around the country, and devise a plan for identifying shortfalls and taking corrective action. This effort should include significant input from individual state authorities. The Committee expects this comprehensive effort to leverage existing federal assets, programs, and contract activities to the maximum extent feasible. The Committee believes there is a rich source of existing intelligence, research capability, facilities, and technology at the federal level that can be focused to meet this new mission requirement. The Army National Guard shall submit a report to the congressional defense committees no later than February 1, 1998 explaining in detail how these funds will be used, and setting detailed milestones for future planning and implementation of this mission. software acquisition and security training The Committee recommends an increase of $5,000,000 above the budget request only to use the Distance Learning Network to deliver standardized courseware to train and certify National Guard and Department of Defense personnel in the areas of software acquisition management and information security. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR NATIONAL GUARD Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $2,716,379,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 2,991,219,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 2,995,719,000 Change from budget request............................ +4,500,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,995,719,000 for Operation and maintenance, Air National Guard. The recommendation is an increase of $279,340,000 above the $2,716,379,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1997. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Air National Guard are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:.................. 27650 Aircraft Operations, 159th Fighter Group.... +1,500 27850 Depot Maintenance........................... +3,000 159th air national guard fighter group The Committee recommends an increase of $1,500,000 over the budget request in Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard, and directs that these funds be used for the operation of C-130H operational support aircraft of the 159th ANG Fighter Group. OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS TRANSFER FUND Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $1,140,157,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 1,467,500,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 1,855,400,000 Change from budget request............................ +387,900,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,855,400,000 for the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund. The recommendation is an increase of $715,243,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1997. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $6,797,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 6,952,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 6,952,000 Change from budget request............................ ................ The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,952,000 for the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The recommendation is an increase of $155,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $339,109,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 377,337,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 377,337,000 Change from budget request............................ ................ The Committee recommends an appropriation of $377,377,000 for Environmental Restoration, Army. The recommendation is an increase of $38,228,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1997. rocky mountain arsenal The Committee believes that priority should continue to be given to the implementation of the ten-year cleanup plan for the Rocky Mountain Arsenal property that has been agreed to by the Army, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the State of Colorado and the Shell Oil Company. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $287,788,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 277,500,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 277,500,000 Change from budget request............................ ................ The Committee recommends an appropriation of $277,500,000 for Environmental Restoration, Navy. The recommendation is a decrease of $10,288,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1997. naval air station bermuda In 1995, the U.S. Navy closed its air station on the island of Bermuda. A study commissioned by the Government of Bermuda conducted a comprehensive environmental assessment that found evidence of underground storage tanks that were leaking oil, a cave filled with abandoned industrial waste, lead and solvents in excessive of permissible levels and asbestos. The Committee notes that DoD policy directs DoD Components to take ``prompt action to remedy known imminent and substantial danger to human health and safety'' that is due to environmental contamination caused by DoD operations, even when dealing with DoD installations that have already been returned to a host nation. The Committee therefore directs the Secretary of the Navy to review the environmental study provided by the Government of Bermuda to determine any potential responsibilities and obligations and to provide to the Committee a report on this review not later than October 31, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $394,010,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 378,900,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 378,900,000 Change from budget request............................ ................ The Committee recommends an appropriation of $378,900,000 for Environmental Restoration, Air Force. The recommendation is a decrease of $15,110,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE-WIDE Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $36,722,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 27,900,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 27,900,000 Change from budget request............................ ................ The Committee recommends an appropriation of $27,900,000 for Environmental Restoration, Defense-wide. The recommendation is a decrease of $8,822,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, FORMERLY USED DEFENSE SITES Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $256,387,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 202,300,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 202,300,000 Change from budget request............................ ................ The Committee recommends an appropriation of $202,300,000 for Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites. The recommendation is a decrease of $54,087,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1997. NEWMARK The Committee understands that both the Environmental Protection Agency and the City of San Bernardino believe that the Newmark and Muscoy plume contamination in San Bernardino, California is a direct result of industrial waste from a World War II depot and maintenance facility (Camp Ono). Report language in the conference report accompanying the fiscal year 1997 DoD Appropriations Bill highlighted the urgency of this problem and requested prompt action by the Department of Defense. Because the Department has not adequately responded to last year's report language concerning this important issue, the Committee directs the DoD, within 90 days of enactment of this Act, to provide a report to the Committee which fully explains the Department's current and future plans relating to its role in the cleanup of the Newmark/Muscoy site. OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC AID Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $49,000,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 80,130,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 55,557,000 Change from budget request............................ -24,573,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $55,557,000 for Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid. The recommendation is an increase of $6,557,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1997. HUMANITARIAN DEMINING The budget requests $80,130,000 for Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid. This is an increase of $31,130,000 over the fiscal year 1997 levels. While the Committee believes an across the board increase of this scope is unwarranted, it does support the Department's increased efforts in Humanitarian Demining. The Committee therefore recommends a reduction of only $24,573,000. FORMER SOVIET UNION THREAT REDUCTION Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $327,900,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 382,200,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 284,700,000 Change from budget request............................ -97,500,000 The Department requested $382,200,000 for Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs. The Committee recommends $284,700,000, a reduction of $97,500,000, consistent with the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. The Committee recommends the following reductions: Weapons Storage Security.............................. -$12,500,000 Reactor Core Conversion............................... -41,000,000 Chemical Weapons Destruction.......................... -41,000,000 Defense and Military Contacts (Belarus)............... -1,000,000 Other Assessments..................................... -2,000,000 These reductions are due to: availability of prior year funds (Weapons Storage, -$12,500,000); lack of an implementing agreement (Reactor Core Conversion, -$41,000,000); lack of proper costing data, justification or site (Chemical Weapons Destruction, -$41,000,000); and, lack of certification (Defense and Military Contacts, -$1,000,000) and reduced administrative requirements (Other, -$2,000,000). In addition, the Committee also notes that current unobligated balances for CTR are in excess of $600,000,000. This slow execution rate has been a pattern throughout the history of this program. The Committee believes that the Department should pay closer attention to the management of these funds and therefore recommends that fiscal year 1998 CTR funds be available for obligation only for 3 years. QUALITY OF LIFE ENHANCEMENTS, DEFENSE Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $600,000,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 0 Committee recommendation.............................. 0 Change from budget request............................ 0 Budget request did not include, and the Committee recommends no funding for, Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense. The recommendation is a decrease of $600,000,000 below the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1997. As described elsewhere in this report, the Committee continues its vigorous support for improvements to the quality of life for Service personnel. The Committee has recommended an increase of $360,000,000 above the budget request (out of a total real property maintenance increase of $924,840,000 above the budget requet) for improvements to barracks, dormitories and related facilities. The Committee designates this increased funding as a special interest item, subject to prior approval reprogramming procedures discussed elsewhere in this report. TITLE III PROCUREMENT Estimates and Appropriation Summary The fiscal year 1998 Department of Defense procurement budget requests totals $41,585,178,000. The accompanying bill recommends $45,515,962,000. The total amount recommended is an increase of $3,930,784,000 above the fiscal year 1998 budget estimate and is $1,700,478,000 above the total provided in fiscal year 1997. The Committee recommendation includes $850,000,000 for National Guard and Reserve Equipment. The table below summarizes the budget estimates and the Committee's recommendations: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> reduced use of solvent adhesives With the enactment of the Pollution Prevention Act, Congress recognized that there are significant opportunities for industry to reduce or prevent pollution at the source through cost-effective changes in manufacturing production, operations, and raw material use. The Act states that source reduction is more desirable than waste management or pollution control. The Committee believes that there are many products procured by the military which can be manufactured with a substantial reduction of solvents used in the manufacturing process. In particular, many materials used in products must be joined together in the manufacturing process with multiple coats of solvent adhesives. The Committee urges the Defense Department to purchase products which are manufactured in a manner that minimizes the use of solvent adhesives during manufacturing because it reduces pollution at its source and is cost effective. alternative fueled vehicles The DoD requested authorization to procure 811 passenger vehicles in fiscal year 1998. The Committee approves the DoD request for passenger vehicles. Public Law 102-486 (Sec. 303) directs that of the total number of vehicles acquired in fiscal year 1998 by a federal fleet, at least 50 percent must be alternative fueled vehicles. The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to procure, within available funds, alternative fueled vehicles to comply with P.L 102-486 (Sec. 303). The alternative fueled vehicles are to include, but not be limited to, natural gas and electric vehicles. commander's tactical terminal/joint tactical terminal The Committee is aware that an ongoing contract protest is preventing the Services from procuring the Joint Tactical Terminal (JTT). The Committee understands how critical it is for commanders to have the capability to receive data and supports the Services in the procurement of the Commander's Tactical Terminal (CTT) to meet their immediate requirements. The Committee approves the budget request for CTT/JTT procurement with the understanding that the Services continue to use these funds and prior year funds to procure CTTs until the JTT contract is awarded. classified programs Adjustments to classified procurement programs are addressed in a classified annex accompanying this report. AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................$1,348,434,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request........................1,029,459,000 Committee recommendation...............................1,541,217,000 Change from budget request..............................+511,758,000 This appropriation finances the acquisition of tactical and utility airplanes and helicopters, including associated electronics, electronic warfare, and communications equipment and armament, modification of in-service aircraft; ground support equipment, components and parts such as spare engines, transmissions, gear boxes, and sensor equipment. It also funds related training devices such as combat flight simulators and production base support. Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request in accordance with House authorization action: [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Committee Change from Item Budget request recommended request ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Short range UAV................................................. 0 20,000 +20,000 C-12 Cargo Mods................................................. 613 6,613 +6,000 Aircraft Survivability Equipment................................ 905 15,705 +14,800 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed Wing guardrail common sensor The Army requested $3,388,000 for the Guardrail Common Sensor (GRCS). The Committee recommends $13,046,000 an increase of $9,658,000. Of this amount, $3,000,000 is to upgrade the Communication High Accuracy Airborne Location System (CHAALS) capability to the GRCS system in Korea; and $6,658,000 is to complete the fielding of the GRCS program embedded training requirement. Rotary Wing uh-60 blackhawk The Army requested $183,231,000 for UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters. The Committee recommends $309,231,000, an increase of $126,000,000. Of the increase, $64,000,000 is only to procure eight additional Blackhawk helicopters for the Army National Guard (ARNG), $56,000,000 is only to procure four Blackhawk derivatives (CH-60) for the Naval Reserve, and $6,000,000 is only for modification kits to configure three of the ARNG aircraft as enhanced medical evacuation models. The Army's budget submission to the Secretary of Defense did not include funding for Blackhawk production. The Office of the Secretary of Defense added funding to the Army budget for Blackhawks to maintain the current multi-year contract until the Navy begins procuring a Blackhawk variant in fiscal year 2000. In testimony to the Committee, the Army stated that it has satisfied the active Army's warfighting requirement for Blackhawks and has no plans to procure additional aircraft in the near future. In contrast, the ARNG has a pressing need to update its utility helicopter fleet. Therefore, the Committee directs that the 18 helicopters requested in the fiscal year 1998 budget request be provided only to the National Guard. The Committee notes that the Army has planned for 18 aircraft in fiscal year 1999 and directs that adequate funding for the multi-year contract be submitted with the fiscal year 1999 budget request. In fiscal year 1997, the Committee provided an additional 6 Blackhawk helicopters to the Army. The Committee directs that one of the 1997 aircraft is to replace the Blackhawk loaned to the Navy for the VERTERP Demonstration Program. kiowa warrior The Army requested $38,822,000 for Kiowa Warrior helicopters. The Committee recommends $213,822,000, an increase of $175,000,000. Of the increase, $151,700,000 is only for Kiowa Warrior production and $23,300,000 is only for safety enhancements. The Committee notes that fiscal year 1998 is the second year that the Army has not funded Kiowa Warrior safety modifications and has identified the item as an unfunded requirement. Given the importance of the safety modification program, the Committee directs the Army to provide sufficient funds in the fiscal year 1999 budget request. eh-60 quickfix modifications The Army requested $38,140,000 for the EH-60 Quickfix mods. The Committee recommends $44,640,000, an increase of $6,500,000 to procure Ground Based Common Sensor/AQF institutional training devices. ase modifications The Army requested $4,578,000 for ASE modifications. The Committee recommends $19,078,000, an increase of $14,500,000. Of the additional funds, $7,000,000 is only to procure and install AN/AVR-2A laser detecting sets and $7,500,000 is only for the Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasures/Common Missile Warning System for the Longbow Apache helicopter. Other Support Equipment training devices The Army requested no funds for training devices. The Committee recommends $9,300,000 only for improved flight simulators which include geographic specific data-bases. common ground equipment The Army requested $30,636,000 for common ground equipment. The Committee recommends $27,636,000, a decrease of $3,000,000 which was budgeted for the Air Traffic Navigation, Integration and Coordination System (ATNAVICS). Subsequent to the fiscal year 1998 budget submission, the Committee learned that the budget did not include funding to complete ATNAVICS testing. Therefore, the Committee has transferred funds not required for procurement to research and development. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $1,041,867,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 1,178,151,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 771,942,000 Change from budget request............................ -406,209,000 This appropriation finances the acquisition of surface-to- air, surface-to-surface, and anti-tank/assault missile systems. Also included are major components, modifications, targets, test equipment, and production base support. Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request in accordance with House authorization action. [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Committee Change from Item Budget request recommendation request ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stinger Mods.................................................... 12,411 21,711 +9,300 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Missiles patriot The Army requested $349,109,000 for Patriot. The Committee recommends transferring this amount to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization in the ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'' appropriation, as proposed in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. hellfire The Army requested $279,687,000 for procurement of Hellfire missiles. The Committee recommends $228,287,000, a decrease of $51,400,000. This decrease includes a GAO recommended reduction of $5,400,000 for unused prior year Hellfire II engineering change order (ECO) funding, a GAO recommended reduction of $38,300,000 to Longbow Hellfire for overstated missile requirements, and a reduction of $7,700,000 for tooling. With regard to Longbow missile quantities, a recent GAO audit report states, ``The Army used an outdated helicopter carrying capability of 16 missiles instead of the current 12, double counted missiles when figuring the residual readiness portion of the requirement, and used an unsubstantiated mix ratio between Longbow Hellfire and Hellfire II missiles. Correcting these mistakes would potentially reduce the current 12,722 missile requirement for Longbow Hellfire missiles by 7,145 missiles.'' The report goes on to identify limitations in Apache carriage that could lead to reductions of another 1,184 missiles. The DoD response did not dispute any of these GAO observations, but simply stated it will consider an updated acquisition strategy for the fiscal year 1999 budget. Given these circumstances, the Committee does not believe that the 50 percent ramp-up in production in fiscal year 1998 compared to fiscal year 1997 nor procurement of additional tooling in fiscal year 1998 is prudent until these requirement issues are resolved. mlrs rocket The Army requested $2,863,000 for MLRS Extended Range (MLRS-ER) rockets. The Committee recommends $14,863,000, an increase of $12,000,000. While preparing its fiscal year 1998 budget, the Army shifted funds from the MLRS-ER rockets line- item to the launcher line-item. At the time of submission of the budget, the Army hoped that foreign military sales (FMS) would be sufficient to maintain the rocket production line. However, the Army has since learned that FMS has not materialized as expected and therefore requires an additional $12,000,000 in the rockets line-item to maintain the production base. The Committee therefore recommends increasing MLRS rocket funding by $12,000,000 with an equal reduction to the MLRS launcher program. mlrs launcher systems The Army requested $102,649,000 for MLRS Launchers. The Committee recommends $105,649,000, a net increase of $3,000,000. The recommended adjustment includes a $12,000,000 decrease to finance MLRS rocket production as discussed above, and a $15,000,000 increase only for Vehicular Intercommunication System (VIS) upgrades to MLRS vehicles. bat The Army requested $85,208,000 for production of the BAT submunition. The Committee recommends $45,208,000, a decrease of $40,000,000 equating to a reduction of 165 BAT submunitions. The BAT submunition will be deployed on ATACMS Block II missiles which do not enter production until fiscal year 1999. The Committee believes that the quantity reduction can be accommodated with little impact to the fiscal year 1999 ATACMS Block II production program. Modification of Missiles patriot mods The budget requests $20,825,000 for modifications to the Patriot missile. The Committee recommends $30,825,000, an increase of $10,000,000 only for procurement of additional GEM +/- upgrades. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> PROCUREMENT OF WEAPONS AND TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES, ARMY Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $1,470,286,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 1,065,707,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 1,332,907,000 Change from budget request............................ +267,200,000 This appropriation finances the acquisition of tanks; personnel and cargo carriers; fighting vehicles; tracked recovery vehicles; self-propelled and towed howitzers; machine guns; mortars; modification of in-service equipment; initial spares; and production base support. Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request in accordance with House authorization action: [In thousands of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Budget Committee Change from Item request recommended request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Improved Recovery Vehicle........ 28,601 56,401 +27,800 Armor Machine Gun................ 0 20,000 +20,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracked Combat Vehicles bradley base sustainment The Army requested $125,591,000 for Bradley base sustainment. The Committee recommends $240,591,000, an increase of $115,000,000 only to modify Bradley AO variants to the ODS variant for the Army National Guard. field artillery ammunition support vehicle The Army requested no funds for the Field Artillery Ammunition Support Vehicle (FAASV). The Committee recommends $40,000,000 only to procure two battalion sets for the Army National Guard. Modification of Tracked Combat Vehicles carrier modifications The Army requested $20,244,000 for carrier modifications. The Committee recommends $28,644,000, an increase of $8,400,000 only to procure night vision driver viewers for the M113A3. howitzer, 155mm m109A6 (mod) The Army requested $18,706,000 for the modification of M109A6 howitzers. The Committee recommends $74,706,000, an increase of $56,000,000 only to modify two battalion sets of Paladins for the Army National Guard. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $1,127,149,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 890,902,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 1,062,802,000 Change from budget request............................ +171,900,000 This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, modification of in-service stock, and related production base support including the maintenance, expansion, and modernization of industrial facilities and equipment. Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request in accordance with House authorization action: [In thousands of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Budget Committee Change from Item request recommended request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CTG, 5.56MM, All types........... 63,588 65,988 +2,400 CTG 7.62MM, All types............ 1,136 7,136 +6,000 .50 Cal, All types............... 19,977 20,177 +200 120MM HE Mortar (M934)........... 29,908 38,908 +9,000 120MM Illum (XM930).............. 0 3,000 +3,000 120MM TP-T M831/831A1............ 52,226 62,026 +9,800 120MM TPCSDS-TM865............... 111,653 124,453 +12,800 Fuze, Multi-option............... 0 20,000 +20,000 Simulators (all types)........... 4,573 5,073 +500 Conventional ammo demil.......... 106,118 96,118 -10,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ammunition shortfalls The Committee has recommended an increase of $145,900,000 over the budget request to satisfy ammunition shortfalls identified by the Army. The Committee has recommended additional funds for the following items: [In thousands of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Budget Committee Change from Item request recommended request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CTG, 5.56MM, All types........... 63,588 65,988 +2,400 .50 Cal, All types............... 19,977 20,177 +200 120MM HE Mortar (M934)........... 29,908 38,908 +9,000 120MM TP-T M831/831A1............ 52,226 62,026 +9,800 120MM TPCSDS-T M865.............. 111,653 124,453 +12,800 155MM HE M795.................... 0 55,000 +55,000 Fuze, Multi-option............... 0 20,000 +20,000 Rocket, Hydra (all types)........ 12,067 48,267 +36,200 Simulators (all types)........... 4,573 5,073 +500 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mortar Ammunition 120mm full range practice (m931) The Army requested $24,432,000 for 120MM full range practice (M931) mortar ammunition. The Committee recommends $34,432,000, an increase of $10,000,000 only to procure M931 rounds. Tank Ammunition 120mm heat-mp-t m830a1 The Army requested no funds for CTG 120MM HEAT M830A1 ammunition. The Committee recommends $10,000,000. Of the increase, $1,800,000 is only for the modification of the existing M830A1 tank ammunition to the XM908 configuration and $8,200,000 is only to procure new M830A1 tank rounds to replace the rounds which are modified. The Committee has learned that the XM908 may satisfy an Army requirement to rapidly demolish concrete obstacles and structures, especially in Korea. The Committee directs that none of the funds appropriated for the XM908 may be obligated until the Army develops a formal requirements document for XM908 ammunition. Artillery Ammunition 105mm dpicm xm915 The Army requested no funds for 105MM DPICM artillery ammunition. The Committee recommends $20,000,000 only to procure DPICM ammunition. Rockets bunker defeating munition The Army requested no funds for the Bunker Defeating Munition (BDM). The Committee recommends $8,000,000 only to continue the procurement of BDM. Ammunition Production Base Support provision of industrial facilities The Army requested $45,857,000 for the provision of industrial base facilities. The Committee recommends $24,857,000, a decrease of $21,000,000. The Committee continues to believe that maintaining the unique capabilities of the ammunition industrial base is vital to ensure that future ammunition requirements are satisfied. However, historical data indicates slow obligation and execution rates for funds appropriated in this account. Army accounting records show significant amounts of fiscal year 1995, 1996, and 1997 unobligated funds. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the budget request be reduced. Of the available funds, $3,000,000 is only for the large caliber deep drawn cartridge case program. The Committee directs that the Army provide adequate funding for this effort in future budget submissions. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $3,172,485,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 2,455,030,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 2,502,886,000 Change from budget request............................ +47,856,000 This appropriation finances the acquisition of: (a) tactical and commercial vehicles, including trucks, semi- trailers, and trailers of all types to provide mobility and utility support to field forces and the worldwide logistical system; (b) communications and electronics equipment of all types to provide fixed, semi-fixed, and mobile strategic and tactical communications equipment; and (c) other support equipment, such as chemical defensive equipment, tactical bridging, shop sets, and construction equipment, floating and rail equipment, generators and power units, material handling equipment, medical support equipment, special equipment for user testing, and non-system training devices. In each of these activities funds are also included for modifications of in- service equipment, investment spares and repair parts, and production base support. Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request in accordance with House authorization action: [In thousands of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Budget Committee Change from Item request recommended request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ HMMWV............................ 66,233 104,933 +38,700 Items less than $2.0M (TIARA).... 0 2,800 +2,800 Training Devices, Nonsystem...... 49,688 53,688 +4,000 Depot Maintenance of Other End Items........................... 24,819 0 -24,819 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tactical and Support Vehicles semi-trailer, container transporter The Army requested $9,361,000 for the procurement of semi- trailer container transporters. The Committee recommends no funding. Since, the Army will not complete the testing of the semi-trailers until December 1998 and will not initiate full procurement until fiscal year 1999, the Committee believes the fiscal year 1998 budget request should be denied. semi-trailer, tank, 5000 gallon The Army requested $7,581,000 for the procurement of 5000 gallon tank semi-trailers. The Committee recommends $3,000,000, a decrease of $4,581,000. The Committee has learned that the program has been delayed and testing will not be completed until December 1998. Full scale production is scheduled for fiscal year 1999. The Committee believes that the remaining funds are adequate to procure test articles and associated engineering support services. semi-trailer, tank 7500 gallon The Army requested $10,408,000 for the procurement of 7500 gallon tank semi-trailers. The Committee recommends $2,000,000, a reduction of $8,408,000. The Committee has learned that the program has been delayed and full scale production is scheduled for fiscal year 1999. The Committee believes the remaining funds are sufficient to procure test articles and engineering support services. family of medium tactical vehicles The Army requested $209,446,000 for the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV). The Committee recommends the requested amount. The Army has approved a dual source strategy for FMTV. The Army believes that developing a second production source for FMTV's will yield significant savings and expects to award a competitive contract in fiscal year 2000. Since the current contract will expire in 1998 and the competitive contract will not be awarded until 2000, the Committee understands that the Army may achieve savings in fiscal years 1998 and 1999 through a multi-year contract for FMTV. Therefore, in section 8008 of the General Provisions, the Committee has provided the necessary authority for a two-year multi-year contract. However, the Army may not enter into a multi-year contract without prior approval from the congressional defense committees. The Committee expects that the multi-year proposal will be supported with the standard multi-year justification materials. Furthermore, the Committee directs the award of a multi-year contract is to have no impact on the current FMTV competition strategy. family of heavy tactical vehicles The Army requested $9,071,000 for the Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles. The Committee recommends $87,071,000, an increase of $78,000,000. Of the increase, $45,000,000 is only to procure Heavy Equipment Transporters and $33,000,000 is only to procure Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Trucks. armored security vehicles The Army requested $9,470,000 for armored security vehicles. The Committee recommends $10,970,000, an increase of $1,500,000 only to procure Vehicular Intercommunications Systems for the armored security vehicle fleet. truck, tractor, line haul The Army requested $36,079,000 to procure line haul tractor trailers. The Committee recommends no funds. The line haul trailers will be used to pull 7500 gallon tank semi-trailers. Since the trailer program has been delayed until fiscal year 1999, the Committee believes the budget request should be denied. self-loading/off-loading trailer The Committee understands that the Army is finalizing the operational requirements document for single operator trailer equipment. The Committee encourages the Army to consider commercially available technologies to satisfy this tactical trailer requirement. Communications--Satellite Communications defense satellite communications system The Army requested $87,643,000 for defense satellite communications systems. The Committee recommends $83,143,000, a reduction of $4,500,000. The budget request includes funds to accelerate the production of the universal modem system. However, the required testing for the system will not be completed until late 1999. The recommended funding will maintain the current rate of production. satellite terminals, emut The Army requested $7,264,000 for Enhanced Manpack UHF Terminal programs (EMUT). The Committee recommends $6,064,000, a decrease of $1,200,000. As a result of a combined Army and Air Force procurement, contract savings were achieved for the EMUT in fiscal year 1997. Therefore, the Committee believes the savings in fiscal year 1997 can be used to offset the fiscal year 1998 budget request. navstar global positioning system The Army requested $6,796,000 for the NAVSTAR global positioning system. The Committee recommends $5,596,000, a decrease of $1,200,000. The Committee understands that both quantity and price budgeted for miniaturized airborne global positioning system receivers were reduced in fiscal year 1997. Additionally, reductions in program management have also resulted in program savings. scamp The Army requested $4,305,000 to procure Single Channel Anti-jam manportable (SCAMP) terminals. The Committee recommends $10,405,000, an increase of $6,100,000 only to procure new SCAMP terminals. global broadcast service The Army requested $4,967,000 to procure global broadcast service ground receive terminals. The Committee recommends no funding. Subsequent to the budget submission, the Army decided not to procure the terminals, but instead will use Air Force terminals. Communications--Combat Communications army data distribution system The Army requested $57,165,000 for the Army Data Distribution System. The Committee recommends $57,065,000, a decrease of $100,000. This includes an increase of $20,000,000 only for the Enhanced Position Locating and Report System and a decrease of $20,100,000 for the Joint Tactical Information System (JTIDS). The Committee recommends transfering JTIDS funds to the Ballistic Missile Defense Office under the Procurement, Defense-wide appropriation. sincgars family The Army requested $290,164,000 for the SINCGARS family. The Committee recommends $302,164,000, an increase of $12,000,000 only for Frequency Hopping Multiplexers. combat survivor evader locator The Army requested $5,677,000 for the procurement of combat survivor evader locator systems. The Committee recommends no funding. Since the combat survivor evader system development program has been delayed until the end of fiscal year 1998, the procurement funding can be delayed. Electronic Equipment all source analysis system The Army requested $7,772,000 for the All Source Analysis System. The Committee recommends $26,959,000, an increase of $19,187,000. Of this amount, $13,500,000 is only to procure ASAS Remote Workstation (RWS) and $5,687,000 is to procure the CI/HUMINT Automated Tool Set (CHATS) for Echelons Corps and Below units. iew--ground based common sensors The Army requested $26,817,000 for IEW-Ground Based Common Sensor. The Committee denies this request because of the Army's decision to reschedule the IOT&E for this program. Electronic Equipment--Electronic Warfare shortshop The Army requested no funds for Shortstop Electronic Protection System (SEPS). The Committee recommends $6,000,000 to procure Shortstop SEPS so that deployed forces have adequate protection for artillery, mortar and rocket attacks. sentinel The Army requested $41,014,000 for Sentinel. The Committee recommends $51,014,000, an increase of $10,000,000 only to procure additional Sentinel systems. night vision devices The Army requested $85,312,000 for night vision devices. The Committee recommends $99,712,000, an increase of $14,400,000. Of the increase, $3,000,000 is only for light weight video reconnaissance systems and $11,400,000 to only for AN/PAS-13 thermal weapons sights. Electronic Equipment--Tactical C2 Systems maneuver control system The Army requested $15,669,000 for Maneuver Control System (MCS) hardware. The Committee recommends no funding. The MCS software program which has been in development since the 1980's, was restructured in fiscal year 1993. MCS software Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) initially scheduled for November 1995 has slipped three times and is currently scheduled for March 1998. According to the GAO, MCS failed two of four Developmental Operational Test and Evaluation operational issues. Furthermore, a System Confidence Demonstration (SCD), a post-SCD, and a post-post SCD, demonstrated that the software was not ready for IOT&E. The Army requested that it be allowed to procure training base computers for MCS prior to Milestone III. Since the MCS system has yet to pass an operational test, the Committee does not believe that the Army has a critical need to acquire training base computers prior to a Milestone III decision. standard integrated command post system The Army requested $26,551,000 for standard integrated command post systems. The Committee recommends $36,551,000, an increase of $10,000,000 only to add vehicular intercommunications systems (AN/VIC3) to standard integrated command post vehicles. Electronic Equipment--Automation automated data processing equipment Information on this project can be found in the Information Resources Management section of this report. reserve component automation system The Army requested $114,323,000 for the Reserve Component Automation System. The Committee supports this request and recommends the full $114,323,000 only for this program. Electronic Equipment--Test Measurement Equipment integrated family of test equipment The Army requested no funds for the Integrated Family of Test Equipment (IFTE). The Committee recommends $29,000,000 only for IFTE procurement. Maintenance Equipment items less than $2.0 million The Army requested $1,167,000 for items less than $2.0 million (maintenance equipment). The Committee recommends $5,167,000, an increase of $4,000,000 only for laser leveling devices. Rail Float Containerization Equipment railway car, flat, 100 ton The Army requested $17,755,000 for 100 ton, flat railway cars. The Committee recommends no funding. Subsequent to the budget submission, the Committee learned that the Army procured 300 used railway cars in fiscal year 1997. Since the fiscal year 1997 buy satisfies the Army's plan to procure railway cars in fiscal year 1997 and 1998, the Committee believes that the fiscal year 1998 request is unnecessary. Training Equipment simnet/close combat tactical trainer The Army requested $92,968,000 for the Simnet/Close Combat Tactical Trainer (CCTT). The Committee recommends no funding. Since the submission of the budget request, the Army has made significant schedule changes to the CCTT acquisition plan. Software stability problems have delayed the program by almost one year. CCTT operational testing will begin in 1998 and a Milestone III decision to proceed to full-scale production will not be made until fiscal year 1999. The Committee's Survey's and Investigations staff has learned that the Army needs 48 simulators to conduct required testing. To date, the Army has purchased 110 simulators. Since the Army has sufficient simulators for testing and full-rate production will not begin until 1999, the Committee denies procurement funding. However, the Committee recommends additional funds in research and development for required testing which was not included in the budget request. tactical facsimile system The Committee has learned that the Army is replacing aging facsimile machines. The fielded facsimile machines provide poor image quality and experience reliability and maintenance problems because of their age. The Committee encourages the Army to procure TS-21 Blackjack facsimile systems to meet Army requirements for interoperability, speed of transmission, and transportability. gun laying positioning system The Army requested no funds for the Gun Laying Positioning System (GLPS). The Committee recommends $6,000,000 only for GLPS. Additional details are provided under the heading ``Force XXI Initiatives.'' radio frequency technology The Army requested no funds for the Radio Frequency Technology. The Committee recommends $2,900,000 only for Radio Frequency Technology. Additional details are provided under the heading ``Force XXI Initiatives.'' lightweight laser designator/range finder The Army requested no funds for Lightweight Laser Designator/Range Finder. The Committee recommends $2,800,000 only for the lightweight laser designator/range finder. Additional details are provided under the heading ``Force XXI Initiatives.'' combat synthetic training assessment range The Army requested no funds for Combat Synthetic Training Assessment Range. The Committee recommends $5,400,000 only for the Combat Synthetic Training Assessment Range. Additional details are provided under the heading ``Force XXI Initiatives.'' airborne command and control system The Army requested no funds for Airborne Command and Control System. The Committee recommends $11,100,000 only for the Airborne Command and Control System. Additional details are provided under the heading ``Force XXI Initiatives.'' avenger slew to cue The Army requested no funds for Avenger Slew to Cue System. The Committee recommends $7,400,000 only for Avenger Slew to Cue. Additional details are provided under the heading ``Force XXI Initiatives.'' palletized loading system enhanced The Army requested no funds for Palletized Loading System Enhanced. The Committee recommends $3,000,000 only for Palletized Loading System Enhanced. Additional details are provided under the heading ``Force XXI Initiatives.'' Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following programs in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $7,027,010,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 6,085,965,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 5,951,965,000 Change from budget request............................ +801,500,000 This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of aircraft and related support equipment and programs; flight simulators; equipment to modify in-service aircraft to extend their service life, eliminate safety hazards, and improve their operational effectiveness; and spares and ground support equipment for all end items procured by this appropriation. Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with House authorization action: [In thousands of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Budget Committee Change from request recommendation request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ AV-8B......................... 277,648 310,648 +33,000 V-22.......................... 472,007 661,307 +189,300 E-2C.......................... 236,474 304,474 +68,000 KC-130J....................... 0 179,700 +179,700 Common ground equipment....... 287,114 274,114 -13,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Combat Aircraft F/A-18E/F Hornet The Navy requested $2,101,100,000 to procure 20 F/A-18E/F Hornet aircraft. The Committee recommends providing the amount requested. The Navy has invested $4,982,000,000 in development and $2,408,000,000 to produce F/A-18E/F aircraft through fiscal year 1997. The F/A-18E/F offers significant warfighting improvements for Naval aviation which will be used for decades: the F/A-18E/F can fly 40 percent farther, remain on station 80 percent longer, carry more weapons, and is more lethal and survivable than current generation F/A-18C/D aircraft which have no room for modern avionics upgrades. Aircraft weight remains well below the specification weight requirement, even with all known potential increases considered. With funds appropriated by Congress in prior years, production of the F/A- 18E/F is well underway. The program is considered to be a model acquisition and it was recently endorsed in the Quadrennial Defense Review. The Secretary of Defense recently informed the defense committees that the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet program is a cornerstone of the Defense Department's tactical air modernization program. Recent General Accounting Office reports on the F/A-18E/F have raised valid points about potential cost savings from buying older generation F/A-18C/D model aircraft rather than the new model, but they have not disclosed a single major significant cost or technical difficulty. For these many reasons, the Committee endorses the need to increase F/A-18E/F production in fiscal year 1998 because of the need to attain lower per unit costs through efficient high-rate production, but more importantly, to field vital warfighting capability to the fleet as soon as possible. Modification of Aircraft ea-6 Series The Navy requested $86,783,000 for EA-6B modifications. The Committee recommends $169,783,000, an increase of $83,000,000. Within this amount, $50,000,000 is for wing center sections, $18,000,000 is for turbine blade containment upgrades, and $15,000,000 is for USQ-113 communications jammers. h-1 series The Navy requested $18,489,000 for H-1 series modifications. The Committee recommends $16,389,000, a decrease of $2,100,000. This amount includes an increase of $3,500,000 only for UH-1 internal rescue hoists and a transfer of $5,600,000 to research and development for UH-1 upgrades (PE 0604245N). P-3 series The Navy requested $164,907,000 for P-3 modifications. The Committee recommends $293,907,000, an increase of $129,000,000. Within this amount, $56,600,000 is for the anti-surface warfare improvement program, $35,100,000 is for the sustained readiness program, $18,500,000 is only to modify AIP processors with specific emitter identification capability, $12,800,000 is only for the replacement data storage system, and $6,000,000 is only for the lightweight environmentally sealed parachute assembly. e-2 series The Navy requested $49,073,000 for E-2 modifications. The Committee recommends $50,673,000, an increase of $1,600,000 only for the oil debris detection and burnoff system. The increased funds may also be used for C-2 and P-3 aircraft. common avionics changes The Navy requested $131,599,000 for common avionics changes. The Committee recommends $130,599,000, a decrease of $1,000,000. This includes a decrease of $10,000,000 recommended in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill and an increase of $9,000,000 only for the AN/AWW-13 guided weapon control monitor set. Aircraft Support Equipment and Facilities common ground equipment The Navy requested $287,114,000 for common ground equipment. The Committee recommends $274,114,000, a decrease of $13,000,000 as recommended in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. Within the total amount provided, $1,000,000 is only to support the establishment and implementation of computer based training programs for naval air reserve aircrews. Program Recommended The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $1,389,913,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 1,136,293,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 1,175,393,000 Change from budget request............................ +39,100,000 This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of strategic and tactical missiles, target drones, torpedoes, guns, associated support equipment, and modification of in- service missiles, torpedoes, and guns. Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request in accordance with House authorization action. [In thousands of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Budget Committee Change from Item request recommendation request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ JSOW.......................... 58,665 68,665 +10,000 Hellfire...................... 0 37,500 +37,500 Standard missile.............. 35,601 68,601 +33,000 Weapons industrial facilities. 34,932 25,932 -9,000 CIWS MODS (surface mode)...... 9,990 29,990 +20,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ballistic Missiles trident advance procurement The Navy requested $47,021,000 for advance procurement of long lead items for fiscal year 1999 Trident II missiles. The Committee recommends $32,021,000, a decrease of $15,000,000. The Committee notes that over $19,000,000 of fiscal year 1996 Trident II long lead funding has not been obligated based on DOD accounting reports.In fiscal year 1997, $26,456,000 remains unobligated. Further, Navy budget documentation indicates that fiscal year 1998 long lead funding for the airframe and motor will not be obligated until fiscal year 1999. Since funding is being requested ahead of need, the Committee recommends a reduction of $15,000,000 to the Trident II advanced procurement request. Other Missiles essm The Navy requested $15,529,000 for the Evolved Seasparrow Missile (ESSM) program. The Committee recommends $5,529,000, a reduction of $10,000,000. The ESSM program begins low rate production in fiscal year 1999 with 87 missiles, including foreign military sales. Though the tooling procured in the research and development program supports procurement rates of up to 180 missiles per year, the Navy's fiscal year 1998 budget nevertheless requests funding for full rate production tooling one year prior to approval of low rate production and two years prior to approval for full rate production. The Committee believes that such a request is premature, and therefore recommends a reduction of $10,000,000. standard missile The Navy requested $196,492,000 for Standard Missile. The Committee recommends $181,092,000, a decrease of $15,400,000. The funds for the Navy Lower Tier program have been transferred to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, in the ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'' appropriation as proposed in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. aerial targets The Navy requested $72,923,000 for aerial targets. The Committee recommends $65,923,000, a decrease of $7,000,000 due to reduced requirements. Spares and Repair Parts The Navy requested $26,943,000 for spares and repair parts. The Committee recommends $21,943,000, a reduction of $5,000,000 based on large unobligated balances in fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $289,695,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 336,797,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 423,797,000 Change from budget request............................ +87,000,000 This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, ammunition modernization and ammunition related materiel for the Navy and Marine Corps. Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request in accordance with House authorization action: [In thousands of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Change Item Budget Committee from request recommended request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5.56MM, All types.................. 33,000 36,000 +3,000 CTG 7.62MM, All types.............. 2,900 8,900 +6,000 Fuze, ET, XM762.................... 0 7,000 +7,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ammunition shortfalls The Committee has recommended an additional $30,000,000 to satisfy ammunition shortfalls identified by the Marine Corps. The Committee has recommended additional funds for the following items: [In thousands of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Change Item Budget Committee from request recommended request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5.56MM, All types.................. 33,000 36,000 +3,000 Linear charges, all types.......... 2,290 17,290 +15,000 40MM, All types.................... 5,701 10,701 +5,000 Fuze, ET, XM762.................... 0 7,000 +7,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Navy Ammunition practice bombs The Navy requested $41,766,000 for practice bombs. The Committee recommends $56,766,000, an increase of $15,000,000 only to procure laser guided training rounds. 5 inch/54 gun ammunition The Navy requested $27,669,000 for 5 inch/54 gun ammunition. The Committee recommends $60,169,000, an increase of $32,500,000 only to procure DPICM ammunition. 20MM pgu-28 The Navy requested no funds for 20MM PGU-28 ammunition. The Committee recommends $3,500,000 only to procure 20MM PGU-28 ammunition. Program Recommended The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $5,613,665,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 7,438,158,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 7,628,158,000 Change from budget request............................ +190,000,000 This appropriation provides funds for the construction of new ships and the purchase and conversion of existing ships, including hull, mechanical, and electrical equipment, electronics, guns, torpedo and missile launching systems, and communications systems. Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with House authorization action: [In thousands of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Change Budget Committee from Request Recommendation Request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ LPD-17.......................... 0 185,000 +185,000 Outfitting...................... 28,140 21,140 -7,000 Post Delivery................... 90,177 81,177 -9,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Other Warships cvn refueling overhauls The Navy requested $1,615,003,000 for a complex refueling overhaul of the U.S.S. Nimitz (CVN-68). The Committee is disappointed that the Navy has elected to overhaul the Nimitz-- the first ship of its class--without cooperative engagement, integrated ship self defense, the advanced combat direction system, the rolling airframe missile, the SPQ-9 navigation radar, a common high-band data link, the battlegroup passive horizon extension system, an outboard weapons elevator, conversion of nuclear magazines, emergency ordnance handling, and improved propellers. At the same time the Navy proposes to delete these essential warfighting improvements from a front line combat ship, ostensibly due to lack of funds, it has proposed a ``business-as-usual'' R&D budget with growth in basic research, advanced technology demonstrations, and other programs less relevant to near-term warfighting requirements. The Committee questions these priorities and whether the Theater CINCs agree with them. The Committee urges the leadership of the Navy to reconsider these priorities as it executes the fiscal year 1998 budget, and to request through the reprogramming process sufficient funds to ensure that the Nimitz is returned to duty with the best warfighting improvements available, rather than with holes where modern equipment is supposed to go. The Committee recommends $1,628,403,000, an increase of $13,400,000. This includes a decrease of $5,600,000 as recommended in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill due to cancellation of the requirement for CIWS guns and an increase of $20,000,000 only for installation of the ship self defense system. cvn refueling overhauls--advance procurement The Navy requested $92,855,000 for advance procurement for the overhaul of CVN-69, a Nimitz class aircraft carrier. Given the deficiencies on the overhaul of the lead ship of the class, the Committee is not willing to support a second overhaul until they are remedied for both ships. The Committee recommends $46,855,000, a decrease of $46,000,000, as well as proposed bill language to ensure that funds are not obligated on an aircraft carrier overhaul that delivers CVN-69 back to the fleet without installations of cooperative engagement and the ship self defense system. ddg-51 The Navy requested $2,665,767,000 to procure 3 DDG-51 Aegis ships. The Committee is dismayed at the Navy's plan to build 12 ships between 1997 and 2001 which are planned to be delivered to the fleet without cooperative engagement or theater ballistic missile defense capability. This shipbuilding plan is counter to the theater missile defense goals of the Administration, the Navy, and the Congress and may unnecessarily put at risk the lives of U.S. forces deployed in hostile situations. The Committee recommends $2,695,367,000, an increase of $29,600,000. This includes an additional $19,400,000 to accelerate baseline 6 hardware and software needed to incorporate theater ballistic missile defense in these ships, $14,000,000 only to install cooperative engagement on the third ship in 1998, and a decrease of $3,800,000 due to savings in the program resulting from a FMS sale to Spain of Aegis combat systems. The Committee also proposes bill language to preclude the Navy from awarding a multiyear contract for construction of twelve DDG-51 ships, unless at least four of the ships will be delivered to the Navy with cooperative engagement and theater ballistic missile capability installed. cruiser overhauls The Navy has indicated to the congressional defense committees that it plans to begin an extensive overhaul program for 27 of its Aegis cruisers. Since no funds are requested in the budget for this purpose, the Department of Defense would have to submit a new start reprogramming request if the Navy planned to begin cruiser conversion prior to fiscal year 1999. The Committee directs that all the overhauls for these ships must be competed between U.S. shipyards and that no non- competitive allocations be made for industrial base reasons. The Committee understands that this direction is consistent with the Navy's plan. Auxiliaries, Craft, and Prior Year Programs lcac landing craft The Navy requested no funds for LCAC landing craft service life extension (SLEP). The Committee recommends $24,000,000 and directs the Navy to accelerate the SLEP, while the production line is still warm, due to recent disclosure of corrosion and component failures from fleet LCAC operating units. The Navy has informed the Committee that this program can be started in fiscal year 1998 using unique existing facilities and retaining a trained labor force, resulting in a net savings of $18,300,000. adc(x) The Navy requested no funds for ADC(X) construction, but plans to build such a class of ships in the outyears. The Committee directs that the construction cost of such ships, if proposed to the Congress by the Navy, be funded in the Shipbuilding and Conversion appropriation. Program Recommended The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $3,067,944,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 2,825,500,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 3,084,485,000 Change from budget request............................ +258,985,000 This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of major equipment and weapons other than ships, aircraft, missiles, and torpedoes. Such equipment range from the latest electronic sensors for updating our naval forces to trucks, training equipment, and spare parts. Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with House authorization action: [In thousands of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Change Budget Committee from Request Recommendation Request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Reactor components.............. 193,880 180,880 -13,000 Radar Support................... 1,708 23,708 +22,000 Surface sonar windows/domes..... 0 6,000 +6,000 Cooperative engagement.......... 0 114,800 +114,800 AN/SSQ-36 sonobouy.............. 1,402 2,902 +1,500 AN/SSQ-57 sonobouy.............. 0 4,500 +4,500 Weapons range support equipment. 4,858 14,358 +9,500 Airborne mine counter-measures (SWIMS)........................ 20,192 27,692 +7,500 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ships Support Equipment LM-2500 Gas Turbine The Navy requested $7,548,000 for the LM-2500 gas turbine engine. The Committee recommends $5,548,000, a decrease of $2,000,000 due to reduced requirements resulting from ship deactivations. Navigation Equipment Other Navigation Equipment The Navy requested $31,552,000 for other navigation equipment. The Committee recommends $39,052,000, an increase of $7,500,000. This includes an increase of $9,000,000 only for the WSN-7 ring laser gyro and a decrease of $1,500,000 due to contract savings in this program. Other Shipboard Equipment Firefighting Equipment The Navy requested $14,081,000 for other firefighting equipment. The Committee recommends $27,081,000, an increase of $13,000,000 only for self contained breathing apparatus as recommended in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. Pollution control equipment The Navy requested $156,775,000 for pollution control equipment. The Committee recommends $147,775,000, a decrease of $9,000,000 due to reduced requirements and excess prior year funds identified by the General Accounting Office. submarine batteries The Navy requested $9,043,000 for submarine batteries. The Committee recommends $8,443,000, a decrease of $600,000 due to contract savings. strategic platform support equipment The Navy requested $6,435,000 for strategic platform support equipment. The Committee recommends $21,435,000, an increase of $15,000,000 only to install AN/UYQ-70 displays in submarines. Communications and Electronic Equipment radar support The Navy requested $1,708,000 for radar support. The Committee recommends $23,708,000, an increase of $22,000,000 as recommended in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill of which $13,000,000 is only for the SPS-73(V) radar and $9,000,000 is only for the AN/BPS-16 submarine navigation radar. Ship Sonars an/sqq-89 surface asw combat system The Navy requested $16,628,000 for AN/SQQ-89. The Committee recommends $16,228,000, a decrease of $400,000 due to contract and installation savings. ssn acoustics The Navy requested $77,953,000 for SSN Acoustics. The Committee recommends $46,453,000, a decrease of $31,500,000. This consists of a decrease of $39,500,000 to the Acoustic Rapid Commercial Off-the-Shelf Insertion (A-RCI) program and an increase of $8,000,000 only for refurbishment of TB-23 arrays. Concerning the A-RCI program, the Committee believes the program is concurrent since the Navy plans to buy 14 A-RCI kits in 1998 even though initial operational test and evaluation is not planned until the first quarter of 1999. The Committee recommends that A-RCI production funds be deferred one year to reduce program risk. carrier asw module The Navy requested $16,000 for the carrier ASW module. The Committee recommends $12,016,000, an increase of $12,000,000 only for procurement and installation of six AN/UQX-5(V) Fast Time Analyzer System engineering change two acoustic intercept processors, six CV ASW Module on-board trainers, one CV tactical support center upgrade, and integration of a real time sensor data link. Electronic Warfare Equipment C3 Countermeasures The Navy requested $6,891,000 for C3 countermeasures. The Committee recommends $6,591,000, a decrease of $300,000 due to reduced requirements. Reconnaissance Equipment combat direction finding equipment The Navy requested $10,473,000 for combat direction finding equipment. The Committee recommends $5,873,000, a decrease of $4,600,000 due to contract savings on automated digital acquisition systems. battle group passive horizon extension (bgphes) The Navy requested $50,221,000 for BGPHES. The Committee recommends $47,421,000, a decrease of $2,800,000 due to contract savings. Other Ship Electronic Equipment Navy Tactical Data System The Navy requested $14,335,000 for the Navy Tactical Data System. The Committee recommends $24,335,000, an increase of $10,000,000 only to install AN/UYQ-70 displays on Aegis cruisers. Advanced Tactical Data Link Systems The Navy requested $16,991,000 for advanced tactical data link systems. The Committee recommends $15,391,000, a decrease of $1,600,000 due to contract savings in AN/VRC-107(V) terminals. Aviation Electronic Equipment Automatic Carrier Landing System The Navy requested $13,200,000 for the automatic carrier landing system. The Committee recommends $12,200,000, a decrease of $1,000,000 due to cancellation of the AN/SPN-46(V) landing system. id systems The Navy requested $11,293,000 for identification systems. The Committee recommends $9,193,000, a decrease of $2,100,000 for shipboard advanced radar target identification systems which have slipped until 1999. Other Shore Electronic Equipment jmcis tactical/mobile The Navy requested $2,888,000 for JMCIS Tactical/Mobile. The Committee recommends $47,888,000, an increase of $45,000,000 only for procurement of AN/SQR-17A(V)3 underwater systems, including preplanned product improvement, for Mobile Inshore Undersea Warfare operations. Submarine Communications Submarine communication equipment The Navy requested $37,239,000 for submarine communication equipment. The Committee recommends $47,239,000, an increase of $10,000,000 only for procurement of AN/USC-42(V)V mini-Demand Assigned Multiple Access (DAMA) UHF Fleet SATCOM communications terminals for submarines, surface ships, and airborne platforms. Shore Communications nsips Information on this project can be found in the Information Resources Management section of this report. jedmics Information on this project can be found in the Information Resources Management section of this report. Aviation Support Equipment sonobouys an/sqq-53 (difar) The Navy requested $28,382,000 for procurement of AN/SQQ-53 sonobouys. The Committee recommends $49,382,000, an increase of $21,000,000 identified by the Navy as a critical shortfall. an/sqq-62 (dicass) The Navy requested $24,291,000 for procurement of AN/SQQ-62 sonobouys. The Committee recommends $32,291,000, an increase of $8,000,000 identified by the Navy as a critical shortfall. Aircraft Support Equipment aviation life support The Navy requested $15,345,000 for aviation life support equipment. The Committee recommends $12,645,000, a decrease of $2,700,000 due to reduced requirements. lamps mk iii shipboard equipment The Navy requested $5,805,000 for LAMPS MK III Shipboard Equipment. The Committee recommends $4,560,000, a decrease of $1,245,000 due to excess funds identified by the General Accounting Office. Ship Missile Systems Equipment nato seasparrow The Navy requested $6,866,000 for the NATO Seasparrow program. The Committee recommends $10,866,000, an increase of $4,000,000 only for low-light, solid state electro-optic cameras. ship self-defense system The Navy requested $5,841,000 for the ship-self defense system. The Committee recommends $17,841,000, an increase of $12,000,000 only for installation of the SSDS on two LSD-41 class ships with rolling airframe missile launchers to be allocated from assets procured in 1998 or earlier fiscal years. aegis support equipment The Navy requested $26,813,000 for Aegis support equipment. The Committee recommends $21,113,000, a reduction of $5,700,000 due to reduced requirements because of ship deactivations. surface tomahawk support equipment The Navy requested $65,502,000 for surface Tomahawk support equipment. The Committee recommends $65,302,000, a decrease of $200,000 due to reduced requirements because of ship deactivations. Fleet Ballistic Missile Support Equipment strategic missile systems equipment The Navy requested $231,528,000 for strategic missile systems equipment. The Committee recommends $228,728,000, a decrease of $2,800,000 due to excess funds identified by the General Accounting Office. Other Ordnance Support Equipment unmanned seaborne target The Navy requested $4,271,000 for unmanned seaborne target development. The Committee recommends $2,271,000, a decrease of $2,000,000 due to reduced requirements. Other Expendable Ordnance surface training device modifications The Navy requested $4,829,000 for surface training device modifications. The Committee recommends $13,329,000, an increase of $8,500,000 only for procurement of Carry-on Combat Systems Trainers (COCST) for the Battle Force Tactical Training (BFTT) system. Civil Engineering Support Equipment construction and maintenance equipment The Navy requested $3,700,000 for construction and maintenance equipment. The Committee recommends $5,200,000, an increase of $1,500,000 only for laser leveling devices. amphibious equipment The Navy requested $6,233,000 for amphibious equipment. The Committee recommends $11,233,000, an increase of $5,000,000 only for the Elevated Causeway (Modular). pollution control equipment The Navy requested $28,650,000 for pollution control equipment. The Committee recommends $25,080,000, a decrease of $3,570,000 due to reduced requirements because of ship deactivations. command support equipment The Navy requested $15,915,000 for command support equipment. The Committee recommends $17,915,000, an increase of $2,000,000 only for the Advanced Technical Information System. Other spares and repair parts The Navy requested $248,717,000 for spares and repair parts. The Committee recommends $228,717,000, a decrease of $20,000,000 due to reduced requirements because of ship deactivations. Program Recommended The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $569,073,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 374,306,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 491,198,000 Change from budget request............................ +116,892,000 This appropriation provides the Marine Corps with funds for procurement, delivery, and modification of missiles, armament, communication equipment, tracked and wheeled vehicles, and various support equipment. Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request in accordance with House authorization action: [In thousand of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Committee Change from Item Budget request recommended request ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Javelin......................................................... 42,146 59,146 +17,000 Communications and Elec Infrastructure Supt..................... 41,809 84,409 +42,600 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Weapons and Combat Vehicles items under $2 million (tracked vehicles) The Marine Corps requested $99,000 for items under $2 million (tracked vehicles). The Committee recommends $1,999,000, an increase of $1,900,000 only for a supplemental fuel carrying capability. Other Communications and Electronics Equipment intelligence support equipment The Marine Corps requested $16,413,000 for Intelligence Support Equipment. The Committee recommends an increase of $5,392,000. Of this amount, $4,600,000 is only to procure CI/ HUMINT Program equipment, and $792,000 is to procure portable satcom radios. Tactical Vehicles high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles The Marine Corps requested $696,000 for High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV). The Committee recommends $40,696,000, an increase of $40,000,000 only to begin the production of a HMMWV service-life extension program. General Property field medical equipment The Marine Corps requested $1,081,000 for field medical equipment. The Committee recommends $11,081,000, an increase of $10,000,000 only to procure equipment for the Chemical Biological Incident Response Force. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $6,404,980,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 5,684,847,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 6,386,479,000 Change from budget request............................ +701,632,000 This appropriation provides for the procurement of aircraft, and for modification of in-service aircraft to improve safety and enhance operational effectiveness. It also provides for initial spares and other support equipment to include aerospace ground equipment and industrial facilities. In addition, funds are provided for the procurement of flight training simulators to increase combat readiness and to provide for more economical training. Committee Recommendations Authorization Changes The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with House authorization action: [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Committee Change from Item Budget request recommendation request ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- B-2............................................................. 174,086 505,286 +331,200 EC-130J......................................................... 0 49,900 +49,900 JPATS........................................................... 65,415 77,615 +12,200 Predator UAV.................................................... 116,506 146,506 +30,000 B-1B Mods....................................................... 114,245 138,245 +24,000 H-1 Mods........................................................ 2,778 3,578 +800 DARP Mods....................................................... 67,136 139,136 +72,000 DARP............................................................ 141,493 146,493 +5,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Combat Aircraft advanced tactical fighter (F-22) advance procurement The Air Force requested $80,864,000 for advance procurement for the F-22 aircraft. The Committee recommends $74,864,000, a decrease of $6,000,000. The Air Force has indicated that these funds will be used for redesign efforts associated with Out of Production Parts (OPPs). Since such redesign efforts are properly funded in the research and development account, the Committee has reduced F-22 procurement by $6,000,000 and has increased F-22 research and development by a like amount. The Committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to budget for these redesign efforts in the research and development accounts in future budgets. In addition to OPP redesign efforts, the Air Force has requested authority to use procurement funds to purchase OPPs for more than one aircraft lot. The Committee understands that these parts are defined as electro/mechanical components or electronic piece parts. Electro/mechanical components include parts below the Line Replaceable Units/Line Replaceable Module (LRU/LRM) level, such as actuators, fuel pumps, or hydraulic pumps; however such components do not include structural parts such as wings, bulkheads, flaps, ailerons, doors, or landing gear struts; or subsystems at or above the LRU/LRM level such as an auxiliary power unit. Electronic piece parts include parts below the LRU/LRM level such as multi-chip modules, Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs), microprocessors, integrated circuits, microcircuits, diodes, and transistors. OPPs are parts that are currently unavailable or projected to be unavailable from the original equipment supplier or any alternative source. Often these parts become unavailable because industry has moved to the next generation of technology and no longer finds it cost effective to maintain the capability to produce the older technology, or the supplier elects to end business with the government, or the supplier goes out of business. The Committee approves the Air Force request to use procurement funds to purchase OPPs for multiple aircraft lots based on the following criteria: (1) the OPPs must meet the definition of parts described above; (2) the OPPs must meet the definition of ``out of production'' as described above; (3) OPPs can only be purchased in cases in which a redesign of the parts cannot be accomplished in time to prevent an impact to the production schedule; (4) the Air Force shall not procure more parts than required to bridge the gap between the end of availability of the parts and the availability of the redesigned part; and (5) no more than five aircraft lots of parts can be procured. Any purchases beyond the scope of the criteria above require prior notification to the congressional defense committees. Finally, the Committee is aware that the Air Force needs to procure a video tape deck because of diminishing manufacturing sources. Since such an item would not otherwise meet the criteria above, the Committee provides separate and specific approval for this item. f-16 The Air Force requested no funding for the F-16 program. The Committee recommends $82,500,000 for 3 additional aircraft. Airlift Aircraft C-17 The Air Force requested $1,923,311,000 for the C-17 aircraft. The Committee recommends $1,914,211,000, a decrease of $9,100,000. This GAO recommended reduction is based on C-17 program office financial execution forecasts that show that fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 funds will not be obligated prior to funds expiration. c-17 advance procurement The Air Force requested $278,200,000 for C-17 advance procurement in support of fiscal year 1999 aircraft. The Committee recommends $265,600,000, a decrease of $12,600,000. This GAO recommended reduction is based on contract savings associated with prior year advance procurement contracts. civil air patrol The Air Force requested $2,645,000 for the Civil Air Patrol. The Committee recommends $4,498,000, an increase of $1,853,000. Other Aircraft E-8C The Air Force requested $313,991,000 for the E-8C (JSTARS) aircraft. The Committee recommends $317,991,000, a net increase of $4,000,000. The adjustment includes an additional $16,000,000 to address funding requirements rephased from fiscal year 1996 and an additional $1,000,000 only for integration of an Improved Data Modem on the JSTARS aircraft. The adjustment also includes a $13,000,000 reduction based on unjustified growth in the Engineering Change Order (ECO) line. The Committee notes that the Air Force is requesting $21,400,000 for ECOs in fiscal year 1998 to support one aircraft, compared to $3.6 million in fiscal year 1997 for two aircraft. The Air Force has indicated that the JSTARS airframe estimates have already been increased in the fiscal year 1998 budget to reflect recent experience of increased costs associated with refurbishing used airframes. Since these higher costs are already built into the airframe estimate, the level of growth in ECO funding is unwarranted. Modification of Inservice Aircraft B-52 modifications The Air Force requested $28,907,000 for B-52 modifications. The Committee recommends $31,807,000, an increase of $2,900,000 only for B-52 Electro-optical Viewing System Reliability and Maintainability upgrade, identified by the Air Force as a high priority unfunded requirement. F-15 modifications The Air Force requested $169,568,000 for F-15 modifications. The Committee recommends $157,068,000, a net decrease of $12,500,000. The adjustment includes an increase of $22,800,000 only for additional PW-220E engine modifications, a decrease of $11,800,000 based on two recently terminated modifications in fiscal year 1997, a decrease of $13,500,000 for APG-63 radar upgrade pricing, and a decrease of $10,000,000 for radar support equipment. The $11,800,000 reduction for the terminated modifications is based on a $21,200,000 GAO recommended reduction adjusted for amounts already reprogrammed to support an Air Traffic Control and Landing System initiative. With regard to the radar upgrade modification, the Committee notes that the Air Force has not adequately justified the unusually high cost of the radar in fiscal year 1998 as compared to the budget last year and as compared to other fiscal years in the current budget. The Committee reduction brings the fiscal year 1998 program in line with the fiscal year 1997 column of the current budget. The Air Force has also indicated that funds are no longer required for radar equipment as displayed in the current budget, but needed instead for support equipment. No justification for this latter requirement has been provided to the Committee. The Committee is concerned with the new cost estimates appearing in the budget this year; the average unit cost of the radar over the life of the program has approximately doubled. To date, the Air Force has not provided a satisfactory explanation of this change. Further, this $600,000,000 program has been justified as a reliability and maintainability (R&M) upgrade, not a performance upgrade. Given the doubling in cost, the original cost/benefit assumptions for the program may no longer be valid. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to the congressional defense committees including an explanation of the average unit cost growth compared to the budget last year and a revised cost/benefit analysis, including break even point, justifying continued pursuit of the program. The Committee directs that this report be provided at least 15 days prior to award of the first production contract. F-16 modifications The Air Force requested $216,158,000 for F-16 modifications. The Committee recommends $199,358,000, a decrease of $16,800,000. The decrease includes a $13,000,000 reduction to GPS and a $3,800,000 reduction to Block 40 CAS Night Vision Imaging System (NVIS). The Air Force budget requests 330 GPS kits in fiscal year 1998, up from 150 in fiscal year 1997 and higher than the outyears. The rate of production resulting from the fiscal year 1998 buy exceeds the rate in which the kits can be installed, resulting in kits unnecessarily sitting on the shelf for up to five months. A reduction of 94 kits will bring the production rate in line with the installation rate. The budget also includes $3,800,000 for NVIS integration. However, the Air Force has indicated no further integration is required. C-130 modifications The Air Force requested $94,511,000 for C-130 modifications. The Committee recommends $119,211,000, an increase of $24,700,000 only for the electronic suite modifications associated with the new production EC-130 funded separately in this account. Aircraft Support Equipment and Facilities F-15 post production support The Air Force requested $8,089,000 for F-15 Post Production Support. The Committee recommends $6,289,000, a decrease of $1,800,000. This GAO recommended adjustment is based on prematurely budgeting for F-15 tooling disposition given continued production of F-15 attrition aircraft. war consumables The Air Force requested $67,565,000 for war consumables. The Committee recommends $60,165,000, a decrease of $7,400,000. The GAO has identified excess engineering change order (ECO) funding in the towed decoy program. miscellaneous production charges The Air Force requested $275,805,000 for miscellaneous production charges. The Committee denies the budget request of $6,221,000 to procure podded electro-optical camera systems. The Committee disagrees with the Air Force's acquisition strategy to sole-source the second Theater Airborne Reconnaissance System (TARS) sensor and Advanced TARS Medium Altitude Electro-optical (MAEO) sensor. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE Fiscal Year 1997 appropriation....................... $2,297,145,000 Fiscal Year 1998 budget request...................... 2,557,741,000 Committee recommendation............................. 2,320,741,000 Change from budget request........................... -237,000,000 The appropriation provides for the procurement, installation, and checkout of strategic ballistic and other missiles, modification of in-service missiles, and initial spares for missile systems. It also provides for operational space systems, boosters, payloads, drones, associated ground equipment, non-recurring maintenance of industrial facilities, machine tool modernization, and special program support. Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request in accordance with House authorization action. [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Committee Change from Item Budget request recommendation request ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JSOW............................................................ 1,139 30,139 +29,000 AGM-130......................................................... 1,539 42,539 +41,000 MAVERICK........................................................ 0 11,000 +11,000 Titan Space Boosters............................................ 555,304 473,304 -82,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Missiles amraam The Air Force requested $117,768,000 for continued production of AMRAAM. The Committee recommends $107,168,000, a reduction of $10,600,000. This GAO-recommended reduction is based on unneeded funds for engineering change orders (ECOs). The Committee also notes that the AMRAAM program has inappropriately budgeted recurring efforts such as program management, technical services, production support, and acceptance testing in its nonrecurring budget line. Such budgeting practices are misleading and should be corrected in future budget submissions. Modification of Inservice Missiles conventional alcm The Air Force requested no funding for the Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missile program. The Committee recommends $15,300,000 to continue conversions of nuclear Air Launched Cruise Missiles. The Committee notes that this effort has been identified as a high priority by the Air Force. Space Programs global positioning system (gps) space segment The Air Force requested $163,837,000 for the acquisition of 3 GPS Block IIF satellites. The Committee recommends $122,137,000, a decrease of $41,700,000. The funds provided by the Committee will enable the Air Force to acquire 2 Block IIF satellites in fiscal year 1998. In making this recommendation the Committee notes that the present GPS constellation contains 24 satellites consisting of 21 operational spacecraft and three on-orbit spares. If present delivery schedules are maintained one to five spacecraft will be in storage available for launch within 60 days of an on- orbit failure as called for by present department policy. The Committee believes that the probability is extremely low that three GPS satellites will ever fail simultaneously or in rapid succession. Even in the highly unlikely event that such a failure should occur, the Air Force does not have enough medium class launch vehicles available to replenish the constellation as swiftly as called for by present DoD policy. In essence, by requesting GPS satellites for acquisition before they are needed or could ever be launched, the Air Force is attempting to underwrite an ``insurance policy'' that, in practical terms, it could never implement. The Committee recognizes the importance of the total GPS system to the Department of Defense and remains totally supportive of the program. The Committee also feels that as a cost savings measure and a more realistic phasing of program funding to requirements, the acquisition of one GPS Block IIF satellite can be deferred until the next multi-year block buy. Accordingly, the Committee makes this recommendation without prejudice. medium launch vehicles The Air Force requested $165,783,000 for the medium launch vehicle program. The Committee recommends $147,783,000, a decrease of $18,000,000. According to the General Accounting Office lower than expected cost growth in fiscal year 1997, and the overstatement of funds requested for Delta launch failure recovery efforts in fiscal year 1998 makes this reduction possible. The Committee makes this recommendation without prejudice to the program. defense support program The Air Force requested $113,708,000 for the Defense Support Program. The Committee recommends $108,708,000, a decrease of $5,000,000. The Committee has reduced the budget request due to the availability of prior year program funds and the Air Force's recent decision not to pursue research studies to identify modifications needed to launch the DSP satellite on the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle. Funds for these studies were requested as part of this year's budget. special programs Details of this adjustment are discussed fully in the classified annex to this report. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE Fiscal Year 1997 appropriation....................... $293,153,000 Fiscal Year 1998 budget request...................... 403,984,000 Committee recommendation............................. 414,884,000 Change from budget request........................... +10,900,000 This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, modifications, spares, weapons, and other ammunition-related items for the Air Force. Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request in accordance with House authorization action: [In thousands of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Budget Committee Change from Item request recommendation request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ GBU-28 Hard Target Penetrator. 0 16,800 +16,800 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ wind corrected munitions dispenser The Air Force requested $19,871,000 for the Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser. The Committee recommends $10,471,000, a decrease of $9,400,000 based on contract savings identified by the GAO. Cartridges 20mm pgu-28 The Air Force requested no funds for 20MM PGU-28 ammunition. The Committee recommends $3,500,000 only to procure 20MM PGU-28 ammunition Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $5,944,680,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 6,561,253,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 6,588,939,000 Change from budget request............................ +27,686,000 This appropriation provides for the procurement of weapons systems and equipment other than aircraft and missiles. Included are vehicles, electronic and telecommunications systems for command and control of operational forces, and ground support equipment for weapon systems and supporting structure. Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with House authorization action: [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Committee Change from Item Budget request recommendation request ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Weather observ/forecast......................................... 18,013 22,013 +4,000 TAC SIGINT support.............................................. 4,114 9,114 +5,000 Radio Equipment................................................. 12,844 19,344 +6,500 DARP RC-135..................................................... 12,778 47,778 +35,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cargo and Utility Vehicles items less than $2,000,000 The Air Force requested $5,025,000 for items less than $2,000,000. The Committee recommends $3,625,000, a reduction of $1,400,000. The budget request included $1.4 million for minor replacement items. However, Air Force officials advised that there are no known requirements for these items. Special Purpose Vehicles hmmwv, armored The Air Force requested $24,181,000 for armored HMMWVs. The Committee recommends $7,781,000, a reduction of $16,400,000. The fiscal year 1998 budget requested additional funds for the Force Protection/Anti-Terrorism initiative. However, these vehicles are already budgeted in the Force Protection/Anti- terrorism line of the budget. items less than $2,000,000 The Air Force requested $6,738,000 for items less than $2,000,000. The Committee recommends $6,194,000, a reduction of $544,000 based on fiscal year 1997 contract savings and unrequired contingency funding. Materials Handling Equipment 60K A/C loader The Air Force requested $83,143,000 for the 60K A/C leader program. The Committee recommends $51,143,000, a reduction of $32,000,000. This program has been troubled by producibility and reliability problems which have led to testing delays and a production stop. Independent Operational Test and Evaluation will now occur in December 1997, with the first contract award after the production break to follow in April 1998. The Committee notes that the Air Force has budgeted a full rate lot in fiscal year 1998 of 60 units, and has scheduled delivery of the first units in just nine months, even though the loader's normal manufacturing lead-time is 16 months. Given the production problems in this program, the Committee views this recovery plan to be overly aggressive. Accordingly, the Committee recommends reducing the fiscal year 1998 buy from 60 to 45 loaders, the level that had been planned in fiscal year 1997. Intelligence Programs intelligence data handling system The Air Force requested $20,739,000 for intelligence data handling. The Committee recommends $24,339,000, an increase of $3,600,000 only to provide JSAS to Air Force battlelabs. Electronic Programs strategic command and control The Air Force requested $20,505,000 for Strategic Command and Control. The Committee recommends $19,005,000 a net decrease of $1,500,000. The adjusted amount includes a decrease of $10,000,000 for the terminated Improved Technical Data System (ITDS) and an increase of $8,500,000 only for the DIRECT program. The Committee notes that the Air Force has identified DIRECT as a high priority unfunded requirement. Special Communications-Electronics Projects C3 COUNTERMEASURES The Air Force requested $14,904,000 for Command, Control, and Communications Countermeasures. The Committee recommends $13,004,000, a reduction of $1,900,000 based on excess funds available in fiscal year 1997. Air Force Communications base information infrastructure The Air Force requested $88,945,000 for Base Information Infrastructure enhancements. The Committee recommends $136,945,000, an increase of $48,000,000 only for security enhancements to Air Force base information systems. air force satellite control network The Air Force requested $32,197,000 for satellite control network activities. The Committee recommends $23,097,000, a reduction of $9,100,000 based on cancellation of the fiscal year 1997 Military Satellite Communications system. Organization and Base items less than $2,000,000 The Air Force requested $8,960,000 for items less than $2,000,000. The Committee recommends $6,160,000, a reduction of $2,800,000 based on contract award problems and delayed obligation of funds for the Power Conditioning and Continuation Interface Equipment (PCCIE) program. Personnel Safety and Rescue Equipment night vision goggles The Air Force requested $2,371,000 for night vision goggles. The Committee recommends $13,271,000, an increase of $10,900,000 only for accelerated procurement of night vision goggles and test sets. Electrical Equipment floodlights set type nf2d The Air Force requested $7,696,000 for floodlights. The Committee recommends $4,696,000, a reduction of $3,000,000 based on production contract award delays associated with the FL-1D floodlight. Base Support Equipment medical/dental equipment The Air Force requested $13,295,000 for medical and dental equipment. The Committee recommends $8,095,000, a reduction of $5,200,000 based on prior year contract savings in several programs. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $1,978,005,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 1,695,085,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 2,186,669,000 Change from budget request............................ +491,584,000 This appropriation provides funds for the Procurement activities of centrally managed programs and the Defense Agencies. Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with authorization action: [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Budget Committee Change from request recommendation request ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Equipment, DSPO........................................... 19,334 14,334 -5,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- major equipment The Department requested $104,601,000 for Major Equipment. The Committee recommends $114,601,000, an increase of $10,000,000 only for the Mentor-Protege program. automated document conversion Information on this project can be found in the Information Resources Management section of this report. ballistic missile defense organization (BMDO) The Department requested no funds in Procurement, Defense- wide for Patriot PAC-3, Navy Lower Tier and Battle Management and Control. The Committee recommends that funds provided for these programs in other Service accounts be transferred to BMDO, as proposed in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. Special Operations Command pc, cyclone class The Department requested no funds for Cyclone Class, Patrol Coastal craft. The Committee recommends $10,700,000 only for the completion of the fourteenth CYCLONE Patrol Coastal craft. sof intelligence systems The Department requested $21,175,000 for SOF intelligence systems. The Committee recommends $25,475,000, an increase of $4,300,000. Of this amount, $800,000 is to procure additional data collection systems to support the Integrated Survey Program; $1,500,000 is to purchase eight B-Multi-Mission Advanced Tactical Terminals; and $2,000,000 is only for the development of training capabilities for the Joint Threat Warning System (JTWS). Additional O&M and RDT&E funds are also provided for JTWS. Chemical and Biological Defense Program individual protection The Department requested $64,855,000 for Chemical and Biological Individual Protection. The Committee recommends $74,855,000, an increase of $10,000,000 only for 5,000 chemical biological (JSLIST) suits. collective protection The Department requested $17,316,000 for Chemical and Biological Collective Protection. The Committee recommends $37,316,000, an increase of $20,000,000. Within this increase, $10,000,000 is only for Collective Protection Equipment shortfalls in Korea, $4,000,000 is only for 300 additional M- 17LDS water sprayers for decontamination of airfields, and $6,000,000 is only for 14 HMVV medical shelters. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $780,000,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... ................ Committee recommendation.............................. 850,000,000 Change from budget request............................ +850,000,000 This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of tactical aircraft and other equipment for the National Guard and Reserve. Committee Recommendation The Committee recommends $850,000,000 to meet high priority requirements of the National Guard and Reserve. This is in addition to $1,770,300,000 provided elsewhere in Title III of the Committee bill for equipment which the Committee intends to be provided to the National Guard and the Reserve Components. melios an/pvs-6 The Committee is aware that the Army National Guard has a requirement for an improved eye-safe laser range finder that is compatible with the devices fielded in the Active Army. The Mini-Eye-safe Laser Infrared Observation Set (MELIOS) provides an improved capability and is being fielded to the active Army. The Committee recommends $5,000,000 only for procurement of MELIOS for the Army National Guard. t-39 replacement aircraft The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to procure T-39 replacement aircraft for the Marine Corps Reserve. The Committee directs that these aircraft should meet the speed, range, payload, and cost per passenger mile requirements as identified by the Commanding General, Marine Forces Reserve. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> miscellaneous equipment The Committee has provided $143,000,000 for miscellaneous equipment and believes that the Chiefs of the Reserve and National Guard components should exercise control of funds provided for miscellaneous equipment. The Committee directs that separate, detailed submissions of its modernization priorities by each of the Guard and Reserve component commanders be submitted to the congressional defense committees and recommends including bill language carried in previous years requiring this submission. The Committee expects the component commanders to give priority consideration to the following items: all-terrain cranes, modular airborne fire fighting system units, CH-47 internal crash worthy fuel cells, back scatter truck inspection systems, ALR-56M radar warning receivers, theater deployable communication packages, AN/TQM-41 MMS, M1A2s, M2A2s, night vision equipment, CH-47 ICH aircraft, litening target and navigation pods, commercial industrial equipment, high speed dirt compactors, AH-64 combat mission simulators, heavy equipment transporter vehicles, MLRS launchers, high mobility trailers for HMMWV, palletized loading systems, heavy expanded mobility tactical truck wreckers, avengers, M109A6, automatic building machines, air defense alerting device systems, interactive simulators, master cranes, deployable universal combat earth movers, palletized loading systems, and HEMTT wreckers. INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT The Defense Department requested $10,273,037,000 for information resources management. The Committee recommends $10,387,937,000, an increase of $114,900,000 as explained below: Operation and Maintenance, Army:sands of dollars] High Risk Automation Systems.............................. -25,000 Army Logistics Automation................................. 11,200 Operation and Maintenance, Navy: High Risk Automation Systems.............................. -25,000 Software Program Managers Network......................... 6,000 Operation and Maintenance, Air Force: High Risk Automation Systems.............................. -25,000 REMIS..................................................... 8,900 Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide: High Risk Automation Systems.............................. -15,000 Automated Document Conversion............................. 30,000 Military Personnel Information System..................... 5,000 Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve: NSIPS..................................................... 43,500 Operation and Maintenance, Defense Health Program: High Risk Automation Systems.............................. -20,000 PACMEDNET................................................. 10,000 Other Procurement, Army: Army Logistics Automation................................. 13,800 SBIS...................................................... 13,000 Other Procurement, Navy: NSIPS..................................................... 20,500 JEDMICS................................................... 5,000 Other Procurement, Air Force: Base Information Infrastructure........................... 48,000 Procurement, Defense-Wide: Automated Document Conversion............................. 10,000 -------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total................................................. 114,900 remis The Air Force requested $32,647,000 for the Reliability and Maintainability Information System (REMIS). The Committee recommends an increase of $8,900,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force to be used only for REMIS projects related to IMDS conversion. jedmics The Navy requested $35,528,000 for the Joint Engineering Data Management Information and Control System (JEDMICS). The Committee is concerned that the unprotected transmittal of sensitive but unclassified data to remote users via the Internet subjects JEDMICS data to potential unauthorized access. The Department of Defense has made a substantial investment in JEDMICS. Without the incorporation of required security precautions, the system cannot be used with assurance. To maximize the utility of JEDMICS and to protect the information as required by law and regulation, the Committee provides $5,000,000 in the Other Procurement, Navy account to be used only to acquire and integrate an information security solution. sustaining base information services The Army requested $18,459,000 to maintain Sustaining Base Information Services, which consists of 13 applications fielded to 33 installations. To take maximum advantage of the substantial investment already made in software development, the Committee recommends adding $13,000,000 to the Other Procurement, Army account only to field these existing applications to another 15 installations. army logistics automation The Army requested $37,521,000 for its Total Distribution Program. The Committee recommends $62,521,000 an increase of $11,200,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Army and an increase of $13,800,000 in Other Procurement, Army. One of the deficiencies the Army identified during Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm was an inability to track shipments and quickly locate particular supplies as they moved through the distribution system. The Army has begun acquiring technology that will automatically record when supplies move past each major checkpoint as well as allowing personnel to electronically query the contents of a container without having to open it. The Committee strongly supports this high priority effort. automated document conversion The Committee supports the Department of Defense goal of digitizing all weapons engineering drawings by the year 2000 and all other drawings by the year 2002. The Committee agrees to provide a total of $40,000,000 over the budget request only for this effort, of which $30,000,000 is in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide for outsourcing bulk conversion services and $10,000,000 is in Procurement, Defense-Wide for data conversion products. These funds are to be directly managed by the Computer Aided Logistics System executive within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. military personnel information systems The Committee continues to strongly support the fiscal year 1997 appropriation conference report direction regarding DoD- wide military personnel information systems and the Navy Standard Integrated Personnel System (NSIPS) program management and implementation. The Department of Defense has officially designated the Navy as the executive agent and program manager for the DoD-wide or objective military personnel information system. The Committee commends this action. After an administrative delay, DoD and the Navy have begun work again and the Committee directs both to provide the necessary resources to put this critical program back on schedule and accelerate it if possible. The Committee directs the Department of the Navy to maintain project and program management and executive agent responsibilities for the objective or DoD-wide system under the operational control and command of the Commander, Naval Reserve Forces. The Committee has provided $69,000,000 for NSIPS and DoD objective system shortfalls and related Navy Reserve and Navy personnel information management system functions and needs. Of this total amount, the Committee directs that $30,500,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve and $18,000,000 in Other Procurement, Navy be allocated only to the Commander, Naval Reserve Forces, to: (1) address NSIPS and Navy objective system program management funding shortfalls; (2) continue and escalate Navy central design activity (CDA) consolidations and the consolidation of all Navy manpower and personnel information systems with the Naval Reserve Information Systems Office; (3) evaluate and maintain current personnel/manpower legacy systems for migration to NSIPS and the DoD objective systems; (4) establish requirements data bases and development platforms as well as develop pilot projects with industry and academia to attract, train and retain needed skilled software personnel for software incentive projects within the Navy and DoD; and (5) provide initial outfitting equipment, communications, local area network (LAN) equipment, software, hardware and related infrastructure support requirements for information system facilities. Of the total amount, the Committee directs that $13,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve and $2,500,000 in Other Procurement, Navy be allocated only to the Commander, Naval Reserve Forces for the Naval Reserve Information Systems Office for Naval Reserve information management systems and related contractor support, COTS integration efforts, and continuing electronic medium, communications and LAN improvements to existing Naval Support Activity and Naval Air Station facilities. Of the total amount, the Committee has also provided an additional $5,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Defense- Wide, only for the DoD-wide objective military personnel system to be used by the Joint Requirements and Integration Office. software program managers network The Committee continues to support service programs and related activities provided by the Software Program Managers Network (SPMN). Despite support for this program at the DoD level and previous Committee direction, the budget requested no funds. The Committee recommends $6,000,000 only for this effort in Operation and Maintenance, Navy. The Committee directs that these funds and operational control of the SPMN effort be transferred to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research and Development to: (1) continue original SPMN efforts to improve acquisition and management of software development and maintenance within all the services and DoD; (2) assist the Navy and Naval Reserve in their program management efforts regarding DoD-wide and Naval military manpower personnel information systems; and (3) assist the Navy and Naval Reserve in the development of industry and academia pilot projects to attract, train and retain skilled software personnel for software intensive projects within the Navy and DoD. It is the Committee's intent that SPMN reflect the needs of program managers at the ``grass roots'' level and that it not become an OSD top-down directed program. high risk automation systems The General Accounting Office (GAO) has identified a number of major DoD automation systems as ``high risk''. The central weakness in these automation systems is that the development effort is moving ahead without a completed economic analysis, proper milestones, measurable goals or a reengineering study of the process being automated. The Committee believes that it is preferable to limit development until these steps have been taken than to risk a major program failure after significant funds have been spent. The Committee therefore recommends a reduction of $110,000,000 to be allocated as follows: Operation and Maintenance, Army....................... -$25,000,000 Operation and Maintenance, Navy....................... -25,000,000 Operation and Maintenance, Air Force.................. -25,000,000 Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide............... -15,000,000 Defense Health Program (CHCSII)....................... -20,000,000 The Committee directs that DoD provide a report to the congressional defense committees on how these reductions are being applied no later than March 1, 1998. In addition, the Committee directs that none of these reductions are to be applied against Year 2000 conversion efforts, automation programs to which the Committee has recommended increased funding over the budget request, the Reserve Component Automation System or to any item of special interest. TITLE IV RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION Estimates and Appropriation Summary The fiscal year 1998 Department of Defense Research, Development, Test and Evaluation budget requests totals $35,934,491,000. The accompanying bill recommends $36,704,924,000. The total amount recommended is an increase of $770,433,000 above the fiscal year 1998 budget estimate, and is $736,197,000 less than the total provided in fiscal year 1997. The table below summarizes the budget estimates and the Committee's recommendations. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> federally funded research and development centers (ffrdcs) The Committee notes that the fiscal year 1998 plan for Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) is well above the level of effort for the prior year. The planned increase of 231 staff technical years of effort (STE) represents almost a seven percent increase in level of effort over the limitation set by Congress in 1996. Also, given the prior year limitation of $1,161,000,000 and the reduction of $52,000,000 taken against FFRDCs in 1997, the Committee fails to understand why the Department is reporting an increase in actual fiscal year 1997 spending. Moreover, it appears the Department now plans to increase fiscal year 1998 FFRDC expenditures by $49,520,953 over 1997 levels. These trends and increases are not consistent with prior Congressional direction nor the recommendation of the Defense Science Board (DSB) in January 1997. The DSB report challenged the Department's use of FFRDCs and concluded that the current FFRDC system ``does not provide the best available service at the most reasonable cost.'' The DSB Task Force recommended that: (1) work done by FFRDCs be ``more carefully defined and limited'' (2) that competition be introduced and, (3) that management practices be changed at the beginning of 1998 to incorporate these changes. The Committee therefore recommends a funding level that is consistent with the DSB report and prior Congressional direction on FFRDCs and recommends a reduction of $55,000,000 to bring FFRDC spending back in line with the established Congressional funding limitation of $1,100,000,000. BASIC RESEARCH The Department of Defense requested over $1.1 billion for basic research in fiscal year 1998, an increase of over ten percent compared to the current fiscal year 1997 level. While the Committee supports the need for the Defense Department to conduct a robust basic university research program, in the context of the overall fiscal year 1998 defense budget such funding growth is unwarranted. In each of the services there are many programs that have long-standing yet unfulfilled warfighting requirements and which have successfully completed R&D, yet no production funds are requested in the budget ostensibly due to lack of funds. In addition, as in past years this year's budget submission included large, unfunded shortfalls in defense medical programs, training and readiness accounts, and other programs such as munitions which have direct and immediate relevance to warfighting needs and the provision of an adequate quality of life for service members and their families. The Committee has provided additional funds in this bill to address these and other critical shortfalls. However the Committee questions whether never-ending budget growth in basic research is wise, particularly in the context of the Administration's failure to adequately address the Defense Department's weapon system modernization needs. In light of the Department's proposed misallocation of resources, the Committee recommends reductions to basic research funding to maintain this program at the 1997 level. NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT The Department requested $53,479,000 for NATO Research and Development across Service accounts. The Committee recommends no appropriation. The Committee remains concerned that the NATO Research and Development program is an example of a well intentioned federal program which, once begun, never ends. This program, which provides initial funding for international cooperative research and development projects, began in fiscal year 1986 at the height of the Cold War. Since that time, over $800,000,000 has been spent to start cooperative projects, very few of which have actually resulted in systems being fielded to U.S. troops, and all of which require the military departments to find ways to finance outyear costs. The Committee believes that this type of program is not a priority program and is no longer affordable, particularly as the Department and Services are trying to find ways of financing higher priority requirements in areas such as readiness and modernization. Therefore, the Committee recommends no appropriation. tactical radios The Committee commends the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (ASDC3I) for establishing an overall policy and providing planning, programming, and budgetary guidance to the Services, CINC's, and DoD agencies for the acquisition of tactical radios. Given the annual budget for tactical radios, the Committee endorses the ASDC3I's efforts to ensure that diverse Service and CINC communications requirements are satisfied, while at the same time, ensuring that the acquisitions are cost effective. The Committee is pleased that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology USD(A&T) and the ASDC3I are currently reviewing Service communications programs and will make recommendations for the establishment of a joint program to consolidate existing and planned Service efforts. Since the review is currently on-going, the Committee directs that no more than 25 percent of the funds appropriated for the research and development of a tactical radio may be obligated until the ASDC3I certifies that the development program meets interoperability requirements, is not duplicative of other developmental efforts, and is fully funded in the budget. SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAMS The Committee is concerned about the apparent reluctance of the military services to respond to Committee requests for budgetary data on Special Access Programs (SAPs). In several instances, most notably with the Army, the services failed to provide the Committee with requested information in a timely manner. In each case, the data was eventually provided, but only after repeated requests. This situation is unacceptable. Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to take necessary actions to ensure the services respond fully and expeditiously to Committee requests to the military departments for information on Special Access Programs. The Committee, during the course of its review, has discovered a number of programs in the Department that have been treated in a SAP-like manner, but have not been formally identified to the Committee as SAPs. Such practices do not conform with agreements between the Congress and the Department on handling such information, and severely complicate Congressional oversight of Departmental activities. The Committee has resolved one such problem with the Air Force already. However, the Committee is aware of a problem with a Navy program that has not been adequately resolved. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committee no later than September 30, 1997 that includes (1) a description of the program, (2) the amount of funding for the program, past and future, by year, with account and line-item detail, and (3) the steps the Department is taking to avoid such problems in the future. Further details are provided separately in the classified annex of this report. COMBAT SURVIVOR EVADER LOCATOR (CSEL) SURVIVAL RADIO The Combat Survivor Evader Locator (CSEL) survival radio system was developed to satisfy a requirement for a communication capability to be used in the search and rescue of downed airman and crew. Although the CSEL was designed and developed to include a secure airborne interrogator, this capability was not included in the current program. The Committee understands that this deficiency increases the risk to an airborne rescue force because the downed crew can not provide secure, real-time position location data and situational awareness to the rescue force. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the Department of Defense provide the necessary funding in future budgets for a secure, airborne interrogator in CSEL. institute for defense analyses The Committee directs that not more than one-third of the funds (100 staff technical years of effort) in all appropriations in the bill for the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) may be obligated until the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology provides the Committee with the results of any and every recent IDA study dealing with tactical aircraft modernization or technical performance issues, at any level of classification. The Committee designates funds for IDA to be an item of special interest, and this prior approval restriction shall be so noted on DD Form 1414 (Base for Reprogramming Actions) for fiscal year 1998. classified programs Adjustments to classified RDT&E programs are addressed in the classified annex accompanying this report. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, ARMY Fiscal year 1997 appropriation....................... $5,062,763,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request...................... 4,510,843,000 Committee recommendation............................. 4,686,427,000 Change from budget request........................... +175,584,000 This appropriation funds the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Activities of the Department of the Army. Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request in accordance with House authorization action: [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Committee Change from Item Budget request recommended request ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ballistics Technology........................................... 33,317 38,317 +5,000 Combat Vehicle and Automotive Adv Tech.......................... 32,685 35,685 +3,000 Joint Service Small Arms Program................................ 4,754 11,754 +7,000 Armament Enhancement Initiative................................. 40,313 60,313 +20,000 All Source Analysis System...................................... 24,045 27,545 +3,500 Aircraft Mod/Prod Improvements.................................. 2,609 22,609 +20,000 Information Systems Security.................................... 9,647 12,147 +2,500 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Basic Research IN-HOUSE LABORATORY RESEARCH The Army requested $15,113,000 for in-house laboratory research. The Committee recommends $14,113,000, a decrease of $1,000,000 due to fiscal constraints. defense research sciences The Army requested $138,165,000 for defense research sciences. The Committee recommends $120,165,000 a decrease of $18,000,000 to limit program growth. Of the available funds, $1,000,000 is only to accelerate Intelligent Software Agent Research at the Army Research Laboratory. university and industry research centers The Committee recognizes the importance of electric gun research and directs that adequate funds be provided in future budget submissions. army research institute for behavioral and social sciences The Army requested $16,000,000 for the Army Research Institute (ARI) for Behavioral and Social Sciences. The Committee recommends the budget request. The Committee recognizes the importance of the ARI's research activities related to personnel recruitment and training, as well as issues related to gender and racial integration. The Committee encourages the Army to adequately fund ARI research activities in future budget submissions. Exploratory Development sensors and electronic survivability The Army requested $19,294,000 for sensors and electronic survivability. The Committee recommends $24,294,000, an increase of $5,000,000 only for the continued development of the passive millimeter wave camera. aviation advanced technology The Army requested $27,282,000 for aviation advanced technology. The Committee recommends $22,282,000 a decrease of $5,000,000 which maintains funding at the fiscal year 1997 appropriated level. combat vehicle and automotive technology The Army requested $33,112,000 for combat vehicle and automotive technology. The Committee recommends $40,112,000 an increase of $7,000,000. This includes an increase of $6,000,000 only to modernize the Army's Tank and Vehicle Simulation Laboratory, an increase of $3,000,000 only for the continued development of a Voice Instructional Device for use on the National Automotive Center's Smart Truck program, and a decrease of $2,000,000 for program termination. The Committee directs that of the available funds, $1,000,000 is only to develop the High Output Diesel Engine at the National Automotive Center. chemical, smoke, and equipment defeating technology The Army requested $4,739,000 for chemical, smoke and equipment defeating technology. The Committee recommends $2,739,000, a decrease of $2,000,000 to limit program growth. joint service small arms program The Army requested $4,786,000 for the joint service small arms program. The Committee recommends $9,286,000, an increase of $4,500,000 only for the accelerated development of the Objective Crew Served Weapon. weapons and munitions technology The joint Army and Defense Special Weapons Agency program for Electro-Thermal Chemical technology development (ETC) is evaluating ETC for direct fire applications. The Committee believes that ETC technology may also have indirect fire applications. Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to conduct a study which explores the benefits of ETC for Army indirect fire applications. The study is to address the issues associated with propellant and ETC ignitor development, as well as system issues associated with platform integration. The study is to be completed by March 1998. If the study proves that ETC has indirect fire applications, the Committee encourages the Army to include this program in the fiscal year 1999 budget request. electronics and electronic devices The Army requested $20,192,000 for electronics and electronic devices. The Committee recommends $22,692,000, an increase of $2,500,000 only for the development of standard- combustion, fuel driven, man-portable, thermophotovoltaic generators. COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS The Committee encourages the Army to examine potential funding for the Charged Particle Beam Countermine System (CPB- CMS), which the Committee believes has the potential to detect and detonate all types of suface or buried mines at a safe stand-off distance through the use of a high current electron beam. human factors engineering technology The Army requested $14,256,000 for Human Factors Engineering. The Committee recommends $18,256,000, an increase of $4,000,000 only for Medical Teams. environmental quality technology The Army requested $17,519,000 for Environmental Quality Technology. The Committee recommends $42,219,000, an increase of $24,700,000. Of this amount, $5,000,000 is only for support of life-cycle environmental and manufacturing technologies research related to weapons systems and munitions technology assessment and analysis at the Gallo Center, Picatinny Arsenal. In addition, $2,000,000 is only for the U.S. Army Construction and Engineering Research Laboratory to conduct an industry cost-shared demonstration of emerging high-efficiency natural gas boiler technology. This increase also provides $5,000,000 only for the implementation of the Commercialization of Technologies to Lower Defense Costs Initiative. Finally, the Committee provides $4,000,000 only for Bioremediation Education, Science and Technology and $8,700,000 only for the Plasma Energy Pyrolysis System as provided for in the House- passed Defense authorization bill. MILITARY ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY The Army requested $36,422,000 for military engineering technology. The Committee recommends $43,922,000, an increase of $7,500,000 only for further technology development to enhance the military capabilities and economic efficiency of climate change fuel cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction Engineering Research Laboratories. MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY The Army requested $74,684,000 for Medical Technology. The Committee recommends $142,484,000, an increase of $67,800,000. Within this increase, $25,000,000 is only for the continuation of the Army-managed Neurotoxin Exposure Treatment Research Program, $9,800,000 is only for neurofibromatosis, $3,500,000 is only for Army nutrition research, $3,500,000 is only for orthopedic implant research, $6,000,000 is only for the LSTAT, $10,000,000 is only for prostate cancer research, and $10,000,000 is only for ovarian cancer research. neurofibromatosis The Committee recommends $9,800,000 to continue the Army neurofibromatosis medical research program which has produced important advances in the understanding of NF. This work includes important investigations into genetic mechanisms governing peripheral nerve regeneration after injury from such things as missile wounds and chemical toxins, and is important to gaining better understandings of wound healing. The Committee compliments the Army Medical Research and Material Command for structuring a highly regarded, peer-reviewed program that is well coordinated with other research conducted at the National Institutes of Health. The Committee urges the Army to focus these funds on research leading to clinical trials of promising treatments and therapies for NF. prostate disease The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to continue the Department's nationally-recognized program to conduct basic and clinical research studies to combat diseases of the prostate. The goal of this program is to develop more effective, more specific and less toxic forms of therapy for patients in all stages of prostate disease. The Center for Prostate Disease Research established under this program uses the large network of military hospitals around the country as a resource for information on the improved detection and treatment of prostate disease. The Department should continue to give the highest priority to funding research that is multi-institutional, multi-disciplinary and regionally focused. Advanced Development MEDICAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY The Department requested $10,677,000 for Medical Advanced Technology. The Committee recommends $142,177,000, an increase of $131,500,000. Within this increase, $100,000,000 is only for the Army peer-reviewed breast cancer program, $8,000,000 is only for the National Medical Testbed, $6,000,000 is only for catheterization lab upgrades at Walter Reed, $3,500,000 is only for advanced cancer detection, $3,000,000 is only for cooperative teleradiology, $6,000,000 is only for advanced trauma care, $1,500,000 is only for artificial lung research, and $3,500,000 is only for emergency telemedicine, as proposed in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. aviation advanced technology The Army requested $31,330,000 for aviation advanced technology. The Committee recommends $53,830,000, an increase of $22,500,000. Within this increase, $5,000,000 is only to begin development of a short-range unmanned aerial vehicle, $2,500,000 is only to define the potential operational value and key technical issues related to an integrated manned and unmanned aerial vehicle scout team, $11,600,000 is only for development of the Stinger Universal Launcher (SUL), and $3,400,000 is only for the Starstreak missile. The Committee provides the additional funds for the SUL and Starstreak missile to ensure the Army maintains the schedule for a fiscal year 1999 side-by-side test of both the Stinger and the Starstreak missile on the Apache helicopter. The Committee directs the Army to take all necessary steps, including budgeting adequate fiscal year 1999 funds, to ensure such a side-by-side test will take place in fiscal year 1999. weapons and munitions advanced technology The Army requested $18,255,000 for weapons and munitions advanced technology. The Committee recommends $25,255,000, an increase of $7,000,000. Of the increase, $5,000,000 is only to accelerate trajectory correctable munitions development and $2,000,000 is only for precision guided mortar munitions development. missile and rocket advanced technology The Army requested $117,139,000 for missile and rocket advanced technology development. The Committee recommends $59,439,000, a reduction of $57,700,000 based on the termination of the Army's Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile (EFOG-M). The Committee notes that EFOG-M was not recommended for authorization this year based on technical and testing concerns. This program, as currently structured, is essentially a multiyear procurement program incrementally funded in the Army's science and technology (S&T) research budget. Using funds normally associated with fundamental research and technology demonstrations, the Army plans to procure and field 256 missiles, 12 launch vehicles, and 4 command vehicles to the 82nd Airborne for a ``limited go to war capability.'' The Army plans to field the weapon system without independent operational testing and evaluation (IOT&E), formal milestone reviews, or many of the other fundamental acquisition requirements in place to ensure DoD only procures safe, cost effective, operationally suitable, and supportable weapon systems. The EFOG-M program is part of a larger Rapid Force Projection Initiative (RFPI) Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD). A ``principle'' of ACTDs is that after a technology is demonstrated, it can be left behind to operational units for further use and evaluation. The Army is abusing this ``principle'' by procuring missiles and vehicles far in excess of those required for the ACTD. The ACTD requires only 44 missiles, 8 launch vehicles, and 2 command vehicles. The Army is using S&T funds to buy an additional 256 missiles that will not be consumed in ACTD testing as well as additional launchers and command vehicles to field an entire company in the 82nd Airborne. Since the program's funding is buried within a larger R&D line-item, neither Congress nor OSD has visibility into the yearly quantities and costs that would normally appear in a missile procurement budget that complies with the ``full funding'' policy. The Committee also notes that the 256 missiles are being produced under a multiyear contract that has never been explicitly approved by Congress as would be required had the missiles been funded in a procurement account. Abuse of so many basic acquisition and financial policies jeopardizes the Committee's support of the ACTD ``leave behind'' principle. The Committee expects DoD to review its ACTD programs to ensure the minimum amount of equipment is being developed to support only the ACTD. The Committee has also included a general provision that addresses this overall growing problem within DoD by prohibiting the use of R&D funds to buy end-items that will not be used in support of testing. landmine warfare and barrier advanced technology The Army requested $19,332,000 for landmine warfare and barrier advanced technology. The Committee recommends $25,932,000, an increase of $6,600,000. Of the increase, $3,900,000 is only to continue the development of the Vehicular Mounted Mine Detection (VMMD) system and $2,700,000 is only to test the Ground Stand-off Mine detection system as part of the VMMD advanced technology demonstration. line-of-sight technology demonstration The Army requested $13,000,000 for the Line-Of-Sight Advanced Technology anti-tank missile system. The Committee recommends no funding for this program, a decrease of $13,000,000. Starting with the fiscal year 1998 President's Budget, the Army has restructured the LOSAT program as an ACTD using an acquisition model very similar to the EFOG-M program (discussed elsewhere in this report). Like EFOG-M, the Army is using the ``leave behind'' principle of ACTDs to develop, procure, and field 13 fire units and 178 missiles to the 82nd Airborne using science and technology research funding. The 178 missiles will not be consumed in testing and Army documentation shows a FY 2003 ``fielding'' date with a note that states, ``funded [R&D] program provides initial operating capability.'' The Committee strongly objects to this kind of R&D funded procurement scheme and states its intent to deny or realign funding for any programs in the future where such abuse of fundamental and traditional acquisition program and budget procedure is discovered. The Committee is also concerned with the number of ``tank killers'' the Army is trying to field in the 82nd Airborne. In the coming years, the 82nd Airborne's anti-tank capabilities will include Hellfire, Javelin, and Follow-On To Tow (FOTT) weapon systems. Each of these will be by far the most advanced anti-tank weapons of their kind on the battlefield. LOSAT would provide the 82nd Airborne with a capability that will be, in many ways, duplicative to FOTT. Both weapon systems are employed on HMMWVs and have similar ranges. While LOSAT has the advantage of extreme lethality, FOTT has the advantage of having greater targeting flexibility and being a fire and forget weapon. Also, FOTT is an objective system for the entire Army and will be proliferated throughout the Service using the existing Tow infrastructure. Given these considerations, the Committee views the LOSAT acquisition program as both inappropriately structured and wasteful and therefore recommends its termination. Demonstration and Validation army missile defense systems integration The Army requested $24,138,000 for Army missile defense systems integration. The Committee recommends $55,638,000, an increase of $31,500,000 only to test the Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) demonstrator. Subsequent to the budget submission, the Secretary of Defense and Israel agreed the THEL demonstrator should undergo U.S. government developmental testing. The government developmental test would be the first opportunity to validate the capability of the demonstrator to shoot down rockets in flight before it is given to Israel. The Secretary of Defense proposed that the U.S. provide two-thirds and the Israeli government one-third of the funds required to complete the government developmental test. However, no funds are included in the fiscal year 1998 budget request for the government developmental test. The recommended increase will pay the two-thirds share for THEL testing as proposed by the Secretary of Defense. The Committee notes that the fiscal year 1998 budget includes $16,500,000 for THEL development and contractor testing. The Committee has also recommended an additional $10,000,000 in program element 0605605A, High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility, for test site preparation. aviation advanced development The Army requested $7,132,000 for aviation advanced development. The Committee recommends $15,132,000, an increase of $8,000,000. Of the amount, $3,000,000 is only to continue the development of the aircrew integrated common helmet development and $5,000,000 is only to develop retinal display technologies for the aircrew integrated common helmet. artillery systems development The Army requested $324,380,000 for artillery systems development (Crusader). The Committee recommends the amount requested. The Committee expresses its continued support for the Crusader development program and believes that the Crusader artillery system has the potential to increase future artillery and maneuver force effectiveness. The Committee encourages the Army to provide adequate funding program in future budget submissions to ensure that the Crusader acquisition plan remains on schedule. Engineering and Manufacturing Development ew development The Army requested $66,212,000 for EW Development. The Committee recommends $86,524,000, an increase of $20,312,000 to integrate lessons learned in the Force XXI Advanced Warfighting Experiment and meet the goal of IOT&E in fiscal year 1998. family of heavy tactical vehicles The Army requested no funding for the family of heavy tactical vehicles. The Committee recommends $5,000,000 only to design, develop, and integrate state-of-the-art technologies into future tactical trailers. air traffic control The Army requested $1,705,000 for air traffic control. The Committee recommends $4,705,000, an increase of $3,000,000. The Committee has learned that inadequate funds were budgeted to complete testing of the Air Traffic Navigation Integration and Coordination System (ATNAVICS). Therefore, the Committee has transferred funds from ATNAVICS procurement to research and development to complete testing. light tactical wheeled vehicle The Army requested $9,909,000 for light tactical wheeled vehicle development. The Committee recommends no funding for this program. The Army is currently developing a light tactical wheeled vehicle strategy based on future requirements and budgets and is considering four alternatives: continue to procure the current vehicle; modify the current vehicle; procure a new commercial vehicle; or develop a new light tactical wheeled vehicle. The Committee has requested that the Army provide detailed cost and requirement analysis of the light tactical wheeled vehicle strategy; however, the study will not be complete until fiscal year 1998. Although the Army has not completed its evaluation of various alternatives for light weight tactical vehicles, the Army's budget request essentially is predetermining the outcome of the study. The Committee directs that the Army provide by September 15, 1997 a report outlining the light weight tactical vehicle alternatives which the Army is currently evaluating. The report is to include the requirements, estimated development and acquisition costs, and estimated operation and support costs for each alternative. combat feeding, clothing, and equipment The Army requested $55,964,000 for combat feeding, clothing and equipment development. The Committee recommends $65,264,000 an increase of $9,300,000 only for the continued testing and development of the Force XXI Landwarrior system. automatic test equipment development The Army requested $2,582,000 for automatic test equipment development. The Committee recommends $11,582,000, an increase of $9,000,000 only for Integrated Family of Test Equipment development. combined arms tactical trainer The Army requested $2,823,000 for the development of the Combined Arms Tactical Trainer. The Committee recommends $13,323,000, an increase of $10,500,000 only for the development and testing of the Close Combat Tactical Trainer (CCTT). After the fiscal year 1998 budget was submitted to the Congress, the Army made significant changes to the CCTT acquisition schedule because of problems associated with system reliability. The new acquisition schedule delays operational testing until April 1998 and the delivery of an operational system by at least one year. Since the fiscal year 1998 budget does not reflect the revised acquisition schedule, the Committee has recommended additional funding to resolve reliability issues associated with the development of the CCTT. landmine warfare/barrier engineering development The Army requested $22,605,000 for landmine warfare/barrier engineering development. The Committee recommends $8,905,000, a decrease of $13,700,000. The Committee has deleted the funds for the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) of the Airborne Standoff Minefield Detection System (ASTAMIDS). The Committee has and continues to be a strong supporter of countermine systems and has added funding for the development of such systems. Last year, the Congress believed that the ASTAMIDS system was not ready to enter EMD until results from a Bosnia qualification test were available. Therefore, the Congress provided an additional $12,000,000 to complete advanced development work required on the two competing systems in anticipation of a Bosnia qualification test. Since the budget submission, the Committee has learned that neither system met the exit criteria for the Bosnia qualification test and that both ASTAMIDS systems are encountering technical difficulties. Once again, the Committee believes that it is premature to enter EMD and appropriates no funds. sense and destroy armament missile The Army requested $22,372,000 the Sense and Destroy Armanent Missile (SADARM). The Committee recommends $5,494,000, a decrease of $16,878,000 to delay the development of the product improvement program of SADARM. The Committee is a strong supporter of the SADARM program and has provided funding to procure SADARM. However, the baseline SADARM development program was plagued with technical difficulties. Until scheduled testing is completed on the baseline system in fiscal year 1998, the Committee believes that the product improvement program can be delayed. RDT&E Management Support dod high energy laser test facility The Army requested $14,952,000 for the DoD High Energy Laser Test Facility (HELSTF). The Committee recommends $30,952,000, an increase of $16,000,000 of which $10,000,000 is only to conduct live fire tests of the Tactical High Energy Laser System at HELSTF and $6,000,000 is only for the solid state laser development program. materiel systems analysis The Army requested $29,707,000 for material systems analysis. The Committee recommends $14,707,000, a decrease of $15,000,000. The Committee notes that the fiscal year 1998 budget request includes the transfer of funds from operation and maintenance. However, the Committee does not believe that the Army's budget submission adequately justifies the costs associated with material systems analysis. The budget submission does not provide cost data for salaries, travel, and number of personnel. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned with the level of operational testing resources dedicated for Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations, Advanced Technology Demonstrations, and the Advanced Warfighting Experiments. The Committee believes that since these activities are demonstrations and not formal acquisition programs, testing costs should be included in the budget lines funding the individual demonstrations and experiments. Additionally, given the decrease in Major Defense Acquisition Programs, the Committee believes that the management and support cost associated with the operational test of such systems should also decrease. support of operational testing The Army requested $81,672,000 for support of operational testing. The Committee recommends $51,672,000, a decrease of $30,000,000. The Committee is aware that the budget request for this activity increased in fiscal year 1998 because funding was transferred from operation and maintenance to research and development. Based on the Army budget materials, the Committee believes the majority of the fiscal year 1998 funding is to conduct operational testing associated with the Advanced Warfighting Experiments. Furthermore, the Army's budget justification materials do not provide cost data for the number of personnel, salaries, travel and associated operational costs for test and evaluation support activities. The Committee notes that some of the systems scheduled to undergo operational testing in fiscal year 1997 have been delayed, such as the ASTAMIDS, Close Combat Tactical Trainer, and the ATNAVICS system. Therefore, fiscal year 1997 funds should be available to address any fiscal year 1998 shortfalls. programwide activities The Army requested $86,208,000 for programwide activities. The Committee recommends $66,208,000, a decrease of $20,000,000. The fiscal year 1998 budget request is 30 percent higher than last year's appropriated amount. The Committee notes that the majority of the increase was to fund the federal workforce restructure. However, the Committee believes that the Army budget justification materials do not provide sufficient rationale to warrant such an increase in fiscal year 1998. munitions standardization, effectiveness and safety The Army requested $6,317,000 for munitions standardization, effectiveness, and safety. The Committee recommends $9,317,000, an increase of $3,000,000 only to develop a blast chamber for demilitarizing excess and obsolete ammunition at the Blue Grass Army Depot. environmental compliance The Army requested $51,378,000 for environmental compliance. The Committee recommends $56,378,000, an increase of $5,000,000 only for the U.S. Army Construction and Engineering Research Laboratory for further technology development to enhance the military applications and economic efficiency of fuel cells. In the fiscal year 1994 Defense Appropriations Act, the Congress provided an increase of $2,700,000 in this program element for an environmental remediation project that was authorized in the fiscal year 1994 Defense Authorization Act. The Committee is disappointed to note that the Department redirected $1,700,000 of this funding to another project. The Committee understands that work has already begun in coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers, but it cannot be completed as planned without the restoration of the funds. The Committee therefore directs the Department to provide $1,700,000 from within available funds to complete this effort and to expand the project area accordingly. aerostat joint project office The Army requested $86,193,000 for the Aerostat Joint Program Office. The Committee recommends no funding for this activity. The Aerostat Joint Program Office has been conducting concept of operation studies and developing an operational requirements document. Since fiscal year 1996, the Army has spent over $30,000,000 for concept studies; however, there is still not a validated requirement or a completed vulnerability assessment for the Aerostat system. According to the joint program office, the total cost of the concept development and Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration phase of the Aerostat program will be over $600,000,000 after which the Army will have one operational Aerostat. The Committee is also aware that the Army five year budget plan for this program is underfunded by $120,000,000. The Committee is, frankly, taken aback by the Army development community's grandiose plans for this program in light of the well-documented and understood shortfalls in not only other Army modernization programs, but in all Army accounts. Absent any firm program requirements, validated mission or user need, vulnerability assessment, or plans to ultimately procure Aerostats, the Committee recommends termination of this program, as well as rescission of available prior year appropriations. combat vehicle improvement program The Army requested $136,520,000 for the combat vehicle improvement program. The Committee recommends $152,520,000, an increase of $16,000,000 of which $12,000,000 is only to integrate field emission flat panel displays on the Abrams tank and $4,000,000 is only to continue the development of the AN/ VVR-1 laser warning receiver. digitization The Army requested $156,960,000 for digitization. The Committee recommends $75,560,000, a decrease of $81,400,000. Of the amount, $38,900,000 has been transferred to the Force XXI Initiative appropriation and $52,500,000 has been transferred to fund Warfighting Rapid Acquisition Program (WRAP) initiatives not included in the fiscal year 1998 budget submission. Further details are provided under the heading Force XXI Initiatives. An additional $10,000,000 is only to procure Tactical Personnel Communications Services for experimentation at the next Advanced Warfighting Experiment at Fort Hood. The Army's Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) has played an important role in the digitization program; however, the Committee believes that TRADOC's dominant role should not continue into the system acquisition phase. TRADOC represents the ``user'' and the Committee believes that digitization development, operational tests, and evaluation should be under the management of an acquisition executive. Therefore, the Committee directs that the Army designate a Program Manager and establish a Battlefield System Acquisition Program Office prior to the Milestone I/II decision to initiate the system acquisition phase. The Committee is concerned that without the establishment of an acquisition program office, that major technical, cost, and schedule issues can not be adequately managed. During the March 1997 Advanced Warfighting Experiment, the Army found that voice-data contention on SINCGARS nets seriously limited the Commander's ability to command and control his forces. The Army has plans to replace SINCGARS with an interim Near Term Digital Radio (NTDR) followed by Future Digital Radio (FDR). The NTDR is currently in development. FDR development is scheduled for fiscal year 1999; fielding would begin in fiscal year 2004. The Army wants to field its interim digitized division in fiscal year 2000; however, until the FDR is fielded, the division will have a very limited capability to transmit data. The Committee believes that the digital tactical radio acquisition program is not in sync with the overall digitization of the battlefield plan and directs the Army to submit with the fiscal year 1999 budget a tactical radio plan which would meet the requirements of the interim digitized division. The plan is to include requirements, cost, and acquisition schedule. Furthermore, the Committee directs that the Army coordinate the plan with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence. missile/air defense product improvement program The Army requested $17,412,000 for air defense missile improvements. The Committee recommends $27,412,000, an increase of $10,000,000 only for the Patriot Anti-Cruise Missile program. joint tactical ground system The Army requested $3,195,000 for the Joint Tactical Ground System. The Committee recommends $6,195,000, an increase of $3,000,000 to continue the upgrades under Phase I of the JTAGS P3I program. end item industrial preparedness activities The Army requested $44,326,000 for end item industrial preparedness activities. The Committee recommends $54,326,000, an increase of $10,000,000. Of that amount $5,000,000 is only for the development of the M829E3 munitions production capability and $5,000,000 only to accelerate munitions manufacturing technology. force xxi initiative The Army requested no funds for Force XXI initiatives. The Committee recommends $38,900,000 only for the Warfighting Rapid Acquisition Program (WRAP). The budget request includes $100,000,000 for WRAP initiatives in the Army's digitization appropriation. Last year, the Congress established a separate program element for WRAP initiatives. In accordance with last year's Act, the Committee recommends the transfer of WRAP funding from the Digitization to the Force XXI Initiative program element. The Army has identified fiscal year 1998 WRAP funding to continue initiatives which were approved in fiscal year 1997. The Committee has established new program elements for the fiscal year 1997 initiatives and transferred the fiscal year 1998 WRAP funding as identified by the Army to continue each initiative. The Committee has provided funding for the following WRAP initiatives in fiscal year 1998: Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army Striker............................................... $3,900,000 Mortar Fire Control................................... 10,000,000 Applique (funded in Digitization)..................... 2,600,000 Tactical Internet (funded in Digitization)............ 6,000,000 Other Procurement, Army Gun Laying Positioning System......................... 6,000,000 Radio Frequency Technology............................ 2,900,000 Lightweight Laser Designator/Range Finder............. 2,800,000 Combat Synthetic Training Assessment Range............ 5,400,000 Airborne Command and Control System................... 11,100,000 Avenger Slew to Cue................................... 7,400,000 Palletized Loading System Enhanced.................... 3,000,000 The Committee has recommended a new general provision which prohibits the DoD from using research and development funds to procure end-items for delivery to military forces. To comply with the general provision, the Committee has recommended that the funding budgeted for the procurement of WRAP items be transferred to Other Procurement, Army. As in fiscal year 1997, the Congress directs that no funds may be obligated from the Force XXI Initiative appropriation without prior notification to the congressional defense committees. Notification is to include the supporting criteria outlining the technical merit and maturity; criticality and priority to warfighting requirements; affordability; effectiveness; and sustainability in future budget submissions for the items under consideration. Once again, the Committee directs that none of the Force XXI funds may be used for technologies included in the budget request, such as applique, night vision equipment, and radios. Instead, Force XXI funds are to be reprogrammed, with prior notification, to the appropriate account for obligation. The Committee notes that the Army's unfunded requirements list included approximately $90,000,000 for digitization efforts. The Committee believes that those shortfalls, which ensure interoperability and systems architecture development, should be funded before Force XXI initiatives. striker The Army requested no funds for Striker. The Committee recommends $3,900,000 only for Striker. Additional details are provided under the heading ``Force XXI Initiatives.'' mortar fire control The Army requested no funds for Mortar Fire Control (MFC). The Committee recommends $10,000,000 only for MFC. Additional details are provided under the heading ``Force XXI Initiatives.'' theater precision strike operations The Army requested no funds for Theater Precision Strike Operations (TSPO). The Committee recommends $5,000,000 only for TSPO. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, NAVY Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $8,208,946,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 7,611,022,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 7,907,837,000 Change from budget request............................ +296,815,000 This appropriation provides funds for the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation activities of the Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps. Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with House authorization action: [In thousands of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Budget Committee Change from request recommendation request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ASW systems development (ADLFP)...................... 22,869 26,669 +3,800 Advanced submarine combat systems development.......... 61,122 62,422 +1,300 Carrier systems development... 98,587 10,187 -88,400 Shipboard system component development.................. 19,194 22,694 +3,500 Advanced submarine system development.................. 59,067 162,067 +103,000 Marine Corps assault vehicles. 60,134 70,134 +10,000 Marine Corps ground combat support system............... 36,464 40,064 +3,600 Standards development......... 36,297 40,297 +4,000 Tactical command system....... 31,518 41,518 +10,000 H-1 Upgrades.................. 80,735 86,335 +5,600 Acoustic search sensors (AEER) 16,947 20,947 +4,000 Arsenal ship.................. 102,994 0 -102,994 Distributed surveillance...... 33,048 43,448 +10,400 F/A-18 squadrons.............. 316,976 207,776 -109,200 Tomahawk and Tomahawk mission planning center.............. 93,359 91,500 -1,859 Consolidated training systems development.................. 58,956 36,456 -22,500 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Basic Research in-house independent laboratory research The Navy requested $15,834,000 for in-house independent laboratory research. The Committee recommends $14,683,000, a decrease of $1,151,000 due to fiscal constraints. defense research sciences The Navy requested $366,283,000 for defense research sciences. The Committee recommends $336,463,000, a decrease of $29,820,000. This includes a decrease of $39,820,000 to hold the program to the 1997 level and an increase of $10,000,000 only for molecular design research as recommended in the House- passed Authorization bill. Exploratory Development surface/aerospace surveillance and weapons technology The Navy requested $32,273,000 for surface/aerospace surveillance and weapons technology. The Committee recommends $29,273,000, a decrease of $3,000,000 due to fiscal constraints. surface ship technology The Navy requested $46,859,000 for surface ship technology. The Committee recommends $53,859,000, an increase of $7,000,000. This includes increases recommended in the House- passed Defense Authorization bill: $6,000,000 only for power electronic building blocks, $1,500,000 only for power node control centers, and $2,500,000 only for micromechanical systems technology for damage tolerant networks. An additional $2,000,000 is only to enhance on-going Navy collaborative efforts for the application for underwater vehicle derived component level intelligent distributed control technology to Navy surface ship automation. A decrease of $5,000,000 is also recommended due to fiscal constraints. aircraft technology The Navy requested $23,590,000 for aircraft technology. The Committee recommends $25,390,000, an increase of $1,800,000. Within this amount, $2,800,000 is only to continue the technical evaluation and integration of advanced high resolution and brightness pixel flat panel displays into Navy integrated day/night all-weather helmet mounted displays. A decrease of $1,000,000 is also recommended due to fiscal constraints. command, control, and communications technology The Navy requested $65,566,000, for C3 technology. The Committee recommends $59,566,000, a decrease of $6,000,000 due to fiscal constraints. readiness, training, and environmental quality technology The Navy requested $31,762,000 for readiness, training, and environmental quality technology. The Committee recommends $47,362,000, an increase of $15,600,000. Within this amount, $16,000,000 is only for development of sea-state 3 lighterage systems and $2,600,000 is only for the Smart Aircrew Integrated Life Support System and psycho-physiological assessment. A decrease of $3,000,000 is also recommended due to fiscal constraints. Concerning lighterage, the Committee recommends that the Navy test extensively the capabilities of the current ELCAS(M) style pontoons and potential upgrades to perform sea state 3 missions. materials, electronics, and computer technology The Navy requested $76,653,000 for materials, electronics, and computer technology. The Committee recommends $73,653,000, a decrease of $3,000,000. Within this amount $2,000,000 is only for qualification of new processes such as resin transfer molding and second source materials such as carbon fibers and $2,000,000 is only to develop a composite storage capsule for laboratory and at-sea testing for use by Navy SEALs on submarines. A decrease of $7,000,000 is also recommended due to fiscal constraints. electronic warfare technology The Navy requested $22,810,000 for electronic warfare technology. The Committee recommends $21,810,000, a decrease of $1,000,000 due to fiscal constraints. undersea surveillance weapon technology The Navy requested $51,033,000 for undersea surveillance weapon technology. The Committee recommends $46,033,000, a decrease of $5,000,000 due to fiscal constraints. oceanographic and atmospheric technology The Navy requested $48,211,000 for oceanographic and atmospheric technology. The Committee recommends $77,711,000, an increase of $29,500,000 as recommended in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. Within this amount, $10,000,000 is only to continue autonomous underwater vehicle and sensor development, $16,000,000 is only for ocean partnerships, $2,750,000 is only to implement the consolidation of the Naval Surface Warfare Center South Florida Test Facility through continuation of collaborative marine vehicle research efforts, and $750,000 is only for PM-10. In addition, $2,000,000 from available funds is available only for arctic research as recommended by the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. undersea warfare weaponry technology The Navy requested $35,736,000 for undersea warfare weaponry technology. The Committee recommends $31,736,000, a decrease of $4,000,000 due to fiscal constraints. Of the amount provided, $5,000,000 is only for continued development of COTS airgun technology as an acoustic surveillance source as recommended in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. Advanced Development air systems and weapons advanced technology The Navy requested $35,093,000 for air systems and weapons advanced technology. The Committee recommends $41,193,00, an increase of $6,100,000. Within that amount, $11,500,000 is only for Maritime Avionics Subsystems and Technology (MAST) and $2,000,000 is only for Integrated High Payoff Rocket Technology. A decrease of $7,400,000 is also recommended due to fiscal constraints. precision strike and air defense The Navy requested $43,320,000 for precision strike and air defense. The Committee recommends $44,320,000, an increase of $1,000,000. This includes an increase of $5,000,000 only for mobile off-shore basing and a decrease of $4,000,000 due to fiscal constraints. advanced electronic warfare technology The Navy requested $18,144,000 for advanced electronic warfare technology. The Committee recommends $17,144,000, a decrease of $1,000,000 due to fiscal constraints. ship propulsion system The Navy requested $39,737,000 for ship propulsion technology. The Committee recommends $34,737,000, a decrease of $5,000,000. Within this amount, $5,000,000 is only for active control of machinery rafts (Project M) which shall be applied to both surface ship and submarine applications. A decrease of $10,000,000 is also recommended due to fiscal constraints. marine corps advanced technology demonstration The Marine Corps requested $34,178,000 for the Marine Corps advanced technology demonstration. The Committee recommends $63,478,000, an increase of $29,300,000. Within the increase, $20,300,000 is only for the Commandant's Warfighting Laboratory, $5,000,000 is only to continue the SMAW product improvement program and $4,000,000 is only for two kilowatt proton exchange membrane fuel cell development. Medical Technology The Navy requested $18,332,000 for Medical Technology. The Committee recommends $72,732,000, an increase of $54,400,000. Within this increase, $34,000,000 is available only for bone marrow, $2,600,000 is only for the naval biodynamics lab, $5,500,000 is only for biocide materials research, $2,500,000 is only for freeze-dried blood, $4,000,000 is only for dental research, $4,000,000 is only for the mobile medical monitor and $3,000,000 is only for rural health. In addition, the Committee recommends a reduction of $1,200,000 for fleet health. Manpower, Personnel and Training The Navy requested $18,812,000 for manpower, personnel, and training technology. The Committee recommends $20,502,000, an increase of $1,690,000. Within this amount, $3,690,000 is only for virtual reality environment research for training for military and non-combat operations. The goal of this research is to develop virtual reality training capability for the Department of Defense, including safe mission rehearsal and realistic battlefield scenario depiction, and flexible training simulations to provide three dimensional tactical pictures. A decrease of $2,000,000 is also recommended due to fiscal constraints. Environmental Quality and Logistics The Navy requested $18,249,000 for environmental quality and logistics technology. The Committee recommends $18,999,999, an increase of $750,000. Within this amount, $1,750,000 is only for a 250 kilowatt proton exchange membrane fuel cell demonstration recommended in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill and $1,000,000 is only for visualization of technical information. A decrease of $2,000,000 is also recommended due to fiscal constraints. Undersea Warfare Advanced Technology The Navy requested $54,785,000 for undersea warfare. The Committee recommends $46,385,000, a decrease of $8,400,000 due to fiscal constraints. Shallow Water MCM Demonstrations The Navy requested $41,602,000 for shallow water mine countermeasure demonstrations. The Committee recommends $38,352,000, a decrease of $3,250,000. This includes an increase of $750,000 only for obstacle destruction through mounting a GPU-5 gunpod on LCAC craft and a decrease of $4,000,000 due to fiscal constraints. Advanced Technology Transition The Navy requested $87,285,000 for advanced technology transition. The Committee recommends $73,052,000, a decrease of $14,233,000. This includes a decrease of $18,233,000 to hold the program to the 1997 level and an increase of $4,000,000 only for the high frequency surface wave radar. The Committee directs that none of the reduction be applied to the RAMICS or affordable array technology projects. c3 advanced technology The Navy requested $23,768,000 for C3 advanced technology. The Committee recommends $22,368,000, a reduction of $1,400,000 due to fiscal constraints. Demonstration and Validation aviation survivability The Navy requested $7,859,000 for aviation survivability. The Committee recommends $16,959,000, an increase of $9,100,000 only for development of the Navy Integrated day/night all- weather display helmet into the AV-8B, F/A-18, and Advance Strike Fighter aircraft and $3,000,000 is only for visualization architecture and technology at the Naval Aircraft Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Patuxent River. surface and shallow water mine countermeasures The Navy requested $58,231,000 for surface and shallow water mine countermeasures. The Committee recommends $71,131,000, an increase of $12,900,000, of which $7,900,000 is for the remote minehunting system and $5,000,000 is only for the Integrated Combat Weapon System on MCM and MHC mine hunting ships. Both projects are recommended in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. advanced submarine system development The Navy requested $59,067,000 for advanced submarine system development. The Committee recommends $162,067,000, an increase of $103,000,000 as recommended in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. The Committee directs that none of these funds may be used for a technology demonstrator program until the Navy submits a program plan to the Appropriations Committees at least 30 days prior to obligation of funds that provides a plan, acquisition strategy, costs, and schedule. advanced surface machinery systems The Navy requested $49,741,000 for advanced surface machinery systems. The Committee recommends $44,741,000, a decrease of $5,000,000 to the Intercooled Recuperative gas turbine engine. The Intercooled Gas Turbine engine program is an international cooperative development program to develop a more fuel efficient powerplant for surface combatant ships. During hearings this year the Committee discovered that the program requires an additional $100 million to complete development. After that, there remains an unfunded requirement for an additional $100 million for at-sea testing of the engine. Without at-sea testing, the engine could never be a candidate for installation in U.S. warships even after expenditure of over $400 million. The Navy testified this year that it would recommended termination of the ICR program if the United Kingdom and France do not pay at least half of the shortfall for full engine qualification as well as make suitable arrangements for sharing future cost growth in the development program. The Committee makes this reduction in anticipation of savings to the United States due to successful negotiation of an international cost-sharing agreement. Conventional munitions The Navy requested $34,190,000 for conventional munitions technologies. The Committee recommends $38,190,000, an increase of $4,000,000 only for development of optical correlator technology. advanced warhead development The budget requested $2,012,000 in the MK-50 torpedo line- item. The Committee recommends no appropriations since the effort planned is unrelated to the MK-50 torpedo. The Committee has instead moved these funds to the lightweight torpedo development line-item, and expects the Navy to budget for the effort in the appropriate line-item in the future. cooperative engagement The Navy requested $139,229,000 for development of cooperative engagement capability. The Committee recommends $223,229,000, an increase of $84,000,000. Within this amount $20,000,000 is for E-2/CEC integration, $15,000,000 is for CEC/ TBMD development efforts, $15,000,000 is for development of a low cost common equipment set, $13,000,000 is for reduced schedule risk and integrated logistics support, $5,000,000 is for CEC/SSDS integration, $5,000,000 is for Hawk/CEC integration, $5,000,000 is for design agent transfer, $3,000,000 is for fleet CEC exercises, and $3,000,000 is for LAMPS data link interference. The Navy may allocate these funds within the CEC program to best meet overall program objectives. environmental protection The Navy requested $52,401,000 for Environmental Protection. The Committee recommends $56,401,000, an increase of $4,000,000 only for the Resource Recovery Technology Center. facilities improvement The Navy requested $1,720,000 for facilities improvement. The Committee recommends $6,720,000, an increase of $5,000,000 only for wood composite research. land attack technology The Navy requested $37,809,000 for land attack technology. The Committee recommends $81,909,000, an increase of $44,100,000. Within this amount, the following increases are recommended in accordance with the House-passed Defense Authorization bill: $20,000,000 only for Navy TACMS, $15,100,000 for the Extended Range Guided Munition, and $5,000,000 for microelectromechanical systems guidance and control. An additional $4,000,000 is only for the Land Attack Standard Missile (LASM). The Navy should not assume Committee approval of the LASM program until and unless funds are provided in the final Fiscal Year 1998 Defense Appropriations Act. The Committee strongly supports the next-generation Naval gun system and directs the Navy to keep this initiative on schedule for program definition and risk reduction demonstrations leading to the fielding of an advanced Naval 155mm gun system. joint strike fighter The Navy requested $448,855,000 for the Joint Strike Fighter. The Committee has approved the budget request for this program in full in Navy, Air Force, and DARPA accounts. Within this amount, $6,000,000 is only to develop and test a high temperature version of the eddy current sensor and an eddy current array sensor for use on the propulsive lift system and the engine turbo-machinery. Developing these sensors now will allow their inclusion in the Joint Strike Fighter baseline design, as well as make them available for other aircraft engine diagnostics. An additional $1,000,000 is available only for engine turbine fan improvement. Engineering and Manufacturing Development other helo development The Navy requested $73,354,000 for other helicopter development. The Committee recommends $85,354,000, an increase of $12,000,000 of which $7,000,000 is only to maintain the schedule of the block II upgrade and support the insertion of ruggedized, scalable commercial off-the-shelf avionics technology for the SH-60R helicopter program and $5,000,000 is only for the air interoperability center fiber optic backbone at the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Patuxent River. aircrew systems development The Navy requested $12,111,000 for aircrew systems development. The Committee recommends $18,111,000, an increase of $6,000,000 only to continue phase two of the NACES II ejection seat product improvement program. electronic warfare The Navy requested $101,803,000 for electronic warfare. The Committee requested $104,603,000, an increase of $2,800,000 only for precision targeting as recommended in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. surface combatant combat system engineering The Navy requested $87,934,000 for surface combatant combat system engineering. The Committee recommends $142,134,000, an increase of $54,200,000. This includes $43,000,000 only for TBMD/UYQ-70 architecture development and $14,000,000 for program shortfalls. A reduction of $2,800,000 is recommended by the General Accounting Office since a joint tactical control sea test has been postponed until 1999. arsenal ship The Navy requested $102,994,000 and DARPA requested $47,200,000 for development of an Arsenal Ship demonstrator. The Committee agrees with the House National Security Committee that a delay in the program is appropriate, given the great number of changes the Navy proposes to make in purpose and scope of the demonstrator ship. The Committee questions the acquisition strategy of continuing with arsenal ship contracts to construct a $500 million ship which is twice the size of the surface combatant application to be demonstrated, and which includes contract options for arsenal ships that differ from a land attack combatant demonstrator. The Navy should first define its requirements, and then award contracts; the current acquisition strategy is the reverse. The Committee is also concerned that CINC's have not requested such a ship. In the context of the fiscal year 1998 budget, where the Navy proposes no funding for installation of critical warfighting improvements such as cooperative engagement, ship self defense, CIWS surface mode, and TBMD capabilities for DDG-51 ships, the Arsenal ship is clearly of much lower priority. As noted in the Committee's hearings with Navy witnesses this year, converting Trident submarines to a conventional land attack configuration after START II is probably a more effective and affordable solution to meeting warfighting requirements. Finally, as discussed elsewhere in this report, the Committee is disturbed about the Administration's plan to field 12 new production DDG- 51 destroyers to the fleet without cooperative engagement and theater ballistic missile defense capabilities. The Committee notes that if the Navy were to cancel the Arsenal Ship Demonstrator, sufficient funds would be available to fix the destroyer problem as well as many other pressing surface warfare issues. lpd-17 class systems integration The Navy requested $471,000 for LPD-17 class systems integration. The Committee recommends $13,471,000, an increase of $13,000,000 only for initial design studies and ship development efforts for command ship replacement, land attack weapons integration, shipboard personnel reduction technology and work process improvements for LPD-17 class ships. tssam The Navy requested $9,644,000 for the Navy's participation in the Air Force JASSM program. The Committee recommends no funds for this program. The Committee has recommended termination of the JASSM program discussed elsewhere in this report since the Navy's SLAM-ER+ missile, in production in fiscal year 1998, meets the JASSM threshold requirements. vla upgrade The Navy requested no funds for VLA Upgrades. The Committee recommends $12,000,000 only for integration of the lightweight hybrid torpedo on the VLA rocket. airborne mine countermeasures The Navy requested $16,503,000 for airborne mine countermeasures. The Committee recommends $19,503,000, an increase of $3,000,000 only for SWIMS projector development. ssn-688 and trident modernization The Navy requested $42,294,000 for SSN-688 and Trident submarine modernization. The Committee recommends $52,294,000, an increase of $10,000,000 for multi-purpose processors as recommended in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. submarine combat system The Navy requested $23,701,000 for development of submarine combat systems. The Committee recommends $2,366,000, a decrease of $21,335,000 as recommended by the General Accounting Office due to postponement of the SSN-21 submarines' AN/BSY-2 combat system technical evaluation and operational evaluations beyond fiscal year 1998. new design ssn The Navy requested $311,076,000 for development of the New Attack Submarine. The Committee recommends $331,076,000, an increase of $20,000,000 of which $17,000,000 is recommended in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill for the Advanced Submarine Tactical Electronic Combat System/Integrated Mast and $3,000,000 is only for glass reinforced plastic and rubber sandwich sonar domes. ssn-21 developments The Navy requested $49,542,000 for SSN-21 developments. The Committee recommends $12,332,000, a decrease of $37,210,000 recommended by the General Accounting Office due to a delay in installation of an advanced special hull treatment and system qualification/inspection during SSN-21 post shakedown availability. ship contract design/live fire testing The Navy requested $75,713,000 for ship contract design and live fire testing. The Committee recommends $64,713,000, a decrease of $11,000,000. This includes an increase of $17,000,000 to accelerate advanced technology development for the next aircraft carrier (CVN-77) as recommended in the House- passed Defense Authorization bill and a decrease of $28,000,000 to slow the pace of development of the next generation destroyer (DD-21). These funds have been applied to more urgent requirements for CIWS surface mode and infrared search and track development. navy tactical computer resources The Navy requested $4,794,000 for tactical computer resources. The Committee recommends $39,294,000, an increase of $34,500,000 of which $17,500,000 is only for integration of AN/ UYQ-70 displays into submarines, $10,000,000 is only for virtual prototyping of electronic circuits, and $7,000,000 is only to integrate the AN/UYQ-70 Advanced Display System into existing Marine Expeditionary Force command elements. lightweight torpedo development The Navy requested $17,290,000 for development of the lightweight hybrid torpedo. The Committee recommends $19,302,000, an increase of $2,012,000 only for lightweight hybrid torpedo software development. ship self-defense The Navy requested $132,270,000 for ship self-defense. The Committee recommends $190,870,000, an increase of $58,600,000. Within this amount, $19,000,000 is for the Quick Reaction Combat Capability, $12,000,000 is for the ship self-defense test ship, $8,600,000 is only to refurbish an AN/SPS-48E for the Wallops Island ship defense test facility, $9,000,000 is only for the development of the SPQ-9B radar, and $10,000,000 is only for Infrared Search and Track. Medical Development The Navy requested $3,620,000 for Medical Development. The Committee recommends $16,920,000, an increase of $13,300,000. Within this increase, $8,500,000 is only for casualty monitoring and $4,800,000 is only for Navy Telemedicine. distributed surveillance system The Navy requested $33,048,000 for the Distributed Surveillance System program. The Committee recommends $43,448,000, an increase of $10,400,000. Of this amount, $7,800,000 is only to package the all-optical deployable system (AODS) into an advanced deployable system (ADS) and to test the deployment of this system at sea. The remaining $2,600,000 is for the development of signal processing and detection algorithms for the ADS. RDT&E Management Support target systems development The Navy requested $48,308,000 for target systems development. The Committee recommends $45,408,000, a reduction of $2,900,000 due to cancellation of the Non-Cooperative Airborne Vector Scorer after the budget was submitted. major t&e investment The Navy requested $33,236,000 for major test and evaluation investment. The Committee recommends $39,236,000, an increase of $6,000,000 only for development of an East Coast Communications Network at the Naval Aircraft Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Patuxent River. studies and analysis support The Navy requested $8,755,000 for studies and analysis support. The Committee recommends $6,679,000, a decrease of $2,076,000 to hold the program at the 1997 level. technical information services The Navy requested $8,763,000 for technical information services. Included in that amount is $8,000,000 proposed for the Acquisition Center of Excellence. When the Committee agreed to a Navy proposal last year to provide funds for the center ($500,000 was provided in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1998), the Committee did not know that an additional $16,000,000 is required in fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and an undetermined amount thereafter. This amount of funding is inappropriate for a simple support activity to the acquisition community. The Committee notes that this amount of funding in fiscal year 1998 could equip two amphibious assault ships with ship self-defense suites, or six combatant ships with CIWS surface mode, or six LMSR sealift ships with lighterage, or funded the baseline 6/7 shortfall in the DDG-51 program to provide theater ballistic missile defense capability to three ships in 1998. The Committee questions the Navy preference for funding acquisition laboratories in the National Capital Region at the expense of theater CINC critical warfighting requirements. The Committee recommends $763,000, a reduction of $8,000,000 with prejudice. management, technical, and international support The Navy requested $24,305,000 for management, technical, and international support. The Committee recommends $19,305,000, a decrease of $5,000,000 to hold the program at the 1997 level. science and technology management The Navy requested $57,591,000 for science and technology management. The Committee recommends $55,961,000, a decrease of $1,630,000 due to fiscal constraints. test and evaluation support The Navy requested $263,934,000 for test and evaluation support. The Committee recommends $235,908,000, a decrease of $28,026,000. This includes a decrease of $30,026,000 to hold the program to the fiscal year 1997 level and an increase of $2,000,000 only for safety items as recommended in the House- passed Defense Authorization bill. marine corps program wide support The Marine Corps requested $8,207,000 for Marine Corps program wide support. The Committee recommends $12,707,000, an increase of $4,500,000 only for the development of a small unit biological detector. Operational Systems Development HARM improvement The Navy requested $6,169,000 for anti-radiation missile development activities. The Committee recommends $41,169,000, an increase of $35,000,000 only for continued development of AARGM. aviation improvements The Navy requested $60,025,000 for aviation improvements. The Committee recommends $51,025,000, a decrease of $9,000,000 to defer proposed engine component improvement new start initiatives until next year when the production programs are more mature. marine corps communications system The Marine Corps requested $38,296,000 for Marine Corps Communications Systems. The Committee recommends $45,296,000, an increase of $7,000,000. Of the increase, $2,000,000 is only for the development of a tactical hand-held radio and $5,000,000 is only to develop a secure digital data link capability for UAV systems. marine corps ground combat/supporting arms The Marine Corps requested $12,568,000 for Marine Corps Ground Combat and Supporting Arms. The Committee recommends $14,668,000, an increase of $2,100,000 only for the development of the AN/VVR-1 laser warning receiver. defense meteorological satellite program (space) The Navy requested $3,165,000 for the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program. The Committee recommends $1,198,000, a decrease of $1,967,000. The Committee has deleted funds for sensor development for the next generation weather satellite as this effort is premature at this time. The Committee's recommendation concerning this program is discussed more fully in the ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force'' section of this report. manufacturing technology The Navy requested no funds for manufacturing technology. The Committee recommends $55,000,000. The Committee makes this recommendation because Navy witnesses testified that the Navy has identified over $100,000,000 of manufacturing technology proposals which are deemed by the Navy to have a significant return on investment by lowering the risk of acquisition and to make weapon systems more affordable. Program Recommended The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, AIR FORCE Fiscal year 1997 appropriation....................... $14,499,606,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request...................... 14,451,379,000 Committee recommendation............................. 14,315,456,000 Change from budget request........................... -135,923,000 This appropriation funds the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation activities of the Department of the Air Force. Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with House authorization action: [In thousands of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Budget Committee Change from Item request recommendation request ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Command, Control, Communications............... 86,067 89,067 +3,000 ICBM DEMVAL................... 32,837 49,337 +16,500 ICBM EMD...................... 137,944 152,944 +15,000 TITAN......................... 82,384 67,384 -15,000 DARP.......................... 0 14,990 +14,990 RSLP.......................... 8,013 33,013 +25,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Air Force and Army Laboratory Restructuring The Committee understands the need to streamline research and development activities in view of budgetary constraints. However, the Committee is concerned about plans to combine runway R&D conducted by the Air Force with R&D the Army is pursuing on pavement repair. The Committee understands the importance of the airbase deployment and sustainment work currently being conducted by the Air Force and urges the Department to ensure that this capability is not lost due to consolidation of activities at its existing laboratories. Basic Research defense research sciences The Air Force requested $226,832,000 for defense research sciences. The Committee recommends $183,332,000, a net decrease of $43,500,000. The Committee has recommended a reduction of $48,500,000 and an increase of $5,000,000 only for the Center for Adaptive Optics. The Committee's recommendation includes the requested amount of $650,000 for support to the Sacramento Peak Observatory. The Committee directs that the full amount be provided to Sacramento Peak and designates this project to be of specific Committee interest. Exploratory Development materials The Air Force requested $70,224,000 for materials exploratory development. The Committee recommends $73,224,000, an increase of $3,000,000 only for development of composite shelters. aerospace avionics The Air Force requested $69,401,000 for aerospace avionics. The Committee recommends $68,061,000, a decrease of $1,340,000 which brings the program more in line with the fiscal year 1997 level. phillips lab exploratory development The Air Force requested $111,136,000 for Phillips Lab exploratory development. The Committee recommends $131,636,000, an increase of $20,500,000. Within this amount $8,000,000 is only for Phase III of the Terabit fiber optic technology program, $10,000,000 is only for the MightySat program, and $7,500,000 is only for integrated high payoff rocket propulsion technology applications. Advanced Technology Development advanced material for weapons systems The Air Force requested $20,596,000 for advanced material for weapons systems. The Committee recommends $26,596,000, an increase of $6,000,000 only for developing enhanced manufacturing capabilities for infrared absorbing aircraft coatings. aerospace propulsion subsystems integration The Air Force requested $30,564,000 for aerospace propulsion subsystems integration. The Committee recommends $28,318,000, a reduction of $2,246,000 which brings the program more in line with the fiscal year 1997 level. aerospace structures The Air Force requested $15,032,000 for aerospace structures. The Committee recommends $10,423,000, a reduction of $4,609,000 which brings the program more in line with the fiscal year 1997 level. crew systems and personnel protection technology The Air Force requested $17,204,000 for crew systems and personnel protection technology. The Committee recommends $26,204,000, an increase of $9,000,000 which includes $5,000,000 only for ejection seat technology, $3,000,000 only for helmet display technology and $1,000,000 only for laser eye protection. flight vehicle technology integration The Air Force requested $7,795,000 for flight vehicle technology integration activities. The Committee recommends $6,423,000, a reduction of $1,372,000 which brings the program more in line with the fiscal year 1997 level. electronic combat technology The Air Force requested $25,621,000 for electronic combat technology. The Committee recommends $30,871,000, an increase of $5,250,000 only for the closed loop infrared countermeasure (CLIRCM) technology program. space and missile rocket propulsion The Air Force requested $16,247,000 for space and missile rocket propulsion. The Committee recommends $30,047,000, an increase of $13,800,000. Within this amount $3,800,000 is only for the high payoff rocket propulsion technology initiative, and $10,000,000 is only for the continuation of rocket testing efforts for the Scorpius low cost expendable launch vehicle technology project. ballistic missile technology The Air Force requested no funding for the ballistic missile technology program. The Committee recommends $8,000,000 to continue this program. advanced spacecraft technology The Air Force requested $40,846,000 for advanced spacecraft technology. The Committee recommends $72,846,000, an increase of $32,000,000. Within this amount $15,000,000 is only for the military spaceplane program, $10,000,000 is only for the solar thermionics orbital transfer vehicle, and $7,000,000 is only for the miniature threat satellite reporting system. conventional weapons technology The Air Force requested $26,227,000 for conventional weapons technology. The Committee recommends $28,227,000, an increase of $2,000,000 only for development of optical correlator technology. advanced weapons technology The Air Force requested $41,238,000 for advanced weapons technology. The Committee recommends $56,238,000, an increase of $15,000,000. Of the amount added, $10,000,000 is only for Geo Space Object Imaging and $5,000,000 is only for the Special Laser Technology Program (LIME). airborne laser Though the core mission of the Airborne Laser (ABL) is ballistic missile defense, the program is being funded in the Air Force rather than the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO). The Committee believes that ballistic missile defense funding should be centrally managed to ensure all such programs are properly integrated into a common architecture and to ensure resources are applied to programs based on overall ballistic missile defense priorities. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees no later than November 15, 1997 discussing whether the ABL program is or is not more properly budgeted within BMDO. Demonstration and Validation advanced milsatcom The Air Force requested $41,448,000 for Advanced Milsatcom. The Committee recommends $41,000,000, a decrease of $448,000. The Committee notes that program management costs for the Advanced Milsatcom program are requested to grow at a rate in excess of forecast inflation in fiscal year 1998. polar adjunct The Air Force requested $29,585,000 for the Polar Adjunct program. The Committee recommends no funding, a decrease of $29,585,000. The Committee's recommendation concerning this program is discussed more fully in the classified annex to this report. national polar-orbiting operational environmental satellite system (npoess) The Air Force requested $51,504,000 for the National Polar- Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS). The Committee recommends $26,504,000, a decrease of $25,000,000. The Committee notes that the launch date of the first NPOESS satellite has been delayed until 2007 versus 2004 as presented in the fiscal year 1997 budget justification material. Despite this launch delay of three years, the Air Force has decided not to substantially alter the near term funding profile for the NPOESS system. In fact, the Air Force has requested funds to begin sensor design and development work in fiscal year 1998, ten years prior to the scheduled first launch. The Committee judges this approach to be overly conservative even for the satellite community. The Committee remains fully supportive of the NPOESS program and the ultimate convergence of the meteorological satellite systems of the Departments of Defense and Commerce. In making this reduction the Committee has still provided adequate funding to continue risk reduction and planning efforts for the system in fiscal year 1998. The Committee believes that the present program schedule provides an opportunity for the Department of Defense Space Architect to conduct a review of the defense space-based meteorological mission area. The space architect has already conducted reviews in the areas of military satellite communications and space control which have proven to be very beneficial to department planning in these areas. The Committee therefore directs the Space Architect to conduct an architectural review of the NPOESS program as part of its fiscal year 1998 program plan. The Office of the Space Architect is further directed to submit to the Committee a report detailing its plans to conduct the review no later than January 15, 1998. space based infrared architecture-dem/val The Air Force requested $222,401,000 for the demonstration/ validation phase of the space-based infrared system (SBIRS). The Committee recommends $217,401,000, a decrease of $5,000,000. The Committee recommends this reduction due to unwarranted cost growth in the areas of program management and FFRDC support. The Committee also shares the concern of the Defense Science Board Task Force on the Space and Missile Tracking System (SMTS) which found in its August 1996 report that the current lack of an overall system design plan for both SBIRS high and low segments has added ``confusion, time and risk to the program.'' The Committee is also disturbed that the Air Force has retained the present developer of the SBIRS high component as the overall system of systems engineer for the entire program. As a potential competitor on the SMTS, this arrangement places the SBIRS high component developer in a potential conflict of interest. The Committee, consistent with the recommendations of the Defense Science Board, directs the Department of the Air Force to appoint an independent third party systems engineer for the entire SBIRS system. The Committee believes that by doing so, an objective party will be in a position to assess the crucial technical trade-offs needed for a robust SBIRS constellation and ensure deployment at the earliest possible date. The Committee further directs that none of the funds appropriated for the SBIRS program may be used to fund the SBIRS high component developer as the overall system engineer. The Committee also directs the Air Force to report to the Committee on its efforts to establish the independent system engineer no later than January 15, 1998. warfighter-1 Warfighter-1 is a joint government and industry funded venture which will provide hyperspectral imaging data to both warfighters and commercial users at 25 percent of the cost of a conventional DoD funded satellite system. An integrated product team (IPT) initiated by the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) recently recommended that the Warfighter-1 program be terminated just days before the Air Force was to make the contract award. The IPT concerns with the program centered around the belief that the Warfighter program did not adequately stress pure technology goals for the processing and exploitation of hyperspectral imaging data. The Committee does not concur with the recommendation of the IPT. It is the Committee's belief that the Warfighter program will benefit operational users in the field in a timely and cost-effective manner. It is strongly supported by the Air Force, the CINC United States Space Command, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, and the Central MASINT Office. All of these organizations would be operational users of the data collected by Warfighter-1. The Committee also believes that the Department should take advantage of the unique leveraging opportunity offered by Warfighter which stands to benefit both operational DoD and commercial users. The conclusion of the IPT does not adequately consider the views and requirements of this community. The Committee therefore directs the Department of the Air Force to immediately award the contract for the original Warfighter-1 program and also directs the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to release all fiscal year 1997 funds appropriated for the program. Should the IPT's subsequent deliberations on the Warfighter program lead to a recommendation for a restructured technology approach to hyperspectral imaging, the results can be provided to the Air Force for incorporation into the Warfighter-1 system design. The Committee further directs the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Reserach, Development, and Acquisition to submit a report to the Committee no later than September 15, 1997 detailing his plans to follow this direction. evolved expendable launch vehicle program (eelv) In December of 1996, the Air Force selected two competitors to develop a new $2 billion, Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV). EELV is important not only to reducing the launch costs of the Department of Defense, but also to the continued world- wide competitiveness of the U.S. commercial launch industry. However, the Committee is concerned that the Department is focusing too narrowly on its national security requirements and not adequately reflecting the needs of the U.S. commercial space launch industry. For example, in order to meet its projected reductions in life cycle costs, the EELV needs to capture at least 15 percent of the commercial market. This will be difficult to achieve since recent projections show that the EELV will not be able to meet the requirements of as much as 42 percent of the estimated commercial market. If that is the case, then the Air Force will have developed a new family of launch vehicles that will be primarily used only for national security payloads, resulting in higher overhead costs to DoD, while missing an opportunity to maximize the competitive posture of U.S. industry. The EELV program is a partnership between the government and industry. In return for its $2 billion investment, the Department will obtain a family of launch vehicles with reduced recurring costs of 25 to 50 percent per launch. The ultimate EELV developer will have its competitive posture enhanced and be relieved of internal investment requirements to remain viable in the worldwide launch market. The Committee would note that while partners share benefits, they also share costs. The Committee believes that the Air Force should aggressively pursue commercial cost sharing and recoupment contractual mechanisms as part of the EELV EMD contract. Accordingly the Committee directs the Air Force to include as significant factors in the EELV acquisition the degree to which the competitive proposals include the commercial needs of the U.S. launch vehicle industry as well as government compensation and cost recoupment offers from the EELV competitors. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology is directed to provide to the Committee not later than January 1, 1998, a revised EELV Single Acquisition and Management Plan (SAMP) that addresses these concerns. global broadcast service The Air Force requested $56,977,000 for the Global Broadcast System (GBS). The Committee recommends $46,977,000, a decrease of $10,000,000. The Committee recommends this reduction due to the delay in the release of proposal requests for systems engineering and ground terminal development efforts. The Committee is also concerned that under the present program schedule GBS space segment payloads will be on orbit 8 to 12 months prior to the availability of the ground control segment and terminals. The Committee makes this recommendation without prejudice to the GBS program. Funding provided by the Committee in fiscal year 1998 will still allow the GBS program to proceed to its next phase and allow the program office to incorporate greater user input into GBS requirements definition. Engineering and Manufacturing Development integrated avionics planning and development The Air Force requested $16,494,000 for integrated avionics planning and development. The Committee recommends $12,994,000, a reduction of $3,500,000 based on a 4 month delay in the JHMCS EMD contract award. b-1b The Air Force requested $216,886,000 for B-1B upgrade activities. The Committee recommends $222,886,000, a net increase of $6,000,000. This adjustment includes a reduction of $7,000,000 to CMUP engineering change orders (ECOs) and an increase of $13,000,000 only for acceleration of JSOW and JSLAM integration. specialized undergraduate pilot training The Air Force requested $80,238,000 for specialized undergraduate pilot training improvements. The Committee recommends $77,238,000, a decrease of $3,000,000 based on a 3 month delay in T-38 upgrade activities caused by a contract protest. f-22 The Air Force requested $2,071,234,000 for the F-22 program. The Committee recommends $2,077,234,000, an increase of $6,000,000 transferred from F-22 procurement to this line- item for redesign work associated with out of production parts (OPP). ew development The Air Force requested $78,465,000 for electronic warfare system development. The Committee recommends $65,965,000, a decrease of $12,500,000. This adjustment includes a $6,000,000 decrease associated with contract award delays on the F-15 IDECM program and a $6,500,000 decrease based on the cancellation of the F-15 CMWS program. The Committee notes that the Air Force canceled the F-15 CMWS program for fiscal year 1998 and out, but fiscal year 1997 funds are still identified in the budget for the program and these funds are therefore available to finance other fiscal year 1998 EW requirements. munitions dispenser development The Air Force requested $18,076,000 for munitions dispenser development. The Committee recommends $15,900,000, a decrease of $2,176,000. Of this decrease, $1,300,000 is for Wind Corrected Munition Dispenser (WCMD) contract savings, and $862,000 is for 20 WCMD assets inappropriately budgeted in the research and development (R&D) account. Fiscal year 1998 is the first year the Air Force has requested production funding for the WCMD program and ostensibly the Congress must, for the first time, assess the readiness of the program to enter production. However, the Committee was dismayed to learn that the decision to initiate production was made not by the Congress but by the Air Force when it signed a contract to produce 200 WCMD units using fiscal year 1997 R&D funding. The Committee has learned that 150 of these weapons are not required for development or test of the WCMD at all, but will instead be fielded with B-52 squadrons as an ``interim operational capability.'' Though the fiscal year 1997 R&D budget requested 200 WCMDs, these were described in the budget backup documents as ``EMD'' assets with no mention of an intent to field the weapons in operational units. Procuring assets solely for the purpose of operational use is clearly a production expense and should be funded in the production account. The Committee is concerned with what appears to be a growing trend to get the production ``camel's nose under the tent'' by using R&D funds to initiate procurement. The Committee has included a general provision in the bill that is intended to end such practices. The Committee further notes that though the Air Force signed a contract for 200 WCMD units in fiscal year 1997, these units were not all fully funded in that year as a consequence of the R&D incremental funding policy. In fiscal year 1998, the Air Force is requesting funds to complete assembly on 130 units initiated in fiscal year 1997 and to buy an additional 20 units for a total of 150 intended for the early B-52 capability. The Committee notes that the 20 all-up-rounds funded in fiscal year 1998 R&D cost $43,000 each whereas in the same fiscal year (1998), the Air Force intends to buy production units for $13,000 each. The Committee sees no reason to pay a 300 percent premium to buy a weapon in the wrong appropriation. Accordingly, the Committee recommends a reduction of $862,000 for the 20 R&D funded WCMD units. joint direct attack munition (jdam) The Air Force requested $19,553,000 for development of the JDAM weapon. The Committee recommends $15,353,000, a decrease of $4,200,000 based on the availability of funds beyond that required to finance the contractor's revised estimate at completion (EAC). life support system The Air Force requested $3,726,000 for life support system development. The Committee recommends $5,726,000, an increase of $2,000,000 only for ejection seats. computer resource technology transition The Air Force requested $1,459,000 for computer resource technology transition. The Committee recommends $6,459,000, an increase of $5,000,000 only for the National Product Line Asset Center (NPLACE) Program/Product Line Asset Support (PLAS). joint air-to-surface standoff missile (jassm) The Air Force requested $203,321,000 for the JASSM program. The Committee recommends no appropriation for the program, and instead proposes a new joint program based on the Navy's SLAM- ER+ missile. JASSM is a follow-on to the very troubled and now terminated TSSAM program. The Air Force invested $4.3 billion in the missile until the program was terminated in response to severe technical problems, massive cost overruns, and numerous schedule delays. In creating the follow-on JASSM program, the Air Force has not only applied lessons learned from the TSSAM program, but has also applied lessons from recently successful acquisition programs like JDAM. Therefore, in making its recommendation, the Committee does not fault the Air Force's management of the JASSM program. In fact, it is too early even to assess the JASSM program given that the missile is still ``on the drawing board'' with at least four years of development remaining. The SLAM-ER program, on the other hand, is already in production with an automatic target acquisition (ATA) upgrade entering production in fiscal year 1998. According to the Navy, this SLAM-ER ``+'' variant meets or exceeds every threshold requirement for the JASSM program, including the key performance parameters of range, missile mission effectiveness, and carrier suitability. The Navy believes that modifications required to deploy the missile on Air Force aircraft (including bombers) are minor. The Committee notes that cancellation of JASSM and pursuit of a joint SLAM-ER+ program could save taxpayers anywhere from $450 to $800 million while fielding the required capability to the Air Force sooner. The Department of Defense must break the habit of spending hundreds of millions of dollars pursuing the last few ounces of performance when an existing weapon with minor modifications can meet its requirements. Even while faced with severely constrained outyear modernization budgets, the Department failed to seriously consider this alternative to JASSM in either of its recent Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) or Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) deliberations. Both forums were formed to make recommendations on just these types of issues. The Committee is dismayed that the JROC, in particular, would postpone consideration of the Navy's SLAM-ER+ proposal 6 times before deciding the matter was best addressed by the acquisition community in a process that will take another year. The Committee does not believe that taxpayers or warfighters should have to wait another year and spend another $200 million on JASSM before considering whether SLAM-ER+ already meets the JASSM requirements. The Committee has carefully reviewed data provided by the Air Force, Navy, and industry on each of the various proposals. The Committee finds the merits of a Joint SLAM-ER+ program compelling and in the absence of a joint, requirements-based analysis conducted expeditiously by the Department, recommends termination of the JASSM program. jslam The Air Force requested no funds for the JSLAM program. The Committee recommends $63,000,000 only for Air Force participation in a joint SLAM-ER+ program. Though the Navy has offered to provide the Air Force excess Harpoon missiles for JSLAM conversions, the Committee notes that Air Force inventory requirements will ultimately require production of new build missiles. To take efficient advantage of the existing engine manufacturing capability, the Committee believes that the Air Force program should include new build missiles at the front- end of Air Force JSLAM production. RDT&E Management Support threat simulator development The Air Force requested $51,846,000 for threat simulator development. The Committee recommends $50,346,000, a decrease of $1,500,000. The Committee notes that the budget funds the entire SADS-2b/f effort in fiscal year 1998 though the program is projected to extend well into fiscal year 1999. Since research and development is incrementally funded, the fiscal year 1999 effort should be funded in that year. major t&e investment The Air Force requested $47,336,000 for investment in major test and evaluation facilities. The Committee recommends $62,136,000, an increase of $14,800,000 only for instrumentation required to modernize range C4I capabilities at Eglin Air Force Base. test and evaluation support The Air Force requested $389,348,000 for test and evaluation support. The Committee recommends $386,348,000, a net decrease of $3,000,000. The Committee recommendation includes a $3,000,000 reduction based on unjustified growth in aircraft support, an $8,000,000 reduction based on unobligated fiscal year 1996 funds, and an $8,000,000 increase only for enhancements to the South Base Birk Flight Test Facility (BFTF). Operational Systems Development advanced medium range air-to-air missile (amraam) The Air Force requested $50,781,000 for the AMRAAM program. The Committee recommends $33,781,000, a decrease of $17,000,000. This decrease includes a $14,000,000 GAO recommended reduction based on rephased missile upgrade efforts, and a $3,000,000 reduction to delay initiation of AMRAAM P3I Phase III until fiscal year 1999. aircraft engine component improvement program The Air Force requested $93,122,000 for the engine component improvement program. The Committee recommends $115,122,000, an increase of $22,000,000. The Committee is concerned about the growing costs in the Air Force flying hour program attributable to engine reliability and maintainability issues. Therefore, the Committee recommends additional funds for the CIP program to help reduce these operating costs. agm-86c conventional air-launched cruise missile system The Air Force requested no funds for CALCM research and development. The Committee recommends $3,500,000 only for development of a hard target penetrator variant. airborne warning and control system (awacs) The Air Force requested $46,807,000 for AWACS. The Committee recommends $47,807,000, an increase of $1,000,000. The Committee notes the availability of $12,500,000 in fiscal year 1997 funds from the terminated AWACS reengine program. The Committee recommends the Air Force use these prior year funds, in addition to the additional funds provided in fiscal year 1998, for the AWACS Extend Sentry program identified by the Air Force as a high priority unfunded requirement. JOINT SURVEILLANCE AND TARGET ATTACK RADAR SYSTEM (JSTARS) The Air Force requested $119,189,000 for the JSTARS program. The Committee recommends $123,189,000, an increase of $4,000,000 only for integration of an Improved Data Modem on the JSTARS platform. WORLD-WIDE MILITARY COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM The Air Force requested $6,820,000 for the Global Command and Control System (GCCS). The Committee recommends $7,820,000, an increase of $1,000,000 only for integration of JSAS into GCCS. SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES The Air Force requested $530,000 for security and investigative services. The Committee recommends $1,530,000, an increase of $1,000,000 only for the AFOSI Computer Crime Investigations Program. AIR CARGO MATERIAL HANDLING The Air Force requested $7,947,000 for air cargo material handling equipment. The Committee recommends $3,447,000, a decrease of $4,500,000. The Committee notes that the fiscal year 1998 budget includes $4,500,000 for testing of the Next Generation Small Loader that is not scheduled to take place until fiscal year 1999. INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS The Air Force requested $48,429,000 for industrial preparedness. The Committee recommends $48,429,000 and directs that of this amount, $1,000,000 is available only to allow the National Technology Transfer Center to compile, analyze, value and license technologies available for commercialization from Air Force research labs. PRODUCTIVITY, RELIABILITY, AVAILABILITY, MAINTAINABILITY PROGRAM (PRAM) The Air Force requested $1,032,000 for the PRAM program. The Committee recommends $12,032,000, an increase of $11,000,000 only for efforts to develop structural fatigue repairs, corrosion prevention and control techniques, and reliability and maintainability improvement opportunities for aging aircraft fleets. The Committee notes that the Air Force has identified this effort as a high priority unfunded requirement. NATO JOINT STARS The Air Force requested $36,061,000 for the NATO JOINT STARS program. The Committee recommends $18,061,000, a reduction of $18,000,000 based on the lack of any NATO decision to proceed with JSTARS acquisition. The Committee directs that none of the funds can be obligated until such obligations meet the requirements of current law. The Committee further directs that none of the funds may be reprogrammed out of the NATO JOINT STARS program element without the prior approval of the congressional defense committees. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE-WIDE Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $9,362,800,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 9,069,680,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 9,494,337,000 Change from budget request............................ +424,657,000 This appropriation provides funds for the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation activities of centrally managed programs and the Defense Agencies. Committee Recommendations authorization changes The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with authorization action: [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Committee Change from Budget request recommendation request ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Special Technical Support....................................... 11,750 9,750 -2,000 Verification Technology......................................... 83,370 69,070 -14,300 Commerical Insertion Technology................................. 47,889 .............. -47,889 Boost Phase Intercept........................................... 12,885 .............. -12,885 National Missile Defense........................................ 504,091 978,091 +474,000 Navy Lower Tier................................................. 267,822 289,822 +22,000 Defense Imagery and Mapping..................................... 109,430 134,430 +25,000 Defense Reconnaissance Support.................................. 49,403 41,003 -8,400 Manned Reconnaissance........................................... 27,784 51,784 +24,000 Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Mgt............................. 21,543 7,543 -14,000 Counter drug.................................................... .............. 2,500 +2,500 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Basic Research in-house independent research The Department requested $2,169,000 for In-House Independent Research. The Committee notes that there are ample funds available from fiscal year 1997 for this activity because of poor obligation rates. Therefore, the Committee recommends no appropriation. defense research sciences The Department requested $76,009,000 for Defense Research Sciences. The Committee recommends $70,000,000, a decrease of $6,009,000. The Committee notes that the Department has used this activity as a source for reprogramming funds in prior fiscal years and therefore recommends a reduction of $6,009,000 to reflect an appropriate level of funding. university research sciences The Department requested $237,788,000 for University Research Sciences. The Committee recommends $215,212,000. This amount includes an increase of $10,000,000 only for the Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (DEPSCOR) and a net reduction of $22,576,000 due to program growth and poor execution. The Committee directs that funds available within the University Research Initiatives account for Gulf War Illness related research may be used only for that purpose. The Committee also directs that $3,000,000 be available only for Clinical Assessment Recording Environment (CARE), as authorized. The Committee notes that while the 1997 total program funds were lower than in 1996 (ostensibly due to a change in award dates not a reduction in the level of effort) in fact, on a monthly basis, the Department spent 41 percent more per month in 1997 on university graduate fellowships, traineeships and research instrumentation than in 1996. The Committee therefore recommends a reduction of $32,576,000 due to program growth. government and industry cosponsorship of university research The Department requested $14,713,000 for Government and Industry Cosponsorship of University Research (GICUR). The Committee notes that this proposed new activity is aimed at encouraging cooperation and collaboration between government and industry on semiconductor electronics issues. The Committee agrees that semiconductors are a critical priority for the Department. However, the Committee also believes that the Department's prior year investment of $840,000,000 was adequate to meet the challenges that were presented to the semiconductor industry over the past decade and therefore, the Committee recommends no appropriation. chemical and biological defense program The Department requested $25,190,000 for Chemical and Biological Defense basic research. The Committee recommends $28,690,000, an increase of $3,500,000. The Committee recommends an increase of $1,500,000 only for basic medical research to develop non-antibiotic therapies for anthrax and $2,000,000 only for novel agent research. Exploratory Development next generation internet The Department requested $40,000,000 for the Next Generation Internet (NGI) program. The Committee recommends $50,000,000, an increase of $10,000,000 to support the DARPA component of the multi-agency Next Generation Internet program. The goal of the NGI program is to develop and demonstrate the technologies, protocols, and standards for a very high speed, broad bandwidth Next Generation Internet that will offer reliable, affordable, secure information delivery at rates thousands of times faster than today. This should enable the use of a wide variety of new nationally important applications that cannot be accommodated on today's Internet. The additional $10,000,000 is to be used to support specific connectivity, functionality, services, and software among the applications communities and regional consortia that will maximize the value of the infrastructure connectivity and services deployed by the NGI. The Committee recognizes the large potential benefit that Next Generation Internet technology will have for many important sectors of our economy as well as for national defense. The Committee also recognizes the value of including technical contributions from as many sources of innovation as possible in developing future Internet technology. Accordingly, the Committee directs that all geographic regions and all qualified concentrations of technical expertise (including government, university, and commercial) be afforded the opportunity and the access necessary to have comparable connectivity to current ``very-high speed backbone network service point of presence'' (VBNS-POP) on the Internet. support technologies--applied research The Department requested $101,932,000 for Support Technologies. The Committee recommends $141,932,000, an increase of $40,000,000. Within this increase, $30,000,000 is only for Atmospheric Interceptor Technology (AIT) to develop new capabilities for current theater missile defense interceptors. In addition, the Committee recommends $10,000,000 only for wide band gap technologies, as proposed in the House- passed Defense Authorization bill. lincoln laboratory research program The Department requested $20,474,000 for Lincoln Laboratory innovative research and development (IR&D). The Committee recommends $13,730,000, a reduction of $6,744,000. The Committee notes that the fiscal year 1998 plan for Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) is well above the level of effort for the prior year. The planned increase of 200 staff technical years of effort (STE) for Lincoln Laboratory represents a 7 percent increase in level of effort and a potential $41,000,000 increase in funding. Furthermore, this increase is not consistent with prior Congressional direction, the Department's FFRDC management plan, nor the recommendation of the Defense Science Board (DSB) Report of January 1997. The DSB report challenged the Department's use of FFRDCs and concluded that the current FFRDC system ``does not provide the best available service at the most reasonable cost.'' The DSB Task Force recommended that: (1) work done by FFRDCs be ``more carefully defined and limited'' (2) that competition be introduced and, (3) that management practices be changed at the beginning of 1998 to incorporate these changes. The Committee therefore recommends a funding level that is consistent with the DSB report and prior Congressional direction on FFRDCs. computing systems and communications technology The Department requested $341,752,000 for Computing Systems and Communications Technology. The Committee recommends $325,057,000, a reduction of $16,695,000 due to program growth. Within the amounts provided, $7,500,000 is available only for the Reuse Technology Adoption Program (RTAP), a technology program that enhances the reuse of information technology and complex event sequences or software algorithms. chemical and biological defense program The Department requested $60,023,000 for Chemical and Biological Defense exploratory development. The Committee recommends $75,323,000, an increase of $15,300,000. Within this increase, $9,500,000 is available only for medical biological research and $5,800,000 is only for Safeguard. tactical technology The Department requested $157,329,000 for Tactical Technology. The Committee recommends $126,244,000, a reduction of $31,085,000 for program growth. This amount includes an increase of $3,000,000 only for the continuation of simulation based design and virtual reality efforts, in a collaborative program with private industry, for the Gulf Coast Region Maritime Technology Center. The Committee notes that the request for Tactical Technology has increased by 28 percent without substantial justification. Therefore the Committee recommends a reduction of $31,085,000, as proposed in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. integrated command and control technology The Department requested $37,000,000 for Integrated Command and Control Technology. The Committee recommends $39,000,000, an increase of $2,000,000 only for the high definition camera. Within this amount, $4,000,000 shall be made available only for high definition display systems technology. materials and electronics technology The Department requested $192,192,000 for Materials and Electronics technology. The Committee recommends $208,192,000, an increase of $16,000,000. Within this increase, $10,000,000 is only for the Defense Microelectronics Activity and $6,000,000 is only for the Nanofabrication Laboratory as proposed in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. defense special weapons agency The Department requested $211,971,000 for the Defense Special Weapons Agency. The Committee recommends $200,593,000, a net reduction of $11,378,000 to maintain the program at the 1997 funding level. The amount includes an increase of $5,000,000 only to continue ongoing bioenvironmental research. Advanced Development explosives demilitarization technology The Department requested $12,259,000 for Explosives Demilitarization Technology. Within this amount, the Committee recommends $2,000,000 only for the cryogenic washout program. counterproliferation support The Department requested $58,264,000 for Counterproliferation Support. The Committee recommends $67,264,000, an increase of $9,000,000 only for the Counterproliferation Analysis and Planning System (CAPS). automatic target recognition The Department requested $4,789,000 for Automatic Target Recognition. The Committee recommends $5,989,000, an increase of $1,200,000 only for optical correlators. The Committee encourages the Director of Defense Research and Engineering to provide assistance to the services in their development of miniature ruggedized optical correlators for use on the Navy Standard missile and the Air Force's AGM 130 missile. chemical and biological defense program The Department requested $41,223,000 for Chemical and Biological Defense advanced development. The Committee recommends $50,773,000, an increase of $9,550,000. Within this increase, $6,700,000 is available only for medical biological programs, and $2,850,000 is only for Joint Service Integrated Suit (JSLIST) industrial production. special technical support The Department requested $11,750,000 for Special Technical Support. The Committee recommends $9,750,000, a reduction of $2,000,000, as proposed in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. verification technology The Department requested $83,370,000 for Verification Technology Demonstration. The Committee recommends $69,070,000, a net reduction of $14,300,000, as proposed in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. Within this amount, the Committee recommends an increase of $5,000,000 only for the continuation of an industry-based program begun by DARPA to accelerate development of nuclear detection systems, including specialized cryocoolers for portable and remote operations and optoelectronics for portal monitoring for detection of nuclear materials, $3,000,000 is only for the continuation of an industry-based program begun by DARPA for enhanced segregated- surface solid state detectors, forensics, and analysis techniques in support of nuclear non proliferation and counter terrorism, and $3,000,000 is only for the continuation of the Russian Monitoring Technologies Project begun by DARPA and for a system to provide early warning of the hazards posed by Russian nuclear reactors in Cuba. Nuclear Monitoring Technologies In addition, of the amount available for Nuclear Arms Control Technology $8,800,000 shall be available only for competitive, peer-reviewed basic research in nuclear monitoring technologies--$7,100,000 for explosion seismology only, and $700,000 available only for hydroacoustics, infrasound and radionuclide analysis. To ensure the peer review process works properly, the Committee directs that the program be moved from the Defense Special Weapons Agency to the Nuclear Treaty Programs Office and a program manager position be established within the Nuclear Treaty Programs Office to oversee the program. Contracting for the program and associated operation and maintenance funds should be transferred to the U.S. Army Space and Strategic Defense Command. The Committee directs that the program be managed in accordance with the National Research Council recommendations provided to the Department on the research needed to meet nuclear treaty monitoring goals. The Committee requests that the Department provide a report to Congress responding to the National Research Council recommendations and explaining how this program meets congressionally mandated objectives. Seismic Monitoring The Committee concurs with the concerns expressed in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill on seismic monitoring and directs that no funds be available to create redundant capability to that of the U.S. Geological Survey for monitoring, analyzing and reporting on domestic seismic events. generic logistics r&d technology demonstrations The Department of Defense requested $17,267,000 for Generic Logistics R&D Technology Demonstrations. The Committee recommends $23,867,000, an increase of $6,600,000 only for the Computer Assisted Technology Transfer Program (CATT). The Committee notes that there can be a high percentage of ``no- bids'' when the military seeks to purchase spare parts in small quantities, as was the case with the KC-135. CATT, designated by the Defense Logistics Agency as a National Reinvention Laboratory, seeks to increase the industrial base available to support DoD spare parts procurement by enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium sized firms. strategic environmental research program The Department requested $54,874,000 for the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP). The Committee recommends $61,874,000, an increase of $7,000,000 above the budget request. Of these funds $3,000,000 is to be used only to develop new environmentally insensitive energetic materials as provided for in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. In addition, the Committee directs the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, in consultation with the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Environmental Security to continue the research, development and demonstration program devoted to health and safety issues of environmental cleanup workers as it relates to the development and introduction of environmental remediation technologies. The program shall continue to develop and evaluate protection and safety methods and techniques necessary for the safe use and application of environmental remediation technology and to transfer such methods and techniques to field use. The Committee recommends an increase of $2,000,000 to the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program only for this purpose. Finally, the Committee provides $2,000,000 only for a risk- based approach to research the effects of toxic chemicals on human health and the environment. This research should address questions needed to establish cleanup criteria related to toxic chemicals associated with base operations and remediation of waste sites. This research should improve DoD capabilities for site specific remediation of toxic chemicals. advanced electronics technologies The Department requested $277,044,000 for Advanced Electronics Technologies. The Committee recommends $285,044,000, an increase of $8,000,000. Within this increase, the Committee recommends $3,000,000 only for the Center for Microstructures and $5,000,000 only for cryoelectronics. Within available funds, the Committee recommends $18,000,000 for Flat Panel Displays. maritime technology The Committee supports the idea that of the funds provided for Maritime Technology (MARITECH) approximately 15 percent should be made available to small businesses which have the technical expertise and that DARPA should have the flexibility to waive or reduce the matching requirement. electric vehicles The Department requested no appropriation for electric vehicles. The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for Electric Vehicles to continue ongoing programs in this area. advanced concept technology demonstrations The Department requested $121,076,000 for Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations (ACTDs). The Committee recommends $61,076,000, a reduction of $60,000,000 due to unsubstantiated program growth. The Committee notes that the ACTD budget request has doubled since last year. commercial technology insertion program The Department requested $47,889,000 for the Commercial Technology Insertion Program. The Committee recommends no appropriation as proposed in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. The Committee believes that many commercial technologies may have promise and should be considered by the Service program managers and acquisition executives as viable alternatives to military-unique equipment. However, the Committee believes this approach should be embedded in the development and procurement plans of the Services. electronic commerce resource centers The Department requested $14,972,000 for Electronic Commerce Resource Centers (ECRCs). The Committee recommends $47,972,000, an increase of $33,000,000. high performance computing modernization program The Department requested $126,211,000. The Committee recommends $124,880,000, a reduction of $1,331,000 for program growth. The Committee is concerned that the High Performance Computing Modernization Program future budget plans de- emphasize the purchase of new supercomputers for DoD, as evidenced by a reduction in planned procurement account funds, yet the plans provide for increasing RDT&E account budgets for the sustainment of operations and related services. According to the DoD HPC Modernization Plan, dated June 1994, ``. . . the mission of this program is to modernize the high performance computational capability of DoD laboratories . . .'' Because of this, the Committee believes that a more equal balance between Procurement and RDT&E funds is appropriate and that sustainment of operations and related services should not dominate the program budgets. The Committee directs therefore, that DoD provide it verification that the future procurement budgets are adequate to ensure that the high performance computing needs of the DoD-wide user community can be met at the levels planned. The Committee also notes that DoD, despite a previous request, has not published an updated High Performance Computing Modernization Program Plan or Program Implementation Plan since June 1994. The Committee, therefore, directs again that such plans be published annually no later than March 15. sensor and guidance technology The Department requested $166,855,000 for Sensor and Guidance technology. The Committee recommends $154,855,000, a net reduction of $12,000,000. Within this amount, $13,000,000 is available only for GEOSAR technology and $6,000,000 is available only for the GPS Guidance Package (GGP). The Committee also recommends a reduction of $25,000,000 as proposed in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. The Committee understands DARPA is developing a very promising inertial navigation technology under the Sensor and Guidance Technology Program. The GPS Guidance Package (GGP) is a Fiber Optic Gyro System which has the potential to significantly lower the cost, size and weight of military inertial navigation systems. If the objectives of the program are met, this activity could drastically reduce the cost and size of inertial navigation systems, making precise inertial navigation and positioning available to a much greater number of platforms, both airborne and ground vehicles. The Committee understands that due to the aggressive program goals and the difference in technology between the two original competitors, DARPA, the Army and the Navy felt strongly that competition should be maintained at least through the remaining development program. The Committee strongly agrees that competition should be maintained and directs DoD to provide not less than $6,000,000 under the Sensor and Guidance Technology Program to maintain GGP as a competitive program. marine technology The Department requested $69,143,000 for Marine Technology. The Committee recommends $21,943,000, a reduction of $47,200,000 for Arsenal Ship, as proposed in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. Within amounts available, $6,000,000 is available only for smart anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and Sonar STP technology. land warfare technology The Department requested $82,580,000 for Land Warfare Technology. The Committee recommends $89,180,000, an increase of $6,600,000 only for Active Structural Control. Active Structural Control technology reduces aircraft noise and vibrations. dual use programs The Department requested $225,000,000 for Dual Use programs. The Committee recommends $100,000,000, a reduction of $125,000,000. joint wargaming simulation management office The Department requested $71,338,000 for the Joint Wargaming Simulation Management Office. The Committee recommends $59,968,000, a reduction of $11,370,000 due to program growth in conformance with authorization action. Demonstration and Validation physical security equipment The Department requested $31,553,000 for Physical Security Equipment. The Committee recommends $18,676,000, a reduction of $12,877,000 due to program growth. The Committee notes the substantial increase in the physical security account and reduces the account to prior year levels. joint robotics program The Committee encourages the department to pursue a Joint Robotic Vehicle Technology Development Program for manned and unmanned ground vehicle systems, and make funds available to the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Research, Development and Engineering Center to improve the situational awareness, crew safety, and autonomous control of current and future Army ground vehicle systems that operate in hazardous and hostile environments. cals initiative The Department requested $1,916,000 for the CALS Initiative. The Committee recommends $5,916,000, an increase of $4,000,000 only for the CALS Integrated Data Environment (IDE). Ballistic Missile Defense Organization The Department requested $2,581,944,000 for Ballistic Missile Defense in the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation title of the bill. The Committee recommends $3,289,059,000 for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization's (BMDO) research and development programs, an increase of $707,115,000. The Committee recommends specific changes in Ballistic Missile Defense Organization programs as detailed in the table below. BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Committee Change from Budget request recommendation request ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- National Missile Defense........................................ 504,091 978,091 +474,000 Navy Upper Tier................................................. 194,898 444,898 +250,000 MEADS (Corps SAM)............................................... 47,956 47,956 .............. Boost Phase Intercept........................................... 12,885 0 -12,885 Theater High-Altitude Area Defense Dem/Val..................................................... 294,647 238,647 -56,000 Theater High-Altitude Area Defense EMD......................................................... 261,480 261,480 .............. AIT............................................................. .............. .............. +30,000 Navy Lower Tier EMD............................................. 267,822 289,822 +22,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) The Department requested $294,647,000 for Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) Demonstration and Validation and $261,480,000 for Theater High Altitude Area Defense Engineering and Manufacturing. The Committee recommends $238,647,000 for Demonstration and Validation, a reduction of $56,000,000. Due to the slip in the THAAD schedule, associated with flight test failures, fiscal year 1998 funds that were budgeted as the second increment for a contract to acquire 40 User Operational Evaluation System (UOES) missiles are no longer required. The Committee understands that the flight test schedule for THAAD has been restructured and that should an intercept occur in 1998, prior year funds would be available for the UOES contract. The Committee is very concerned about the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) program and the four consecutive test failures which did not achieve an intercept. This type of error points to the need for greater quality control on the part of the contractor and tighter management on the part of the program manager. Despite these concerns, the Committee supports the objectives of the THAAD program and believes the system should be deployed at the soonest possible date. Navy Lower Tier The Department requested $267,822,000 for the Navy Lower Tier program. The Committee recommends $289,822,000, an increase of $22,000,000 as proposed in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. The Committee was pleased with the recent successful test of the Navy Lower Tier system and has provided funds for additional targets to reduce program risk. navy upper tier The Department requested $194,898,000 for Navy Upper Tier. The Committee recommends $444,898,000, an increase of $250,000,000. The Committee believes that the Navy Upper Tier program will provide a substantial defense capability and is concerned that the Administration's proposed plan does not include deployment of the Navy Upper Tier system. Additional funds will enable the Navy to plan for 12 flight tests, to include an intercept in 1999 using the Lightweight Exoatmospheric Projectile (LEAP) and a modified SM-3 Standard Missile. In addition, additional funds will permit engineering and kinetic kill vehicle work needed for system deployment. The current plan only provides for a flight demonstration program and does not plan for deployment. medium extended air defense system (meads) and boost phase intercept (bpi) The Committee is concerned about the lack of focus in the Medium Extended Area Defense System (MEADS) program, formerly Corps SAM, and the Boost Phase Interceptor (BPI) program. While the Committee supports the general concept underlying both programs, it believes that neither program is affordable. Due to the international commitment involved with the MEADS program, the Committee recommends a completion of the Preliminary Design and Review program but remains concerned about the future funding of this expensive program. Furthermore, the Committee sees the Air Force Airborne Laser (ABL) program as the prime program for pursuing a boost phase capability. Therefore, the Committee recommends no appropriation for BPI as proposed in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. national missile defense The Committee believes that National Missile Defense (NMD) is one of the highest national security priorities. The Committee is concerned about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the possible emergence of a ballistic missile threat from a rogue nation. The Department requested $504,091,000 for National Missile Defense (NMD). The Committee recommends $978,091,000, an increase of $474,000,000, as proposed in both the House and Senate Authorization bills. The Committee concurs with the recommendations of the Quadrennnial Defense Review and recommends additional funds to significantly reduce the cost, schedule and technical risk associated with the current NMD program. The Committee is pleased with the recent successful NMD flight test which demonstrated the ability of an Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) optical seeker to identify and track a set of threat targets and discriminate between warheads and decoys. However, the Committee remains concerned about the six month delay in the program which was caused because of an earlier flight test malfunction that was attributed to human error. The Committee believes, as with the THAAD program, that quality control and close management are critical to timely deployment of this system. Engineering and Manufacturing chemical and biological defense program The Department requested $120,535,000 for Chemical and Biological Defense. The Committee recommends $138,535,000, an increase of $18,000,000. Within this increase, $8,000,000 is only for the Joint Vaccine Program and $10,000,000 is only for decontamination technologies. technical studies The Department requested $38,376,000 for technical studies. The Committee recommends $31,248,000, a reduction of $7,128,000 due to program growth. defense support activities The Department requested $5,992,000 for Defense Support Activities. The Committee recommends $7,492,000, an increase of $1,500,000 only for the Commodity Management System Consolidation. management headquarters The Department requested $39,193,000 for management headquarters. The Committee recommends $34,469,000, a reduction of $4,724,000. The recommended amount funds management headquarters at the prior year level. tactical uavs The Department requested $122,004,000 for tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The Committee recommends $60,007,000, a reduction of $61,997,000. The Committee agrees with the recommendations set forth in the House-passed fiscal year 1998 Defense Authorization bill regarding the Outrider UAV and therefore denies the funding request of $87,497,000 for this program. The Committee strongly urges the Department to immediately pursue the recommendation to procure a tactical UAV for the Army. The Committee provides an additional $11,500,000 to develop the Tactical Control System (TCS) for the Predator UAV system. The Committee understands that a memorandum of agreement is being developed between the TCS program office and the Naval Strike Warfare Center to coordinate the use of the Predator system in support of CONOPS development. Additionally, the Department should consider integrating the TCS in the Pioneer UAV system, especially since the Navy has decided to extend the service life of the Pioneer UAV. The Committee also recommends $4,000,000 to continue the UAV multi-function self-aligned gate array technology development and demonstration program. An additional $10,000,000 is recommended to support a vertical takeoff and landing UAV competition. endurance uavs The Department requested $216,712,000 for the High Altitude Endurance (HAE) UAV program. The Committee recommends $192,812,000, a reduction of $23,900,000. Of this amount, $14,990,000 is a transfer from this account to an Air Force RDT&E account, PE 0305154F. The request included $9,000,000 for testing the common ground segment. The Committee understands that there has been considerable delay in both HAE advanced technologies demonstrations and that prior year funds are available for continued testing. Therefore, the Committee denies the request of $9,000,000. airborne reconnaissance systems The Department requested $212,961,000 for airborne reconnaissance systems. The Committee recommends $193,961,000, a reduction of $19,000,000. The adjustments to this account are described below. The following are recommended changes in accordance with authorization action: JMTE Advanced Technology Demonstration................ +$8,000,000 E-O Framing Technology................................ +15,000,000 ABIT System Test & Evaluation......................... +3,000,000 JASA Standards........................................ -3,000,000 HFE Development....................................... -3,000,000 Global Hawk SIGINT Design............................. -16,200,000 The Committee recommends the following additional adjustments: The Department requested $25,800,000 for the development and testing of the JSAF Highband Prototype. The Committee is concerned about the significant amount of funds that have been used to develop a joint SIGINT system. The Committee does not understand why there continues to be multiple efforts to develop a SIGINT system to satisfy U-2 requirements: the high band sub-system (HBSS), high band prototype (HBP), and the U-2 Senior Glass upgrade. Because of these reasons, the Committee denies the $25,800,000 budget request. The Committee recommends an additional $3,000,000 to continue the development of the long range, high data rate airborne lasercom system. special operations advanced technology development The Department requested $8,009,000 for Special Operations advanced technology development. The Committee recommends $9,009,000, an increase of $1,000,000 to continue the development of the PRIVATEER II electronic suite. special operations intelligence systems development The Department requested $4,914,000 for Special Operations Intelligence Systems Development. The Committee recommends $13,914,000, an increase of $9,000,000. Of this amount $5,000,000 is to provide enhancements to the Special Operations Intelligence Vehicle, and $4,000,000 for the Joint Threat Warning System (JTWS). sof operational enhancements The Department requested $26,357,000 for SOF operational enhancements. The Committee recommends $32,937,000, an increase of $6,580,000. Of this amount, $5,800,000 is for the Special Technology Assault Craft, and $780,000 for a classified program which is explained in the classified annex to this report. casting emission reduction program The Department of Defense requested no funds for the Casting Emission Reduction Program. The Committee recommends $12,000,000 only to continue this five-year research and development initiative between DoD and the private sector to develop a cleaner and more efficient metal casting process in order to meet Clean Air Act requirements. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> DEVELOPMENTAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $282,038,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 268,183,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 268,183,000 Change from budget request............................ ................ This appropriation funds Developmental Test and Evaluation, Defense activities, for direction and supervision of test and evaluation, joint testing, improvement of the effectiveness and efficiency of the DoD major ranges and test facilities, and technical and/or operational evaluation of foreign nations' weapons systems, equipment, and technologies. Committee Recommendations Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $24,968,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 23,384,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 32,684,000 Change from budget request............................ +9,300,000 This appropriation funds the activities of the Office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation. Committee Recommendations Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Live Fire Testing The Department requested $10,197,000 for Live Fire Testing. The Committee recommends $19,497,000, an increase of $9,300,000 only for simulation and modeling. TITLE V REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS DEFENSE WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $947,900,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 33,400,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 971,952,000 Change from budget request............................ 938,552,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $971,952,000 for the Defense Working Capital Fund. The recommendation is an increase of $24,052,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1997. As described elsewhere in this report, the Committee supports the recommendations in the House-passed fiscal year 1998 Defense Authorization bill to incorporate the Commissaries into the Defense Working Capital Fund rather than establishing a separate account as proposed in the budget request. transition to the working capital funds The Committee notes that, in the fiscal year 1998 budget request, DoD proposed revising the title and structure of the Defense Business Operations Fund and replacing it with the Army Working Capital Fund, the Navy Working Capital Fund, the Air Force Working Capital Fund, and the Defense Working Capital Fund. Despite the change in name, the Committee recognizes that the financial management improvements brought about by the Defense Business Operations Fund such as capital budgeting and recognition of total costs will continue under the Working Capital Funds. However, the Committee is also aware that the problems that confronted DoD during its use of the Defense Business Operations Fund have not changed with the inception of the Working Capital Funds. In particular, the cash management problems that the Committee has noted in the past continue under the Working Capital Funds. The Committee has repeatedly expressed its concern about the problems DoD has experienced in maintaining adequate cash balances, and DoD's consequent need to use advance billing. The Committee is encouraged by the steps DoD has taken in the fiscal year 1998 budget request to establish rates that more accurately reflect the costs of the Working Capital Fund activity groups. However, the Committee believes there is room for further improvement, especially in the area of collections. The Committee is aware that the Department has just over $5 billion of aging accounts receivable due to Working Capital Fund activity groups. Of this amount, the Committee understands that $1.5 billion are 90 days old or older, and over $1 billion are over 120 days old. It seems clear that this performance can, and should be improved, and that such improvement would aid DoD's overall efforts to improve cash management in the Working Capital Fund activities. Therefore, the Committee directs that the Department of Defense submit a report, not later than April 30, 1998, detailing measures to improve cash management by reducing the amount of aging accounts receivable. MILITARY COMMISSARY FUND, DEFENSE Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ 0 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... $938,552,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 0 Change from budget request............................ -938,552,000 The Committee supports the recommendation in the House- passed fiscal year 1998 Defense Authorization bill to incorporate the Commissaries into the Defense Working Capital Fund rather than establishing a separate account as proposed by the budget request. The Committee believes that this realignment should improve the management flexibility for the operation of the Defense Commissary Agency. NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $1,428,002,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 1,191,426,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 1,199,926,000 Change from budget request............................ +8,500,000 This appropriation provides funds for the lease, operation, and supply of prepositioning ships; operation of the Ready Reserve Force; and acquisition of ships for the Military Sealift Command, the Ready Reserve Force, and the Marine Corps. large medium speed roll-on/roll-off (lmsr) ships The Navy budgeted $812,900,000 for acquisition of LMSR ships. The Committee recommends $806,400,000, a reduction of $6,500,000 due to excess advanced procurement funds. lighterage The Defense Department requested no funds for lighterage, equipment which is vital for off-loading sealift ships to get equipment and supplies to shore. Lighterage consists of floating platforms known as RO/RO discharge facilities, floating piers, or causeway ferries. The first LMSR ship went to sea this year without any lighterage. The Committee is disturbed that the Department of Defense is buying 19 LMSR sealift ships for over $6,000,000,000 for which the proper support equipment is not planned nor budgeted. The Committee recommends $15,000,000 only for procurement of sea-state two lighterage to meet theater CINC requirements. TITLE VI OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM Fiscal year 1997 appropriation....................... $10,207,308,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request (as amended)......... 10,301,650,000 Committee Recommendation............................. 10,309,750,000 Change from budget request........................... 8,100,000 The Department requested $10,301,650,000 for the Defense Health Program. The Committee notes that the fiscal year 1998 President's Budget request submitted to Congress in February underfunded the Defense Health Program by $274,000,000. Subsequent to the submission of the budget, the Administration submitted a budget amendment to correct this shortfall. The Committee strongly agrees with this action and fully funds the Defense Health Program to include the shortfall of $274,000,000. The Committee recommends $10,309,750,000 a net increase of $8,100,000 over the amended budget request in operations and maintenance only for the following: Breast Cancer........................................... $25,000,000 Head Injury............................................. 1,000,000 Air Force Neuroscience.................................. 4,900,000 Diabetes Research....................................... 4,000,000 Epidermolysis Bullosa................................... 1,000,000 Medical Imaging......................................... 4,700,000 Tissue Engineering...................................... 4,700,000 HIV..................................................... 15,000,000 Minimally Invasive Research............................. 13,000,000 Lab Upgrades............................................ 8,000,000 Nervous System Studies.................................. 4,500,000 Gulf War Illness........................................ 4,500,000 PACMEDNET............................................... 10,000,000 High Risk Automation Systems (CHCSII)................... -20,000,000 Tax Liability........................................... -70,800,000 Economic Adjustment..................................... -1,400,000 Medical Research The Committee recommends increases to research and development accounts only for the following programs: 602716A: Med Teams........................................... $4,000,000 602787A: Nutrition........................................... 3,500,000 LSTAT............................................... 6,000,000 Orthopedic implants................................. 3,500,000 Neurotoxin Exposure................................. 25,000,000 Ovarian Cancer...................................... 10,000,000 Neurofibromatosis................................... 9,800,000 Prostate Cancer..................................... 10,000,000 603002A: Breast Cancer....................................... 100,000,000 National Medical Testbed............................ 8,000,000 Lab Upgrades........................................ 6,000,000 Advanced Cancer Detection........................... 3,500,000 Teleradiology....................................... 3,000,000 Advanced Trauma Care................................ 6,000,000 Artificial Lung Research............................ 1,500,000 Emergency Telemedicine.............................. 3,500,000 603706N: Bone Marrow......................................... 34,000,000 Naval Biodynamics................................... 2,600,000 Biocide Materials................................... 5,500,000 Freeze-Dried Blood.................................. 2,500,000 Dental Research..................................... 4,000,000 Mobile Medical Monitor.............................. 4,000,000 Rural Health........................................ 3,000,000 Fleet Health Technology............................. -1,200,000 604771N: Casualty Monitoring................................. 8,500,000 Navy Telemedicine................................... 4,800,000 breast cancer The Committee has provided an increase of $125,000,000 only for breast cancer-related research and treatment. The Committee is pleased that funds appropriated to the Army in prior years for breast cancer research have been well used. This year the Committee has again provided funding for valuable research and to help improve access to care and improve treatment for military members and their dependents with breast cancer. The Committee recommends an increase of $100,000,000 for peer- reviewed research and $25,000,000 to improve access to care for military members and their families. gulf war illness The Department estimates that it will spend $74,100,000 for various Gulf War Illness programs in fiscal year 1998. The Committee recommends fully funding these programs. In addition, the Committee recommends an increase of $4,500,000 in conformance with authorization action, only for Gulf War Clinical Trials to be established by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for a total program of $78,600,000. This represents an increase of $15,500,000, or 25 percent, over the fiscal year 1997 program for Gulf War Illness initiatives. The Committee is concerned that the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs do not currently have a systematic approach to monitoring the health of Gulf War veterans after their initial examination and are unable to provide information on the effectiveness of treatment or whether veterans are better or worse than when first examined. The Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs should develop and implement a plan to address the concerns raised in the June 1997 GAO report on this subject providing: (1) data on the effectiveness of the treatments received by these veterans; and (2) data on the long-term progress of veterans who have reported illnesses after the war to identify health conditions which are resistant to current therapies. The application of validated severity indices may be appropriate, but the departments may suggest other methods. tricare The Committee is pleased with the progress that has been made in implementing TRICARE. However, the Committee believes that there are several areas that deserve further study including: the feasibility of adopting the APR-DRG system; standards relating to quality and access for children with special needs; and corrective measures for outlier payments. The Committee directs the Department of Defense to provide a report on these matters by May 1, 1998. bone marrow research The Committee recommends an increase of $34,000,000 only for the C.W. Bill Young Marrow Donor Recruitment and Research Program, which is administered by the Naval Medical Research Institute. The Committee believes that the C.W. Bill Young Marrow Donor Recruitment and Research Program is uniquely qualified to provide support to the Metropolitan Emergency Medical Response teams established by the Defense Against Mass Destruction Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-201). The Committee recommends that procedures be established to make available to these teams the infrastructure and medical expertise of the DoD marrow donor program in the event of an emergency covered by the Act. smoking cessation Tobacco smoking in the military is estimated to cost the Department of Defense an estimated $930 million in health expenses and lost productivity. It is the stated goal of the Department of Defense to reduce smoking prevalance among active duty personnel from the current level of 32 percent to 20 percent of all service personnel. Nicotine replacement therapy, such as nicotine patches or gum, may offer a cost-effective means of significantly increasing success rates among service personnel attempting to quit smoking. The Committee urges the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs to implement an effective smoking reduction plan that meets the objectives of Healthy People 2000. Furthermore, the Committee urges the Department to make replacement therapy available to military members and their families. diabetes The Committee has included $4,000,000 only for improved methods of diabetes detection, prevention, and care. The Committee recommends that the Department of Defense consider opportunities to conduct this research in conjunction with the Veterans Administration. The Committee directs the Department of Defense to provide a report on the status of this project by February 15, 1998. minimally invasive research The Committee recommends $13,000,000 to support a collaborative effort of industry, medical research institutions, and the Department's health care organizations to identify and evaluate technologies to permit the extensive surgical treatment of patients while minimizing the requirement to open the body with long, deep incisions. Technologies and techniques under development employing lasers, computers, special optics, and robotics hold promise for advancing minimally invasive surgical capabilities. This could have direct and useful application for battlefield medicine and could reduce the pain, danger, and cost of surgery provided to the military healthcare population. Air Force Neuroscience The Committee recommends $4,900,000 to fund a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) at Wright Patterson Air Force Base for neuroscience technology. Central Nervous System Injury Research The Committee recommends $4,500,000 to continue active research programs under Cooperative Agreement DAMD17-93-V-3018 relating to the mechanism and treatment of central nervous system injury (brain trauma, spinal cord injury, stroke) and cognitive dysfunction. It is expected that these funds will support multi-institutional research and training programs in the areas of brain imaging, cognitive science, central nervous system injury/plasticity, and telemedicine with the Walter Reed Institute of Research, the National Institutes of Health, and other Army medical organizations. walter reed army institute of research The Committee recommends $8,000,000 to acquire essential equipment for the new Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR). Because the planned occupancy date for the new replacement laboratory has recently been accelerated from April 1999 to August 1998, funds to equip the facility were not included in this year's budget request. Mobile Breast Care Center The Committee believes the Mobile Breast Care Center is absolutely essential to effectively addressing the basic and clinical research needs of at-risk underserved rural and urban communities, and encourages the Department to provide support for this effort from within available funds. Peer Review Panels The Committee is pleased with the level of diversity of the DoD prostate cancer initiative's program medical review panel and encourages that it be sustained. In conjunction with the Institute of Medicine's fiscal year 1993 report on strategies for managing the breast cancer research program, the Committee recognizes the critical importance of the participation of minorities on the program management team, advisory council, and peer review group of the DoD breast cancer research program. Thus, the Committee recommends that the DoD breast cancer research program medical review panel maintain equitable representation of minorities. CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION, DEFENSE Fiscal year 1997 appropriated amount.................. $758,447,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 620,700,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 595,700,000 Change from budget request............................ -25,000,000 Committee Recommendations Program Reductions The DoD requested $620,700,000 for the destruction of chemical agents and munitions. The Committee recommends $595,700,000, a decrease of $25,000,000 due poor obligation rates. storage facilities In June 1997, the GAO issued a report which stated that communities surrounding the Umatilla Depot lack a number of safety measures, including decontamination equipment, sirens, and tone alert radios. The GAO report, if accurate, causes the Committee concern for the citizens in the towns surrounding the storage facility. Therefore, the Committee directs the Army to ensure the integrity of the nerve gas storage facilities and to minimize the degree of risk to the surrounding communities. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1997: <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEFENSE Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $807,000,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 652,582,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 713,082,000 Change from budget request............................ +60,500,000 This appropriation provides funds for Military Personnel; Operation and Maintenance; Procurement; and, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, for drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the Department of Defense. Committee Recommendation The Department of Defense requested $652,582,000 for Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, a reduction of $154,418,000 from the fiscal year 1997 appropriated level. The Committee recommends $713,082,000, an increase of $60,500,000. national guard counter-drug program Once again the Department of Defense has not adequately provided funds for the National Guard Counter-Drug Support Program. The budget request would fund less than half the state and local law enforcement requests for National Guard Counter- Drug Support. The Committee has provided additional funds for specific National Guard activities and directs the Department to follow proper reprogramming procedures for each program in this account. lea support The Committee provided additional funds in fiscal year 1997 for operation Laser Strike and other projects in the Southern Command area of responsibility. These additional resources, in combination with the programs requested in the budget, have led to recent success achieved by participating nations in stemming the production and transfer of illegal drugs. Among the more immediate effects of this effort is the dramatic reduction in traffic along the air bridge in the Andean region which had been used as the chief means of transport for raw coca to processing sites. The Committee compliments the Commander-in- Chief of the Southern Command and the Department for their contribution and leadership in this area. The Committee recommends an additional $15,000,000 over the budget request in the LEA Support program to be used to continue and build on this effort in the Source Nations and directs the Department to present a detailed plan on how it will utilize this additional funding to the congressional defense committees within 60 days of enactment of this act. gulf states initiative The Committee recommends $16,166,000 for the Gulf States Initiative (GSI), an addition of $12,800,000 over the budget request. The Committee believes that the infrastructure and capabilities developed by the participants in the GSI have direct application to counter-terrorism activities. Accordingly, the Committee directs that funds for the GSI shall be used for sustainment costs for the C4 of GSI, improvements to existing processing and analysis centers for the four GSI states, and for broadening the GSI focus to include counter- terrorism. The Committee directs that $3,031,000, an addition of $800,000 over the budget request, be provided to the Regional Counter-drug Training Academy (RCTA). The Committee is disappointed in the Department's lack of budgetary and management support for the GSI, and in its proposal to shift management responsibility to the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA). The Committee believes such action is unwise and instead directs the Department to submit a plan to the Committee prior to conference committee action on the fiscal year 1998 bill to transfer all program funding responsibility and program management of the GSI, except those dealing with the RCTA, to the Joint Military Intelligence program. hidta crack house demolition The Committee is aware that various Guard units have been used to demolish crack houses in Texas, in a manner which enhances readiness. The Committee is also aware of an urgent need to expand this activity to the state of Indiana. Therefore, the Committee recommends $2,300,000 above the budget request for Guard State plans only for Crack House Demolition and related missions for the National Guard in the Indiana High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA). civil air patrol The Committee recommends $2,800,000 above the budget request, for the Civil Air Patrol (CAP). Funds made available to the CAP for the Department of Defense Drug Interdiction activities may be used for CAP's demand reduction program involving youth programs as well as operational and training drug reconnaissance missions for federal, state, and local government agencies; for administrative costs, including the hiring of CAP employees; for travel and per diem expenses of CAP personnel in support of those missions; and for equipment needed for mission support performance. The Department of the Air Force should waive reimbursement from the federal, state and local government agencies for use of these funds. c-26 aircraft photo reconnaissance upgrades The Committee recommends $11,000,000 only to form fit upgrade the KS-87 sensors on Air National Guard C-26 counter- drug aircraft to electro optical framing capability to include image processing equipment and spares support. multijurisdictional task force training The Committee recommends $4,000,000 above the budget request for multijurisdictional task force training and Military Police School training at the Criminal Justice Institute. Program Recommended The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 1998: [In thousands of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Change Budget Committee from request recommended budget ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dismantling Cartels.................... 54,306 54,306 ........ Source Nation Support.................. 166,763 180,963 +14,200 National Imagery & Mapping Agency.. 8,374 7,574 -800 LEA Support (1004)................. 3,585 18,585 +15,000 Detection & Monitoring................. 124,686 124,686 ........ Law Enforcement Agency Support......... 223,589 269,389 +45,800 Gulf States Initiative............. 3,366 16,166 +12,800 Multi-Jurisdictional Task Force.... 2,047 6,047 +4,000 Southwest Border Information System ........ 5,000 +5,000 Civil Air Patrol................... 1,175 3,975 +2,800 National Interagency Counterdrug Institute......................... ........ 3,000 +3,000 Southwest Border Fence............. ........ 7,000 +7,000 Optionally Piloted Air Vehicle..... ........ 2,500 +2,500 HIDTA Crack House Demolition....... ........ 2,300 +2,300 C-26 Aircraft Photo Reconnaissance Upgrade........................... ........ 11,000 +11,000 Non-Intrusive Inspection Systems RDT&E............................. 16,013 11,413 -4,600 Demand Reduction....................... 83,238 83,738 +500 Young Marines Programs............. 500 1,000 +500 Total, Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug Activities, Defense 652,582 713,082 +60,500 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $139,157,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 138,380,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 142,980,000 Change from budget request............................ +4,600,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $142,980,000 for the Office of the Inspector General. The recommendation is an increase of $3,823,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1997. TITLE VII RELATED AGENCIES NATIONAL FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM Introduction The National Foreign Intelligence Program consists of those intelligence activities of the Government which provide the President, other officers of the Executive Branch, and the Congress with national foreign intelligence on broad strategic concerns bearing on U.S. National security. These concerns are stated by the National Security Council in the form of long- range and short-range requirements for the principal users of intelligence, and include political and support to military theater commanders. The National Foreign Intelligence Program budget funded in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act consists primarily of resources of the Central Intelligence Agency; the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Security Agency, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, the intelligence services of the Department of the Army, Navy and the Air Force; the Intelligence Community Management Staff; and the CIA Retirement and Disability System Fund. classified annex Because of the highly sensitive nature of intelligence programs, the results of the Committee's budget review are published in a separate, detailed and comprehensive classified annex. The intelligence community, Department of Defense and other organizations are expected to comply fully with the recommendations and directives in the classified annex accompanying the fiscal year 1998 Defense Approprations bill. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM FUND Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $196,400,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 196,900,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 196,900,000 Change from budget request............................ 0 This appropriation provides payments of benefits to qualified beneficiaries in accordance with the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act of 1964 for Certain Employees (P.L. 88-643). This statue authorized the establishment of a CIA Retirement and Disability System (CIARDS) for a limited number of CIA employees, and authorized the establishment and maintenance of a Fund from which benefits would be paid to those beneficiaries. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $129,164,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 122,580,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 125,580,000 Change from budget request............................ +3,000,000 This appropriation provides funds for the activities that support the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) and the Intelligence Community. Committee recommendation The budget requested $122,580,000 for the Intelligence Community Management Account. The Committee recommends $125,580,000, an increase of $3,000,000. Details of adjustments to this account are included in the classified annex accompanying this report. NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION TRUST FUND Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $5,100,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 2,000,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 2,000,000 Change from budget request............................ 0 The National Security Education Trust Fund was established to provide scholarships and fellowships to U.S. students to pursue higher education studies abroad and grants to U.S. institutions for programs of study in foreign areas and languages. The budget requested $2,000,000. The Committee recommends funding the budget request. PAYMENT TO KAHO'OLAWE ISLAND CONVEYANCE, REMEDIATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FUND Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $10,000,000 Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 10,000,000 Committee recommendation.............................. 10,000,000 Change from budget request............................ 0 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,000,000 for Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and Environmental Restoration Fund. The Committee recommendation does not change from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1997. TITLE VIII GENERAL PROVISIONS The accompanying bill includes 102 general provisions. Most of these provisions were included in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1997 and many have been included in the Defense Appropriations Act for a number of years. Actions taken by the Committee to amend last year's provisions or new provisions recommended by the Committee are discussed below or in the applicable section of the report. Definition of Program, Project and Activity For purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177) as amended by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-119) and by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508), the following information provides the definitions of the term ``program, project, and activity'' for appropriations contained in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act. The term ``program, project, and activity'' shall include the most specific level of budget items, identified in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1997, the accompanying House and Senate Committee reports, the conference report and accompanying joint explanatory statement of the managers of the Committee on Conference, the related classified reports, and the P-1 and R-1 budget justification documents as subsequently modified by Congressional action. In carrying out any Presidential sequestration, the Department of Defense and agencies shall conform to the definition for ``program, project, and activity'' set forth above with the following exception: For Military Personnel and the Operation and Maintenance accounts the term ``program, project, and activity'' is defined as the appropriations accounts contained in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act. The Department and agencies should carry forth the Presidential sequestration order in a manner that would not adversely affect or alter Congressional policies and priorities established for the Department of Defense and the related agencies and no program, project, and activity should be eliminated or be reduced to a level of funding which would adversely affect the Department's ability to effectively continue any program, project and activity. Military Personnel Budget Justification The Committee has included Section 8092 in the General Provisions, which directs the Department to forward to the congressional defense committees a budget justification document for the active and reserve personnel accounts with the fiscal year 1999 budget submission. The Committee directs this ``M-1'' document to identify at the budget activity, activity group, and subactivity group level, the amounts requested by the President for fiscal year 1999. Limitation on Field Operating Agencies and Headquarters Activities The Committee supports efforts to reduce personnel in headquarters activities, but is concerned some organizations may reassign their personnel to other organizations while those personnel continue to perform the same headquarters mission. The Committee therefore recommends amending a previously- enacted General Provision (Section 8052) to place additional limits on the manner in which personnel shifts can take place. The provision does not affect personnel assigned to a non- headquarters activity who take a rotational assignment at a headquarters for career development purposes. Warranties The Committee has included a new general provision, Section 8095, which reduces $50,000,000 of the funds in the Procurement title of the bill due to the proposed elimination of the requirement in Title X of United States Code mandating warranties for the acquisition of defense weapon systems. A recent General Accounting Office report indicates that the Department of Defense spends $271,000,000 annually on warranties as required by Title X even though most warranties under this legislation have proven to be not cost-effective. The Defense Department has proposed on numerous occasions that the warranty legislation be repealed, and the General Accounting Office now also makes the same recommendation. The House National Security Committee proposes to repeal the warranty legislation in Title X (Section 2403 of Title 10, United States Code) in the House Defense Authorization Bill for fiscal year 1998, while the Senate Armed Services Committee proposes to modify the warranty legislation in the Senate Defense Authorization Bill for fiscal year 1998 to make it optional rather than mandatory. Thus, there is broad consensus that the warranty requirements of Title X will be removed and the Department of Defense will be able to eliminate cost ineffective warranty provisions from defense weapon system acquisition contracts. The Committee recommends a reduction of $50,000,000 in anticipation of savings from these actions. National Imagery and Mapping Agency The National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) has not complied with previous directives regarding the use of the qualifications based selection process for its contracts for mapping production services. Therefore, a General Provision (Section 8096) is included which requires NIMA to use this selection process, commonly referred to as the Brooks Act, for mapping related services. The Committee has provided an exception to this requirement only for purposes that are critical to national security and after the Deputy Secretary of Defense has submitted a notification report to the Committee on Appropriations explaining the reasons for exceptions to this contracting out provision. Navigation and Safety Equipment Last year, in the wake of the fatal air crash in Croatia involving the Secretary of Commerce, Congress appropriated $96 million in support of Department of Defense initiative to upgrade its military passenger-carrying aircraft with modern, safety related equipment such as global positioning system receivers, flight data recorders, cockpit voice recorders, ground proximity warning systems, and traffic collision avoidance systems. This was intended to be a high priority effort spanning several years. The Committee is disappointed that, despite the Department's stated commitment to make this program a matter of the highest priority, the Air Force failed to request funds in its fiscal year 1998 budget to fully fund the second phase of this program for troops and passenger aircraft. Instead, the Air Force has identified this program as an unfunded requirement. Accordingly, the Committee has designated in the bill $20 million only for this program to be derived from funds in the Aircraft Procurement, Air Force account. The Committee directs that these modifications may not be funded from any other programs in this bill for which funds have been added over the budget request, or from the phase I navigational safety modifications contained in the fiscal year 1998 President's Budget. The Committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to report to the congressional defense committees on sources of the funds 30 days prior to phase II obligations. The Committee has further included a general provision (Section 8098) that directs the Department to submit an aviation safety program plan specifying the appropriate level of safety upgrades required for all DoD aircraft and the associated funding profile no later than November 15, 1997. TACWAR The Committee recognizes the importance of theater combat simulations for the purpose of acquiring insight into future force structure decisions and funding choices. However, the Committee is concerned over the adequacy of the models being used by the Department to evaluate and determine these significant future decisions. The Committee is particularly concerned over the outdated nature of the TACWAR model which played a key role in supporting the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), and its inability to meaningfully assess asymmetrical U.S. advantages such as stealth, communications and airpower. The committee notes that in testimony before the Congress, all four service chiefs and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have testified to the inadequacy of the current DOD models. The Committee believes it is necessary to direct a thorough, independent review of the current models and modeling structure. As such, in Section 8099 of the bill, the Committee directs the Defense Science Board (DSB) to review the current models used by Department of Defense and report back to the Committee as to 1) the DSB's evaluation of the current models utilized by DOD with particular emphasis on the TACWAR model and its ability to adequately measure airpower, stealth and other asymmetrical U.S. advantages and, 2) DSB recommendations for improvements to current models and modeling techniques. The Committee directs the Department to advise the Congress no later than April 15, 1998 of the best alternatives for theater combat simulations. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORTING REQUIREMENTS The following items are included in accordance with various requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives. Changes in Application of Existing Law Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of Representatives, the following statements are submitted describing the effect of provisions which directly or indirectly change the application of existing law. Language is included in various parts of the bill to continue on-going activities which require annual authorization or additional legislation, which to date has not been enacted. The bill includes a number of provisions which place limitations on the use of funds in the bill or change existing limitations and which might, under some circumstances, be construed as changing the application of existing law. The bill includes a number of provisions, which have been virtually unchanged for many years, that are technically considered legislation. The bill provides that appropriations shall remain available for more than one year for some programs for which the basic authorizing legislation does not presently authorize such extended availability. In various places in the bill, the Committee has earmarked funds within appropriation accounts in order to fund specific programs and has adjusted some existing earmarkings. The bill includes a number of provisions which make portions of the appropriations subject to enactment of authorizing legislation. Those additional changes in the fiscal year 1998 bill, which might be interpreted as changing existing law, are as follows: appropriations language Language has been deleted in ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'' which makes funds available to the Department of the Interior to support the Memorial Day and Fourth of July ceremonies in the National Capital Region. Language has been amended in ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'' which changes the amount available for emergency and extraordinary expenses. Language has been deleted in ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' which earmarked funds for federally owned education facilities located on military facilities, and which transferred funds to the Harnett County School Board, Lillington, North Carolina. Language has also been amended to change the amount available for emergency and extraordinary expenses. Language has been included in the ``Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund'' to allow the Secretary of Defense to transfer funds from this account to operation and maintenance and working capital funds. Language has been amended in ``United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces'' to change the amount available for official representation purposes. Language has been deleted in ``Environmental Restoration, Army'' which restricted the amount of funds which could be used by the Corps of Engineers for total environmental remediation contracts. Language has been included in ``Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction'' which limits the obligational availability of funds in this account. Language has been deleted for the ``Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense'' appropriation account. Language has been included in ``Aircraft Procurement, Army'' which earmarks funds for UH-60 helicopters for the Army National Guard and for the Navy Reserve. Language has been deleted in ``Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army'' which allowed funds to be obligated for future year V903 diesel engine requirements. Language has been deleted in ``Other Procurement, Army'' which allowed funds to be obligated for future year V903 diesel engine requirements and which authorized the procurement of passenger replacement vehicles. Language has been deleted in ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy'' which earmarked funds for certain ship programs and includes language which restricts the availability of funds for the overhaul of the CVN-69 and the production of DDG-51 destroyers.. Language has been included in ``Other Procurement, Navy'' concerning the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for replacement. Language has been amended in ``Procurement, Marine Corps'' which changes the number of passenger vehicles to be procured. Language has been included in ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force'' which earmarks funds for navigational safety modifications for Air Force troop and passenger aircraft. Language has been amended in ``Other Procurement, Air Force'' which changes the number of passenger vehicles to be procured and the price limitation per vehicle. Language has been amended in ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'' to change the number of passenger vehicles to be procured. Language has been deleted in ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force'' which earmarked funds for the F-22 two seat variant study and for development of reusable launch vehicle technologies. Language has been included in ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force'' which earmarked funds for coal- derived jet fuel technologies. Language has been included in ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' concerning the Dual-Use Application Program. Language has also been amended to change the amount of funds earmarked for the Navy Upper Tier program. Language has been amended in ``Revolving and Management Funds'' to change the name of the ``Defense Business Operations Fund'' to ``Defense Working Capital Funds''. Language has been deleted from ``Defense Health Program'' which earmarks funds for obtaining emergency communications funds from the Red Cross and which allows the Secretary of Defense to obligate funds for private physicians to work with the U.S. Army on Desert Storm Syndrome research. Language has been deleted in ``Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense'' which earmarks funds for the Johnston Atoll off-island leave program and which provides authority for service secretaries to grant travel allowances for participants in the program. Language has been amended in ``Office of the Inspector General'' to change the amount available for emergency and extraordinary expenses. Language has been added to the ``Intelligence Community Management Account'' which restricts obligational availability of funds for the Advanced Research and Development Committee, the Environmental Intelligence and Applications program, and the National Drug Intelligence Center. General Provisions Section 8006 has been amended to allow transfers to be made between working capital funds and the ``Foreign Currency Fluctuations, Defense'' appropriation. Section 8008 has been amended to require formal submission of multiyear contract proposals and to authorize the multiyear procurement of the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles. Section 8022 has been amended to change a citation with respect to title 10 of the United States Code. Section 8030 has been amended to change the amount of overall funding made available to the Civil Air Patrol and the amount available for operation and maintenance. Section 8031 has been amended to delete language which limits the number of staff years of technical effort which may be funded for defense FFRDCs and amends language directing the Secretary of Defense to reduce the number of staff years to be performed by defense FFRDCs and reduces funds for FFRDCs and consultants by $141,300,000 in fiscal year 1998. Section 8044 has been amended to change the title of the appropriation from the ``Defense Business Operations Fund'' to ``Working Capital Funds''. Section 8045 has been amended to make permanent the prohibition on the use of appropriated funds to modify aircraft, weapons, ships or other end-items of the Military Departments that are planned to be retired or disposed of within five years of the completion of the modification. Section 8052 has been amended concerning the increase or transfer of DoD personnel assigned to headquarters activities and field operating agencies. Section 8055 has been included to rescind funds from the following programs: FISCAL YEAR 1996............................ Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy: AFS ship conversion............................... $35,600,000 Other Procurement, Navy: Shipboard Tactical Communications................. 3,300,000 FISCAL YEAR 1997............................ Aircraft Procurement, Army: Blackhawk Advance Procurement..................... 10,000,000 Procurement of Ammunition, Army: Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support...... 5,000,000 Other Procurement, Army: 20-ton Dump Trucks................................ 40,000,000 Maneuver Control System........................... 6,000,000 Aircraft Procurement, Navy: F/A-18E/F Advance Procurement..................... 24,000,000 Other Procurement, Navy: Shipboard Tactical Communications................. 2,200,000 Aircraft Procurement, Air Force: Small VCX......................................... 27,000,000 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army: Aerostat.......................................... 7,000,000 Section 8062 has been amended to change the amount of the Pentagon Reservation renovation total cost cap. Section 8076 has been amended to extend the obligational availability of funds for the B-2 program. Section 8078 has been amended concerning the transfer of funds for the ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy'' account, and for the ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force'' account for the F-22 project. Section 8079 has been amended to require a specific date for the Defense Department Comptroller to submit a report to the congressional defense committees detailing programs whose budget request was reduced because Congress appropriated funds above the budget request in the previous fiscal year. Section 8082 has been amended concerning the National Guard Distance Learning project. Section 8084 has been added which makes a technical correction extending the availability of funds appropriated to the Army in the fiscal year 1992 Defense Appropriations Act. Section 8085 has been added which makes a technical correction extending the availability of funds made available in the fiscal year 1994 Defense Appropriations Act for certain activities at Homestead Air Force Base. Section 8086 has been added which provides for continuation of the graduate education program at the Air Force Institute of Technology. Section 8087 has been added concerning the deposit of funds to the Foreign Military Sales Trust Fund for credit to the Canadian Government. Section 8088 has been added concerning the Fisher House Trust Fund. Section 8089 has been added which grants authority for refunds from Government travel cards to be credited to operation and maintenance accounts. Section 8090 has been added which grants authority for withdrawal credits for military customers of the Marine Corps supply activity group. Section 8091 has been added which allows DoD to pay interest penalties associated with the purchase of supplies, materials, services, and other contractual obligations from the appropriation account which made the purchase. Section 8092 has been added requiring the Department of Defense to submit budget justification documents for the active and reserve Military Personnel accounts which identifies all requested amounts at the budget activity, activity group, and subactivity levels. Section 8093 has been added which reduces the ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'' budget request by $15,000,000 and the ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'' budget request by $85,000,000 to compensate for excess inventory held by these services. Section 8094 has been added which reduces the ``Environmental Restoration, Army'' budget request by $73,000,000 to reflect funds carried by the Army as a result of shared cleanup costs. Section 8095 has been added which reduces the budget request by $50,000,000 to reflect savings from the proposed repeal of Section 2403 of title 10, United States Code. Section 8096 has been added restricting the use of appropriated funds for the National Imagery and Mapping Agency for mapping, charting, and geodesy activities unless contracts for these services are awarded in accordance with the selection process in 40 U.S.C. 541 et seq. and 10 U.S.C. 2855. Section 8097 has been added which provides for the use of contract authority in Working Capital Funds of the Department of Defense to support the practice of capital budgeting. Section 8098 has been added requiring the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on an aviation safety plan. Section 8099 has been added requiring the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on alternatives for current theater combat simulations. Section 8100 has been added which restricts the use of Research and Development funding for the procurement of end- items. Section 8101 has been added which requires the Department of Defense to establish new budget subactivities in the applicable appropriations accounts to separately identify all costs associated with NATO expansion. This section also requires that DoD provide detailed budget justification estimates for the cost of such expansion. Section 8102 has been added which restricts the obligational availability of funds for the deployment of U.S. ground forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina after June 30, 1998 or a later date as specifically proscribed by law. The section also prohibits the use of appropriated funds for support of law enforcement activities in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and directs the President to submit a report no later than December 15, 1997 on the political and military conditions in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and restricts the availability of funds for the operation of United States ground forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina to 60 percent of the fiscal year 1998 appropriation before the report is submitted. Appropriations not Authorized by Law Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of Representatives, the following lists the appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not authorized by law: Military Personnel, Army Military Personnel, Navy Military Personnel, Marine Corps Military Personnel, Air Force Reserve Personnel, Army Reserve Personnel, Navy Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps Reserve Personnel, Air Force National Guard Personnel, Army National Guard Personnel, Air Force Operation and Maintenance, Army Operation and Maintenance, Navy Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Environmental Restoration, Army Environmental Restoration, Navy Environmental Restoration, Air Force Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid Aircraft Procurement, Army Missile Procurement, Army Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles Procurement of Ammunition, Army Other Procurement, Army Aircraft Procurement, Navy Weapons Procurement, Navy Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy Other Procurement, Navy Procurement, Marine Corps Aircraft Procurement, Air Force Missile Procurement, Air Force Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force Other Procurement, Air Force Procurement, Defense-Wide National Guard and Reserve Equipment Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide Developmental Test and Evaluation, Defense Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense Defense Capital Working Fund National Defense Sealift Fund Defense Health Program Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense Office of the Inspector General Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund Intelligence Community Management Account Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation and Environmental Restoration Fund National Security Education Trust Fund Transfer of Funds Pursuant to clause 1(b), rule X of the House of Representatives the following is submitted describing the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appropriations from which Appropriations to which transfer is made Amount transfer is made Amount ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Operation and Maintenance, Army............... $50,000,000 National Defense Stockpile $150,000,000 Transaction Fund. Operation and Maintenance, Navy............... 50,000,000 Operation and Maintenance, Air Force.......... 50,000,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Language has been included in ``Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund'' which provides for the transfer of funds out of this account to other appropriation accounts of the Department of Defense. Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, Army'' which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this account. Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, Navy'' which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this account. Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, Air Force'' which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this account. Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide'' which provides for the transfer of funds out of an into this account. Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites'' which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this account. Language has been included in ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense'' which transfers funds to other appropriations accounts of the Department of Defense. Language has been included in the ``Intelligence Community Management Account'' which transfers funds to the Department of Justice. Section 8078 contains language which transfers funds as follows: Amount Appropriations to which transfer is made: Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1989/2000....... $21,572,000 Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1991/2001....... 24,633,000 Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1996/2000....... 5,592,000 Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1997/2001....... 24,160,000 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force 1997/98........................................ 73,531,000 ----------------- Total........................................... 149,488,000 ================= Appropriations from which transfer is made: Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1989/2000....... 21,572,000 Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1991/2000....... 24,633,000 Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1994/1998....... 1,454,000 Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1995/1999....... 715,000 Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1996/2000....... 23,983,000 Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1997/2001....... 3,600,000 Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 1997/1999......... 73,531,000 ----------------- Total........................................... 149,488,000 Six provisions (Sections 8006, 8014, 8037, 8062, 8064, 8078) contain language which allows transfer of funds between accounts. Rescissions Pursuant to clause (b) of rule X of the House of Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill. Aircraft Procurement, Army 1997/1999.................. $10,000,000 Procurement of Ammunition, Army 1997/1999............. 5,000,000 Other Procurement, Army 1997/1999..................... 46,000,000 Aircraft Procurement, Navy 1997/1999.................. 24,000,000 Other Procurement, Army 1997/1999..................... 2,200,000 Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 1997/1999............. 27,000,000 Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1996/2000........... 35,600,000 Other Procurement, Navy 1996/1998..................... 3,300,000 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army 1997/ 1999................................................. 7,000,000 Constitutional Authority Clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives states that: ``Each report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution of a public character, shall include a statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the joint resolution.'' The Committee on Appropriations based its authority to report this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America which states: ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law . . .'' Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to this specific power granted by the Constitution. Comparision With Budget Resolution Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), requires that the report accompanying a bill providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing how the authority compares with the reports submitted under section 602(b) of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year. This information follows: [In millions of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 602(b) Allocation This bill --------------------------------------------------- Budget Budget authority Outlays authority Outlays ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary............................................... 248,140 244,574 248,138 244,563 Mandatory................................................... 197 197 197 197 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The bill provides no new spending authority as described in section 401(c)(2) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended. Five-Year Projection of Outlays In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following table contains five-year projections associated with the budget provided in the accompanying bill. [In millions of dollars] Budget authority in the bill.......................... $248,335 1998.............................................. 165,067 1999.............................................. 49,031 2000.............................................. 18,369 2001.............................................. 8,002 2002.............................................. 6,132 Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(D) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended, no new budget or outlays are provided by the accompanying bill for financial assistance to state and local governments. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> DISSENTING VIEWS OF HON. DAVE OBEY Our former Chairman Jamie Whitten used to insist on referring to this bill as a ``military spending'' bill as opposed to a ``defense'' bill. The point being that the ``spending'' inserted in this bill didn't always coincide with our country's highest ``defense'' priorities. I certainly agreed with him back then, and I think his point is magnified many times by what is happening in today's era. Today, despite the collapse of the Soviet Empire, and an 80% drop in Russian military spending; despite the dissipation of other serious conventional military threats from places like Iraq and the slow motion disintegration of the North Korean military; despite Defense Secretary Cohen's studied conclusion that the United States will have no ``global peer competitor'' between now and at least the year 2015; and despite clear warnings that we should be paying more attention to new, more insidious threats such as: the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, especially chemical and biological weapons, to rogue states and even to terrorist organizations; the proliferation of sophisticated conventional weapons capabilities throughout East Asia, the Middle East and now possibly Latin America; the ability of international drug lords to corrupt entire countries and even regions of the world, the growing capability of some nations and other groups to conduct ``cyber warfare'' attacks to disrupt critical computer systems that control our banking system, electric grids, telephone systems, air traffic control system, Wall Street, as well as many battlefield information systems; despite all of these realities, this Congress continues to plow billions of dollars into systems like the F-22 fighter, the B-2 bomber, and the Seawolf submarine that were literally justified and designed to fight the old Soviet Empire at the height of its military power. One of the Navy personnel assigned to serve on the brand new $2.4 billion Seawolf submarine summed up this situation pretty well according to an article in the July 19, 1997 Washington Post. In describing the new Seawolf submarine he said: This is an incredible system, and although a lot of people complain about the cost of the Seawolf, I think it's worth every penny * * * Now if we could just find somebody to fight with it. This couldn't be more poignant. This submarine is a $2.4 billion anti-ship weapon that lost its military rationale the day the Berlin Wall fell. It is being built and put into service at the same time we are retiring scores of Los Angeles class attack submarines years earlier than planned because the threat has evaporated and they don't have a bona fide mission. The Seawolf can't be justified on a military basis, yet Congress simply can't kick the military spending habit with the result that billions of taxpayers' money is wasted. Getting Ready for the Wrong War? But the problem is much deeper than the issue of simply wasting billions of tax dollars on unneeded military systems. The pattern of Congressional military spending since the end of the Cold War raises serious questions as to whether backward- looking Congressional defense policies are causing us to get ready for the wrong war. This is not a new phenomenon, nor is it unique to the United States. The status quo ethos among military decision makers around the world seems to be one of preparing to re- fight the last war instead of preparing for the next. There are countless examples of this throughout history, including such recent examples as the continued emphasis of the U.S. Navy on battleshipsprior to World War II instead of moving to air power and aircraft carriers, or the stubborn insistence of the French military to continue to rely on the Maginot Line and outdated tactics in the face of changed German Blitzkrieg tactics. But this problem extends beyond the halls of Congress. History shows that Congress has rarely taken meaningful, comprehensive defense policy initiatives on its own. There is no question that Congress depends on the Pentagon and the Administration to lead the way, with Congress making changes mainly on the margins. Unfortunately, recent leadership from the Pentagon has been disappointing as well. Service turf battles, bureaucratic momentum, and defense industry politics appear to have hamstrung the Pentagon in the critical task of modernizing its overall defense strategy to meet our new post-Cold War defense challenges. The recently completed Quadrennial Defense Review is a case in point. It missed the opportunity to push us forward. Months of work on the QDR by Pentagon strategists culminated in a familiar ``Cold War'' vision: a force built around carriers, jets, tanks, and other traditional big ticket items. Former Reagan Administration official Richard Perle said this about the Quadrennial Defense Review: the QDR is an extremely important missed opportunity. It is, by and large business as usual * * * I wish we had some radical document but we don't. It nibbled at the edges. An analyst within the Office of the Secretary of Defense put it more clearly: the QDR put the profits of defense contractors and the interests of the congressional pork barrel before the welfare of the soldier or the taxpayer. [Defense Week, 6-30-97] A good question is whether our potential adversaries of the future are also standing pat. For instance, many observers have expressed concern about the future direction of China. Although we should resist the notion of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy about Chinese foreign and military aspirations, there is also no doubt that Chinese military and foreign policy actions must be watched. In this respect, the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment says the lessons of Desert Storm were not lost on Chinese military planners. Here is what one press report said about a recent Pentagon study of Chinese military doctrine: Rather than gird for the open land and air battles at which the United States excels, potential foes can invest in cheap but sophisticated sea mines, jamming gear, and missiles. * * * Instead of tanks, ships, and jets, the Chinese theorists list anti-satellite devices, defenses against stealthy aircraft, lasers, and electronic sabotage equipment as key weapons of the future. [U.S. News, 5-12-97] Pentagon military planners have made similar assessments. The ``Joint Strategy Review'' issued by the Joint Staff at the Pentagon was summarized as follows: [the Joint Strategy Review] projected that potential enemies cannot hope to challenge U.S. forces in head- to-head engagements, and instead would seek to strike at potential U.S. vulnerabilities in protecting its vast information infrastructure, engage in acts of terrorism and develop chemical or biological weapons and the long range launchers to use them. * * * Moreover, the assessment found most combat will take place in urban areas where enemies can easily mix with the population. This reduces the advantages of precision weapons * * *'' [Defense News, March 30, 1997] One has to ask why we continue to pour billions into Cold War weapons systems designed to fight a huge Soviet Army on the plains of central Europe when our experts tell us the threats of the future will likely come from a different direction. Continuing these expensive, unnecessary Cold War systems squeezes important programs that do have relevance for our future national security, such as the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program and, more importantly, exacts a price from our other non-defense programs to pay for these extravagances. Pell Grants/Cancer Research/Highways I for one, think we should take the billions we are wasting in this bill for more B-2 bombers the Air Force doesn't want, for more submarines wedon't need, for the F-22 fighter that is being brought into service years earlier than it needs to be, and for many other programs the Pentagon doesn't even have in its five-year spending plan and apply it to Pell Grants to give more of our kids an education. If we cut out the $4.7 billion in this bill for redundant Cold War weapons like the F-22 fighter, the new attack submarine, and the B-2 bomber and instead applied it to education and cancer research, we could help over 400,000 more kids go to college under the Pell Grant program, raise their maximum grant from $3,000 to $3,900, and, as an added bonus, more than double the NIH cancer research program. This could all be done starting next fiscal year. If we used the $20 billion ``rainy day'' reserve fund that is buried in the five-year DoD procurement budget to fix up our roads and bridges, we could increase national highway investments by 20% a year--creating 200,000 additional jobs and helping the local economy in all 50 states. That is what the American People would like to spend their money on, and that is what this Committee could decide today if it had the will. Follow the Money Why can't we find savings in the military and apply it to these worthy areas? Why is it that all the rhetoric we hear from our Republican friends about cutting the waste out of government programs and making sure that we are spending only for essential items just seems to melt away when this bill, the single largest spending bill we vote on each year, moves forward? The answer becomes clearer when you look a little deeper as to where the hundreds of billions of dollars in this bill are spent, and who it benefits. How this bill is put together has much more to do with where the spending occurs and who it is spent on, than what it is for. There is enormous pressure in Congress to keep the dollars and jobs flowing to the same areas, to the same corporations, for the same systems. There is also a strong incentive to keep the revolving door going between the Pentagon and the military contractors they have come to know so well. There is pressure to keep military spending up in vote-rich states like California and Texas. That all adds up to maintaining the status quo and mis- allocating literally billions of dollars that could be better used for a host of more important national purposes. I had the GAO pull together some information on where the Defense Department spends its money. They produced an extensive report put out by the DoD Directorate for Information entitled ``Atlas/Data Abstract for the United States and Selected Areas'' that lists where over $215 billion in DoD spending for FY 1996 for operating costs like military and civilian payrolls, retired pay, and for military procurement/R&D prime contracts over $25,000 were spent by state and even within the states. These data aren't perfect, but the report as a whole gives as complete a picture of the geographic distribution of military spending as there is. I would suggest every Member take a look at this report. It explains much about why budget priorities are as they are. It probably won't surprise anyone that the Southern states and California come out the winners and the Midwest, Mountain, and small New England states come out the losers. But what some may not know is how lopsided the military spending geography is between California and the South on the one hand, and the rest of the country on the other. Top 4 States Get More Than 38 States Combined For instance, according to this report, the top four states receiving DoD funds in FY 1996--California, Virginia, Texas, and Florida--received nearly 40% of the total spent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Amount received State (in billions) Percent of total ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. California..................... $31.0 14.5 2. Virginia....................... 21.0 9.8 3. Texas.......................... 17.4 8.1 4. Florida........................ 12.6 5.9 ------------------------------------- Total....................... 82.0 38.3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ These four states received more military funds than the sum total of 39 other states (including the District of Columbia): ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Amount received State (in billions) Percent of total ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 51. Vermont....................... $0.3 0.1 50. Wyoming....................... 0.3 0.1 49. South Dakota.................. 0.4 0.2 48. Montana....................... 0.4 0.2 47. Delaware...................... 0.4 0.2 46. West Virginia................. 0.5 0.2 45. Idaho......................... 0.5 0.2 44. North Dakota.................. 0.6 0.2 43. Iowa.......................... 0.6 0.3 42. Oregon........................ 0.7 0.3 41. Rhode Island.................. 0.8 0.4 40. New Hampshire................. 0.8 0.4 39. Arkansas...................... 1.0 0.5 38. Wisconsin..................... 1.0 0.5 37. Nebraska...................... 1.0 0.5 36. Nevada........................ 1.1 0.5 35. Utah.......................... 1.3 0.6 34. Maine......................... 1.3 0.6 33. Minnesota..................... 1.4 0.7 32. Alaska........................ 1.5 0.7 31. Kansas........................ 1.9 0.9 30. New Mexico.................... 1.9 0.9 29. Michigan...................... 2.1 1.0 28. Tennessee..................... 2.2 1.1 27. Louisiana..................... 2.4 1.2 26. Indiana....................... 2.6 1.2 25. Kentucky...................... 2.6 1.2 24. District of Columbia.......... 2.8 1.3 23. Oklahoma...................... 3.0 1.4 22. Mississippi................... 3.3 1.5 21. Connecticut................... 3.3 1.5 20. South Carolina................ 3.3 1.6 19. Hawaii........................ 3.3 1.6 18. Illinois...................... 3.3 1.6 17. New Jersey.................... 4.0 1.9 16. Alabama....................... 4.1 1.9 15. Colorado...................... 4.2 2.0 14. Arizona....................... 4.8 2.3 13. Ohio.......................... 5.1 2.4 ------------------------------------- Total....................... \1\ 79.1 \1\ 36.8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ Does not add due to rounding. Nine Southern States Plus California Get 51% Split another way, these data are even more striking. The DoD spends over half of its funds (51%) in nine Southern states and California. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Amount received State (in billions) Percent of total ------------------------------------------------------------------------ California........................ $31.0 14.5 Virginia.......................... 21.0 9.8 Texas............................. 17.4 8.1 Florida........................... 12.6 5.9 Georgia........................... 8.4 3.9 North Carolina.................... 5.7 2.7 Alabama........................... 4.1 1.9 South Carolina.................... 3.3 1.5 Mississippi....................... 3.3 1.5 Louisiana......................... 2.4 1.1 ------------------------------------- Total....................... 109.2 50.9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ten states received about $109 billion in military spending for FY 1996 and the other 40 states and the District of Columbia received about $106 billion. Four military dollars are spent in these 10 states for every one dollar spent in the 40 other states. California alone received more DoD dollars than 26 other states combined. Virginia alone received more DoD dollars than 22 states combined. Texas alone received more DoD dollars than 20 states combined. Florida alone received more DoD dollars than 14 states combined. Georgia alone received more DoD dollars than 13 states combined. Military Spending--GOP Leadership Connection When we see this geographic disparity in the distribution of funds and then compare it to a list of the home states of the persons who sit in the top leadership positions in the Congress, and the states represented by those who control the major military spending committees, it becomes crystal clear why we see the distorted and lopsided spending priorities coming out of this Body. Many people in the rest of the country are being denied educational opportunities, are not getting their roads and bridges fixed, are drinking contaminated water and worrying about the safety of their food supply because the current House leadership won't cut the billions in pork out of this bill-- pork that is headed straight home. Billions that can be cut without hurting our national security. Even though poll after poll shows the American People want to invest more in education, in the environment, in transportation, and in the National Parks, this Congressional leadership is more than willing to give these national priorities short shrift in order to keep pumping money into this military spending machine. And, for the same reason, this Congressional leadership will continue its heavy resistance to cutting systems designed for yesterday's military threats to pay for meeting the real threats of tomorrow. These lopsided military spending patterns combined with the geographic representation of the current House leadership all but ensure that we will continue to see larger than necessary military budgets and status quo military policy guidance from Congress. The following table depicts key state-by-state data on Department of Defense spending for FY 1996 derived from the Department of Defense report Atlas/Data Abstract for the United States and Selected Areas, Fiscal Year 1996. DOD EST. PAYROLL, CONTRACTS, AND GRANTS BY STATE--FISCAL YEAR 1996 [Dollar amounts in thousands] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State State Total Total Grants \3\ Grand total percent compensation \1\ contracts \2\ of total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. California......................... $12,331,651 $18,229,724 $480,332 $31,041,707 14.46 2. Virginia........................... 11,355,738 9,562,978 73,442 20,992,138 9.78 3. Texas.............................. 8,382,520 8,819,096 161,353 17,362,969 8.09 4. Florida............................ 6,669,595 5,862,639 116,062 12,648,296 5.89 5. Missouri........................... 1,630,373 7,093,009 38,523 8,761,905 4.08 6. Georgia............................ 4,332,083 3,965,723 52,833 8,350,639 3.89 7. Maryland........................... 3,264,795 4,136,785 98,039 7,499,619 3.49 8. Washington......................... 3,812,840 2,382,417 48,132 6,243,389 2.91 9. Pennsylvania....................... 2,218,245 3,687,357 89,035 5,994,637 2.79 10. North Carolina..................... 4,259,461 1,421,071 44,667 5,725,199 2.67 11. Massachusetts...................... 842,895 4,674,647 123,102 5,640,644 2.63 12. New York........................... 1,687,611 3,501,013 110,062 5,298,686 2.47 13. Ohio............................... 2,336,540 2,732,748 48,924 5,118,212 2.38 14. Arizona............................ 1,864,504 2,910,935 45,937 4,821,376 2.25 15. Colorado........................... 2,157,396 2,045,076 27,742 4,230,214 1.97 16. Alabama............................ 2,182,770 1,838,276 33,918 4,054,964 1.89 17. New Jersey......................... 1,418,681 2,564,266 44,777 4,027,724 1.88 18. Nebraska........................... 711,294 3,220,337 9,317 3,940,948 1.84 19. Illinois........................... 1,988,147 1,256,010 65,983 3,310,140 1.54 20. Hawaii............................. 2,330,507 928,480 49,911 3,308,898 1.54 21. South Carolina..................... 2,262,837 1,012,497 32,781 3,308,115 1.54 22. Connecticut........................ 613,098 2,638,260 30,492 3,281,850 1.53 23. Mississippi........................ 1,300,819 1,912,106 46,468 3,259,393 1.52 24. Oklahoma........................... 2,171,991 771,232 11,940 2,955,163 1.38 25. District of Columbia............... 1,236,791 1,482,673 39,589 2,759,053 1.29 26. Kentucky........................... 1,723,007 874,094 14,886 2,611,987 1.22 27. Indiana............................ 1,021,635 1,552,012 31,085 2,604,732 1.21 28. Louisiana.......................... 1,333,057 1,077,869 28,537 2,439,463 1.14 29. Tennessee.......................... 1,071,609 1,137,232 26,537 2,235,378 1.04 30. Michigan........................... 763,592 1,241,336 108,379 2,113,307 0.98 31. New Mexico......................... 1,168,071 676,391 20,408 1,864,870 0.87 32. Kansas............................. 1,079,437 762,593 12,300 1,854,330 0.86 33. Alaska............................. 878,995 564,890 15,893 1,459,778 0.68 34. Minnesota.......................... 393,418 960,361 72,548 1,426,327 0.66 35. Maine.............................. 524,536 797,224 10,216 1,331,976 0.62 36. Utah............................... 915,508 394,678 15,570 1,325,756 0.62 37. Nevada............................. 776,969 285,262 4,732 1,066,963 0.50 38. Wisconsin.......................... 412,549 551,276 44,655 1,008,480 0.47 39. Arkansas........................... 730,388 249,281 27,155 1,006,824 0.47 40. New Hampshire...................... 239,909 567,892 28,243 836,044 0.39 41. Rhode Island....................... 437,243 333,969 13,163 784,375 0.37 42. Oregon............................. 481,196 202,863 40,326 724,385 0.34 43. Iowa............................... 244,354 370,617 21,547 636,518 0.30 44. North Dakota....................... 438,501 106,089 10,176 554,766 0.26 45. Idaho.............................. 346,324 132,517 9,073 487,914 0.23 46. West Virginia...................... 241,691 199,324 20,920 461,935 0.22 47. Delaware........................... 331,551 101,554 12,303 445,408 0.21 48. Montana............................ 297,566 90,611 8,904 397,081 0.18 49. South Dakato....................... 257,727 109,969 5,075 372,771 0.17 50. Wyoming............................ 232,534 91,513 5,314 329,361 0.15 51. Vermont............................ 89,800 225,426 6,818 322,044 0.15 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total............................ ................ ............. ........... 214,638,651 100.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Includes funds for civilian pay, military active duty pay, reserve and National Guard pay, retired military pay. \2\ Prime contract awards over $25,000 for civil functions contracts and military functions contracts. Prime contracts are generally reported at the location where the work is performed. For example, if a contractor is located in Nevada and wins a construction job in Utah, the contract will be listed for Utah. \3\ Funds obligated by grants, cooperative agreements, or other non-procurement instruments reported at the location where the work is performed. Dave Obey. <greek-d>